3. Some 20th century Epistemology of Physics

Epistemology of Physics

Dedicated to the French shepherd , that during the second world  war , and while avoiding being noticed, he succeeded in planting a very large desert area in south France, with oak trees, that by the end of the war it had become a new living forest!

Dedicated also to Buckminster Fuller . I quote from the introduction of Guinea Pig B (his last manuscript) " I AM NOW CLOSE TO 88 and I am confident that the only thing important about me is that I am an average healthy human. I am also a living case history of a thoroughly documented, half-century, search-and-research project designed to discover what, if anything, an unknown, moneyless individual, with a dependent wife and newborn child, might be able to do effectively on behalf of all humanity that could not be accomplished by great nations, great religions or private enterprise, no matter how rich or powerfully armed."

"The Things to do are: the things that need doing, that you see need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be done. Then you will conceive your own way of doing that which needs to be done — that no one else has told you to do or how to do it. This will bring out the real you that often gets buried inside a character that has acquired a superficial array of behaviors induced or imposed by others on the individual. "Letter to "Micheal" (16 February 1970) Micheal was a 10 year old boy who had inquired in a letter as to whether Fuller was a "doer" or a "thinker".

I think that the link of his spirit and actions is precious in transcending all those that where created in nature and the science of physics during the 20th century, by  causes before during and after the world wars, but for  wars.

1) " On Special Relativity's  second Postulate  "  Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie ,Vol 9 , no 4 ,1984 . Co-author Dr. C.Tzanakis Lecturer at the University of Crete ,Greece Comments and Interpretation:

This paper is an analysis of the axioms of special relativity. It proves that some of the axioms of Einstein give as logical consequence the rest of the axioms. This paper was elaborated while the author was in a research visit at the University ULB in Brussels. It was Dr C. Tzanakis  that insisted in publishing it ,while Dr Kyritsis gave only the initial remark  that the uniformity of the speed of light inside a single system of reference was adequate to produce what Einstein was up to. Contrary to Dr Tzanakis, Dr Kyritsis does not share the belief of Einstein that the speed of light is "law of nature" that has to be invariant in all systems of reference. Einstein's conceptual approach does not represent  the ideas of Dr Kyritsis. As Dr Kyritsis sees it, at present, the light is a wave of the electromagnetised field-gas that is not purely mechanical andfollows the speed of its source as far as the source applies drag forces to the surrounding field-gas and makes it follow it. A whole area in fluid dynamics studies the flow of a fluid, past by a body. The misunderstanding in the history of physics followed three phases. At first it started as light  was falsely identified with the compression wave of the neutral Field-gas (at that time called aether) which is a purely mechanical wave. This does not have nevertheless so much grave consequences as the two types of waves, the purely mechanical compression waves and the light waves, although of different nature, have the same speed. Second and mainly  it was falsely thought that   the  aberration of light that we observe (which is in the same direction of motion of the receiver) cannot occur if the receiver applies drag forces to the field-gas medium of propagation of light and makes it follow it at some area around it .This is not so!  Any attempt to prove that the aberration would be impossible while the moving receiver applies drag forces to the field-gas surrounding the receiver, would contain either wrong arguments or misconceptions. Neither Poincare neither Lorentz did insist hat the aberration would be incompatible with an aether carried away by the planets motions like an atmosphere around it. They only remarked that it would be difficult to explain  it in detail. The aberration  does occur , although the light has  curvilinear light paths due to refraction and drag forces from field-gas (or field matter or aether). Aberration  is not annihilated by   the fact that the receiver may apply drag forces to the surrounding medium field-gas and take it with it, or because of refraction on the atmosphere, as far as it holds that at sufficient larger distance of the receiver, the medium  field-gas is not influenced my the motion of the receiver. Of course a whole range of velocities occur,  from a point of the field-gas that that has zero relative speed to the receiver, ( at the receiver) ,to a point of the field-gas that is sufficient away not to be influenced by the motion of the receiver. To see why aberration occurs in spite the fact that the field-gas follows the planet and its atmosphere we may make the artificial assumption that the field-gas follows the atmosphere till some height h0 and then it does not at all. We may calculate aberration at height h0  , and no aberration in lower heights. The total results is of course existence of aberration. The reality differs from this artificial black-and-white situation in to that the passage from the states "the field-gas follows the atmosphere and planet's motion" and "the field-gas does not follow the motion of the planet" is a whole spectrum of intermediate states. All that it takes for the aberration to occur  is a)  that there is an external area of the medium of propagation field-gas that it is not influenced by the motion of the receiver where we assume the source of the light placed and b) that the receiver is moving relative to the source. Of course the aberration path of the light is curvilinear! (not because of gravitation! Neither in the sense of Newton neither in the sense of Einstein's general relativity! But due both to refraction and drag forces of the earth both on the atmosphere and on the field-gas (or aether or field-matter)). 

Both facts

a) that`, at the round table of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the field-gas follows the motion of the source of the light,( and in fact it could be for many thousands of kilometers above the surface of the planet as the atmosphere puts also a drag force to the field-gas)

 b)  that the aberration could still hold,  if outside the planet's atmosphere the field-gas does not follow the motion of the planet ,

both these facts had been suggested by Lorenz himself (for b) Lorenz rightly remarked that it is little more difficult to analyze because of the curvilinear line of the light path) and silently supported by Poincare and others. But Einstein hushed to publish his conceptions before Lorenz and Poincare could explain also the increase on the inertia of particles, due to their motion. (And this is how the third misunderstanding occurred, after the publications of Einstein).

  Thus the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments and the experiments on aberration of light of distant starts are perfectly consistent between them without the need of Einstein's conceptions.  This by no means requires any abandoning of the Galileo's relativity transformations neither proves the necessity of introducing Einstein's special relativity and replacement of Galileo's transformations with Lorenz transformations. Neither in fact is relevant with any concept of formulation of physical laws in any system of reference. It is plainly obvious that any laws could be transformed and stated in any system of  reference but also obvious that only in some system of references the laws are simple, easy to observe and understand. Such a bold and general relativity conception is both not useful, and not a source of any kind of laws in Physics, because a very important the point is what transformations are to be considered. Sciences and societies are evolving, and misconceptions must be corrected and transcended. Einstein's misconceptions still have their influential regime in theoretical physics, but as I believe their so much honored place in physics is only that they played the role of a safe brake, in the further evolution of physics, at a century full of bloody, wars, crimes and terrorism. As far as such a spirit reigns in the societies there is no true hope, that physics can really evolve in to a more rational with transparent logic, peaceful practice.

    What Lorenz and Poincare did not explained, (the third misunderstanding) in other words, the increase of inertia because of the motion, is still explainable and derivable within Galilean relativity in the following way, as I suggest. All that is required is:

a) To make the assumption that increase of  the inertia of the bodies due to motion, comes from the  total resistance in their flow inside  the material layer of the field-gas. 

b) That the motion of the particles is constrained by the field-gas so that at every state of the motion the relation of non-following the motion  surrounding field-gas  and the part of the  field-gas which follows the particle, is such that can be described by a transformation that leaves invariant the speed and rectilinear propagation of compression (or light)  waves in the field-gas.

c) Furthermore, we  assume a mathematical property of the coupling of a particle with the ambient field-gas , that is in conformance to the transformations in b)  and gives the familiar formula of the increase of the inertia of the particle. This would  then be an additional independent hypothesis , derived by experiments but not in contradiction with Galilean relativity.

Although it would be possible to make a detail model of the microstructure of the interplay of the particle with the field-gas that would give the required consequence with less  assumptions, as the interest here is not to analyze phenomena of the micro-world but  to account for their macroscopic effects, what is adequate, is to prove only that such phenomena do not require the abandoning of the Galilean relativity, neither are equivalent with Einstein's special  relativity.

The three conditions obviously define a special type of coupling of the particle and the field gas. It is undergraduate university physics exercise to prove that the group of transformations in a gas that leaves invariant the rectilinear compression waves propagation (in other words the group of automorphisms of the D' Alemberts hyperbolic 2nd order wave equation) is exactly the group of Lorenz transformations.

