An Investigation of Modern Physics by Brian Williams
RSS icon Home icon
  • Physics in the News – Nuclear Fusion

    Posted on November 16th, 2016 Brian No comments

    Where does the idea of nuclear fusion come from?

    Briefly, it was an hypothesis of Sir Arthur Eddington based on Einstein’s silly formula E = m x c².  Eddington’s argument was that “if c² is a constant, then the above formula would indicate that each kilogram (mass) of any material would contain the same energy as a mass of 1 kilogram travelling at a speed of 9,000,000,000 kilometres/second. ( E = 1kg x 300,000 x 300,000)

    This idea is typical of the lack of reality in modern physics.

    Nuclear fusion is an attempt to unleash this hypothetical energy.

    Now E in the formulae E = m x v²  ( or even Einstein’s E = m x c²) refers to Kinetic Energy which means the energy required to bring a moving object to rest. If the object is not moving then its kinetic energy is zero.

    A 1 kilogram(mass) piece of coal or uranium or cheese resting on a bench has no kinetic energy. The coal, uranium and cheese will each have different amounts of ‘energy’ such as calorific or thermal but no kinetic energy, so the use of  of the formulae

    Kinetic Energy = mass x velocity², is completely invalid.

    Coal and uranium both contain potential energy in the form of atomic stress. I don’t think that cheese does.

    Author – Brian Williams.



  • Liquid Balance on Saturn Satellite ‘Mimas’

    Posted on October 17th, 2014 Brian No comments

    16 October 2014

    ‘Death Star’ moon may be ‘wonky or watery’

    From the BBC News WEB Site.’

     “The internal structure of one of Saturn’s moons is either wonky or awash with water, according to a new study. Mimas is nicknamed the Death Star because it resembles the infamous Star Wars space station. It has a tell-tale wobble that is twice as big as expected for a moon with a regular, solid structure. The researchers offer two explanations: either it has a vast ocean beneath its surface, or a rocky core with a weird shape resembling a rugby ball. The study appears in Science Magazine. Its authors are astronomers in the US, France and Belgium, who based their calculations on high-resolution photos of Mimas snapped by the Cassini spacecraft. Cassini was sent to Saturn in 1997 to explore the planet and its many moons, which so far number 62 (53 with names). Exotic interior The researchers built a detailed 3D model of Mimas using images taken from various angles, and tracked the movement of hundreds of reference points on its pockmarked surface. “After carefully eFrom the BBC News WEb Site.’xamining Mimas, we found it librates – that is, it subtly wobbles – around the moon’s polar axis,” said lead author Dr Radwan Tajeddine, who works at Cornell University in the US. Apart from these gentle “librations”, Mimas otherwise presents the same face to Saturn throughout its orbit.”


    Liquid Balancing is a recognized  method of balancing rotating objects.

    Earth,s oceans  provide a very successful balancing mechanism for any imbalances due to the Earth’s structure.

    On a rotating object , a liquid automatically arranges itself to offset any imbalances.

    Even the subsurface magma will try to re-arrange the floating landmasses to offset any imbalances.

    I do not think that the scientists can expect to find much water on ‘Mimus’ and I suggest they take plenty of water with them when they go.



    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 – Single Molecule Car

    Posted on November 10th, 2011 Brian No comments

    From BBC

    This picture published on the BBC website is supposed to show a single molecule ‘car’ travelling across a sheet of copper.

    Molecule Car

    This type of thing really annoys me. For a start the picture is obviously a computer graphics interpretation of the event. (The ‘light’ shining on the copper atoms is casting incorrect shadows.)

    Why can’t the physicists show exactly what they saw? Have they actually seen this claimed molecule? A computer generated graphic does not qualify as any form of evidence.

    If the human eye (with with the aid of a scanning microscope) can see the claimed event why can’t a camera?

    This type of graphic is as scientifically valid as claiming that the drawings in ‘Peter Pan’ proves the existence of fairies.

    Brian Williams – Author

  • Physics in the News – Dark Matter

    Posted on September 16th, 2011 Brian No comments

    From the BBC news item reference  :

    Short abstract

    Many candidates for what dark matter actually is have been proposed, but most explanations have been refuted by experiments.

