Why the Atomic World is the Way it is

Citation preview

i

Dedication To the contemplative spirit of Sir Isaac Newton.

ii

Author’s Note Could an old experiment, first conceived by Isaac Newton more than 300 years ago, hold the key to our intuitive understanding of the universe? To this question, this book says, yes. The old expe riment being referred to is Newton’s bucket experiment. And usually, physicists refer to Newton’s bucket experiment when they are discussing Newton’s argument for absolute space against Leibniz position of relative space. But this book intends to show us that Newton’ s bucket experiment has far -reaching consequences beyond the proof or argument for absolute space , in that it has the capacity to give us the full intuitive understanding of the world, both at the atomic level and at the

non-

atomic level. But the atomic world, as currently described by quantum mechanics, is reported to be weird and hard to grasp, and, in fact, the atomic world is observed to be very different from the macroworld we are familiar with. So, this book becomes very important as it shows us how to intuitively grasp the nature of the atomic world based on Newton’s bucket experiment. Now, it should go without saying, especially if you are familiar with my works, that the discourse in this book would be based on post

-modern physics which gives us the deepest

explanation of Newton’s bucket experiment beyond its classical and modern explanations. And even though this book is an overall discussion on post

-modern physics, it is however

presented in a manner that you will be able to follow, as I will make the necessary effort to explain the post-modern concepts introduced by making special reference to what we already know from classical and modern physics. Thus, this book is a frontier discovery and appreciation of Newton’s bucket experiment as it now finds a renewed interest in this post-modern era of phy sics, one of which is to explain why the atomic world is the way it is , even as its importance extends to the non-atomic level of the universe.

M. V. Echa January 7, 2021 Pub: Echa & Science iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i DEDICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii AUTHOR’S NOTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

TABLE OF CONTENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv SECTION I: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION II: The Classical Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment. . . . . 2 SECTION III: The Modern Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment. . . . . .3 SECTION IV: The Criticism of the Classical and Modern Interpretations of the Newton’s Bucket Experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SECTION V: The Post-modern Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment. . . .9 SECTION VI : Comparing the Classical and the Post -modern Interpretations of Newton’s Bucket Experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 SECTION VII: Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 References

iv

Intentionally left blank

v

SECTION I Introduction In the Principia, Isaac Newton contended for the existence of absolute

space by proposing

one of the simplest and most puzzling experiments in scientific history. This famous experiment is called the Newton’s bucket experiment. He presented this experiment to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of absolute space, and thus absolute motion. Also, Newton’s bucket experiment is inseparable from t he nature and origin of inertia, which Newton sought to explain, so it is important to know that the same connection would apply to the post-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment to be presented in this book. Thus, today, this famous experiment now has three historical interpretations: The first is the classical interpretation, the second is the modern interpretation, and the third is the post

-

modern interpretation, which would be presented in this book. Inertia is now very central to science and it is the cornerstone of the Newton’s bucket experiment, and in this book, we would delve deeper to apply inertia to the fundamental essences of the universe. As a result, this experiment is the cornerstone of our understanding of the universe and absolute science. Therefore, this experiment which is applied to explain absolute space and the origin of inertia, in classical and modern physics, would be shown to be a quintes

sential experiment

that gives us an intuitive grasp of the difference between the atomic and non-atomic worlds. I take that this broad import of Newton’s bucket experiment has not been considered in both classical and modern physics, and post-modern physics presents once again this simple experiment as a basis for the intuitive understanding of the universe. Listen, if you can understand this experiment, you would have understood all things that concern the universe, even the true nature of the mind which I have presented in my book on Forms. So, we shall be proceeding in this book from the classical interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment up to the post-modern interpretation, and I would like you to avoid any distraction and open your mind to the new knowledge of the universe you are about to receive from the true interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment in this book. 1

SECTION II The Classical Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment Let’s describe Newton’s bucket experiment which is diagrammatically represented below and which goes thus: Hang a bucket filled with water by a rope, twist the rope tightly so that it’s ready, to unwind, and let it go. At first, as shown in A, t he bucket starts to spin but the water inside, which as should be noted is a ponderable body, remains fairly stationary; the surface of the stationary water stays nice and flat. As the bucket picks up speed, little by little its motion is communicated to the water by friction, and the water starts to spin too as shown in B. As it does, the water’s surface takes on a concave shape, higher at the rim and lower in the centre [1].