It is said sometimes that Einstein's approach is equivalent with the aether explanation. It is not true. It is far from equivalent (e.g. with aether explanations as above , the speed of light is not a universal constant ,and it does not have an upper bound of 300.000 km/sec, in the same way that the speed of sound does not have any universal  upper bound of 340 m/sec).

As the age of Galileo remained in history the age in which, the  established knowledge believed that the earth is not moving and is square, or the 19th century as the century that  (created and)  rejected the atomic theories of matter, and favored and honored and accepted only the theory of phases of chemical matter, we might say that 20th century might remain in the history as the century in which it was accepted and  physicists believed, that nothing can travel faster than 300,000 km/sec and was abandoned the principle of sufficient physical causes for all microphysical phenomena at the scale of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Although still at present (2002) a majority of academic scientists still believe so, we cannot but make some humor, and jokes about it. The celebrated photo of A. Einstein with his tongue outside, may acquire a different meaning from the usual  , of  a farce with these conceptions, to all directions , including to the bearer of the face in the photo! Sometimes the trees hide the forest, and the funny situation can be seen only from a long distance from the present physics, or even from a far distance of some of the orientations of the present dominating societies. The tale  of the Emperor's cloths is a good wise metaphor. Only that contrary to the interpretation that some hush to use in a converse way, and obscure the situation,   (like R. Penrose) , the revealing interpretations is that the "relativistic space-time" and the "quantum vacuum" are the Emperor's celebrated cloths, that in reality, do not exist. And everybody admires and honors, these cloths (the "curved space-time" and the "quantum vacuum" ) except one day , even a young new student that spends more time in the internet than reading,  fat black volumes about Gravitation, could make us wake-up. Let us hope that new wars, shall not postpone very far in the future that day. Although I find it useful and safe to replace the "curved space-time" theories , with a more standard classical field theory of gravitation, with new potentials, and equations, that integrates both Newton's universal attraction, and corrects Einstein's gravitation within Galilean relativity, I do not find it neither useful, neither, appropriate for the time being, to change anything, from the axioms, and standard formulations of Quantum Mechanics. And this is not a physical theory preference but rather a preference of social situations .

I once thought of writing a small humoristic tale, of blind "bat-men" that measure space distance with sound signals, and create a relativistic space-time theory with Lorenz-transformations in the place of Galileo's, when they discover, that the sound on an experimental table, inside a moving airplane, has the same speed in all directions, and in particular both vertical and parallel to the direction of motion of the airplane, while at the same time they were still observing a "sound-aberration" from sounds outside the airplane.

It is direct from these, that the extra energy and momentum absorbed by the particle to bring it to some speed compared to its rest mass, is given to the field-gas close to  the particle that follows it. A phenomenon similar to the well-known phenomenon of added-mass in fluid dynamics , which has the equivalent phenomenological effect as if of an increase of the mass of the particle.

We get also as a consequence that if we represent the effective volume of a particle as a ball at the state of rest, at the state of motion  it becomes an ellipsoid contracted in the direction of motion! And that any  standing waves, in the effective volume, acquire a slower period. 

  These contraction results had already suggested and published by Lorenz himself (in his paper "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity less than that of light" Proceedings of the Academy of sciences if Amsterdam, 6, 1904 ). It is obvious that although these results have the same mathematical  formulas as  the Einstein's concepts of space contraction and time expansion, they are conceptually totally different, as the former are derived within classical Galilean relativity and may lead to different predictions.

We should also notice that it would not be surprising at all, that new experiments on the inertial motion of laboratory size bodies, would give totally new types of coupling of particles and the field-gas when the motion is not simple rectilinear but rotational or under other specific conditions. Thus it could turn out that the dependence of inertial on various parameters, including the speed and type of motion, is something on which we may very well know very little! There are celebrated experiments, at least since the decade of 1980 that prove such phenomena (e.g. The Aspden gyroscope effect [University of Southampton], Hayasaka-Takeuchi experiment, British Aerospace experiments, etc)

 It is also impressive to notice, the irony in the development of ideas in physics as the earlier supporters of the idea of aether (that started from ancient Greece  that gave the Greek word aether, then claimed by  Newton ,later  by  Laplace , Euler , Maxwell, Thompson , Lorenz , Dirac [see [Dirac P.A.M.] etc) were rejected by the physics of the 19th century on the ground of arguments that also include the the next  (see Sir E. Whittaker's book "A  history of the theories of Aether and Electricity"  Philosophical Library NY.) :

"  a) If aether ideas were true, then they would lead to the consequence that for the moving bodies we would have an observed increase in their inertia ,

b)  and as everybody knows this has never been observed (it was 19 century University physics at that time!)

c) we conclude  that aether cannot exists"

  If only Lorenz or Poincare had fallen upon the right hypotheses of coupling of the particles with the field-gas (Electromagnetised field-gas or electromagnetic field, if they are electrons or protons) and derive its increase of inertia, the whole landscape of 20th century physics would be different as far as the conceptions of space-time and Einstein's relativity is concerned!

Dr C. Kyritsis  in a new work (see papers below),  proves in full detail all the above and  shows that with the Galileo's or Newton's relativity and assumptions about the nature of coupling of material particles  with the (neutral) field-gas, we may derive the same formulae as of Einstein, but with a totally different physical and conceptual interpretation,  in addition to the anticipation of new physical phenomena not possible in Einstein's physics.( Like, for instance, the possibility to have speeds much higher than (approximately) 300.000 km/sec, for light and bodies, or the existence of the neutral compression waves of the field-gas that is not light and propagates with the speed of light.) The Lorentz transformations come as automorphisms of the calssical D'Alembert's wave equation (applicable also for sound waves) and the speed of light is not any universal constant neither puts any upper maximum limit in the motion of particles (or photons themselves). Even if we postulate a kind of coupling of particles with the field-gas of the previous type , that can give velocities less that that of light, there is no limit in the possible speed of the particle as we can consider a sufficient large finite volume of field-gas that  surrounds the particle and follows it, so that the particle has always relative speed from zero to finite and  less than that of light, while this finite volume itself  may have speed faster than that of light, relative to the rest of surrounding field-gas. We may have an analogy of a human that can always stand relative speed to its surrounding air, which is  not more than the speed of sound, while still he can travel faster than the sound! He only have to get in to a supersonic airplane, and still he shall have speed relative to the airplane cabins air, less than that of the sound. And the sound of his voice, would have, to an outside observer, speed higher than that of the sound.  And so is with light and photons too. (Galilean addition of velocities).

    Fundamental Physics still can be as simple as Galilean relativity and there is no need to obscure it! And also we can still  make use of flat space and an independent time, even though the light ray paths may follow a curvilinear motion (due to aberration or Newtonian or other gravitation) . Not only because one day we may discover other means to measure space, than light rays, but also because Physics  had decided that whenever we discover a cause that influence the measuring devices, we should not assign it as a space curving but as an influence to the measuring device, that has to be abstracted to find the right strait distance. This is how the temperature expansion of material rulers and consequent clocks timing changes, was treated, when it was discovered. They did not claim a space or time expansion or contraction, but only such of the measuring device. And by correcting the measurement we get the result. And so is the case with the influence of the aberration or gravitation to the light rays. The argument that any measurement of distance with light rays cannot avoid curvilinear light paths is not different to an argument that would say that any distance measurement would eventually refer to a material instrument (even that reading the light) and in any such instrument we cannot avoid temperature expansion or contraction, too! But it was long ago the choice of physics that, (and  there are significant advantages of this choice), that this is not a reason not to define the space as flat Euclidean, independent from temperature , aberration , gravitation or other parameter.

