An Investigation of Modern Physics by Brian Williams
RSS icon Home icon
  • Understanding Vacuum and Pressure.

    Posted on September 12th, 2010 Brian No comments

    Understanding mechanics is nothing to do with mathematics, it is the reality of what is actually happening and why it is happening.

    A vacuum is the complete absence of any gas or any other substance that could exert a pressure. A diamond in a vacuum chamber would not effect the vacuum in any way. Most other substances and gases would. Note: Total absence of pressure has never been achieved.

    Luckily we very rarely have to consider such a tight meaning, because we are usually only considering a partial vacuum and its effects. Note that intergalactic space is not a vacuum, it is just at a much lower pressure than we are used to. If it was a vacuum our atmosphere would disappear like dust up a vacuum cleaner hose.

    Note:- The reason we retain our atmosphere is that although you would expect it to be sucked into the partial vacuum of space, this is balanced by the gravitational force of the Earth acting on the gases forming our atmosphere.

    I have worked on the design of pressure systems operating up to 30.000 pounds per square inch, (including B.O.P s and other oil and gas equipment, to be topical.)  but the problems of designing vacuum systems is a lot more difficult, especially considering we are only dealing with a maximum pressure difference of about 14 pounds per square inch. This indicates that something strange happens at low pressures.

    Very low pressure systems are difficult to make and costly to run. The difficulty is due to the problems of sealing against leaks. Joints that seal perfectly at pressures of 10,000 pounds per square inch may leak like a sieve under very low pressures. Materials of the vessels  themselves will leak under vacuum, meaning that special materials must be used. Even with the best materials there is some leakage, which means that the vacuum pumps must be run continually to sustain any vacuum attained.

    At low pressures, atoms and molecules that retain their stability at normal atmospheric pressure, begin to act oddly. As the pressure reduces they expand. (They are a in compressed state whilst a normal pressure.) This expansion means that the they take up more space in the containing vessel and also weigh less,. (The mass decreases, but please note that the individual atoms/molecules still have the same mass, but there will now be less of them taking up the same space, therefore the weight for each cubic centimetre is less)

    Note:- Removing the atoms/molecules is rather like removing a flock of sheep from a field. Initially you have no difficulty removing large groups of them, but as the numbers reduce you have difficulty in rounding up the few remaining ones.

    Why does a partial vacuum work better than pressure in certain cases?

    Normally you are taught that a suction pump operates due to the pressure difference, and that by removing the pressure on the suction side, the the atmospheric pressure forces the gas or liquid to move. In general, this is a working principle that includes most normal situations.

    However, consider a pipe with a suction pump at one end, the other end lying in a tank of sludge. When you switch on the pump the partial vacuum at the pump end allows the liquid at that end to expand and become lighter, making it easier to move and it will start to move through the pump. This expansion of the fluid will in itself cause some of the fluid to pass through the pump.

    The expansion effect will pass back through the pipe until the effect of the reduced pressure reaches the sludge tank, when atmospheric pressure takes over. Even if you close off the pipe at the sludge tank end, the liquid expansion will still continue until you stop the pump.

    This is why, when attempting to unblock the sink, it is the upstroke that finally clears the blockage, the expansion of the water molecules effectively breaking up the blockage. The downwards pressure of the plunger in most cases applying far more force on the blockage than the differential pressure set up by suction, but in most cases without shifting it.

    Another apparently strange thing is that a car tyre with 30 psi pressure in it will stay up for years  (Mine don,t). However, if you place it in a vacuum chamber at (say) 8psi absolute, it will leak. This not due to the increased pressure difference, (cars tyres can take a considerably higher pressure than that without leaking) but due to the atom/molecule changes under low pressures.

    Note:- To be effective suction pumps should be of the positive displacement type. Vacuum cleaners, water pumps etcetera. are only capable of creating a relatively small vacuum effect.  A sink plunger creates a far more effective vacuum.
    A problem with many pumping systems which use non-positive displacement pumps is cavitation, which has the same cause, creating vapour or gas within the pump, which ceases to run correctly or even not work at all.