Newton's Bucket Experiment in Classical Physics

Now, due to the anticlockwise motion of the rope, the bucket comes to rest but the water keeps spinning and its surface remains concave as shown in C. A

nd a t D , the water stops

spinning like the bucket. While at first, with the bucket in motion and the water at rest

as shown in A , the water

surface was flat, and later , at C , when the bucket is at rest, the spinning water maintains a concave surface, indicating that relative motion is not responsible for the concave shape of the water surface. 2

Also, when both the bucket and the water

move at the same speed, thus representing the

absence of relative motion, the water surface still maintains a concave shape. So , the central question in Newton’s bucket experiment is: Why does the water surface become concave? Or to put it in another fashion: Relative to what does the water move? Newton concluded, even after extending this experiment to empty space, that the result was because every motion is relative to immovable absolute space and that this was the origin of inertia. Newton held that absolut e space exists independently, even in the absence of matter or material bodies. Historically, there was another camp of scientists led by Wilhelm Leibniz which contended against Newton’s thesis. They were of the opinion that absolute space does not exist a nd that inertia must have some other origin which Newton hadn’t realized. This dichotomy in the origin of inertia and the existence of absolute space produced the two great philosophies of science. One of which is absolutism, which was Newton’s position, and the other which is relationism, which was Leibniz’s position. Leibniz contended against absolute space and rather taught that space is relational. In simple terms, he held that space has no objective existence and that it is an arbitrary quantity used to specify the length between any two bodies. So, according to Leibniz’s view, in the absence of matter, space is meaningless.

SECTION III The Modern Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment Newton was able to temporarily quench the attack against absolutism by Leibniz and his camp through his proposed bucket experiment, which his interpretation has been presented as the classical interpretation. However, the relational interpretation of the origin of inertia was to come from another scientist in another scientific era. This scientist would be Ernst Mach. In th e 19 th-century, Mach proposed that inertia arises when a body moves in accelerated motion because of its relative motion with other bodies in the universe. The modern interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment or Mach’s principle informs us that the inertia the spinning water experiences is because of its interaction with other bodies 3

in the universe or “the entire universe” , as Mach himself had said . This idea revived the relational view of space proposed by Leibniz and it enabled physicists to do aw ay with absolute space which was criticized for not being perceptible. This proposal by Mach is at the foundation of Mach’s principle, and Einstein followed Mach’s principle in establishing the theory of general relativity (even though some insists that general relativity does not satisfy Mach’s principle). Mach’s principle, therefore, informs us that the water surface in Newton’s bucket experiment becomes concave because the water was spinning relative to other bodies in the universe. In other words, the spinning water becomes concave because of its interaction with other bodies in the universe. So, in the absence of other bodies but just the spinning water in the universe, the water surface will not become concave. Mach’s principle implies that there is no such thing as absolute motion since the motion of any body can only be judged against the state of motion of another body in the universe or the distribution of matter in the universe and not absolute space. This is contrary to Newton’s position which ins ists that absolute motion is real and that the true motion of bodies can be judged relative to immovable absolute space and not any material body in the universe. These two opposite or contrary views of inertia are the bases for the two philosophies of relationism and absolutism and they represent the classical and the modern interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment.

SECTION IV The Criticism of Classical and Modern Interpretations of Newton’s Bucket Experiment Before we proceed to the po st-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment, I will like to show you the errors in the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment. And as will be seen, these errors

are deeply related to the fundamental

conceptual problems of today’s physics. So, t he first post -modern criticism against the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment is their lack of generality. 4

The Absence of Generality Have you noticed that the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment explain only a case of accelerated motion? They explain the case when bodies are moved by an external action which is not gravity. We know that when bodies are accelerated by gravity, inertia appears absent. Why? This is a very important question. We have two experiences of accelerated motion. When we move due to an external action which is not gravity and when we move due to gravity. Now, both the classical and the modern in interpretations of the bucket experiment explain or focus on the first case but brush the second case under the carpet. They do not inform us why inertia appears absent when bodies accelerate du e to gravity. This is very important, and so both the classical and the modern interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment are not holistic. Now, even if inertia is assumed to be absent during free fall, we still must know the conditions in the universe that causes the mysterious appearance and disappearance of inertia during accelerated motion. In other words, for us to truly unde rstand accelerated motion and the bucket experiment, we have to unde rstand the underlying causes behind our experiences of accelerated motion. Let me make my position clearer. If Newton insisted that bodies experience inertia when they accelerate because t hey are moving relative to or against immovable absolute space; now, when bodies accelerate due to gravity and don’t sense inertia, does it now mean that they are not moving against immovable absolute space? Also, if Mach insisted that bodies experience in ertia when they accelerate because they are moving relative to or against the mass distribution in the universe; now, when bodies accelerate due to gravity and don’t sense inertia, does it now mean that they are not moving against the mass distribution of the universe? Both the classical and modern interpretations are silent about these questions. And if this is the case, can we still hold tenaciously to either interpretation? I would say, no. Now, the second criticism against the classical and the modern

interpretations of Newton’s

bucket experiment would be what I refer to as the absence of discriminality.