Once it is realized, that there is an influence of the motion of a body thought the field-gas not only on light at the light aberration, but on any other body immersed in it , then it is easy to understand that classical Newtonian attraction should be supplemented with  this interaction. It is a kind of, so to say "kinetic interaction" or "flow interaction", [and with a  very well known analogue in material gas dynamics as the drag force or pressure of the gas on the bodies], that in the non-established physics has been often called "antigravity".   There are also experiments, at least since the decade of 1980 that prove similar effects (e.g. The Aspden gyroscope effect [University of Southampton] , Hayasaka-Takeuchi experiment, British Aerospace experiments, etc. For some reasons nevertheless it has not given to then the appropriate publicity, with elaborate and  quantitative reports on them.)

It is important to realize that this interaction is not really included in Einstein's general relativistic gravitation! 

The first to realize the existence of this interaction , was Laplace. (See Sir Whittaker's book mentioned above). He suggested that as planets move in the Newtonian aether, the flow that they create should intervene with the Newtonian universal attraction. It can be said that Laplace was one of the first to anticipate the existence of , what, as I mentioned, is often called, today, "antigravity". But at that time the corrections to the main planets that had been discovered  where almost negligible. It is plausible that the planet that would require a more significant correction than the others in the Newtonian model of motion because of universal attraction , would be the one closest to the sun,  because of the rotation of the sun , the motion of the sun inside the Galaxy , because of the large the size of the sun and the small size of the planet. So it is no a surprise that it was long ago known that Mercury did indeed showed some "anomalies" or "precessions" in its orbit compared to the Newtonian dynamic predictions, compared to  the other planets. One should expect of course that a correct formulation of both the "kinetic" and universal attraction, interactions should give a prediction of Mercury's orbit much more exact than those derived by Einstein and his gravitation. It is has been published at least informally,  by NASA that some "anomalies" in the dynamics of the satellites have been indeed observed, that cannot be accounted neither by Newtonian or by Einsteinian gravitation. There are also more experiments (that can be easily found in the Internet) than the  experiments on the  Aspden gyroscope effect [University of Southampton] , Hayasaka-Takeuchi experiments, and British Aerospace experiments , and the NASA experiments, that confirm deviation on the predictions of the dynamics and inertia of bodies  from, not only in the classical Newtonian theory but also from  the predictions of Einstein's theories.

    In the light of the above correct accounting of the Michelson-Morley experiment (which is not that given by Einstein and his special and general relativity) and  the aberration of light, and the, above mentioned, new experiments on the inertia of bodies, it should be considered that there are already sufficient many  laboratory experiments (neither astronomical, neither microphysical or of quantum physics) that reject both special and general relativity! On the other hand, almost all of the experimentally established formulas of special relativity are also derived in the above Galilean approach. 

Furthermore the paradox that classical Maxwell  electromagnetism is not invariant to Galilean transformations, is also solvable by the true reason: The correct equations of electrodynamics are not linear but non-linear and different of the original of Maxwell, and derived from the equations of energy conservation and momentum conservation of fluids, and in this case, gasses. Equations of fluids are of course Galilean Invariant. This is a totally different approach compared to that of the Einstein's solution and non-linearization of Maxwell Electromagnetism.

It also true, nevertheless, that for some reasons  it has not given to these discoveries, the appropriate publicity, with elaborate and  quantitative reports on them. So it is not surprising that the majority of academic researchers that make a career with publications in relativity physics, have not fallen upon their scarce publications and seem not to be  aware of them. Maybe there are also other reasons related to war-oriented monopoly of applications  that are not easy to realize that have kept these discoveries unknown to the academic public.

    We may notice here how a little wrong turn in the history of theories, may have such severe limitations in our understanding of the world in our spirit and shape our beliefs for a whole century. It is not of course the first time in the history of the civilization. During the time of Galileo, all of the well-established physics believed that the earth is not moving and is square, and till the end of the 19 century all the theories of the atomic structure of matter, were rejected and discredited. At least we improve a little bit. We cannot easily deal with such phenomena without the appropriate humor.  We  may observe that at each new century the new misconceptions become  subtler and subtler!

The next two papers have as a goal,  not so much to make new inventions even peaceful, but to present the right direction in the lines of thought, that we should follow so as to transcend present physics misconceptions. This process of course is parallel too, with  transcending and avoiding wrong directions of applications. We have chosen to  keep as far as possible a very long term perspective, that includes more than one century of physics, so as to avoid some of the present  celebrated mind traps.
But before reading them, two quotes from Buckminster Fuller 
1) from his work synergetics :  The wellspring of reality, Introduction " We are in an age that assumes the narrowing trends of specialization to be logical, natural, and desirable. Consequently, society expects all earnestly responsible communication to be crisply brief. Advancing science has now discovered that all the known cases of biological extinction have been caused by overspecialization, whose concentration of only selected genes sacrifices general adaptability. Thus the specialist's brief for pinpointing brevity is dubious. In the meantime, humanity has been deprived of comprehensive understanding. Specialization has bred feelings of isolation, futility, and confusion in individuals. It has also resulted in the individual's leaving responsibility for thinking and social action to others. Specialization breeds biases that ultimately aggregate as international and ideological discord, which, in turn, leads to war.
There is an inherently minimum set of essential concepts and current information, cognizance of which could lead to our operating our planet Earth to the lasting satisfaction and health of all humanity. ."
2) from his work "Only Integrity is Going to Count (1983) "
" The question of integrity will get finer and finer and more delicate and more beautiful"..."Integrity of the individual is what we are being judged for and if we are not passing that examination, we don't really have the guts, we'll blow ourselves up"

There is a natural and admirable continuation of the science of physics that will permit humanity to fly free and integrate the earthly civilization with the other civilizations of the galaxy. And for the part of humanity that prefers to stay on earth a meaningful system of intellectual creative scientific and aesthetic knowledge and practice  that together with sufficient emotional intelligence , wisdom of power, instinct of measure , beauty, truth, health, satisfaction and excellence, goodness, justice and abundance of resources can lead to a happy and prosperous human life on earth in harmony with nature and  invisible divinity. It may be thought that the suggested continuation of physics and related technology would be a kind of reaction to a possible hostile alien threat.  But the truth is that a technology of  vehicles that travel fast and easy inside and outside the planet (in fact outside the solar system too) is something that would elevate the intellectual and spiritual quality of earthly human beings and would make them become more friendly to the planet and its ecological environment. And a physical laws and technology knowledge that can extract abundant energy from the gravitational potential energy of the planet and the sun, is something that will reduce reasons for interior wars and terrorism in the planet , between "rich" societies that "have" and "know" and "poor" societies that "have not" and "know not" .

The next research papers, are within the idea that there is a simpler, healthier and closer to truth system of concepts that continuous the human scientific knowledge of physics among the centuries , which discovers a source of energy by far more powerful than nuclear power. This new form of energy is confined only to non-destructive peaceful applications. E.g.  transportation and energy consumption, as contrasted to extinction of life on all the planet or parts of it, by nuclear power. In addition the required technological and engineering effort is a lot less compared to nuclear reactors, and its source is as abundant and omni-positioned as the potential energy of the gravitational field of earth and sun. Still the critical point in understanding both the mathematics and physics of it,  as well as its social and economic advantages compared to older forms of energy (like nuclear power) is entirely on the metaphysical quality and integrity of each individual.  The previous are no doubt the privilege of only sufficient advanced both in spirit, soul , mind and emotions civilizations. Any lack of the previous qualities would condemn the informed , to skip the read text, as "not sufficiently experimentally proved", "an other wacky and lunatic bunch of craps" or "speculative bubbles" , which is precisely a good protection for the content of the scientific and social truth. The knowledge of the world does not open unless we have sufficient knowledge of ourselves, sufficient integrity, personal truth  and knowledge of our motives. It is the type of self-awareness in our individuality both in its physical and metaphysical nature that creates an almost  sadomasochistic individuality and thus also a nuclear suicidal  world, and prohibits us from realizing what is plain obvious and true in the physical reality we look. Let us not forget that for centuries , "clever" people were looking at the sky, and the morning and evening sun, but still they did not realize the obvious that it was the earth that was revolving around the sun , and not the sun around the earth.