    The old washing machines that used a central paddle arrangement that moved one way and then the other way, depended on vacuum for their cleaning efficiency. When the paddles reversed direction a partial vacuum was created which sucked water through the washing. Later washing machines are unable to do this and although the wet washing gets moved about, only a very small amount of water actually passes through the washing. Unfortunately the old system generally required top loading which is difficult to fit in modern kitchens.

    Also read Dinosurs and the Expanding Earth – 2 -The Earth Mechanics

    Author – Brian Williams

  • Understanding Stress and Strain

    Posted on August 22nd, 2010 Brian No comments

    Understanding mechanics is nothing to do with mathematics, it is the reality of what is actually happening and why it is happening.

    Stress and strain

    A lot of confusion with these, even with engineers. Basically, stress can be considered in relation to a car spring. Once the spring is fitted to the car it is in a state of stress, but even after years of going over bumpy roads and constantly being in  a state of stress, if you take it off the car it should retain its original length. However, if its length has reduced, then strain has taken place.

    Strain is damage caused by too much stress.

    A stress fracture is a strain caused by too much stress.  The stress applied has exceeded the design stress of the bone structure.

    A pulled ligament is a strain caused by too much stress. The stress applied has exceeded the design stress of the ligaments.

    All mechanisms whether in engineering or biology are designed to operate within certain stress levels. As long as we stay within these ‘design’ parameters the mechanism should operate quite happily. If we exceed these parameters then strain is likely to occur.

    Note that both strain and sprain have basically the same meaning.

    Note: You would think that the people who made shock absorbers and dampers should know the difference. The shock absorbers on a car are the springs. What are sold to the public as ‘shock absorbers’ are in fact dampers, they dampen the oscillations that are created by the springs. Without the dampers your car would bounce along the road like a kangaroo. This is why DAMPERS are so important on a car. A spring absorbs the energy of a wheel passing over a bump in the road and temporarily stores it as stress in the spring. Immediately after passing over the bump the spring attempts  to release this stored energy as quickly as possible, (which would cause the car to bounce). The damper prevents this happening by slowing down the rate at which the stored energy is released. In biology numerous muscles are used to act as dampers, acting as controls to prevent excess body movements that would be dangerous or inconvenient.

    The kangaroo utilises a good example of the same basic principles, its legs storing energy in the form of stress in the leg muscles, the stored energy being used to help to power its next jump.

    Author – Brian Williams.









  • Understanding Speed & Velocity

    Posted on August 17th, 2010 Brian No comments

    Understanding mechanics is nothing to do with mathematics, it is the reality of what is actually happening and why it is happening.

    Speed and velocity

    In practice speed and velocity have exactly the same meaning. Speed comes from the  Anglo-Saxon/Dutch/German, and Velocity comes from Latin.  Both derivations mean speed in the sense that the public understand it. However the physics establishment has decreed that velocity now means speed in a particular direction.  Unfortunately, having confused the public with the change in meaning, they now appear to just as confused themselves, because they are constantly referring to  cases that are  clearly ‘speed’ and calling it velocity.

    A typical situation is where they refer to the ‘velocity’ of a wheel. No point on a rotating wheel has velocity.  All points on a rotating wheel have speed.

    Obviously the above statements only apply in a situation where the centre of rotation is fixed. If we consider the wheel of a car travelling at 50 feet/sec along a perfectly flat road then the velocity of the wheel is 50 feet/sec. This refers to velocity of the centre of the wheel. Ignoring the resilience of the tyre, the speed of the wheel’s outer edge is 50 feet per second. ( Due to the resilience of the tyre the speed must be greater than this). The outer edge of the wheel does not have any velocity because it is never travels in a straight line.

    Note: Newton was aware of this problem when he created his calculus but the physicists ignored it, and used Leibniz’s version of the calculus instead, in fact Newton’s calculus is almost never used and the modern calculus is the simpler Leibniz version.

