An Investigation of Modern Physics by Brian Williams
RSS icon Home icon
  • Goethe’s Colour Spectra.

    Posted on November 8th, 2014 Brian No comments

    Yesterday, 7th November 2014 I was searching Google Images for suitable photographic images to add into my post “Williams’ Pin Prism, and Fraunhofer Lines.”. This was not an easy task because most images do not show the true visual evidence and are more computer graphics than reality. However, the task was definitely worthwhile, because I came across an image originally produced by  Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. (1749 – 1832)

    Most modern images are similar to the ones below.


    indexImage 1





    These images are totally against the reality of what happens with prism spectra, and I find it very annoying , especially when being used to teach people.

    Note; I have been sent this video clip from a reader who asked me to explain it.

    I am afraid that the contents of it demonstrate the poor teaching and lack of honesty in modern physics.

    The drawings below, originally created by Goethe. and re-created by are very close to the actual/true situation. His method/style used is identical to that used by myself, so he definitely beat me to it.

    Goethe3handprint : goethe’s “zur farbenlehre” www.handprint.com380 × 555Search by image

    “light” and “dark” spectral mixtures from. Goethe’s “primordial” fringes adapted from Plate IV, Figures 1 and 2 and ¶214-¶216 of Zur Farbenlehre (1810)

     I assume that the above colours are based on the actual colours seen in the original book, which will have faded. In the top picture the Green shown should be a very bright Green.

    The lighter Blue should be Cyan.

    Where the question mark is, this area should be a dark Green.

    The top picture (“Light” spectrum) is what I refer to as an “Expansion Spectrum”.

    The bottom picture (Dark” spectrum) is what I refer to as a “Compression Spectrum”.

    In this picture, where the question mark is, this area should actually be very pale Mauve or White. “Purpur” should actually be Magenta. Magenta only occurs in compression spectra and Greens only occur in expansion spectra.

    Note; It is the slit, (that constricts the light into a beam), that actually creates the colours.  The White beam entering the prism has thin Yellow + Red + Blue edges to it. This is why the colours start at edge of the spectra exiting the prism, as shown in the above drawings. What is missing from the top drawing is the dark Blue band. Its energy is measurable  and is named “Infra Red”  due to lack of knowledge, by the physicists. It is missed because this ‘true’ spectra Blue is very dark and is ‘lost’ against the dark background. The lighter Blues are a mixture of either Blue and White or Blue and Red.

    In the drawing below, the left hand side (White) is the source of the light. This light passes through an aperture (Slit) and shines onto the prism.

    EXTPRISM5In passing through aperture, narrow coloured edges are created on each side of the beam of light. These edges are composed of three colour bands, Blue on the outer edge, Red in the middle and Yellow on the inside  These edges are created by the Laws of Fluid Mechanics. If you look under “Orifices” in your text book on Fluid Mechanics, all should be explained.

    See also  my “Taper Slit Experiment” and my “Taper Silhouette  Experiment.

    Author – Brian Williams

  • Williams’ Pin Prism, and Fraunhofer Lines.

    Posted on November 5th, 2014 Brian No comments

    I am sorry, but the spectroscope does not indicate any atomic information about a material. As a comparator it is a very useful tool but only in tightly controlled conditions.

    It does not tell you the atomic structure of a distant object, nor does it tell you the atomic structure of an object held within the spectroscope equipment itself.

    The Pin Prism.

    I carried out these experiments in 1990. My idea was to look at the mechanics of the prism. I know that most people will say that a prism is just a triangular piece of glass and that a slit is just a rectangular hole but, individually, they change light. The slit creates the colours and the prism creates the spectrum. Working together, they become a mechanism.

    Basically, the Pin Prism is (was, the water rapidly destroyed it) a triangular array of pins. The original one consisted of brass ‘panel pins’ hammered into a plastic coated plywood board. The array quality was rather erratic because hammering pins into this material is very difficult when trying to get them at 3mm centres. There were other problems in getting the experiment working, but I will discuss them later. (Note; I carried out similar experiments with a ‘Pin Lens’ and a ‘Pin Sheet’  that also gave quite good results considering the poor quality of the equipment.) Note; You obviously do not need to spend £millions of public money to carry out physics research.


    Most of the results roughly matched the comparison with the light experiments i.e. where the ‘Yellow and Cyan ‘ bands overlapped the water was very turbulent, and the ‘Yellow and Red’ areas plus the ‘Blue’ areas were fairly smooth.

    However, I finally noticed that were various gaps in the flow. Initially I was just intrigued and carried on experimenting, varying the flow rates and noting what happened. I noticed that the gaps lengths extended with increase in flow rate.

    As the flow rate dropped the gap diminished until it disappeared. As the flow reduced even more, a ‘ridge’ formed, caused by the water that was originally on both sides of the gap combining. Therefore the water flow changed from a gap to a ‘pressure ridge’.


    With a fixed experimental set-up with light, if we start off with a high energy light source, sufficient to produce black lines in the spectrum, and slowly reduce the energy , the gaps in the flow (black lines) will reduce in width and length until the gaps (black lines) disappear.

    If we continue reducing the energy level, bright lines will develop to replace the dark lines. If the original black line was in an area of the spectrum that was red, then a brighter red line would develop.

    What causes the gaps in the spectrum on which so much physics research is based?

    The answer is, the same mechanics that cause the gaps in the pin prism. The water flowing through the pin prism follows a very complex path. On entering the prism it is split into a number of streams by the first pins. Whilst passing through the prism it is split or combined on numerous occasions before exiting the prism.

    If the angle at which the water enters the pin prism is constant then the paths followed by the individual streams will tend to be constant.

    The speed of any particular stream of water will depend on the energy loss due to the length of the path taken.

    With light the same mechanics apply. The atoms of glass act like the pins in the pin prism. The various streams of light are split or combined thousands of times before the light exits the prism.