2) Classical Galilean relativistic hypotheses about inertia that derive the experimental results of Michelson-Morley , and  the light aberration. (1998-2002)

3) The Lancaster Lecture (1998)
(The same paper as Word Document)
(The same paper as PDF Document)
For more recent discussions relevant to new magnetic renewable energy (free energy) devices and an informal  review of the above paper as the 12 laws of the new millennium physics see 
the forum posts in the links 
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9297.0
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9253.0
I put here also a quite informal review of new principles and laws in the Physics of the new millennium without equations and formulae.
The 12 laws of the new millennium physics

4) Social, Ecological, and Engineering advantages of renewable forms of energy, directly from the sun, from daily changes of environmental temperature of water, from the heat internal energy of atmosphere,  from the wind and from sea waves and tides. Relation with the hydrogen energy model. (2003).

In this paper we explore the possibilities, advantages and disadvantages of renewable forms of energy. Among them a most remarkable source of almost inexhaustible energy, and  we have not been used to think about it, is the extraction of the (thermal)  internal  energy, of air, by conversion it in to mechanical kinetic energy. The  dynamics and thermodynamics of it, resample the way that atmosphere creates in a natural way, wind from heat energy of the air. The atmosphere can be considered a natural and random, vast aerodynamic generator. The effect is more clear in  the winds of larger planets like Jupiter. The anticyclones, are a clear example where heat internal energy of the atmosphere is converted to macroscopic kinetic energy. When a bottle of air is expanded, the temperature drops, and some of the heat internal energy of the air is converted to macroscopic kinetic energy, that can produce work. This is simply one of the 4 phases in the Carnot cycle. Although it may seem that the entropy decreases, in the overall it increases. To design aerodynamic generators, that can convert the heat internal energy of the air , in to mechanical kinetic in a controlled way is not simple neither trivial. As far as I know there is only one application for patent of such a generator, by an Australian inventor. His machine is based on rotation. The number of rotations per minute required to reach a level of power so that the produced energy can cover the required initial input energy to start the machine, is quite high. Such machines seems that can only function at a quite high level of power, and cannot be small in size, and power. In addition , they must have regulators that after a number of rotations per minute must stop for further increase, so as not to have an explosive increase of energy production. A good one would require most of what we know about  mechanical engineering , and aerodynamics. A square meter of air contains 1674.8 *10⁶    Joule (almost 465 kw-hr) of internal energy and there are 5.18* 10¹⁸ kgr of air in the planet's atmosphere! Although in meteorology this energy per square meter, is considered not all "available" in a natural way, a good machine can extract an adequate percentage of it.  We all know that the average temperature of the planet's atmosphere is increasing because of trapping of the input sun's energy. Such an energy model, counteracts, although in a very small scale, this effect. In addition this source of energy is safe, without pollution, or CO₂ ,abundant, renewable, and almost equally distributed  on the planet. To develop such generators is  required not only a group of good physicists, but also a group of good engineers, and sponsors too. The extracted energy can be converted from mechanical to electric by electric generators, and therefore can be used for electrolysis of water to oxygen and hydrogen. In this way we can obtain also hydrogen from water, and combine this energy model with thehydrogen energy model.

5) The Layers approach in the epistemology of the theories in Physics.(1995-2002).Although the 7-layers approach is  usually applied in Business and Computer Science (OSI, Open Systems Interconnection View), it has valuable implications in the mutual organization of theories in  mathematics and physics.

The 7-Layers approach in the epistemology of the theories in  Physics.

Although the 7-layers approach is  usually applied in Business and Computer Science (OSI, Open Systems Interconnection View), it has valuable implications in mathematics and physics , not so much as the number 7 is concerned, which here is used as  memorization easiness, but as far as the layering of theories is concerned by modeling and interpretation, which is a much deeper concept.

As these are  epistemological considerations and as far as the required experiments and their quantitative results are  not  published by the experimentalists , it would not  be possible to do anything better. At least we get the right logical possibilities as a natural continuation of the history of physics in the last 4 centuries or more, and we get, I believe,  the right direction for future developments.

As in business we pass from the age of selling what we can produce to the age of producing what we can sell, we should pass in physics from the age of applying what we can discover to the age of discovering what we can apply at least for the benefit of the human being and all societies in the planet. 

Scientists should think first a lot together with other social groups about what would be the impact of possible discoveries , in relation of the usual practices of societies within possible laws, before they would proceed to discover anything in new directions. I think a characteristic example is the complications  with the technology of cloning in biology.

Sometimes it is admired  how  some ancient Greek thinkers and philosophers like Democritus could anticipate the atomic nature of matter so many centuries before the 19th and 20th century that it is consider that  proved it experimentally . The answer is simple. It is because of free spirit, pure and unbiased mind and many thought experiments and thought simulations.

This is the method that I used also from1995 till now. Many though experiments that would screen out the most probable cases  and finally would result to a mathematical proof. I started my research with a leading premise. that the answer should be  just there, already solved but not realised that it is so, in the network of the physical arguments from the time of Newton till now. It should be like a long distressing search  for ones glasses till he realizes that he is wearing them. The result is that for the first time after the time of Newton, we are in a position to answer the question:  What is gravitation ,and why the universal attraction is as the inverse square of the distance?

We may make the issue if it is  necessary  to formulate the new modeling of the classical fields , with new mathematics. In fact we should need new mathematics, that would be time and space resolution-sensitive. E.g. resolution-sensitive differential calculus. But I follow here the same method that Newton used to publish his new physics. He published his laws of nature within the classical Euclidean geometry, that were  mathematics that everybody new, although he developed the new mathematics (the calculus) in separate work. In the same way it is given a formulation of this physics within classical differential calculus of fluid dynamics, while the really appropriate would be a new resolution sensitive differential calculus.

It seems that  the more the cognitive limitations of the theory, the easier is  the excuse to practice experiments where it would not be realized what really  is happening.  The objective therefore is to try to  proceed in physics by repeating as little as possible the mistakes of the 20th century and refraining from falling in to new or worse. The most of the  difficulty with this is that this may also depend significantly on social groups and directions totally different from the scientific community.

The concepts of layers or levels etc although today widespread in the social sciences , were for the first time indirectly introduced in mathematics during the beginning of the 20th century, in their Logical version  by B. Russell and Hilbert with their higher order or multi-level formal logic, or we may say in the ontological version by Cantor with his nested sets.

As in the case of mathematical theories the successive relation of the theories of an epistemological  layer to its previous is that the next layer has an interpretation and has a model in the previous layer. The epistemological layers of the theories of physics are not the layers of the material physical reality (like for instance that ,a group of stars and planets, a glass of water, or the electromagnetic field of a coil are of different material layer and scale).

 The epistemological Layers of physics do not always correspond to the historical order of their development. Their historic order is rearranged to correspond rather to logical order of deductions.

The 7-Layers are:

1) E-Layer 1. A logically simplified deterministic dynamic system of particles, with  laws of evolution simple and clear but with only initial concept that of action. Even the concept of inertial, momentum and energy are  derivable , non-initial concepts.

2) E-Layer 2. The elementary Newtonian deterministic kinematics and dynamics of a finite system of particles with themomentum and energy conservation.

3) E-Layer 3. Classical Langrangian and Hamiltonian (canonical) deterministic mechanics stated for systems of particles.

4) E-Layer 4. Classical Statistical Mechanics. From this layer and the next the probability and indeterminism is inherent in the physical systems. In this layer the motion of a system of particles is deterministic with only mutual interaction the collisions (deterministic propagation stochastic process) and the  only indeterminism  is for  the initial conditions. At each  time step the momentum and energy of system is strictly conserved. (Although at the initial conditions we may have a probability distribution of momentum and energy). The deterministic propagation in such systems is describable with dynamics of layer 3.

5)  E-Layer 5. Classical Fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems. Their physical properties are described by quantities that can be derived also not only by experimental measurements but also by statistical and stochastic quantities of the previous non-observable (with simple laboratory instruments) layer. 