5

The Absence of Discriminality Though this second criticism appears contrary to the first criticism, this is not the case as they should be understood within their contextual presentation. So, one of t he major criticisms against the class ical and modern descriptions of the origin of inertia is that they discuss inertia and its relationship with bodies without discriminating between ponderable (non-charged) bodies and electrical (charged) bodies. Listen, in the universe, there are two forms of matter,

In the universe, there are two forms of matter, ponderable and electrical matter, and it matters to discriminatingly discuss their respective experience of inertia.

ponderable and electrical matter, and it matters to discriminatingly discuss their respective experience of inertia. Ponderable matter or bodies are bodies that occupy the non-atomic world while electrical bodies, like the electron and the proton, are bodies that occupy the atomic world. It is usually my preference to distinguish matter as such, and this will help you realize why the atomic world is the way it is as we move further in this book. So, classical and modern physics fail ed to do distinguish the experience of inertia both in the atomic and non-atomic worlds, and they take that their

respective conclusions from the experiment will apply at all levels of the universe. But this is not the case, as the atomic world has proven itself t o be unlike anything we know about the universe, especially at the ponderable level of our existence. The importance of this is that, if the bucket experiment had been properly interpreted, it would have exposed us to an intuitive understanding of the atomic world which is lacking today. The Absence of a Governing Principle The third criticism against the classical and the modern interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment is what I refer to as the absence of a governing principle.

This is probably the

greatest error in both the classical and modern inte rpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment. 6

If you have studied absolute science, as it is being taught on my website, you would realize that both the classical and modern interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment have erroneously proceeded to describe accelerated motion, which both the spinning bucket and the water represent, without the all-important principle that governs accelerated motion. This is a crucial oversight, and the fundamental principle of accelerated motion is missing in all of classical and modern physics. So

, it goes beyond the classical and modern

interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment to the very foundation of physics itself. Now, what is this profound principle? This

Both the classical and modern interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment have erroneously proceeded to describe accelerated motion, which both the spinning bucket and the water represent, without the all-important principle that governs accelerated motion.

profound and fundamental principle , found only in post -modern physics, is the principle of non inertia, and it states that accelerated rest and accelerated motion are indistinguishable. This new principle arises because post-modern physics now informs us that, just as there are two forms of motion, uniform motion and accelerated motion, so also there are two forms of rest in the universe, which are uniform rest and accelerated rest. And to grasp the importance of this principle, now, imagine how wrong we

will be if we

proceed to describe uniform motion or inertial reference frames without the principle of inertia. Imagine. This is how wrong we are proceeding

to

describe

Newton’s

for bucket

experiment and by extension other accelerated frames or motions without the principle of non inertia. Both the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment are majorly wrong because of the absence of this governing principle. This subsequently results in the grave error of general relativity which is founded on Mach’s principle or the modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment. 7

In general relativity, the notion or concept of a straight line is replaced by the subtle concept called the geodesic. The geodesic is seen as a straight line in curved

spacetime, and it is

accepted according to general relativity that accelerated frames do not sense inertia when moved by gravity because they are moving in the shortest distance in curved spacetime. General relativity tries to establish in accelerated fra

mes the same conditions for uniform

frames by informing us that since uniformly moving bodies moving in a straight line do not sense inertia, likewise bodies accelerating due to gravity move in a geodesic and do not sense inertia. This premise or gimmick, however convincing, is not really the truth about the universe. In relative science, and especially in special relativity, we associate the non -sensation of inertia for uniformly moving bodies with the fact that they are moving in a straight line. This association constitutes the basis of the relative presentation of the principle of inertia. Likewise, general relativity proceeded to associate the non

-sensation of inertia for bodies

accelerating due to gravity with the fact that they are moving in a geodes ic which is taken as a straight line in curved spacetime. But a wkwardly, this association in general relativity does not constitute the basis of another principle like the principle of inertia. Now, in absolute science, we associate the non