    See also “Goethe’s Colour Spectra”

    Author – Brian Williams





    Abstract from Physics or Fantasy – Section 2 – Colour and The Quantum Theory

  • More on the Higgs Bosun

    Posted on August 4th, 2014 Brian No comments

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (I think).

    I apologize for the lack of authorship information on this post. I was looking for the clearest text on this subject to use for critical appraisal and I searched through many articles before finding this text. Unfortunately I omitted to include the necessary information. The Photo is definitely from Wikipedia.

    The imported text is shown in Blue italics, my comments are shown in Red

    A computer-generated image of a Higgs interaction

    The Higgs boson (or Higgs particle) is a particle that gives mass to other particles. “

    What do they actually mean by this statement? To detect any particle, that particle must have mass already. All particles have mass, they don’t need another particle. This whole argument stems from the fact that physicists don’t understand what mass is, they don’t understand what gravity is, they don’t understand what electricity is, they don’t understand what light is and , in general, they don’t seem to understand anything about physics. See “What Gravity is and What Causes It”, which gives a preliminary insight into both mass and gravity.


    Peter Higgs was the first person to think of it, and the particle was found in March 2013. It is part of the Standard Model in physics, which means it is found everywhere. It is one of the 17 particles in the Standard Model. P

    The Higgs particle is a boson. Bosons are particles responsible for all physical forces except gravity. “

    There are only two types of atomic force: A force of attraction and a force of repulsion.

    The force of attraction is the nuclear force that includes both gravity and magnetism.

    The force of repulsion is that between electrons.

    Note; The repulsion force between electrons only operates between electrons, it does not operate between nuclei and electrons, there is a mutual attraction.


    Other bosons are the photon, the W and Z bosons, and the gluon. Scientists do not yet know how to combine gravity with the Standard Model.

    There are no such things as photons. Photons are relatively slow speed electrons.

    It is very difficult to detect the Higgs boson with the equipment and technology we have now. These particles are believed to exist for less than a septillionth of a second. Because the Higgs boson has so much mass (compared to other particles), it takes a lot of energy to create one. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the equipment scientists used to find it. The collider has enough energy that it is able to make Higgs bosons. When you smash particles together, there is a small chance a Higgs Boson will appear, so the Large Hadron Collider smashed lots of particles together to find it.”

    See “How physicist ‘find’ their particles.”

    Higgs bosons obey the conservation of energy law, which states that no energy is created or destroyed, but instead it is transferred. First, the energy starts out in the gauge boson that interacts with the Higgs field. This energy is in the form of kinetic energy as movement. After the gauge boson interacts with the Higgs field, it is slowed down. This slowing reduces the amount of kinetic energy in the gauge boson. However, this energy is not destroyed. Instead, the energy is converted into mass-energy, which is normal mass that comes from energy.

    This is based (as stated below) on Einstein’s incompetent mathematics relating to the Mickelson-Morley experiment. Because of the complete lack of understanding of mechanics by the physics establishment, (this was a mechanical experiment, subject to the universal laws of mechanics and the rules of mathematics), they did not understand the results of the experiment, which was not what they expected. The results obtained were exactly in accordance with the laws of mechanics and the rules of mathematics. The physics estrablishment refused to accept this fact. Einstein fiddled the mathematics to suit the result the physicists expected and wanted.


    The mass created is what we call a Higgs boson. The amount of mass created comes from Einstein‘s famous equation E=mc2, which states that mass is equal to a large amount of energy (i.e. 1 kg of mass is equivalent to almost 90 quadrillion joules of energy—the same amount of energy used by the entire world in roughly an hour and a quarter in 2008). Since the amount of mass-energy created by the Higgs field is equal to the amount of kinetic-energy that the gauge boson lost by being slowed, energy is conserved.”

    Note; The Michelson-Morley experiment was expected (By the physicists) to show a time difference between two light beams travelling different paths. No time differences were found. The physicists therefore decided that light must travel at a constant speed and therefore the speed of light must be a constant. E=mc2 is derived from the standard mechanics formula for moving bodies E = mv 2,

    Unfortunately, by making c2 into a constant and using in all sorts of silly unproven formula they come up with daft statements like “1 kilo of mass is the equivalent of 90 quadrillion joules of energy”. IF the 1kilo was travelling at 300,000 x the speed of light its energy due to its MOMENTUM would probably light more than a few houses. The energy would be entirely due to its velocity. The energy of the 1 kilo, whilst sat on your desk, would depend on what the material was.

    Note;  Mass (m) is a real item (Primary Quantity). Velocity (v) is a real item (Secondary Quantity, composed of two Primary Quantities, distance and time.).    However, v2 is an irrational quantity i.e. it has no reality, it is only a mathematical concept. You cannot (in reality) multiply time x time.  A real quantity times an irrational quantity =  (E) an irrational quantity.

    Like most mathematics you must consider the logic of what you are doing. Energy is a mathematical concept, momentum is an actuality. (See “Understanding Momentum”).

    I have never found a full study on the the mechanics and mathematics of the Michelson- Morley experiment from the physics establishment. For this  reason my first book concentrated on these matters.

    Author – Brian Williams

  • Entropy – Not for the Squeamish.

    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 Brian No comments

    I have decided to approach this subject in the form of a story.


    Meeting of the International Science Safety Sub-Committee 2. August 12th 2556

    Professor Jason King, Chairman

    Ladies & gentleman, may I bring this meeting to order.

    It is exactly 3 years since our last meeting, but I feel that during the next few months our meetings will become more frequent. I assume that you have all consented to help by turning up for this meeting. I have set aside 1 week to allow for preliminary work on your summaries. This is little enough time for what may be the most important meeting ever held by mankind.

    I will spend the next few minutes with a summary of our overall aims.