6) E-Layer 6. 20th century Wave or Quantum (statistical) Mechanics. In such stochastic process (that are of non-deterministic propagation) the motion of each particle is not determined by the collisions or interactions with the other particles. There are spontaneous change of the direction and energy of the  motion, beyond its interaction or collisions with the other particles. The momentum and energy are not strictly conserved but only in the average. If we insist to ignore the source of the causes of these changes and include as existing only the particles of the system, (as it was standard during the 20th century, in the  Copenhagen Interpretation)  then (as  von Neumann remarked see [1] ) we must"abandon the principle of sufficient physical cause". In the average values the stochastic dynamics of such systems are describable with mechanics of layer 3. If the  constant of action h which determines the variance of the non-deterministic evolution of the system, tends to zero, such systems converge to deterministic evolution systems like those of the system 3 (Bohr's  principle of "correspondence" or convergence to classical (statistical) mechanics systems.) (Notice that the celebrated criticism in micro-physics of formulating laws  only on observable, magnitudes, is asevere phenomenology, that history has shown, that must not be followed for ever, if we must make meaningful advancements. E.g. the paper of A. Einstein on Brownian motion, that is supposed that it proved the atomic structure of mater, and gave him the Nobel price, has a large part of arguments on quantities and physics on them that were not observable, as only Brownian motion was observable at that time. The same with large parts of statistical mechanics of gases. What is non-observable may become observable as technology evolves)

7) E-Layer 7. It includes the classical or non-classical theories of the universal attraction, gravitation fields , electromagnetic fields etc.

Comments and Interpretation.

1)The analysis of  conceptual and logical interdependence of the various layers measures our advancement in the science of physics and our abilities to understand nature and the world.

2) Layer 1 has never really been developed, and I included it here for reasons of logical clarity and intention to describe it with full logical details in other pages. It is supposed in this layer that the concept of inertia and mass is  not an initial concept, but rather derivable by the mutual action relations in pairs of all particles relative to a standard one. So it is a property depending on the environment system of particles or material layer, for each particle. Also the concepts of momentum and energy and their conservation are derivable from the concept of action (In the usual way: the momentum as rate of "spacialized" action, and the energy as rate of "temporalised"  action. Inertia may be derived as a form of stability of uniform action in space and time).

3) Layer 3 for a system of particles with collisions is derivable from layer 2 . Equivalently, layer 3 has a model theoretic interpretation in the layer 2.

4) Layer 4 is also derivable from layer  3 , or layer 4 has a model in the layer 3 in the standard way. The new element is the probability on the initial conditions.

5) Layer 5 is derivable from layer 4, or layer 5 has a model in the layer 4. The details of this is mainly the work of the atomists of the 19th century that were rejected and discredited during almost all of the 19th century. This derivation is quite laborious and complicated, and  for the first time we model logically and statistically how nature (or human experience of nature) derives the continuous (fluids like water air etc) from the discrete (particles interacting with collisions and following Newton's laws). It seems to me that mathematics has also to gain from this derivation for new logical models of the construction of the continuum from the discrete in such a way that only finite or countable and computable sets are used. This is the content of an other part of work on the mathematical infinite. Although the mathematical and statistical arguments of these derivations had been published during the 19th century, the physicist of that time did not adopt them. I assume that arguments like "Show me an atom or an experiments that shall force me to accept the existence of atoms" where prevailing. Of course no-one would be able to see or observe directly an atom at that century. The very quantities that statistical mechanics was deducing as probabilistic average magnitudes of particle dynamics , like pressure or temperature etc, were so directly experimentally measurable, that most of the physicists of that time would not understand why they would have to consider them so "abstractly" as layer 4 gave , instead of directly given by palpable human experience of natural phenomena in the laboratory. The main opponent of the atomists of the 19th century was the theory of "the phases of matter" that was put to explain all the experiments that the atomists would resort to support their theories. We may parallel their attitude with the ancient attitude in the Euclidean geometry where a line is assumed a initial concept-object , as contrasted to the line after the arithmetisation  of Cartesius  with coordinates in analytic geometry and the construction of the real numbers from the natural numbers by Cauchy , Dedekind etc.

Finally  by the end of the 19th century and mainly at the beginning of the 20th century, some experiments were considered hard-facts for the proof of the existence of atoms. The irony in the history of the theories in physics ,is that these experiments were already available and well-known during almost all of the 19th century. For example the derivation of the Brownian Motion (or diffusion) by discrete systems of particles in 1905 (By Einstein ,which gave him his Nobel price!), referred to an experiment known since 1820! So the scientific community was familiar with  the basic experiment that established the atomic theories in physics, for 85 years, without realizing that this was the proof of the theories of atomic structure of matter that it rejected. We can make similar remarks about the classical law of integer proportions of volumes of reacting gasses in chemistry.

6) Once the world of electrons, protons and neutrons is established in the consciousness of the physicists, at the beginning of the 20th century, it is observed a remarkable overemphasis in exactly what was rejected hitherto (the atoms, the protons, the electrons, the neutrons). At the same time  a retreat of the beliefs about physical reality in to a reality that consists only from  the previous permanent particles. For example while since the time of Newton, (and introduced by Newton) , it was accepted the existence of a material medium for the propagation of light and universal attraction [(that filled the space between the sun and the earth as Newton described) , namely aether, and later developed by Laplace, Euler, Thompson, Maxwell (who was calling what we call today electromagnetic field , Electromagnetised aether) etc], suddenly everybody insisted that it does not exist and the gravitation and electromagnetic fields are not of material existence but "mathematical conceptions in the empty space" (although they have momentum density and energy density , which has inertia,  in the empty space!). If  the   atomists of the 19th century that were trying to convince everybody that quantities like mass, density , inertia of continuous entities in physics,  are derivable from an aggregation of discrete atoms, would live during all of the 20th century they  would certainly be amazed ecstatically, by how easily almost all of the physics during the 20th century would suddenly accept beyond doubt that indeed the material inertia of the fluids like water , air etc and practically of all conceivable continuous objects are  the outcome of the aggregation of discrete system of particles , except of the inertia (energy ,momentum etc) of the gravitational and electromagnetic field , which is of "the mathematical abstract quantities" and exist out there in the "empty space" of a relativistic "space-time" or "quantum vacuum"! So the atomists of the 19th century had after all a half-win only. And it was the same person (Einstein)  who  is credited that gave them both the half-victory (the Brownian motion is because of the atomic structure of matter) and the half-defeat (that neutral aether or gravitational field and Electromagnetised aether or electromagnetic field  do not have a discrete particle structure , in fact that  they do not have material existence at all , they are "empty space" or "vacuum"). This retreat of the concept of physical reality during the 20th century, although it started with Einstein , had its culmination  with quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation. For one more century the community of the physics studies intensively an other type of diffusion, like the Brownian  motion, the Shrondinger motion of a free particle. The difference is slight, in the latter the variance increases as the square of the time while in the former, linearly in time. For a second time and for a whole century,  almost no one would accept that  these experiments are a proof that, what was called aether in the 19th century and "space-time" , or "quantum vacuum" in the 20th century, is of course one more physical material  layer with discrete permanent particles structure but inaccessible to our technology. The argument of course that this phenomenon proves the discrete particle structure of the classical fields, would be the same. Again arguments like "show me one such particle" would be prevailing.  The situation certainly reminds of the tale of the cloths of the emperor, (or the glasses of the superman) that are honored by every one , and everyone sees that they do not exist. The cloths that everybody honored,  during the 20th century , were the empty "space-time" and the "quantum vacuum". And if any little student-boy would dare to remark simply that their "emptiness" or "vacuum" does not exists, he  would be interrupted as ignorant with  no advanced in postgraduate studies. Was it the brainstorming of the World-Wars? Fear?  An attempt to publish as little as possible during war times by the fear that it would be used by the enemies?  Misconception of the leader researchers?  Stupidity? A result of bizarre concepts in the chase of careers and reputation? Wisdom to avoid unpredictable applications that would create societies of greedy  crimes? An subconscious irresistible impulse of the minds like a mind-trap, in spite of the realization of the opposite ?  No matter the causes the result is there in all most all  the books and the conferences for a whole century!

