An Investigation of Modern Physics by Brian Williams
RSS icon Home icon
  • Basic Principles of Research

    Posted on June 26th, 2009 Brian No comments

    Physics is the knowledge of how things work in the universe. This includes both non-biological and biological knowledge. Our knowledge is obtained through our 5 basic senses, plus extensions to these senses such as telescopes, microscopes, stethoscopes etc. The information from the senses is then passed through to our brain to work out what it all means. Therefore all research depends on our senses.

    Eyes Seeing
    Ears Sound
    Nose Smell (Chemical Analysis)
    Tongue Taste (Chemical Analysis)
    Skin Touch(Pressure), Temperature

    The most highly developed of our senses is seeing. Physicists often refer to the unseen world of the atom, yet the brain depends on the eyes ability to detect particles much smaller than the atom, i.e. sub-atomic particles, to give us our sense of sight.

    Smell and Taste can differentiate atoms and molecules, in some people to a very high degree of accuracy. Many people operating within the chemical industry can accurately determine some chemicals by taste to within 1 part per million. Many creatures can do far better than this, being able to detect 1 part in many billions. The dog can detect dispersed scents (Smell) after many hours and over many miles, and the shark can detect blood components (Taste) from many miles away.


    There is a normal method of carrying out research which is based on experience and common sense.

    1. Accumulation of information.
    2. Analysis of information.
    3. Deduction.

    In modern physics step 2 is almost always ignored, and has been replaced by the application of mathematics. The most well known by the public of all modern physics subjects is Einstein’s e = mc2, the deduction from the information accumulated from the Michelson-Morley experiments. The experiments were straight mechanics problems, with the results obtained deducible without the use of any mathematics. Unfortunately the physicists do not understand mechanics, and even applied the wrong trigonometric formulae.

    Consider this extract, proudly proclaiming the great strides in physics.

    “Firstly, the abandonment of the ideal of a mechanical explanation of everything has eliminated a great deal of idle hypotheses. The properties of the fundamental entities of physics are now stated in the form of mathematical equations, instead of being ‘explained’ by a hypothetical mechanism.” From ” The Philosophy of Physical Science”, by Sir Arthur Eddington. This is the ‘Eddington’ usually quoted by physicists when they are asked awkward questions.

    It is clear from the above passage that not only do physicists not understand mechanics, part of their catechism is that mechanics should actively be ignored in favour of mathematics.

    Note, I have been involved in mechanics all my life, but I have never come across a ‘hypothetical mechanism’. As an engineer I  only deal with reality, and the main role of engineers is to understand how things work. Analysis is the mental process that the human brain uses to arrive at an understanding of any problem. Whether you are considering crossing a busy road, deciding what to have for dinner, considering the best way to operate  on an injured patient or how to find your way home when you are lost, are all examples of analysis. Mathematics is never involved. Analysis is based on our knowledge (accumulation of information) and the relationship between individual bits of this information.

    Modern physics now operates on the ‘Black Box’ principle. If you have something going into a black box and something else coming out, it is extremely easy to find or construct a  formula to match  the in-goings and outgoings. However, no formula will ever tell you how the black box  works, or is constructed. You need an in-depth knowledge of mechanics to do this, even if  dealing in biology,  chemistry or physics.

    The analysis of information must include the following:

    • Is all the information pertinent?
    • Does any apparatus used have any effect on the information (a crucial area for serious errors)?
    As a child of 5 or 6 years, I was in possession of 2 items of crucial scientific importance, and also a fine laboratory. The fine laboratory was a cinder covered field directly in front of our house. that was half full of garages.  This field sloped, and in rainy weather, the rain gouged little rivers and created ponds that fascinated us children.  If any physicists had ventured into our laboratory and asked us how waves are created all of us would have given the same answer, which was “By the pebbles we dropped into the ponds, and by the sticks we poked into the streams“, the two items of crucial scientific importance that I refer to.  The pebbles and sticks are items of apparatus that seriously affect our observations, just as the prism and lens affect our optical experiments.
    Even as children, although we believed in fairies, Father Christmas, and ghosts, we would not have been gullible enough to accept the argument that by dropping a pebble into a pond we were magically seeing the wavelike nature of the still water, or magically seeing the wavelike nature of a steady flow of water, as seen when putting a stick (Magic Wand?) into it.
    Modern physics is full of people who demonstrate a naivety far greater than most 5 or 6 year old’s. The implications of the above 2 simple (childlike) experiments require an understanding and knowledge of mechanics that modern physicists just do not have.
    Physicists still do not understood that their ‘evidence’ for the Wave Theory of Light’ is entirely an illusion created by their apparatus, in a similar manner as our childhood playing with water.  The waves created in water by the apparatus do not prove that water itself has a waveform or frequency. The waves created by the apparatus in optical experiments do not prove that light itself has a waveform or frequency.
    If the number of people entering a store was plotted against time, the plot could show a sinusoidal waveform. This would not prove (at least to me) that the individual people had a waveform or a frequency.
    See Physics or Fantasy – Section 1 – Light and Relativity.

    Brian Williams – Author

  • Einstein’s Wrong Formulae

    Posted on June 26th, 2009 Brian No comments

    Do you know the important differences between these formulae?Einstein

    t1 = [d/(c + v)] + [d/(c – v) ] A1
    t1 = [d1/(c + v )] + [d2/(c – v)] A2
    t2 = 2d/(c2 – v2)0.5 B1
    t2 = (d1 + d2)/(c2 + v2)0.5 B2


    Formulae A1 and B1 are the ones used by physicists to ‘prove’ the constant speed of light on the assumption that they are in accordance with classical mechanics. These are the formulae given in physics books. Unfortunately, they are both “special case” formulae which are quite specifically not applicable to the Michelson – Morley experiment on which Einstein’s Relativity is based.

    Formulae A2 and B2 are the ones that are correct in accordance with classical mechanics. Although the differences appear minor, Einstein’s Relativity, The Constant Speed of Light, Time Dilation, E = mc2 etc. are all based on the formulae A1 and B1.

    More importantly, the above formulae are only 25% of the mathematics needed to solve the problem of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The other 75% is not even considered by Einstein and the rest of the physics establishment

    Einstein, not understanding mechanics, did not realise the implications of this error of Michelson and Morley and carried the same error into his own calculations.

    If the correct formulae are used i.e. A2 and B2, plus the omitted 75% , all the above hypotheses become extinct, and light is proved to strictly follow the principles of classical mechanics.

    Does it matter? Yes, the use of the wrong formulae has cost the people of the UK billions of pounds, and is still costing many millions of pounds every year.

    Physics or Fantasy – Section 1 details the errors in full and shows that the mathematics relating to the time of transit for the beams of light in the Michelson – Morley experiment are more complex than realised by the physicists.

    Brian Williams – Author