    In the last 70 years of the 20th century much thought was given to the problem of entropy, the heat death of the universe. 99% of the Earth’s population are unaware of the problem, even in the year 2556, after 700 years since the of the realisation of the problem. Most of the world’s intellectuals of whatever general or specialist persuasions are in a state of depression.

    We therefore have what may be called a problem. Admittedly, a problem that makes other problems look microscopically small. We do have the capability of erasing the knowledge of the problem from mankind; this would only take a few hundred years. However, knowledge of the problem would continue to surface at intervals. We could ‘invent’ a plausible solution to the problem, which would satisfy all but a small number of people. We could even produce ‘cast iron evidence’ to prove that there never was a problem.

    However, the problem will still remain.

    I have always been convinced that the problem is capable of a solution. You people were chosen because I feel that you had the necessary persistence, bloody mindedness, call it what you will, to at least arrive at a feasible programme that will enable us to finally produce a solution. You are all, individually, capable of doing this. None of us will see the final solution, even though our life expectancy is now approximately 125 years. The value of the work that you do may not be known in your lifetime. However, we must find a solution or all humanity’s evolution will be a complete waste of effort & time. The dinosaurs etc. were wiped out after an evolutionary period far greater than that of humanity, and we do not want the same thing to happen to us.

    I call on Dr. William Hartson to give us a summary of his group’s findings. As you know this relates to human psychology.

    Dr. Hartson.

    Thank you Professor King. Ladies & gentlemen, our summary is shorter than we expected it to be in the early days. Our initial thoughts were that we would have to work on a need to know basis as regards the general public, in affect, hiding the problem from the public. However, our researches indicate that the opposite is true. In fact we find that unless the public is aware of the problem we will be unable to proceed with our intentions.

    My team have interviewed over 15,000 members of the public in virtually every country in the world, and we find that 98% of them could understand the problem and, if possible, would like to be involved in some way to help. Obviously they all can’t be directly involved, but even 1% would be an enormous pool of intellectual & physical potential. When considered along with the backing of an informed population, we feel that we could have over 10,000,000 man-years/annum of manpower available to any programme that is finally decided on. Although I said that all the people could not be directly involved, there is no reason that all the people cannot be indirectly involved, or intermittently involved. This would generate a greater feeling of universal goodwill than excluding the bulk of humanity from the project.

    We consider that it would be possible to use all the people some of the time, by using them for a short period, say 12 months, working on the many probable projects. Obviously many skills & capabilities are going to be required, and everyone has something, which they can bring to a project, even if it’s only supplying beverages or running errands.

    As the average lifespan is now just over 100 years, the donation of 12 months work is 1% of a person’s life, not a particularly onerous burden on the individual, and one that most people will give quite happily, and gain much satisfaction from.

    Obviously we do not know what projects will be required, but we feel that we can arrange a satisfactory system whatever is decided. A complete copy of our report will be given to each member at the end of the meeting. Thank you.

    I now call on Dr. Isaac Singh, whose group has been looking into possible investigation paths, and to investigate any possible solutions that appear viable at the present day.

    Dr. Singh.

    Thank you. Ladies & Gentlemen, I have some good news & some bad. The bad news is that our summary is considerably longer than Dr. Hartson’s group. The rest of our summary contains a mixture of good & bad. We have split our summary into what we consider to be the most significant categories. Our 1st category is:-

    Time Scale.

    This has been rather a difficult subject, with much of the available documentation being based on the work of 20th century physicists. Very little work has been carried out in the last 500 years mainly due to the depressing nature of the subject. However we have unearthed some research by an amateur physicist, Williams, which gives us some hope that our time may be extended by 25% or more. This obviously does not get rid of the problem, but allows us more time to find a solution. Unfortunately, we do not know what our baseline is. We therefore can say that we have   x + 0.25x  years to find a solution, (x being whatever existing estimates you like to use.). At this stage it can be considered as good news. From the notes unearthed various experiments become obvious targets for research, from which we should be able to come to a reasonable estimate of the timescale. At present we do not know if we have 10 thousand years or 10 billion. It should be noted that the final time scale consists of 2 important sections,

    1. Time to find a solution.

    2. Time to carry out the solution.

    For obvious reasons item 1 is unknowable. When a time scale is worked out, any solutions found can only be considered as solutions if there is time to carry them out.

    However, the first solution found must be considered feasible if it only exceeds the estimated timescale by 25% or less, in the hope that our estimates are wrong in the right way.

    Preliminary Work.

    We consider that there is much auxiliary work that can be carried out prior to finding a solution.

    This is itemised below.

    A.        Survival systems.

    These include planetary survival systems and off-planet survival systems. In essence, we  should ensure that all humanities eggs are not in one basket. Some preliminary planetary systems are already in place such as the Meteorite Detect & Destroy Group on the moon. A large amount of research & development work must be carried out on small self-sustaining ecosystems, hydroponics etc..

    The most important survival system is to get out to other planets & moons to ensure that disaster does not strike humanity in the form of disease. It is also important that our interstellar space travel capabilities are rapidly enhanced, as the solution may rest on this.

    B.        Knowledge.

    Knowledge is an essential ingredient in any survival system.

    It is crucial that we set up a system of information gathering that is all embracing but giving us rapid access. Although we have fast access data systems at present, we estimate that our information systems will need to increase by a factor of ten in the next 15 years, just allowing for increases in technical information.

    This apparently large increase is not to allow for newly developed knowledge, but to bring in information that is not considered as ‘acceptable’ by present or past establishments, i.e. goes against current theories. When one considers the delays in accepting the facts actually proven in the late 1900s that we could get considerably more than 100% ‘efficiency’ from equipment, even though it was later shown that the physicists hypotheses on atomic structure were at fault, and the claimed possible 100% in relation to many items of equipment, may in fact be less than 1% of the actual possible. Some of you may be aware that we have some equipment operating at 250% efficient relative to the 1900s hypotheses. We will come back to this later in our report.