-sensation of in ertia for uniformly moving

bodies with the fact that they are moving in uniform space , which is orthogonal to uniform time. The orthogonality of uniform space and time for uniformly moving bodies constitute the basis for the absolute presentation of the principle of inertia. N. B: According to relative science , the principle of inertia states that rest and uniform motion are indistinguishable, but in absolute science, the principle of inertia states that uniform rest and uniform motion are indistinguishable. Please see this distinction as we proceed. And in absolute science, we associate the non -sensation of inertia for bodies moving due to gravity with the fact that they are moving in accelerated space, which is orthogonal to accelerated time. T hus, just l ike for the principle of inertia, t he orthogonality of accelerated space and time for accelerating bodies constitute the basis for the principle of non-inertia. The association of the non-sensation of inertia with motion in a straight line in special relativity and general relativity, and in general, relative science, constitutes the linearity 8

principle. While in absolute science, the association of the non-sensation of inertia with motion in orthogonal space and time in electrodynamics and gravi

-electrodynamics, and in

general, absolute science, constitutes the orthogonality principle. I want you to realize that the linearity principle constitutes the basis for the principle of inertia and general relativity in relative science. But in absolute science, the

orthogonality

principle constitutes the basis for the principles of inertia and non-inertia. All the principles of relative science are spin-offs of the linearity principle, but we have to rebase science on the orthogonality principle. The orthogonality principle is the prime principle in the universe. It is the mathemat ical language of the universe, and a ll the principles of the cosmos emerge or are spin-offs of the orthogonality principle. The principle of non-inertia which is absent in the classical an d modern interpretations of the bucket experiment could not have been discovered or realized because both eras of physics are deeply rooted in the linearity principle, even Newton’s first law of motion proves this. I want you to realize that the principle

of non -inertia is an off -shoot of the orthogonality

principle and that the po st-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment , which I will present shortly , is proceeding from a very different scientific foundation that is profoundly simple and reassures us that we can understand all things that concern the universe.

SECTION V The Post-modern Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment This book is focused on post-modern physics and I am about to inform you of the true interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment. Newton and Mach’s interpretations of the bucket experiment leave a whole new spectrum of physics unexplored. This new spectrum , which is deeply rooted in absolute science and which has to be investigated , is what I refer to as gravi-electrodynamics. The classical interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment is established within the conceptual framework of Newtonian mechanics, while the modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment is established within the conceptual framework of general relativity. Now,

9

the post-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment is established within the conceptual framework of gravi-electrodynamics. In the beginning, the universe was created from these three essences: absolute space, absolute time, and inertia. So, the most fundamental level of understanding of cosmic laws is concerned with the inter-relationship between these three fundamental essences, and this importantly defines the scope and concern of absolute physics. Classical physics informs us that inertia arises because bodies move relative to or against immovable absolute space; modern physics informs us that inertia arises because bodies move relative to other bodies in the universe, and now, post -modern physics is informing us that inertia arises because bodies move. Post-modern physics informs

Post-modern physics informs us that inertia is inextricable from all motions.

us that inertia is

inextricable from all motion s. To move in the universe is to carry inertia. Inertia is the quantity of all motion, and it is as fundamental as absolute space and time themselves, and it does not arise due to motion relative to immovable ab solute space as Newton had conceded or due to motion relative to other bodies in the universe as Mach had thought . Inertia arises when bodies move relative to accelerated rest. Thus, whenever there is

motion, there is inertia. So, what is important in the interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment is to investigate the conditions that cause bodies to sense inertia and the conditions that cause bodies not to sense inertia and not to investigate of the origin of inertia. This alters the perspective by which we seek to interpret this experiment, for to investigate the origin of inertia is tantamount to investigating the origin of space and time

themselves.

These three entities or essences are equally fundamental. Now, I want you to understand that whenever there is motion, there is inertia, and the state of accelerated rest is a state of zero inertia. This is very significant. Post-modern physics informs us that light and gravity are absolute because they are limits of inertia, and so also is accelerated rest absolute for all accelerating bodies because it is constituted by zero inertia , which is a limit of inertia. 10

Zero inertia , which constitutes accelerated rest , is a real essence in the universe, and the proportion of inertia a body carries or senses is that relative to zero inertia or accelerated rest. Hold on to this because it will be significant in the next subsection when we shall be investigating the Newton’s bucket experiment in the ponderable and electrical universes or in the non-atomic and atomic worlds. The Newton’s bucket experiment brings the inter-relationship between these three essences to a focus and the conditions that cause bodies to sense inertia can be causally explicated by the principle of non -inertia, which is the governing principle that applies exclusively to accelerating bodies.

The conditions that cause bodies to sense inertia can be causally explicated by the principle of noninertia, which is the governing principle that applies exclusively to accelerating bodies.