I am afraid that the evolution of sciences has more than once  turned upside-down well established theories, and reversed our opinion about what is intelligent and what is not, what is true and what is not, what should be honored and what not. This shall be I am afraid with many ideas of physics that during the 20th century became famous and popular in the academic world. Only with the appropriate humor we can deal with such changes especially when they are fast and the old and new ideas in the scientific publications coexist.

As the age of Galileo remained in history the age in which, the  established knowledge believed that the earth is not moving and is square, or the 19th century as the century that  ( created and)  rejected the atomic theories of matter, we might say that 20th century might remain in the history as the century that physicist believed that nothing can travel faster than 300.000 km/sec and was abandoned the principle of sufficient physical causes for all microphysical phenomena at the scale of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Although still at present (2002) a majority of academic scientists still believe so, we cannot but make some humor, and jokes about it. Sometimes the trees hide the forest, and the funny situation can be seen only from a long distance from the present physics, or even from some of the orientations of the present dominating societies. The tale  of the Emperor's cloths is a good wise metaphor. Only that contrary to the interpretation that some hush to use in a converse way, and obscure the situation,   (like R. Penrose) , the revealing interpretations is that the "relativistic space-time" and the "quantum vacuum" are the Emperor's celebrated cloths, that in reality, do not exist. And everybody admires these cloths (the "curved space-time" and the "quantum Vacuum" ) except one day , even a young new student that spends more time in the internet than reading,  fat volumes about Gravitation, could make us wake-up. Let us hope that new wars, shall not postpone very far in the future that day.

That the stochastic processes of wave mechanics in layer 6 could be derived from a 2-physical layers approach of systems in the epistemological layers 4 and 5, was nevertheless something that was realised and proved by some researchers (see [2] ,[3] etc). That it is required both layer 4 and 5 and not only layer 5, explains also the difference of the Brownian motion diffusion from the Shrondinger motion diffusion. If in a system of classical statistical mechanics of a mixture of gasses A, B, we hide one of the partial gasses B , and describe the other A, we would get a Brownian motion diffusion for A. But if the gas A is immersed in a fluid B  made from   vastly smaller size particles , the perturbations of the particles of gas A by the fluid B would be due to pressure from waves or other complicated flows, of the fluid B, rather than particle-particle collisions, and a 2nd order would appear in the time evolution of the variance or square volatility. When  we do know that the random behavior of particles e.g. an electron is due to the collisions with other electrons anddue to pressures from the to field-gas (which gives the gravitational and the electromagnetic interactions) it is an artificial restriction to assume that the laws of the micro-world can be described, only through a non-deterministic propagation as in the stochastic processes of quantum mechanics 

Thus the abandonment of the "principle of sufficient physical cause" in the microphysics  is artificial, not a real property of nature , not even a real limitation of the technology at the scale of electrons, protons and neutrons. But surprisingly it may reflect a limitation of  the social character of our the civilization  as far as applications of physics  in ecology and war-like social events is concerned.

With this I  do not mean that I am in favor of a determinist version of all physical theories. From layer 4 and next,  the physical layers have to be probabilistic. From a point of view, this is a rooted characteristic of human knowledge , and comes from the position of the human consciousness in the world. It is hardly possible to eliminate it, but only for very simple physical systems at one only layer. So I do not share the quote of Einstein "The god does not role the  dice" if this means that we must accept  only deterministic models. The reasons is that any human knowledge must be from the point of view of a human being's mind  not from the point of view of  the god's mind. But we should not accept too the abandoning of the principle of sufficient physical cause, especially when this is an artificial and ad hoc postulation as in the Quantum Mechanics of the 20th century.

A closer look at this derivation would give an other dimension where Quantum Mechanics is limited. It corresponds only to an influence of the underlying field-gas to a system of particles that is only of the class of potential flows. [Hardly appropriate states of flow, for the annihilation and creation of particles for which it has been used . We remark below about the discrepancy of the phenomenon "the more restricted the theory the more inappropriate experimental uses of it" or vice versa.]

The phenomenon of "retreat" of the physical reality in the physics of the 20th century had an corresponding and earlier phenomenon in the history of mathematics: While since the time of Newton , (17th century) the mathematicians were using the infinitesimals as not of different ontological status from the finite numbers but with a difference only on the accuracy level  and significance, and somehow they used a double level continuum, after the construction of the real numbers (Cauchy-Weiersrasse-Dedekind etc during the 19th century) they retreated to single only layer continuum, the real numbers, while at the same time it was introduced the infinite (e.g. of the irrational number pi) as an object of different ontological status.. As usually developments in mathematics anticipate developments in physics. It seems that most of the researchers of the history of ideas ,would explain it by a principle like "The better is the enemy of the good". And that a simple system of numbers like that of Cauchy is just good for most proposes.

Nevertheless, some would say the same for the Cauchy-Weiersrasse-Dedekind real numbers too, because the concept of the infinite was also introduced that although it was considered "better" it might turn out to be the enemy of the modest finite that is just "good" for all practical proposes too.

There is one very characteristic phenomenon of the theories of layer 6 that it is not possible to fail to notice it and not to be impressed by it.  The layer 6 has the most severely restricted theories in all of physics from the point of view of determinism , but also because of the abandoning of the principle of sufficient physical causes, due to  the abandoning of the existence of the material reality of the classical fields. In the light of the previous analysis and the tale of  "the cloths of the emperor", one would get the impression the it was as if  the standard interpretation of Copenhagen was suggesting for some reason, to everyone using this theory " Do not try to study any phenomenon that would involve the annihilation or creation of  particles like electron's, proton's , and neutrons as a result with an interplay with what the theory gives as "vacuum"  The impressive with the history of physics of the 20th century is that the practice of experiments and the derived technology (nuclear, power, accelerators, particle reactions etc) was exactly the negation of this suggestion. It is highly impressive how they attempt to make practice,  how particles like electron and proton are annihilated and created . Was it the pressure of the wars and the thirst to acquire power , by all means at all costs and at the same time keeping the conventional lie of a wise restricted theory of matter that would not possibly let them do it? Was it the controversy between the social groups   that postulated the basic theoretical principles and the social groups of those hushing in to experiments and of the social groups using and funding the resulting technology? Was it because it was supposed that with such a theory like Quantum Mechanics of such restricted dimension of  cognition, nothing of the applications derived during 20th century was supposed to happen? Was it a new obscure alienation between theoretising,   thinking and practicing, that was leading to terms like "magic numbers" in atomic structures etc? Was it a powerful subconscious intervention? Was it a failure in knowledge reflected from wilder  and soulless practice in other departments of society? No matter the reasons the result was that the more the theories of layer 6 were restricted in to what it was supposed you can describe and study  , the more the orgy of the possible experiments with partial correspondence to the theoretical descriptions and in the directions that the theory was supposed not to cover theoretically and lead you.

It is not a surprise therefore that  the result was a long lasting wound in the ecology of the natural environment, and the human societies, and a serious and disgraceful, drawback of the scientific world and to the planet's civilization in general, that would slow down  and put obstructions to any future developments. Probably the full spectrum of reasons of all this situation , is beyond our efforts to understand, is relevant to sources far beyond the proxy directions that we may consider possibly relevant. And probably too, to civilization memories far lost behind in the depths of human history. Still there are dimensions, of this situation that may prove it the best it could happen, given that some types of problems already were there, before it.