    We suggest setting up multiple groups of people to sift through all available literature, however obscure, to extract ideas which may help us in our ultimate goal.

    We propose that these people should generally be non-technical to prevent subconscious or deliberate suppression of ideas. Particular attention will be paid to ‘science fiction’ publications, as many of the major scientific breakthroughs in the last 600 years have been initially introduced as sci-fi stories, many dated in the 1900s and early 2000s.

    Existing Possibilities.

    A. Accelerated evolution to allow humanity to function in harsher conditions. The weakness of this idea is that it only delays the final disaster. However it has the advantage that it does give us more time to find a solution.

    B. Reducing the rate of conversion to total entropy. Again, the same advantages and disadvantages as the above. This would require shutting down unnecessary suns, as there is little else that would have any significant effect. We have various ideas how this could be done, but we do not have the capability at present.

    C. To continue Willams’ work on Matter/Mass/Energy transfer. The initial work indicated that both energy and mass are increasing.

    Although this goes against current thinking, which is based on Einstein’s hypotheses, there is sufficient evidence available to indicate that Williams was right. The dissipation of energy from the sun does not appear to have reduced the rate of its increase in mass. The outer planets certainly appear to be increasing in mass, with a corresponding increase in energy radiation. The arguments put forward for the hypothesis that the Earth may have increased its diameter by approximately 25% in the last 50,000,000 years has been around for well over 500 years If this turns out to be correct then it would explain many of the structural anomalies in the dinosaurs, which appeared to be far too heavy to operate efficiently at our present gravity. See Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth – The Earth Mechanics.

    D. To assess the basics of the problem.

    Logically there is a problem. Have we defined the problem correctly? Is the problem universal, or just within our own small part of the universe? Is the problem self-correcting? Are others within the universe already working on the problem? Has a solution already been found? If the universe is infinite and only our part of the universe has the problem, will heat dissipation to the rest of the universe solve our problem? Our known universe may be only a bright spark in the darkness of infinity, (See Out from Earth.). If the problem is truly universal are we receiving more than our ‘fair’ share?

    In general we feel that it is necessary to proceed on all of the above, but with priorities on earth based safety, and the rapid development of interstellar travel. Again, work by Williams indicates that the only restriction on speed of travel will be related to the detection & destruction/avoidance of space debris. We feel that we can create a faster than light spacecraft within 35 years.  We suggest initially sending a dummy craft containing full life support systems, communications, and full monitoring of all systems.

    The biggest problems will be detection of space debris, and communications. Speed of communications over long distances using existing technology is still limited to approx. 450,000km/sec., [Only outside the influence of stars] but work on modulated magnetic waves have indicated that almost instantaneous communications are possible over short distances. If we can find or construct a magnetic field that will operate at the vast distances required, then communications will be less of a problem. Unfortunately this is a big if. However, if it is possible, then the space debris detection problem will also be solved.

    That concludes our summaries, thank you ladies & gentlemen.


    Out from Earth.

    October 3012

    350 years had passed since they had set out from Earth.

    The captain was carrying out his official weekly check on the bridge. He had carried out this check for the last 15 years, since he had been elected Captain. He normally spent only the regulation 1 hour on the bridge, has had the captains before him for the last 150 years.

    He was the great,  great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,  great grandson of a drive technician of the original crew, and was the third member of his family to hold the position of captain.

    In fact the position of Captain was almost a honorary one, he had had no official duties to carry out other than the weekly check. The only requirement of a captain was that he knew the full history of the flight, and have a good working knowledge of the operation of the ship. Most of this knowledge he had gained in his childhood, from friends, relatives, operators and engineers who had been generally happy to assuage his curiosity.

    The bridge was normally manned at all times by two observers, who only spent 3 hours on shift. There were no technical requirements required for the observers other than to be alert. In over 300 years no observer had seen anything through the observation screens, it was completely dark outside. The only indication of the fact that they where actually moving was that the main thrust engines were still firing.

    After the initial disaster, in which the ship had reached a speed 20 times the expected speed, they had managed to jury rig a speed indicator. This currently gave them a reading of 1.5million miles/second. This was considerably less than the maximum speed reached of approximately 6 million miles/second estimated whilst they were within the outer limits of the known universe.

    Their inability to shut down the thrust engines in the first 10 years had been caused by a malfunction in the hydrogen scoop. This had caused the engines to operate like ram-jets, and the normal shut-down systems had no effect. The vast quantity of hydrogen available, and their high velocity created a self-sustaining reaction.

    By the time they managed to weld a safety cage to the outside of the ship to enable them to repair the hydrogen scoop, many months elapsed. This was because they had to operate under the force of a 2g  acceleration force and it was extremely dangerous operating outside the ship. It was even more dangerous close to the hydrogen scoop, and extreme safety measures were required to prevent the engineers from disappearing into the scoop and feeding the engines.

    They were well outside the boundary of the known universe, before they realised that the rate of acceleration was gradually falling. By this time the visible universe had appeared as a large sphere of bright lights.


    Anyone like to complete this story? I have never come across a Sci-Fi story covering this subject.

    I have never been good at story telling, although my mother could keep a child’s adventure story going for months.

    You can certainly publish under your own name.


    Time to reach the claimed speed of light at 1g acceleration.

    The equation for acceleration is a = (v-u) divided by t.

    a = acceleration  = g = 9.8 m/s/s
    v = final velocity =300,000,000 m/s
    u = initial velocity=0
    t = time

    9.8= (300000000 – 0) / ‘t’
    9.8 X ‘t’= 300,000,000
    ‘t’= 300,000,000 / 9.8
    Time to reach 300,000 kilometres/sec.  (The claimed maximum speed of light) at an acceleration of 1G = 30612245 seconds divided  24 x 60 x 60 = approximately 353 days., (roughly one year)


    Basically, Entropy is the amount of heat energy unusable in a system. It can be likened to a car engine system where parts of the engine may rise to 300°C or higher, but this heat is of no use to the operation of the engine. A car cooling system is designed to keep the engine temperature down to about 100°C.