Furthermore, the principle of non -inertia which governs accelerated frames is bounded within a gravielectrodynamical framework. This is the conceptual framework necessary to completely understand the implications of the Newton’s bucket experiment in both the pond erable and electrical universes or in the non-atomic and atomic worlds. Now, to have an encompassing understanding of Newton’s bucket experiment, we must distingui sh between

ponderable

(non-charged)

bodies

and

electrical (charged) bodies. Ponderable bodies are bodies that exist in the ponderable universe or the non-atomic world , while electrical bodies are bodies that exist in the electrical universe or the atomic world. The context in which we discuss this

experiment is very important in order for us to understand the operations of the universe. The proper interpretation of this experiment has the potential to unlock the true mystery of the universe which I shall be revealing to you in this book. This realization is important, for it would become clear to you soon that the results of the bucket experiment f

or the electrical

universe or the atomic world is unique. You will soon have an intuitive understanding of the atomic world!

11

So, let’s begin by interpreting Newton’s bucket experiment according to the gravi

-

electrodynamical laws of the ponderable universe or non-atomic world. Newton’s Bucket Experiment in the Ponderable Universe Let me first of all state that Newton’s bucket experiment as it is commonly interpreted are as it would happen in the ponderable (non-charged) universe or the non -atomic world. The Newton’s bucket experiment as we have been discussing in this article so far is as it would occur in the ponderable universe. In the ponderable universe, the proper interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment must obviously be connected to the fact that you sense inertia when you accelerate due to an external action which is not gravity, and when you free fall, you don’t sense inertia. Let us look at the line diagram below which shows us the exact gravi-electrodynamic nature of the ponderable universe.

The Line Diagram for Light and Gravity in the Ponderable Universe

The centre point denoted as zero is the point

of accelerated rest, and the bucket and water

spin relative to accelerated rest which has zero inertia. In the above diagram, light is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion, and on the axis of light, accelerated rest is the minimum resistance to accelerated motion. Also, in the above diagram, gravity is the least resistance to accelerated motion, and on the axis of gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion. I want you to understand that even though accelerated rest consists of zero inertia on both axes, it underlyingly has different essences on both axes or with respect to light 𝑐 and gravity 𝑔. Be enlightened. Let’s outline these two essences of accelerated rest in the ponderable universe: 12

1. On the axis of light, accelerated rest is the least resistance to accelerated motion. 2. On the axis of gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion. Now, when bodies move, whether ponderable or electrical bodies, they move within the boundaries of the l imits of inertia. Accelerated rest, as shown, is absolute for all accelerating ponderable bodies because just like light and gravity, it is also a limit of inertia ( but in different ways on the axes of light and gravity and as already outlined above). Accelerated rest , which possesses zero inertia , is a real reference point in the universe for ascertaining the proportion or quantity of inertia a body carries. Now, listen, when the bucket was spinning , it was spinning in a gravi -electrodynamic universe. It was attempting by the accelerated velocity 𝑣𝑎 to offer greater resistance to accelerated motion than light c, and it was also attempting by the absolute acceleration

𝑎 to

offer lesser resistance to accelerated motion than gravity 𝑔. All these are indicated in the line diagram. So, the water molecules carry two distinct metaphysical quantities: the accelerated velocity 𝑣𝑎 and the absolute acceleration 𝑎. The accelerated velocity 𝑣𝑎 is inextricably associated with light 𝑐 and the sensation of inertia, while the absolute acceleration 𝑎 is inextricably associated with gravity 𝑔 and the non-sensation of inertia. To further reveal the principle, the sensation and non

-sensation of inertia for the spinning

bucket are both associated with the principle of non-inertia, and it must be stated that:  The sensation of inertia on the axis of light is related to the weak manifestation of the principle of non -inertia while t he non -sensation of inertia on the axis of gravity is related to the strong manifestation of the principle of non-inertia. When the water spins in accelerated motion , it moves in accelerated space and it can experience the principle of non -inertia weakly or strongly depending on whether the water spins due to an external action from the rope o r due to gravity respectively. So, the Newton’s bucket experiment has two possible mutually exclusive outcomes in the ponderable universe or the non-atomic world. For the first outcome depicted below, and which depicts the common outcome of this experiment, because the water spins due to the external action from the twisted rope and not 13

gravity, the principle of non-inertia manifests weakly and the water molecules are not absolved of the sensation of inertia, which causes the water surface to become concave.

Newton’s Bucket Experiment and the Ponderable Universe

So, according to post-modern physics, during Newton’s bucket experiment, the water surface becomes concave because of the weak manifestation of the principle of non-inertia. However, for the second outcome shown in the next page , when the water spins due to the action of the gravity and not the external action from the twisted rope, the principle of non

-

inertia would manifest strongly and the water molecules would be absolved of the sensation of inertia, causing the water surface to remain flat. But this is not the Newton’s bucket experiment for ponderable bodies.

