John T. Nordberg's theory...

C

curious45

Registered Member
What do mathematically and physics minded folks make of this guys theories?

The posits what he calls a "Ball-of-Light Particle Model", where rather than special relativity, he defines time = c (time and the speed of light are the same). General relativity is supposed to be covered by a "euclidean form of GR".

He claims to have unified all the forces.

He has a lot of video clip explainations.

There's an experiment which he claims his model experimentally predicts. (I cant post links)

I don't really have enough physics and math comprehension to understand it all, but on the surface, it does seem that making time = c would be mathematically equivilant to some of SR, and perhaps simpler?

Would love somebody with more knowledge and skill to give feedback on these ideas?
 
Yes, well.

I can say after quick look at his "theory" that it falls over at the first experimental test.
Since if gravity was a vector cross-product (of electric and magnetic "force" vectors), then wires would (appear to) get heavier as the current increases. This is not what we observe.
And a vector cross product can't possibly represent gravity in three or more dimensions. Can you see why?

Finally, trying to "extend" our notion of time so it becomes equivalent to the speed of light doesn't make sense either; speed is a change in distance over time (so time is "defined" inside speed or velocity). He's claiming that time is equal to change in distance divided by . . . time ?? It's self referential, so doesn't give a "new" definition at all, nor does it make any physical sense.
 
arfa brane said:
Yes, well.

I can say after quick look at his "theory" that it falls over at the first experimental test.
Since if gravity was a vector cross-product (of electric and magnetic "force" vectors), then wires would (appear to) get heavier as the current increases. This is not what we observe.
And a vector cross product can't possibly represent gravity in three or more dimensions. Can you see why?

Finally, trying to "extend" our notion of time so it becomes equivalent to the speed of light doesn't make sense either; speed is a change in distance over time (so time is "defined" inside speed or velocity). He's claiming that time is equal to change in distance divided by . . . time ?? It's self referential, so doesn't give a "new" definition at all, nor does it make any physical sense.
Click to expand...

Ill take your word for it that this is an implication, re gravity. I couldn't find much on people weighing electricity (especially high voltage where I suppose youd see the most difference, if this is true) except for this:

"However, you can weigh changes that act as indicators of electricity. In particular, you can insert two pieces of silver, two electrodes, into a solution of silver nitrate and weigh the pieces before and after arranging what we now call a `direct current' to flow, the weight of one electrode decreases and the other increases by the same amount."

Actually I cant see why a vector cross-product couldnt operate in three dimensions. Its a number that goes up, couldn't that be a spherical "wave" in effect like he describes?

So far as the time thing, as I understand it, he defines speed as distance traveled by the thing divided by the distance travelled by light.

Not that it makes conceptual sense to me, but then neither does most of theoretical physics.

BTW, does standard physics have an explaination for his sphere current magnetism experiment? (the magnetic current "reversing" etc)

Thats probably the aspect I am most interested in, as he presents that as "proof".
 
"However, you can weigh changes that act as indicators of electricity. In particular, you can insert two pieces of silver, two electrodes, into a solution of silver nitrate and weigh the pieces before and after arranging what we now call a `direct current' to flow, the weight of one electrode decreases and the other increases by the same amount."
Click to expand...
This isn't relevant to his claim that gravity is a vector cross product. It is relevant to the theory that ions in solution migrate under the influence of an electric field.

curious45 said:
Actually I cant see why a vector cross-product couldnt operate in three dimensions. Its a number that goes up, couldn't that be a spherical "wave" in effect like he describes?
Click to expand...
Of course a cross product 'operates' in three dimensions, unfortunately a cross product of vectors has one dimension.

As to any "proof", it would need to explain why wires with a current flowing through them don't get noticeably heavier (in fact they do get very slightly heavier but not because of cross products of electric and magnetic vectors)
 
Pete said:
Are you thinking of the dot product (scalar product)?
Click to expand...
No, the cross product is orthogonal, or normal, to the plane the two vectors lie on, and has the same dimension as each, namely one dimension.
 
arfa brane said:
No, the cross product is orthogonal, or normal, to the plane the two vectors lie on, and has the same dimension as each, namely one dimension.
Click to expand...

It can point in any direction in 3D space, and have any magnitude, so I don't see the problem?
 
Pete said:
It can point in any direction in 3D space, and have any magnitude, so I don't see the problem?
Click to expand...
I don't follow this. If you have two vectors in the plane and take their cross product, the result is another vector pointing in exactly one direction.

We got taught that cross products only make sense in three dimensions (fairly obvious), but then you find out that you can use them to find the distance from a point to a line, which is obviously two dimensions, go figure.
 
arfa brane said:
I don't follow this. If you have two vectors in the plane and take their cross product, the result is another vector pointing in exactly one direction.
Click to expand...
I may have misunderstood from the beginning
Is Nordberg's cross product supposed to represent the value of the gravitational field at a single location, or the whole field of a gravitating object?
 
Pete said:
I may have misunderstood from the beginning
Is Nordberg's cross product supposed to represent the value of the gravitational field at a single location, or the whole field of a gravitating object?
Click to expand...

Nobody knows. Not even him.
 
Pete said:
Is Nordberg's cross product supposed to represent the value of the gravitational field at a single location, or the whole field of a gravitating object?
Click to expand...
From what I've read in the link above, he's using the standard definition (is there another one?) by taking $$ \vec E \times \vec B $$.