    A better simile would be a stream running down a mountain towards a lake. Along the stream we could place waterwheels with generators.

    The water in the stream itself contains usable energy whist it is running down the mountain, but on arrival at the lake no more energy is available.

    The lake is the entropy of the stream/lake system.  If the lake emptied into the sea then more energy would available from the stream water which would become part of the stream/lake/sea system, the sea becoming the entropy of this system. The water is still there but is unusable for us but is quite handy for the fish.

    Some scientists ARE very worried about entropy, some arguing that it would be the heat death of the universe. Fortunately, energy of all kinds is involved in entropy.

    There will be a follow-up post relating to this subject but not until I’ve sorted out all my web problems.


    Author – Brian Williams


  • How Gravity Works and What causes it.

    Posted on April 5th, 2014 Brian No comments

    To understand gravity you have to throw out all the present silly hypotheses relating to the atomic structures that have never been able to explain a single aspect of matter. If ALL matter can be explained using atoms composed of only two types of particles, why do we need all these other mythical particles?

    All matter is composed of ‘crystal-like’ structures that are atoms. People think of crystals as rigid and hard but this is not necessarily true. The crystal-like structure of the atoms was briefly considered in the late 1800s, but was rejected because the physicists  argued that it did not allow for all the known elements.  (The possible configurations of crystal ‘Atoms’ using a maximum of 150 electrons is 570, and the crystal-like structure gives explanations of all aspects of matter.)

    Another problem lies with the ‘atomic number’. The ‘atomic numbers’ are derived from a ‘decision’ made by the physics establishment that hydrogen, being the lightest ‘known’ element would be given the number 1 to indicate that it had only one electron. This decision was not based on any logic or scientific evidence, it was just decided. It was also decided,  using the same lack of knowledge and evidence, that heavier atoms must have more electrons.

    Heat is moving electrons. The element that gives up electrons the easiest is hydrogen. It is therefore reasonable to argue that this shows that the hydrogen nucleus has the least ‘grip/attraction’ on its electrons.

    Now consider a magnet. If you pick up ball bearings with the magnet, you will reach a stage when no more bearings will be attracted to it. Its magnetic attraction has become reduced by the number of bearings.

    An atom has the same problem with electrons, it can only support a certain number.

    Atoms compress under pressure. Under pressure they give out heat (Electrons). The mass increases under pressure. Reduce the pressure and electrons are absorbed and the mass decreases.

    Very simplistic? Of course it is, but is still essentially correct. The less electrons that an atom has, the greater the mass.The more electrons, the lighter the mass.

    This is obviously the opposite of current physics hypotheses and is therefore more likely to be correct.

    Under very high pressures electrons are forced out the the atom structures and cannot return. The attraction/pull of the nucleus remains but the pressure prevents the electrons from reducing the mass of the atoms.

    In a planet as the pressure increases, more and more electrons are forced out from the centre to the outside.

    As more electrons are lost to atoms, the atoms become denser, (become different, heavier  atoms). There will be a relatively continuous flow of electrons from the core to the outside of the planet.

    The nuclei of the core atoms do not have the number of electrons to blanket the nuclei attraction/pull which now combine to create a nuclear force that we call gravity. Gravity is a nuclear force, the combined forces of trillions of atomic nuclei. Unlike a magnetic force, gravity acts on all matter. Note; A magnetic force  is a very weak force caused by displacement of the nuclei of certain atoms.

    We have here a concept that most people will find difficult to understand, that is that any individual atom can become hydrogen or lead.

    We also have the concept that electrons are essentially anti-mass particles. However, you should really visualise that mass is actually a nuclear force not a lump of lead. Not easy, I grant you.


    The Tractor Beam.

    I have always been a science fiction fan. I feel that science fiction (SciFi) can expand your mental horizons far more than any other type of literature. Completely new concepts are brought before you for your consideration. Some SciFi can be really bad, some better and some excellent. Some handle the psychology of situations very well, others ignore it totally.

    Many aspects of SciFi I consider to be fantasy but I can allow because it helps the story along. Among my ‘Fantasy’ categories are time travel, alternative universes, black holes, time dilation, constant speed of light, pressor beams/repulsers, tractor beams and gravity waves. (Also, virtually every hypothesis of the physics establishment.)

    Unfortunately, whilst I was writing ‘How gravity Works and What Causes it’. I realised that I would have to remove tractor beams from my science fantasy list.

    Tractor beams are scientific possibilities.

    I have known how gravity works for over 35 years, and I have read virtually every story ever written which includes attractor beams, yet I have only just realised that it is possible to make one.

    Difficult, impractical, outside our current technical and scientific capabilities, but certainly possible.

    Even with our rapid technical advances it is likely to be at least 500 years before we could produce one.

    It would be dangerous and difficult to handle, and it could not be done on Earth.

    So, how do we build a tractor beam?

    A Find a piece of planetary core material.

    B. Insulate it from electrons.

    C. Design a shutter mechanism to act as a trigger.

    D. Mount it on a space craft.

    So, how do we find a piece of planetary core material? There ought to be some hanging about in the asteroid belt, shouldn’t there?

    I don’t really think so. The very high gravitational force field would have collected all the asteroids in a very short time. No, I’m afraid that any wandering core material would have collected a lot of planetary debris and either disappeared into space, headed into the Sun or is now a planet or moon. Let us ignore that for now and go on to Item B.

    How do we insulate it from electrons? The problem here is that the insulation would have to be light and dense at the same time. 4,000 miles thickness of roof insulation would make our tractor beam a little bulky for welding onto our spaceship.