Gravity and Newton's Bucket Experiment 14

usual outcome of the

This second outco me informs us that when we free-fall, we don’t sense inertia not because inertia is absent but because the principle of non -inertia would manifest strongly, preventing us from sensing inertia. The principle of non-inertia is to accelerated motion what the principle of inertia is to uniform motion, for nature is very meticulous. N.B: In post-modern physics, the principle of non -inertia is so termed to correspond to non inertial reference frames which it governs just like the principle of inertia corresponds to inertial reference frames which it so governs. In fact, we can state in a manner understandable within the domain of relative science that the spinning water and other ponderable bodies

in the non -atomic world sense inertia because

light does not accelerate in the ponderable universe, and when they don’t sense inertia, they do so because gravity accelerates in the ponderable universe. In this sub -section, w hat post -modern physics is informing us , in summary, is that, during Newton’s bucket experiment , as it is commo nly carried out in the non -atomic world, the water surface does not become concave because the water spins against immovable absolute space as classical physics informs us or because the water spins against the distribution of matter in the universe as modern physics informs us, but due to the weak manifestation of the core principle of accelerated motion, referred to as the principle of non-inertia. But if the water spins due to gravity, the water surface would remain flat, and this is because of the stron g manifestation of the principle of non -inertia. Post-modern physics is letting us know that our experience of gravity is governed by the principle of non -inertia, since gravitational motion is also a form of accelerated motion. And this further implies that Einstein’s principle of strong equivalence is not the most fundamental principle for understanding gravity, but the principle of non-inertia. Post-modern physics is revealing the equal status of uniform and accelerated frames in the universe, which was hidden before, and it is doing so by informing of us of two respective principles in the universe, which are the principle of inertia for uniform frames and the principle of non-inertia for accelerated frames. This beautiful insight is what has led us to the final unification of physics, birthing the post-modern era of physics. So, post-modern physics is letting us know that inertia is present for both cases being discussed, whether the water spins due to gravity or not

, bu t the principle of iner tia is the

fundamental principle that causes non-atomic bodies to either sense or not sense inertia. 15

Also, at this point, it is necessary to make a

Post-modern physics is revealing the equal status of uniform and accelerated frames in the universe, which was hidden before, and it is doing so by informing of us of two respective principles in the universe, which are the principle of inertia for uniform frames and the principle of noninertia for accelerated frames.

distinction between the sensation and

the

experience of inertia as inertia is always underlyingly present for all motions in the universe. Thus, the central aim of postmodern physics is to make us grasp Newton’s bucket experiment on the basis of the long

-

missing principle of accelerated motio n, which is the principle of non-inertia. Now,

let’s

proceed

to

discuss

the

interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment for the atomic world. Newton’s

Bucket

Experiment

in

the

Electrical Universe Interestingly, the Newton’s bucket experiment can provide

us a better grasp of the

consequences of the principle of non-inertia for electrical bodies

or the atomic world

which has denied us any means of intuitive understanding. Hypothetically, if Newton’s bucket experiment is performed in the atom, taking that the bucket and the water are electrical bodies, the water surface would always be flat and never concave, whether the water is at accelerated rest or spins in accelerated motion. This is an interesting conclusion that gives us a remarkable insight into how t he principle of non-inertia applies in the atomic world. Why this principle is crucial, even more so in the atomic world than in the non -atomic world, is because, unlike non -atomic bodies, atomic bodies are always in accelerated motion. So, more than all o f modern quantum mechanics, only the long -missing principle of non inertia is able to give us the true understanding of the nature of the atomic world. We need to see how the principle of accelerated motio n applies in the atomic world in order for us to grasp the nature of the atomic world.

16

So, just like we have applied the principle of non -inertia to explain the real -life performance of Newton’s bucket experiment, we would be applying this same principle from the body of post-modern physics to explain Newt on’s bucket experiment in the electrical universe or atomic world. Though it would be in a hypothetical sense, it would however convincingly complete our understanding of the universe on the basis of one of the simplest experiments of science. Now, let us look at the line diagram below which shows us the gravi -electrodynamic nature of the electrical universe.