    What seems to align best with both theory and experiment so far is a class of particles that tend not to interact with the matter we know: weakly interacting massive particles, or Wimps.

    Though dark matter is imagined to be everywhere, permeating the Universe and clumping around galaxies, it is estimated that some Wimps may pass through our entire Galaxy without interacting with any normal matter.

    Dark materials

    Cresst is just one laboratory dedicated to catching the flighty particles in deep underground detectors.

    It uses 33 lumps of a crystal called calcium tungstate. When a Wimp smashes into an atomic nucleus within the crystals, the experiment is designed to see evidence both of a phonon and a photon – the sound and the light of the interaction.”


    [Note: A ‘Wimp’ in the English language is a derogatory name for people who are thought to be totally useless or feeble.]

    Imagine a pinball machine complete with flashing lights, beeps etcetera. When you fire the steel ball up the channel the path of the ball becomes very erratic and can travel anywhere on the playing surface, triggering various lights and beeps. Sometimes it passes right through without hitting anything ‘important’ and you get no score. Sometimes it hits a pad that accelerates it off again in a different direction. Sometimes it hits springs that also changes the direction of the ball but without accelerating it.

    Now consider the original game which only had the ball and steel pins. It also had an erratic path to travel and you can hear when the ball hits a pin. If all the pins were different sizes you would hear different notes when the ball hit them.

    Now consider the experiment at Cresst. This is similar to a pinball machine,but unfortunately you cannot see the ball or the obstructions. Unfortunately you also don’t know what the ball actually is, because that is what the experiment is trying to determine. So they wait until an unknown object passes into a crystal containing millions of atoms. They occasionally see a flash and hear a noise. They don’t actually know that it ‘smashes into an atomic nucleus’.

    They then claim that this might indicate that the unknown object is a ‘Wimp’.

    Note that all the particles they are attempting to find (including the Wimp) are purely hypothetical (really we should say mythical).

    The Cresst team says that in their experiments between 2009 and 2011, they have seen 67 such events that cannot be explained by other means.

    This phrase cannot be explained by other means is used all the time by physicists.

    What they are really saying is that “As we (the most intelligent people in the universe) have arrived at this hypothesis, then no other explanation is possible”

    Every subject on physics on my web site has had the original physics interpretation labelled ‘cannot be explained by other means.’

    I have explained every one by ‘other means’.

    Hypothesis, Theory or Fact?. Or just fantasy?

    If I argue that the results of games played by your local football team depends on the number of spectators, then this would be a hypothesis, however ridiculous it seems. Hypotheses do not have to be sensible. However, mathematicians would rush to attempt verify this.

    Hypotheses have to go through the next stage, which means it must be tested before it can be considered to be a theory. This is a far more stringent test.

    To be a theory it must be shown to fit all the facts, and also to be shown how it works. This is the stage that physicists never arrive at because they are unable to work out how anything works.

    Even if it fits the facts and a method shown of how it could work, it still would not prove that it was correct. It is still a theory, and there may be hundreds of theories just as valid. If you are lucky, one of these might be the correct one. Or maybe not!

    Modern physics has never managed to get past the hypothesis stage.


    Extract from

    Estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universe.

    In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy. Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, and was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible “luminous” matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium. Many experiments to detect dark matter through non-gravitational means are underway.

    According to observations of structures larger than solar systems, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy. From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%.

    Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for evidence of “missing mass” in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe; these observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

    Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art modelling of structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation. The largest part of dark matter, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, is not only “dark” but also, by definition, utterly transparent.

    As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive.

    Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted [amongst physicists] theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws.

    There are no anomalies, its just that, not understanding mechanics, they are unable to logically apply the basic principles of mechanics to any observed phenomena.


    The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, most recently by the WMAP spacecraft, indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to a certain critical density.

    Really we are back to the mentality of the flat Earth hypothesis. There is no way that cosmic radiation of any type can prove that the universe is flat. The universe is universal, (that is why its called ‘the universe‘). Anything outside the physicists ‘flat’ universe is still part of the universe. If you travel in any direction from Earth you will come to the end of the physicists ‘universe’ or you won’t. If you do then what is beyond it? This stupidity lies behind the ridiculous ‘Bending Space’ arguments from the physicists, in which they argue, (without logic) that space is curved and therefore folds back on itself. They are just unable to accept the concept of a universe.