    Let us consider that our core material is a 10 cubic metre sphere, and it had not attracted any debris or electrons. Let us also say that it came from a planet the same size as Earth. Could we assume that it would have a gravitational force of 1g? Certainly not. Earth’s gravitational force is well shielded by the material between the core and the Earth’s surface. The G-force at the core could be 10g, 50g 100g or more, we just don’t know. We are having difficulties insulating the core material to prevent the gravitational force decaying. We would not be able to withstand the possible g-force itself. Neither the crew nor the spaceship  could work within a 100g gravitational force field.

    What would the mass be of 10 cubic metres of core material? 100tonnes? 1000 tonnes? 1,000,000 tonnes?

    More to come on this later. (My wife said that I could have my dinner or play on my computer. Our dog thinks that I should play on my computer.)

    It is now later, and I have decided that attractor/tractor beams are definitely going back on my fantasy list.


    A Point to Ponder

    The present method of deciding if a substance is an element or not is based on a ‘breakdown’ process, i.e. if a substance will breakdown into other substances then it is a molecule.

    This is an illogical idea as I will demonstrate.

    If we have a 10 link chain, and we stretch it until it breaks, we could end up with a 5 link piece and a 4 link piece. A strange type of logic might prompt you to conclude that the original chain was constructed from a 5 link chain and a 4 link chain.

    If we consider a molecule consisting of 2 identical atoms joined by a shared electron, and we pull these apart, it is reasonable to assume the possibility that we will end up with one atom having 1 electron more than the other. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if we have a substance consisting of identical atoms, and break this down, we will end up with two type of atoms. Conversely, if we produce a substance from quantities of dissimilar atoms, we should not be surprised to get a substance consisting of identical atoms.


     Author – Brian Williams.



  • What happened to the Antimatter Particles?

    Posted on May 16th, 2013 Brian No comments

    The short answer is “Nothing”. Antimatter is a figment of the imaginations of physicists.

    Therefore there are not nor has there ever been such things as “Antimatter Particles”.

    The Hypothesis of antimatter derived from the misunderstanding (by physicists) of the mechanics of cloud chamber experiments.

    As explained in my post “How physicists  ‘Find’ their particles”,  the physicists are not actually seeing particles, they are seeing the tracks left by the passage of particles (or atoms or molecules).

    If a particle (or atom or molecule) is not moving, there are no tracks. Unfortunately. when a track stops for some reason the physicists argue that this means that the particle (or atom or molecule) has been annihilated.

    When you consider that tracks are being left in a substance composed of thousands of billions of atoms and molecules it is not surprising that particles get stopped. However, many of these “disappearances” are claimed to be annihilations caused by impact with “antimatter particles”.

    Author; Brian Williams

  • Evidence from the Moon’s Craters

    Posted on December 30th, 2011 Brian No comments

    The visual evidence for the argument that the Moon was not formed at the same time as Earth but was captured by the Earth at some later date.

    NOTE: The above underlined text is  simply a hypothesis (like most physics). Anyone can produce a hypothesis, it  need not be logical or realistic.

    However, the argument that the moon was formed at the same time as the Earth is also a hypothesis.

    There is no evidence of how the solar system was formed. There are only hypotheses.  The claimed ‘Big Bang Theory’ is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.


    Possible visual evidence for ‘Moon Capture’  hypothesis.

    The libration (swinging like a pendulum/oscillating) of the Moon indicates that the Moon is heavier on the side facing the Earth. (The heavy side acting like a pendulum weight)




    In the above photographs the Left hand photo is the Earth facing side and the right hand side is the far-side of the Moon.

    The largest craters on the Moon are on the side facing the earth. It is unlikely that the Earth has been firing huge masses at the Moon during the last 300 million years to cause these craters, so there must be some other reason.  Obviously the Earth would not totally protect the Earth facing side of the moon from objects from outside of the earth/moon orbit, but the Earth’s gravity would tend to affect the trajectory of such objects.

    Let us consider  that the Moon is a lost satellite from one of the planets within the solar system, or even a minor planet from some faraway sun.

    The  moons orbit relative to the Sun is within 5 degrees of the ecliptic, the asteroids are within 10 degrees, this would indicate the path of the Moon could have passed through the asteroid belt before being captured by the Earth.

    Multiple impacts during its passage through the asteroid belt could cause deviation of its trajectory.

    Also, these impacts would embed heavy metals from the asteroids into the leading surface of the moon. This would explain the imbalance of the moon. Impacts of lighter materials (the asteroids are not all heavy metals) would scatter debris and dust across the Earth-side face. Note; The current argument from the physicists for the moon,s imbalance is that its core is offset!! Would they please explain how that could happen.

    It is estimated that there are 750,000 asteroids of about 1 kilometer diameter or above, the largest being Ceres at about 975 kilometres diameter, (there may have larger ones before the moon passed through them.} There are approximately 10,000 at approximately 10 kilometers diameter. A single pass through the asteroid belt could have caused most of the large craters on the  Earth side of the moon. Its passage through the  asteroid belt would amount to (very) approximately 180 million kilometers.

    Although the asteroids are actually very widely spaced,  sweeping a path through them with an object the size of the moon would likely create many impacts over a distance of 180 million kilometers.

    Author;- Brian Williams

  • Physics in the News – Higgs Boson

    Posted on December 13th, 2011 Brian No comments

    Note;  A Hypothesis can be any idea that someone dreams up. It does not require any proof or logical basis.


    See also “How Physicists “find” their Particles”, which gives my prediction on 25th June 2011 and why. If you really want to understand about the problem with the Higgs Boson you need to understand how physicists ‘find’ them and all their other ‘particles’.


    Extract from above post. Posted on 25th June 2011

    “Tevatron teams clash over new physics.”