7) a) Layer 7 contains the classical theories of the Newtonian gravitation in its field version , as well as Einstein's gravitation, classical electromagnetism etc. As far as the relation of this 7th-layer of theories with the other layers of theories we may say the next. It was attempted to reduce the layer 7 to the layer 6. In other words to describe the phenomena and interactions  body->field (gravitational or electromagnetic as material fluid)->body , to a pattern of interaction that totally omits the field and its material existence and is like : body->body. Even for the classical electromagnetic field this is not easy mathematically. First tried by Gauss and discussed with Weber in 1845, was  solved during the 20th century by Schwarzshild, Tetrode, Fokker etc (Fokker action function see [4] etc.) All the quantum -fields of weak, or strong particle interactions during the 20th century physics, were based on this pattern and description that completely avoids the layer of the classical fields-gas either in its neutral or Electromagnetised  form, replacing it as we said with the "quantum vacuum". That is why the abandoning of the "principle of sufficient physical cause" in Quantum Mechanics of the 20th century is an artificial restriction. We believe that, this is also one of the reasons why  this direction is a dead-end , in spite of the fact that most of the by career quantum-field physicist seem to not to have been convinced about it and still work on this dead-lock. But we should realize that an even  worse dead-end  behind it , is the use of scientific knowledge, for the worse of the human societies  , of the human consciousness , and of nature and the planet in overall.

b) In the paper below and with a research that started in 1995 , and presented in 1998 in Lancaster, it is completed an important gap in the model theoretic interpretations of the epistemological layers. In other words we could try  the a partial derivation of the classical field theories (of Newtonian gravitation and Maxwell's Electromagnetism) by layer 5 of classical fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems by skipping layer 6.With this derivation all of the system of theories becomes a coherent logical system based of course on (multi-leveled) atomic material structure. The mathematical details of this , could be of course again stated for "an empty space" and "a mathematical field" but with new potentials and equations of them. 

EL1---> EL2----> EL3----> EL5===> EL7

                                    

c) It is required of course the coexistence of  two at least  physical material layers. This is  a converse of the usual approach for the fields in layer 6.  If we would accept the reduction of layer 7 to layer 6, ( which is standard today with the quantum field theories as they say), and then we should require a crystal clear reduction  of layer 6 to layer 5. Even then,  that would still leave open if the source or of the interactions is the same or not with the source of the additional randomness of layer 6, and even if we identify the two sources, we would still need a derivation of the details of the interaction from the details of the source of additional randomness of layer 6. Thus the strait reduction of layer 7 to layer 5 is easier , more classical , closer to truth and  without artificial redundant formalisms of irrelevant time and space scales.

d) For the gravitational field , the model of layer 7 to layer 5 is purely mechanical with the only interactions the collisions. For electromagnetism it is required a non-mechanical interaction too. The rest is taken care by the fluid dynamics,  that derives the electromagnetic interaction with the speed of light.  This was the initial concept of Shroendinger about the electron beam, two-slit experiment. We can speculate on the validity of a true "locality or contact principle" (contrary to what has been called like that, in the debates of Einstein with Bohr) according to which "Any physical interaction can be derived from that of collisions, if sufficient many physical layers are included"  but would appear as "non-local action at a distance" or non-mechanical, if less than the necessary physical layers are included in its definition.

Most of the details were presented in the Lecture of Lancaster in September 1998. But since then I have made many simplifications, corrections and elaborations in the equations and the arguments.

 e) The modeling of layer 7 in the layer 5 , avoided, on purpose, the involvement of relativistic physics or quantum mechanical formulations, or phenomena involving annihilation and creation of particles. The reasons are obvious. 

1) We refrain from  using  relativistic formulations, as the developed approach, substitutes and rectifies the relativistic physics (and identifies space-time as the emperors cloths in the corresponding tale) .

2) We refrain from using quantum mechanical formulations as the indented scale of applications is cosmological, celestial mechanics and at most, macroscopic laboratory physics, definitely of a scale large compared to the scale of electrons ,protons and neutrons or atoms of material bodies and also because we want to avoid the "abandonment of the principle of sufficient physical causes" that quantum mechanics involves.

This modelling of layer 7 to layer 6 has of course left open the next two issues.

a) How the particles of the coarse layer (matter) would be  derived from that of the  fine layer (field). In spite of the fact that Einstein's formula of  the change of inertia already, suggests  wave properties of the particles, in the present approach we are not concerned at all  with the micro-structure of any of the two layers. We are not even concerned with the models of atoms like Bohr's etc. In the contrary we could formulate everything in terms of coupling of states of flow of one layer (matter) with states of flow of the other layer (Field-gas).  The reference to particles is only to suggest that such an approach should not be contradictory with statistical mechanics and reduction  to systems of particles.  In the present approach the particles of the two layers are assumed permanent ,indestructible and are treated as particles of independent nature: The protons ,electrons, neutrons and their corresponding also permanent particles, so to say, aetherons.  As the aetherons could be 10^-40     times smaller than protons ,electrons and neutrons, it is realized that for 20th century microphysics such particles are totally inaccessible. The present approach does not imply that in order to understand the nature of  Newtonian  gravitation and Maxwell's electromagnetism we should look at the microworld. In the contrary the present formulation holds only at a macroscopic scale , of laboratory electronics to a solar system or larger. There are still, there, much too many new events to  discover. 

b) If the fine layer (field) has a more diversified discrete structure (e.g. an analogue of a periodic system and corresponding field-chemistry, either inorganic or organic). As I mentioned the mathematical formulation adopted is appropriate only for macroscopic space and time scale-resolutions. Therefore the relevant experiments are of a different time and space scale.

In view of the difficulties that were created in physics, societies and nature during the 20th century and which we still inherit in the new millennium, I speculate that it shall take many centuries till such a knowledge could be settled.

8) We discriminated at the beginning of this page the concept of epistemological layer and the concept of physical material layer. It could be said that the former are the creation of the collective human civilisation trying to understand the natural reality while the former are closer to what we call nature and reality (the only common country as Camus was putting it). To show an example of how the concept of physical material layers  can enhance our perception , let us count them using a human centered approach, and try to conceive usual arguments in cosmology. We should remember the ancient Greek quote "Παντων χρηματων μετρον ανθρωπος" which means among other "The measure of any kind of  money is the human being" or "The measure of anything in the human world is the human being". (most probably this was a reverse moral feeling to buying and selling other human beings, as was the slavery practice at that time). Today too men are sacrificed for advancing the scientific knowledge for war applications, while we should sacrifice inappropriate directions of scientific knowledge and practice, for the sake of the  human beings and planet's life.

Let us call physical P-Layer 0,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 3) the usual matter of the every day life (that is consisting of protons, electrons, neutron, like water, a piece of wood, the ground of the planet etc).

Let us call P-Layer +1,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 2), the planets of a solar system, star constellations, including galaxies , and clusters of galaxies.

Let us call P-Layer -1,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 4) the material layer of the classical fields like the electromagnetic field (or older Electromagnetised aether, that in the present approach consists at least from the aetherons). 

Let us stop there at the moment and investigate.

a) How many layers are involve in the attraction of two planets? Layer 0,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 3), for sure, as planets are made from human layer, matter. Layer 1, (or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 2)of course as the planets, as celestial bodies, are the elements of layer1,(or in a positive counting 2). But as the gravitation propagates through the neutral Field-gas, the layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) is also involved. Thus 3-layers already are involved in a simple celestial interaction of two planets.

b) Let us think now about what has been called "black holes" in cosmology and has been studied so much by the famous  Hawkins with the help of R. Penrose too. As has been described in detail in the papers below that  links the epistemological layer 7 and 5 , the main source of gravitation is the heat of the Field-gas (the heat of layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) ,not the heat of  layer 0,(or in a positive counting 3)) . Such a strong gravitation that the "black holes" have is therefore the indication of vast temperature of layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4), in them. Since they are not usually radiating in layer 0 or layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4), it becomes plausible and we may speculate that they are very bright stars at a layer -2 or finer ,(or in a positive counting 5 or higher ) where they might radiate, but not in layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) (field) , or layer 0,(or in a positive counting 3) (proton's electron's and neutron's matter). So we see that we change radically our conceptions of cosmological entities.

c) Let us speculate now about what cosmologists call "world" and represent with a differential manifold. What is a usual requirement for this entity? That it is as far as light could ever go! Very well, let us take it as the definition. As light is now understood as a charge wave in layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) (and also a compression wave), then this "world" should be as far as layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) exists. In other words a vast gaseous (in layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4)) ball that has inside it Galaxies stars etc. Could it be called a star , (or element)  of layer +2,(or in a positive counting 1) ? Most plausibly yes. Could anything go outside it? But yes! As we define it as a connected area of the material layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4), if it also embedded in layer -2,(or in a positive counting 5) , that as layer -2,(or in a positive counting 5) it is finer, it extends further, beyond the usual boundaries of what we called initially "world". So you see that we already did change our view about what is traditionally called world in cosmology, by simply reasoning in terms of the physical material layers .