    There is no ‘measured geometry of space’, it is impossible (even for engineers). Even using the accepted hypothesis that light has a constant speed, (which is incorrect) it is impossible to determine the distance of a moving object outside of our galaxy using optical methods. It is obvious that no other methods are available to us, therefore there is no method of doing it.

    Dark Matter was a hypothesis 77 years ago. It still is, and will always be an hypothesis.

    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.


    “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” Albert Einstein.


    “Scientists investigate that which already is; Engineers create that which has never been.” Albert Einstein.

    Physicists do neither.

    Einstein is treated as the ‘God’ of physicists, Eddington was always treated as the ‘High Priest’ of physicists.

    Brian Williams


  • How Physicists “Find” Their Particles!

    Posted on June 25th, 2011 Brian No comments

    This really started  with ‘Brownian Motion’ and Einstein’s interpretation of  it. Over the years the equipment has got more sophisticated and costly.

    Note: No-one as ever seen or isolated any of the physicist’s particles, or even presented a sensible explanation of them. The cloud Chamber, the Bubble chamber and the Hadron Collider only show tracks that may be particles, atoms or molecules. there is no actual evidence of what the tracks really are.

    Simplified, they fire something into a liquid or gas and see what happens. (Please understand that they don’t actually know what it is that they are firing.)

    They then take photographs of what happens. The photographs require 100s of thousand of photons to produce each one. (Please understand that they do not know what a photon is. They think that it is something between a particle and a wavy line.)


    This photograph is claimed to show the mutual annihilation of an Anti-proton and a Proton, and the creation of charged Pions. Again, don’t panic, because the names are meaningless.

    Below is a simplified version of the above.

    The Red line shows the path of an imaginary ant-Proton. This strikes a ‘supposed’ proton at 2. The Blue lines are claimed to be the tracks of positive Pions and the green lines are claimed to be the tracks of negative Pions. The heavy line at 3 is claimed to be a positive pion that finally strikes some unknown object and bounces off to become a positive Muon. (The actual statement from the physicists is that comes to rest and decays into a Muon.) Why would it change direction on becoming a Muon?

    At the right hand side of the Proton? there is a negative Pion that appears to split into two negative Pions.

    It may have occurred to you that all the positive Pions travel anticlockwise and the negative Pions travel clockwise. If we had a photograph taken from directly opposite the camera taking the above picture would physicists mark the above positive Pions as negative Pions, etcetera.

    Now let us look at other options. Let us consider that the Proton at 2 is actually an atom. Now Pions, Muons, and all the other mythical particles are all deemed to be parts of atoms. Therefore the atom is quite massive relative to the particles.

    Now if atoms are partly composed of all these other particles, then on being struck by a high speed particle, these other particles are quite likely to be dislodged or sent flying in all directions. If dislodged particles have some degree of spin, then they will travel a curved path, either clockwise or anti-clockwise, depending on the direction of spin, just like a tennis or cricket ball.

    What if the tracks were caused by electrons not mythical Pions? Well, this would go against the physicists hypotheses, because they claim that hydrogen only has one electron. However, that is just an hypothesis, for there is no proof to back it up, My own hypotheses indicate that it is not true.

    However, electrons could certainly fit the above photographic ‘evidence’.

    Another problem with the above is relating to the energy of the particles. Line 3 is stated to be of ‘relatively low energy as gauged by the small radius of curvature of its trajectory’. The curvature is caused by the amount of spin on the particular particle. The total energy of a speeding particle is a combination of its forward speed and its rotation.

    Spirals on the photograph.

    In the top right hand side of the photograph there is a spiral track as shown below.

    The physicists claim that these sort of tracks are caused by electrons.

    I am very doubtful of this claim. A tight track such as this would indicate an unbalanced force in operation. The spiral paths are far more likely to caused by a spinning molecule. If it was a spinning electron it would have to have a very high spin rate and would not suddenly stop as shown. The type of camera used could also affect the results. Also the length of exposure of the film. As previous notes, they have really no idea what it is that they are ‘apparently’ seeing.