    All the above comments also apply to the Tevatron accelerator in the USA, currently in the news. I suspect that they are struggling to find a magic particle to enable them to keep the unit open. (It is due to close shortly.)


    “The rare beauty of modern physics is that it is completely untainted by reality.” Brian Williams


    Q&A: The Higgs boson

    Changes in Red are by Brian

    The Higgs is a theorised [Hypothesized] sub-atomic particle – one of the “fundamental” ones that are the most basic building blocks of the Universe. Unlike atoms, these fundamental particles are not thought to be made up of anything else. The Higgs is so important because it helps the current best-guess theory [Hypothesis]of the Universe – the Standard Model – explain how other particles obtain mass. The theory[Hypothesis] has it that as the Universe cooled after the Big Bang, [another hypothesis]an invisible force known as the Higgs field formed together with its associated boson particle. This field imparts mass to the other fundamental particles.

    What’s so important about mass?

    Mass [Inertia] is the resistance of an object to changes in its velocity. Without this Higgs field, the Universe would be a very different place – particles would zip through the cosmos at the speed of light. The way this field confers mass on other particles has previously been likened to the way water in a swimming pool makes it harder for you to move when you try to wade through it. The Higgs field permeates the Universe the way water fills a pool. [Mass has nothing to do with ‘fields’, ‘charges’ or swimming pools.] This paragraph is complete waffle. A magnetic field could reduce the speed of an object, but it would not affect its inertia or its mass.

    How do we know the Higgs exists?

    Strictly speaking, we do not, and that is what is so exciting about the announcements to be made at the Large Hadron Collider – the giant experiment that was built in part to hunt for the Higgs. The particle was first proposed in 1964 by six physicists, including the Edinburgh-based theoretician Peter Higgs, as an explanation for the property of mass.

    The Standard Model is an instruction booklet for how the cosmos works – a framework that explains how the different particles and forces interact. But one chapter of the booklet remains unfinished – unlike the other fundamental particles, the Higgs has never been observed by experiments. [ What they are saying is that if they cannot find the mythical Higgs Boson, they can spend billions of £s attempting to find some other mythical particle.]

    How do scientists search for the Higgs boson?

    Ironically, the Standard Model does not predict an exact mass for the Higgs itself. Particle accelerators like the LHC are used to systematically search for the particle over a range of masses where it could plausibly be. The LHC works by smashing two beams of protons [Protons are another type of mythical particle.]together at close to light speed, generating other particles. It is not the first machine to hunt for the boson. The LEP machine, which ran at Cern from 1989-2000, ruled out the Higgs up to a mass of 114 gigaelectronvolts (GeV; thanks to the equivalence of mass and energy laid out in the equation E=mc2, [The seriously incompetent formulae from Einstein.] particle physicists talk about the energy in accelerators’ beams and the masses of the particles they look for in the same terms). The US Tevatron accelerator searched for the particle above this mass range before it was switched off this year. These data are still being analysed, and could yet be important in helping confirm or rule out the boson, say physicists. The LHC, as the most powerful particle accelerator ever built, is just the most high-profile of the experiments that could shed light on the Higgs hunt. [Note: The constant search for mythical particles is mainly due to Einstein’s faulty mathematics]

    When will we know if we have found it?

    The Higgs boson is unstable; if produced among the billions of collisions at the LHC, it will quickly decay into more stable, lower-mass particles. Physicists have to infer the production of a Higgs using these decay products. Hints of the Higgs would look like a little spike or “bump” in physicists’ graphs. Results at the LHC and elsewhere carry a mark of approval in the form of statistical certainty – the degree to which observations are likely to be due to real effects, rather than statistical flukes that crop up in billions of collisions. A standard of “five sigma” is required to turn such hints into a discovery. This means there is less than a one in a million chance that the bump is a statistical fluke. It is almost certain that scientists at the LHC will be able to announce results at this level.

    What if we don’t find it?

    Most professional physicists would say that finding the Higgs in precisely the form that [the] theory [Hypothesis] predicts would actually be a disappointment. Large-scale projects such as the LHC are built with the aim of expanding knowledge, and confirming the existence of the Higgs right where we expect it – while it would be a triumph for our understanding of physics – would be far less exciting than not finding it. If future studies definitively confirm that the Higgs does not exist, much if not all of the Standard Model would have to be rewritten. That in turn would launch new lines of enquiry that would almost certainly revolutionise our understanding of the Universe, in much the same way as something missing in physics a century ago led to the development of the revolutionary ideas of quantum mechanics.



  • Understanding Mechanics – Waves.

    Posted on November 3rd, 2011 Brian No comments

    A major subject brought up in physics discussions is wave mechanics. Unfortunately, physicists know very little about waves and almost nothing about mechanics therefore you cannot really expect anything sensible from their discussions.


    Waves are mainly divided into two groups.

    Group A  is the transmission of energy. Normally travelling waves

    Group B  Is the transmission of mass. Normally standing waves

    Both groups are further divided into Generated waves and Created waves.

    If you drop a pebble into a pond waves are created that transmit energy. They are created because the pebble does not have any ‘wavelike’ properties and the ‘falling’ motion does not have any ‘wavelike’ properties.

    Generated Waves

    Electrical/radio waves are generated. The waves in a ripple tank are generated. The large waves sometimes found in holiday swimming pools are generated.

    Generated waves follow a ‘pattern’, like the electrical generator that may rotate at 50 revolutions per second will generate electrical waves at a frequency of 50 cycles per second. The pulse mechanism on the ripple tank will generate waves at the same frequency as the mechanism itself.

    Created Waves.

    Normal waves in the sea are created, and are caused by two different mechanisms.

    A. Being caused by the winds operating over the oceans.

    B. The tidal flow across the Earth.  (Note; the tidal bulge itself is  a generated wave, it follows the ‘pattern’ of the moon’s movement around the Earth.)