    Although this may seem a minor point it does present major logic problems in understanding the mechanics of rotary motion. The mathematics of rotary motion work but are completely illogical regarding the reality of rotary motion. This was evident even in school when much protestation was made about the lack of logic in the maths. Eventually the teachers agreed with us but argued that as it worked we should ignore the logic.

    Note the following statement attributed to Einstein

    “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.”

    Brian Williams


  • Understanding Momentum

    Posted on August 17th, 2010 Brian No comments

    Understanding mechanics is nothing to do with mathematics, it is the reality of what is actually happening and why it is happening.


    Momentum is the oldest scientific principle. Virtually all living creatures are both actively aware of it, and both consciously and unconsciously make use of it in their everyday lives.

    Its use and the understanding of it preceded the emergence of man from the primeval chaos, and billions of years before the first glimmering of ‘scientific’ thought.

    Consider a grizzly bear. It will give its young cub a gentle ‘pat’ of affection, or it will give a more vigorous smack to warn it to behave itself. Later, it may (with the same arm and paw) give a killing blow to an enemy.

    The bear is demonstrating a clear knowledge and understanding of momentum. All animal life demonstrates this understanding, from the amoeba through to the dinosaurs, fish, reptiles etc and mankind, a very late starter.

    This knowledge of momentum is gained very early in an animals life because its survival depends on it. It learns about it whilst attempting its first steps, because walking depends on control of momentum. Early on it constantly falls, but with practice it learns to control it and starts to walk with more confidence. The adult stage really begins when the animal can control its momentum and gains survival capabilities, not by the strength of its parents but with the speed and agility to escape danger.

    So, what is momentum? It is not a mathematical formula. Momentum is the effect of mass and speed and is real. When someone refers to momentum being mass x speed this is a means of relating the reality of momentum into a mathematical context. Mathematics is not reality, and the reality of any subject should be constantly in your mind when manipulating mathematics.

    Mathematics is not a science, it is a tool. In many cases maths does not work, or only works by cheating. A term constantly used in engineering is ‘Moment of Inertia, (and I must have used this myself a thousand times or more) which is used in bending and stress calculations, but is purely a fiddle factor and is used to make the maths work out. The square root of -1 is still argued about in physics calculations, yet it has no real meaning due to mathematicians incorrectly applying normal mathematical rules to graphs.

    Millions of hours have been spent trying to out a ‘true’ value for Pi in relation to circles, without mathematicians understanding that it is an impossible task. Each step closer changes the parameters, which means that the numbers after the decimal point will go on forever. I have no doubt that somewhere in the universe there is a mathematical system that will solve many of our problems, but it will not be our current system.

  • Basics of an Atomic Theory

    Posted on July 16th, 2010 Brian No comments

    The construction of an atom model that satisfies all the requirements of scientific knowledge regarding both physical and biological facts must be our starting point. It must be able to explain colour, weight (mass), state (i.e. solid, gas or liquid), changes due to temperature, changes due to pressure, hardness, and softness, rigidity and flexibility, chemical reactions, gravity, magnetism, and most importantly, life.

    The physics establishments ‘hypotheses’ do not explain any property of matter therefore they do not qualify as theories.

    My atomic theory explains all known properties of matter. (It therefore passes the requirements of a theory.)

    I may be wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the Physics Establishment.

    The reader will have problems due to fact that I go against all the current atomic hypotheses that he/she will have been taught or accepted. I can understand this because I had the same problem myself, many times over the years finding it difficult to believe my own results. Eventually it was easier to consider existing hypotheses only to pinpoint where the problems were. This was a case of selecting any particular hypothesis proposed by the physics establishment, assume it is wrong, and work out alternative hypotheses and then produce a working theory. 90% of current hypotheses cannot even satisfy the title of theory because there are no explanations of how they could work.

    One of the main reasons for physicists opting for whizzing high-speed electrons is an attempt to explain the energy of an atom.

    However, all energy is stored in one of two states, momentum or stress. (Occasionally it is stored as a combination of both)

    The energy of atoms is stored as stress.