The Line Diagram for Light and Gravity in the Electrical Universe

The centre point denoted as zero

(0) is the point of accelerated rest, and in the electrical

universe or the atomic world, the bucket and the water spin relative to accelerated rest, which, as said, has zero inertia. In the above diagram, light is the least horizontal re sistance to accelerated motion, and on the axis of light, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion. Also, in the above diagram, gravity is the least horizontal resistance to accelerated motion, and on the axis of gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion. I want you to understand that accelerated rest cons

ists of zero inertia on both axe s and it

underlyingly has the same essence on both axes in the electrical universe. Let’s outline the only essence of accelerated rest in the ponderable universe: 1. On the axis of both light and gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion. Now, when the bucket was spinning , it was spinning in a gravi -electrodynamic universe. It was attempting by only the absolute acceleration 𝑎 to offer lesser resistance to accelerated motion than light 𝑎𝑐 and gravity 𝑔. 17

So the water molecules in the electrical world would carry only one metaphysical quantity, which is the absolute acceleration 𝑎. In the electrical universe or the atomic world, the absolute acceleration 𝑎 is inextricably associated with both the accelerations of light and gravity and the non-sensation of inertia. To further reveal the principle, the pervasive non -sensation of inertia for the spinning bucket in the electrical universe is associated with the princi ple of non -inertia, and it must be stated that:  The non-sensation of inertia on both the axi s of light and the axis of gravity is related to the strong manifestation of the principle of non-inertia. The diagram below depicts the Newton’s bucket experiment in the electrical universe

or the

atomic world. In the electrical universe, because both light and gravity accelerate, the bucket can only be spun by either the action of light or the action of gravity (and not by a rope tied to the bucket, like in the ponderable universe). Now, for both cases, the water surface would remain flat. There is no condition in the electrical world whe re the water surface of Newton’s bucket experiment can become concave.

Newton's Bucket Experiment in the Electrical Universe

In fact, we can state in a manner understandable within the domain of relative science, that the spinning water and other electrical bodies in the electrical universe or the atomic world do not sense inertia because both light and gravity accelerate in the atomic world. 18

These two different outcomes of the Newton’s bucket experiment in the ponderable and electrical universes bring to you a profound understanding of the universe. To further clarify the post-modern position, let’s assume that you are performing the bucket experiment in your lab and the water surface becomes concave, you would think that it is concave in all the domains of the universe. This is wrong. What you have failed to realize is th at, in the atomic world , the water surface remains flat as the figure below shows.

Newton's Bucket Experiment in the Ponderable and Electrical Universes

This is why I have stated that the atomic world is governed by the strong phase of the principle of n on-inertia. There is never a condition where atomic or electrical bodies sense inertia, never. This is the true intuitive understanding of the atomic world that we have failed to grasp since the founding of quantum mechanics. Likewise, hypothetically, when you are performing the bucket experiment in your lab in the electrical universe and the water surface remains flat when the bucket spins due to the acceleration of light, you would think that the water surface is flat in all domains. This is wrong. What you have failed to realize is that in the ponderable universe or the macro world, the water surface is concave and not flat. These two different outcomes are importantly connected to the fact that light travels at a constant speed outside the atom, but ins ide the atom, light begins to accelerate. The concept

19

of the acceleration of light is beyond the scope of this book

, but I promise to discuss it

specially in an upcoming book. I really want you to become an adept of absolute science, and when you get your own copy of The Theory of the Universe, you will have a better understanding of this experiment of which certain aspects are beyond the scope of a single book. Thus, by co mparing the two descriptions of Newton’s bucket experiment for ponderable and electrical bodies respectively, one can have an intuitive grasp of the distinction between the non-atomic and atomic worlds.

SECTION VI Comparing the Classical and the Post-modern Interpretations of Newton’s Bucket Experiment It is obvious that , though the classical and pos t-modern interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment are different, they however seek to uphold the existence of absolute space. In this section, I want to explicitly point out how different the two interpretations are. While the modern interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experimen t, which is conceptualized as Mach’s principle, is more wrong than the classical interpretation, it is however very useful when we want to further understand the principle of universal equivalence.

In post -modern

physics, we see Mach’s principle as an early form of the universal equivalence principle. This will be coming up in a future book. Now, Newton asserted that inertia arises because accelerating bodies move relative to or against immovable space. This immovable space constitutes the rest frame in the classical interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment. But in post-modern physics, inertia arises because accelerating bodies move relative to accelerated rest as an absolute state of motion in itself. So, accelerated rest is the rest frame in the post-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment. Accelerated rest is absolute because it is a limit of inertia just like light and gravity. The zero proportion of inertia which constitutes accelerated rest is real in the universe. The inertia you sense when you accelerate is that relative to zero inertia which constitutes accelerated rest. 20

So, if inertia arises because bodies move, then absolute space must be movable and not immovable as Sir Isaac Newton had supposed. We have to understand this. There is no such thing as immovable absolute space, what exists is movable absolute space. It is in the realization of the movement or flow of absolute space and consequently of absolute time, when bodies move within the boundaries of the limit of inertia, that we find the new conceptual framework of absolute relativity. Now, like the classical int erpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment, post -modern physics informs us that in the ponderable universe and in the absence of other bodies in the universe, the surface of the spinning water would still be concave. And in an insightfully generalized manner, in the absenc e of other bodies in the universe, the spinning water would still carry inertia, regardless of whether the surface is flat or not, so long as the water spins. This is because a ll