    If there was no land-masses the tidal bulge would flow smoothly across the globe. However, due to the land masses. parts of the tidal bulge ( really a single wave travelling around the Earth) are reflected from the land creating waves which are transmitted back into the seas. (This wave creation normally requires a vertical face to reflect from to create serious waves.)

    Tsunamis are created, and may be considered in the same way as dropping a pebble in a pond, in that  they may be caused by a landslip (massive pebble). Tsunamis may be caused by a sub-sea  earth-quake or volcano, but the mechanics involved is the same as dropping a pebble in a pond.

    However, when a tsunami hits the shoreline the transmission of energy changes to a transmission of mass. All the energy stored in the tsunami is transferred into moving the mass of water onto the land. If the tsunami hits a vertical rock face then a wave is created that is reflected back across the ocean

    Ripples on the Beach.

    These should be considered as created waves. They are formed due to the water rushing up the beach picking up sand particles. As the amount of sand in the water increases, the extra weight slows the speed of the water and the sand begins to fall out again. This pick up and drop out creates the ripples. The same thing happens as the water retreats down the beach and the ripples are changed again.

    Neither the sand nor the water surge up the beach have any wave-like properties

    Waves and Ripples in the Desert.

    Caused in the same way as ripples on the beach, but by the wind instead of water. The huge dunes seen in deserts are the ‘sand breakers’, the equivalent to the sea breakers beloved by surfers. The wind speeds in the deserts are higher than the water speeds in the sea.

    Neither the sand nor the wind has any wave-like properties.

    Neither of the above two are really waves, but ‘wave-forms’. True waves must transmit mass or energy.

    Obstruction in Smooth Flow.

    If you have a smooth flow of water and you poke a stick into the water, then waves/ripples are created in the water just in front of the stick and pass each side of the stick.

    It is clear that neither the water nor the stick have any wave-like properties.

    In this situation there are three distinct actions occurring.

    A. Below the surface of the waveform itself  there is an increased flow of water (mass) along the waveform.

    B. The surface water flow passes over this flow. (If you drop a light object such as a petal onto the water surface upstream of the stick, the petal will cross over the waveform without deviating.)

    C. As the waveform travels downstream it also moves sideways, (as a boats wake does). This indicates that there is also a transfer of energy sideways. (This is caused by slumping of the waveforms)

    (In water waves you also have to allow for differences in speed between the surface water and the various sub-surface levels.)

    Sorry about this , but fluid mechanics are extremely complicated, and light follows the laws of fluid mechanics.

    Accelerating Waves.

    See also ‘Introduction to Physics’. Click on tab at top of page.

    Brian Williams – Author

  • The Design of Space Craft.

    Posted on July 28th, 2011 Brian No comments

    This post was  triggered by the following BBC report.

    What should spaceships look like?

    Science fiction (SF) has always fascinated me since I was a child. It is the type of fiction that opens the mind of the reader to concepts that are far outside the mundane realities of everyday life. Many of the SF writers also have an impressive grasp of psychology that could make other main-stream writers envious.  Note that there is a considerable difference between SF and Science fantasy in that SF writers tend to remain within the realms of scientific possibilities whilst science fantasy writers tend to wander into the areas of the ridiculous.

    Science fiction illustrators nearly always produce artwork that is total fantasy in having no scientific basis. This is particularly obvious in their portrayal of spacecraft. The designs are generally totally unworkable as spacecraft and are mainly just strange shapes full of odd bits stuck on to make them look more ‘scientific’.

    The design of the “Starship Enterprise”, the most famous spaceship design ever produced, would be be totally useless for space flight outside the influence of a gravity source.  Note; I am not a ‘Trekie’ so I am expecting lots of repudiations of my comment.

    Why is this?

    It is the same reason that bullets, war-shells, guided missiles etcetera all have symmetrical shapes. This allows balance in the forces acting.

    Even the spin on bullets is there to there to counterbalance any imperfections in manufacturing that would cause them to deviate from their planned trajectory.

    Aircraft have all sorts of imbalanced forces operating on them such as tail fins, landing gear, wing tanks, outboard weapons systems, etcetera that all affect the flight of the aircraft. However gravity exerts a major force that means that providing the imbalances are equal on both sides of the vertical plane, they do not upset the handling too much whilst travelling horizontally.

    In space flight outside gravitational force, even slight imbalances become more serious. During acceleration the power must be applied through the centre of mass and in the direction that you want to travel. Any slight variation in the centre of mass will cause the spacecraft to rotate. If it rotates by I degree in the first second of a 10 second ‘burn’ it will rotate by 10 degrees (Approximately) during the 10 second burn.

    To prevent this from happening a compensating force will be required. which wastes fuel.

    How would the pilot know exactly where the centre of mass is? Generally he wouldn’t know, he would only have a calculated location. If a pilot put out his hand to operate a control, this would change to centre of mass of the spacecraft. If you had people walking about this would cause the centre of mass to continually change.

    Let us now consider the starship Enterprise. Let us assume that it has lots of computer equipment to handle variations in the centre of mass and everyone on board is tagged to allow the computer to be aware of their locations.

    The shape of the enterprise is quite pleasing and is not embellished with too much external junk. It could fly in Earth’s atmosphere or under a gravitational force. However, the position of it’s drives means that it would be impossible for the force to act through the centre of mass. It would need a large amount of energy to correct the imbalanced forces attempting to spin the spacecraft.

    Another major problem with shapes of spacecraft designs is that they are not streamlined. If space was a total vacuum then the shape would not matter if the driving force operated through the centre of mass. However, space is not a vacuum and therefore there is something there to cause resistance. Due to the non-streamlined nature of most designs this resistance of the various ‘stuck on’ appendages would cause deviations in the path of the spacecraft.


    Brian Williams