    The reader may find this statement difficult to accept but it is true, whether you are considering chemistry, radiation, mechanics or biology. However, if you ask a physicist to explain how his model/hypothesis of the atom explains any of the physical or biological facts of reality, he will only mumble that you will not understand the explanation, being a mere mortal, but will then brighten up and go into the fantasy world of physics in the form of time dilation, rubber sheet universes, black holes, time travel etc. things that are basically fairy stories to amuse the public.

    Can you remember anything produced from physics hypotheses? Forget atomic energy which was a discovery by SCIENTISTS not PHYSICISTS. The physicists were brought in to attempt to find an explanation, with which they are still struggling. The atom bomb and controlled atomic energy were produced by scientists and engineers, with the physicists hanging about trying to look important. Note; We have atomic energy not nuclear energy.

    What we consider to be atomic energy is only another step along the way from rubbing two sticks together to create fire, energy from coal and gas, dynamite, all of which are atomic reactions. The Atom bomb and its derivatives are toys relative to the energies that could be released if we inadvertently hit something that is a lot more stressed than the radioactive materials that are being used today. Radioactive ‘elements’ are already breaking down and are unstable. The more dangerous elements will not show this breakdown, and we will not be aware of their danger until too late. The pointless experiments with the so-called Hadron collider will not produce any useful knowledge, but could inadvertently blast a huge hole in the centre of Europe

    From Section 3, Physics or Fantasy

  • Wave Theory – Problems

    Posted on May 16th, 2010 Brian No comments

    Short abstract from Physics or Fantasy – Section 2

    One of the main problems with the physicist’s interpretations of ‘Wave Theories’ is that the complications of acceleration and deceleration are ignored.  No-one has ever measured the ‘wave-length’ of sound, radio waves or light, even though wave-lengths have been quoted for radio waves for the last 100 years. Even the wave-lengths of water waves are difficult to measure.

    The wavelength of a single note emitted from a speaker increases (within certain limits depending on the substance through which is travelling) as the sound travels away from the speaker, but the frequency remains the same. The initial wave-length depends on the speed of the speaker cone, (which also has an acceleration and deceleration), the ambient air pressure and the distance the cone travels (which also varies as parts of the cone travel different distances). Electrical waves have even more serious complications that are never considered by the physicists.

    These problems also apply to water waves which means that the standard formula Wavelength = Speed divided by Frequency is a very loose formula which should have careful consideration before being applied in any situation. Unless you understand the mechanics of the problem that you are considering, you should avoid applying any mathematics.

    The physics establishment’s haphazard use of the formula causes many problems, one being the serious misuse of it in the Mossbauer Experiment. Mossbauer got a Nobel Prize for this work in 1961. This has created all sorts of silly hypotheses relating to crystallography which have hampered real physics ever since .

    Wave Mechanics or more realistically ‘the mechanics of waves’ is a subject that the physics establishment have very little understanding of,  yet happily bring it up in discussions, usually in the form of   ” but that relates to wave mechanics, which you will not understand”.

    Author – Brian Williams

  • Brownian Motion

    Posted on March 31st, 2010 Brian No comments

    Another part of the physicists file of silly hypotheses. Taught with much enthusiasm in schools, colleges and universities around the world, (mainly due to Einstein’s interpretation of its meaning), it consists of a small capsule full of liquid with a small quantity of pollen grains mixed in it. Observation of the mixture shows the pollen grains constantly on the move. Einstein claimed that this proved that molecules were in a constant state of movement on their own accord, and this molecular movement caused the pollen grains to move.


    Brownian Motion Unit

    What was ignored, was that to see the pollen grains a high intensity beam of light was projected into the capsule. In my own Brownian Motion unit (Above), I estimate that between 350 and 500 watts of energy per litre of liquid are injected into the capsule, sufficient to boil away the liquid in a very short time. It is this energy injection that causes the movement of the pollen grains, not an inherent vibration of the molecules.

    Einstein carried this strange hypothesis into his hypotheses regarding the gas laws, which further retarded the advancement of physics.

    Short abstract from Physics or Fantasy – Section 2- Colour and the Quantum Theory – Brownian Motion.

     Author – Brian Williams


  • 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