    The photograph used in this post is quite a famous one in physics circles and is claimed as proof of many aspects of ‘particle’ physics. It is one out of millions of photographs taken in an attempt to justify the physicists hypotheses. 99.999% of the other photos do not justify the hypotheses! Its like taking a million photos in a shopping mall and finding one that shows only men, and then claiming that this proves that only men go to shopping malls. Anything can be claimed when searching through millions of photographs of purely random interactions between particles.

    Matter and anti-matter particles.

    Physicists constant discussions and publications relating to anti-matter particles is based on on photographic ‘evidence’ in the same way as the above photograph. If a particle is fired into the gas (or liquid) and appears (on the photograph) to suddenly disappear, there are many possible reasons for this. It could have slowed down and then stopped.  It could have hit an atom and bounced off either away from or towards, the camera. It could be in orbit around an atom


    Note: The Hadron Collider is just a very, very expensive version of this experiment.


    “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.)


    Author;Brian Williams

  • Physics in the News – Two Slit Interferometer.

    Posted on June 4th, 2011 Brian No comments

    From BBC News – 3 June 2011

    Quantum mechanics rule ‘bent’ in classic experiment

    By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News

    Water ripples
    Light can interfere with itself just as water ripples can add to or cancel one another

    Researchers have bent one of the most basic rules of quantum mechanics, a counterintuitive branch of physics that deals with atomic-scale interactions.

    Its “complementarity” rule asserts that it is impossible to observe light behaving as both a wave and a particle, though it is strictly both.

    In an experiment reported in Science, researchers have now done exactly that.

    They say the feat “pulls back the veil” on quantum reality in a way that was thought to be prohibited by theory.

    Quantum mechanics has spawned and continues to fuel spirited debates about the nature of what we can see and measure, and what nature keeps hidden – debates that often straddle the divide between the physical and the philosophical.

    For instance, a well-known rule called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle maintains that for some pairs of measurements, high precision in one necessarily reduces the precision that can be achieved in the other. [ This is not so. Brian]

    One embodiment of this idea lies in a “two-slit interferometer”, in which light can pass through one of two slits and is viewed on a screen.

    Let a number of the units of light called photons through the slits, and an interference pattern develops, like waves overlapping in a pond. However, keeping a close eye on which photons went through which slits – what may be termed a “strong measurement” – destroys the pattern. Etcetera, etcetera.


    More waffle from the physics establishment. This experimental information is covered in my book Physics or Fantasy – Section 1 – Light and Relativity.

    The experimental results obtained show that light functions strictly in accordance with normal fluid mechanics, and have nothing to do with quantum mechanics.  Just as in my experiments on colour, the main items of equipment in these experiments are the slits themselves. The significance of the ‘mechanics’ of the slits is totally ignored by the physicists, mainly due to their creed that mechanics cannot have anything to do with physics.

    Light is the ultimate  fluid.  People do not think of light as a fluid,  yet it functions like a fluid. The main difficulty is that light is so fluid it that it travels a lot faster than liquids or gases.  The main definition of a fluid is it takes the form of any shape that contains it.

    The speed at  which a fluid conforms to the shape of the  containing vessel determines  its fluidity. Treacle, Oil, Water, Dry Sand,  Oxygen, Hydrogen etcetera are all fluids. However, they all take  different amounts of time to fill any containment of them. They are also subject to to gravity and internal frictional forces. Light is  only very, very little affected by gravity, and is only affected by external friction, again, only in a very small way. The slit experiments demonstrate the effects of friction on light.

    However, do not expect to put light into a bottle, put a stopper in and use it later. Once light is stopped, its energy is dissipated. The particles (Or if you are a physicist, wavy lines) are still there but have lost their energy. The particles have to have a certain speed to be detected by the eye as ‘light’. Below this speed they cannot trigger the eye/brain receptors.

    The experiments are explained in simple language.

    See also

    How Physicists “Find” their Particles

    The Full Mathematics of the Michelson – Morley Experiment