The classical interpretation of the bucket experiment is founded on the philosophy of absolutism whereas the post-modern interpretation of the bucket experiment is founded on the new, overarching philosophy of absolute-relationism.

moving bodies carry inertia. Furthermore, the classical interpretation of the bucket experiment is founded on the philosophy of

absolutism

whereas

the

post -modern

interpretation of the bucket experiment is founded on the new, overarching philosophy of absolute-relationism. You have to recognize the distinction in the philosophical background of both interpretations. While we are familiar with the philosophy of absolutism

from

classical

physics,

the

philosophy of absolute -relationism is a new post-modern philosophy and it is a synthesis of the philosophy of absolutism of classical physics and the philosophy of relationism of

modern physics. So, post-modern physics is based on the overarching philosophy of absolute -relationism, and it is what serves as the philosophical basis of the presen

21

ted post -modern interpretation of

Newton’s bucket experiment, and the philosophy goes further to be the underlying philosophy of the long-sought theory of everything. The new philosophy of absolute -relationism is one of the major reasons why post

-modern

physics, as you may have seen, is different from classical and modern physics. We are looking at not just a new physics but also a new philosophy of the universe. So, as discussed, the classical and the post -modern interpretations of Newton’s bucket experiment are quite similar, but they take a different path on the meaning of absolute space and time and the origin of inertia.

SECTION VII Summary The importance of the Newton’s bucket experiment cannot be over -emphasized. The proper interpretation of this experiment lies at the heart of the true

understanding of the universe,

and t his book shows us the different interpretations of this experiment in classical physics, modern physics, and now in post-modern physics. The post-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment tells us something profound. It informs us that the Newton’ s bucket experiment is not cent red on the origin of inertia but the caus e of the sensation of inertia. This is because i

nertia is the cosmic substance of all

things, and even of motion, and it is as fundamental as absolute space and time themselves). And as aforestated, this alters the perspective by which we seek to interpret this experiment, and it reveals to us the all -importance of the principle of non -inertia, which is the newly discovered principle of accelerated motion. While we must appreciate the classical and modern interpretations of this experiment, we must realize that both interpretations lack an essential ingredient, which is the principle of non-inertia. Both interpretations sought to explain the experiences of accelerated motion without the accompanying core principle that governs accelerated frames. This is a wrong approach, and as

I have said, this situation is like attempting to explain

uniform motion without t he principle of inertia. Just consider how conceptually disastrous physics would be, and the current situation of physics proves this, because modern physics 22

has become un-insightfully complex and lost in math, and we have not made any headway in the funda mental understanding of the universe, until now, with the arrival of post

-modern

physics. Post-modern physics reveals to us that accelerated frames, and thus the outcome of the Newton’s bucket experiment are governed by the newly revealed principle of non-inertia. It summarily reveals that ponderable (non-charged) bodies in the non-atomic world are governed by the weak phase of the principle of

Electrical (charged) bodies like the electrons and the protons in the atomic world are governed by the strong phase of the principle of non-inertia, which is why in the electrical universe or the atomic world, the water surface for the Newton’s bucket experiment remains flat under all conditions.

non-inertia, which is why in the ponderable universe or non-atomic world, the water surface for the Newton’s bucket experiment becomes concave under certain conditions and under other certain conditions the water surface remains flat. And it reveals that electrical (charged) bodies , like the electrons and the protons in the atomic world, are governed by the strong phase of the principle of non-inertia, which is why in the electrical universe or the atomic world, the water

surface

for

the

Newton’s

bucket

experiment remains flat under a ll conditions. Understand this, for this is the

long-hidden

mystery of quantum mechanics. All these results emerge from the post -modern insight that accelerating bodies or frames move relative to accelerated rest, and not relative to either immovable absolute space according to

classical physics or other bodies in the universe according to modern physics. This is a very important understanding which has as its background the

overarching

philosophy of absolute relationism. I know this is an entirely new understanding of the bucket experiment and of the universe which is why I am here for you. Echa and Scie nce, which is

23

my official website, will assist you to not only understand this experiment but to also understand every other mystery of the universe. Finally, can we really conceptually exhaust this beautiful experiment? No, we cannot, and t ill the end of time, we shall discuss this simple and profound experiment, and we shall talk about it with this new understanding that post-modern physics reveals.

REFERENCES [1] Brian Greene, 2004. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality.

https://www.echaandscience.com/ 24