Apparently the resulting one-dimensional vector represents gravity. This is unlikely since (the working version of) gravity is described by a tensor with 10 independent components. The only place gravity is one dimensional is where F = mg, which as we all know is a first order approximation.
"Everything is linear to first order" is a well known incantation physicists use to thwart higher order demons and spirits.
 
I think what he is trying to say (at least how i get it) is that the cross product of the E and B fields tangential to the surface of the sphere has a resulting G vector that always points towards the center. Remember that this is a sphere and not just a plane piece of paper. Look at it as you have a perfectly rounded onion. Now cut this onion into extremely thin horizontal slices (lets call these the E fields) then cut the onion into extremely thin vertical slices (lets call these the B fields). The Cross product of these then give a G field towards the center (like sticking a needle towards the center of the onion from any point on the outside). So any atom within the sphere of E and B fields will experience a G force towards the center. Its a pretty fascinating topic. I don't know if its true but at least he looks at fusion in a way that seem pretty logical ( i.e you have a fixed point, and you push or accelerate all atoms towards that point). Its the same thing a fusor does and the same thing our sun does. I have been thinking of ways to do such a thing myself, but no luck really. Which is why if he is right I personally believe it will bring us much closer to fusion energy.
 
Also according to his theory a wire is not expected to get heavier when current flows through it. Remember that the proposed G field will point towards the center of a wire, not downwards to the earth center. So if a current flows through a wire and creates B in a circular path around the wire, this then intersects with E and creates a G vector on the wire from all directions. The fact that G acts in all directions and towards the center will not cause the wire to get heavier. Instead it will just crush the wire (as John said). I'm not saying this guy is right I'm just saying he is actually making some sense. Remember he states that this is the basics of the Z pinch.. and we know that the Z pinch works
 
Question: Does resistance not suggest that the energy flowing through the wire has mass, which makes the wire heavier, when it flows through it?
 
John T. Nordberg has created countless Youtube vids with pseudo sicence, i woulndt waste my time on him even if i got paid to do so.
 
Engell79 said:
John T. Nordberg has created countless Youtube vids with pseudo sicence, i woulndt waste my time on him even if i got paid to do so.
Click to expand...
Ty for the reference.
But it does not answer my reasonable question from an objective mathematical viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
Yes, well.

I can say after quick look at his "theory" that it falls over at the first experimental test.
Since if gravity was a vector cross-product (of electric and magnetic "force" vectors), then wires would (appear to) get heavier as the current increases. This is not what we observe.
And a vector cross product can't possibly represent gravity in three or more dimensions. Can you see why?

Finally, trying to "extend" our notion of time so it becomes equivalent to the speed of light doesn't make sense either; speed is a change in distance over time (so time is "defined" inside speed or velocity). He's claiming that time is equal to change in distance divided by . . . time ?? It's self referential, so doesn't give a "new" definition at all, nor does it make any physical sense.
Click to expand...
"Self referential" is exactly what our definition of time is. How could you expect any different when the only meaning an equation can capture is a proportional relationship? When you get to the "root" of the proportional relationship that is time, you are still presented with the riddle of what is different between something traveling a linear path at c and something that may be undergoing quantum spin at speeds that are greater.

No proportional relationship (your math) can get any deeper into the meaning of time or the speed of light, no many how many math or physics PhDs you have.
 
danshawen said:
"Self referential" is exactly what our definition of time is. How could you expect any different when the only meaning an equation can capture is a proportional relationship? When you get to the "root" of the proportional relationship that is time, you are still presented with the riddle of what is different between something traveling a linear path at c and something that may be undergoing quantum spin at speeds that are greater.

No proportional relationship (your math) can get any deeper into the meaning of time or the speed of light, no many how many math or physics PhDs you have.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by getting "deeper" into the meaning of time or the speed of light? The point is that the universe functions with mathematical precision. That is the deterministic part of the Universe. It cannot not function mathematically, the mathematical function IS the fundamental essence of spacetime. There are no deeper concepts necessary.

But I disagree with the proposition that Time is self-referential. IMO, Time is change-referential.
 
Write4U said:
What do you mean by getting "deeper" into the meaning of time or the speed of light? The point is that the universe functions with mathematical precision. That is the deterministic part of the Universe. It cannot not function mathematically, the mathematical function IS the fundamental essence of spacetime. There are no deeper concepts necessary.

But I disagree with the proposition that Time is self-referential. IMO, Time is change-referential.
Click to expand...
Proportional relativistic change self-referential, yes.

It is true that no deeper concepts (other than proportional ones) are necessary to capture all that is relativity and its associated math. But as I repeatedly pointed out here before, relativity doesn't really "capture" the nature of the quantum spin flips of paired electrons, or the speed with which the process proceeds, any more than the nature (derivation of the) fudge factor for the universal gravitational constant G is completely "captured" by Newton's or Einstein's GR field equations. It is a constant in a proportional relationship. Where does it come from? Is no "deeper" concept, other than that suggested by proportional mathematics, "necessary"? Really?

If you have no concept of the temporal dependence of quantum entangled paired electron or photon spin flips, you don't understand the fundamental basis of time at all. The proportional relationship that is time literally depends on whichever energy transfer event(s) occurs faster, and despite what relativity tells us, it isn't the propagation of light.

Gödel tried telling us this about the nature of mathematical (proportional) reasoning. It's either incomplete because the description itself is incomplete, or inconsistent because your proportional view of things caused you to divide something by zero. Few really listened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top