We may assume that the whole of the physical world as conceived from the human mind, has countable infinite many physical layers, but that every conceivable physical entity can consists of finite many only, physical layers. In this way any physical system must also have  external influences , so that it can not be isolated, but these influences are also physical (and not from "emptiness") so that the principle of sufficient physical causes is not abandoned.

A few words about the introduction of the infinite in the physical world that is assumed to have only finite entities. At first the restriction that any physical system can consists only of finite many  layers is in agreements with the classical thought. Second as the author explains in the pages about mathematics the ontology of the infinite is the phenomenology of changes, with missing information (abstractness), of the finite. The changes here correspond to that the physical reality should be considered as "becoming" and "evolving"  or even "living" and "dying" rather that  static. Thus there is an element of missing information at each time about the state of evolution of the physical reality. An other source for this abstractness of the infinite is that the limits of the physical reality and its boundaries with subjective experience as the human being thinks and  experiences is variable shifting and not known as finite information. This is an other point of missing information at each time. Thus the standard way to deal with it is the abstraction of the infinite (as phenomenology of changes with missing information of the finite) , which as I remarked is used only for the physical reality as a whole and not for the physical systems.

9) In spite the criticism  above of the inadequacies of the 20th century physics and the criticism as a  science of war times, I should mention that there is also the theory that in spite the shortcomings and contradictions, the 20th century physics was more that appropriate and remarkable,  considering the peculiar historical events of the 20th century. And from this point of view we should admire how the theoretical tricks no matter how wrong ,buzzard, or finally proved a misconception, played right  the appropriate historical role for some (but not all) purposes in the societies.

The next paper are a re-writing of the Lancaster Lecture, with more explicit discussions. No new ideas.

The next paper restores classical conceptions over the same experiments that led Einstein to his conceptions non-classical relativity, space-time etc. Only with this paper, the road of new-millennium  physics looses its traditional 20th century obstructions.

0) Classical Galilean relativistic hypotheses about inertia of bodies that derive the experimental results of Michelson-Morley,  and   light aberration. (1998-2002).

The next paper gives the equations and explains the physical reality of what is often called in Internet non-standard physics as "antigravity". It seems that it does not have some very practical applications. This interaction is created by any motion of any body, that is why it can be also called kinetic interaction. It is nothing much different than the usual aerodynamics of bodies, except that fluid here is not the air but the Field-gas. The boundary conditions of a body with the (neutral) field fluid is that of the simplest kind , in other words of simple proportionality of the momentum of  a body and the momentum of the Field-gas. Of course the drag-force is over all the volume of the body , not only over its surface, and it depends also on the density of the body. The exact proportionality constants require more experiments to be determined, than the known in the Internet. This drag force is of course a momentum exchange between the body and the Field-gas, and the forces of the type of volume forces of fluids and solid state. The type  flow created in the Field-gas by the motion of a body is important in this interaction, and the usual solutions in aerodynamics are much relevant.

1) A new macroscopic  neutral interaction of bodies, modeled in the heuristic context of 2-layered fluid dynamic  systems and formulated as equations on new potentials, that is, as classical fields..(1995-2000).

The next paper together with the previous give the necessary corrections to the Maxwell electromagnetism, that can lead to the discovery of new electromagnetic propulsion , powered by traditional energy. This new propulsion might give a new model of transportation inside or around the planet, that the rockets technology would seem, compared to it, like the steam engine trains to electric trains. The key idea to treat the electromagnetism as fluid is to make the assumption that in the neutral Field-gas there are three types of partial sub-fluids, a plus, a minus and a neutral that they balance. The Field-gas is electromagnetised when the balance of plus and minus Field-gas charge is disturbed.  The classical electromagnetic potentials correspond to the  dynamic variables of this mixture Field-gas. The scalar electromagnetic potential is proportional to the difference of pressures of the plus and minus sub fluids, and the vector electromagnetic potential is proportional to the difference of the momentum of the plus and minus sub fluids. The definition of the electric field intensity and the magnetic field intensity is the usual formulas from the scalar and vector electromagnetic potentials The boundary conditions with matter are again of the simplest type, in other words of simple proportionality of the velocity  of  a the material charge  and the velocity of the corresponding positive or negative Field-gas charge. These simple assumptions give, after the momentum conservation of the plua, minus and neutral sub fluids of the Field-gas, as a consequence that after linearisation and approximations, the classical Maxwell's equations and Lorenz forces equations hold. Of course the exact new equations are non-linear (compared to the Maxwell's equations that are linear). This non-linear electromagnetism is no longer gauge invariant as the potentials have a real physical meaning of fluid dynamic variables. The possibility of new electromagnetic propulsion is obvious. This new electromagnetic propulsion is of the type of the standard aerodynamic propulsion (e.g. Magnus effect , propellers propulsion etc) except that the material bodies have to be not neutral but charged or magnetized and moving or alternatively  appropriate configurations, of electric circuits. In this way by sufficient sophisticated engineering the usual air-propellers and air-turbines can be simulated but this time for the Electromagnetised Field-gas instead of  the air. And the Field-gas extends far beyond a planet's atmosphere, in fact it extends as far as light can go.

2) A new, non-linear system of equations , on new potentials,  of the classical field theory of electromagnetism, introduced through the heuristic context of 2-layered fluid dynamic systems.(1995-2000)

The next paper corrects the Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation. It gives for the first time, after Newton's square law, an answer to the question "what is the nature and mechanism of gravitation?". The correction of Newtonian  gravitation requires to include the neutral interaction of the paper 1) which simultaneously corrects the Einstein's gravitation. The main practical applications are corrections in the orbits of satellites, and better theoretical predictions of the orbits of the celestial bodies like planets etc.

 3) A new system of equations and potentials, of the classical field theory of universal attraction, introduced  in the heuristic context of 2-layered fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems.(1995-2000).

The next paper makes the synthesis of the previous three (macroscopic) interactions, the neutral kinetic, the electromagnetic and the universal attraction in to the same system of equations which is in fact the equations of energy and momentum conservation of fluids. The main practical applications is the possibility of a new form of energy, which comes from the heat of the field (not of the classical matter) and is extracted in the form of electric energy. This would give to the transportation of the papers 1), 2) substantial new range of traveling that would no doubt leads much easier outside the solar system. There is of course the practical application of new technology electric generators of a new energy model inside the planet. But for this, there are inherent dangers as far as the societies do not have a global ecological sensitivity. The field- fluid heat of the planet is no more renewable that the ordinary heat of the magma is renewable. In other words, in total it is not renewable. As far as the energy extraction of this type, is only on the energy that would be lost anyway in the space, that is, below a limit of power per square area, then there are not direct local dangers. We project the effects to diminishing deviations in the interactions with other celestial bodies. But if the extraction is greedy , beyond this limit  in large planetary scale and for centuries, then we force the planet to a non-natural cooling  at the layer of the Field-gas and eventually at the layer of material magma. This would  effect the planet in a even deeper way  than the increase of the CO₂  .As the planet's universal attraction depends on the Field-gas's heat flow, a global weakening of the earth's gravitational field would no doubt have effects on the cycle of water circulation and the falling of rain's , on the frequencies and probabilities of volcano's and earthquakes. Of course a regulated extraction of this form of energy under international laws  ( about  the balances of an  ecology of the inorganic world resources of the planet.), would lead to an alternative energy model safer than the nuclear energy, of lower profile of engineering technology compared to nuclear power and without the disadvantage of CO₂     emissions of classical energy models. Of course at this point it could be argued that the climate problem of the old energy model can be solved with strict and global control of the emissions of CO_{2  .} As some industries in smaller or larger scale have proceeded in the production of electric generators of this new type of energy , it seems to me that it would not be wise not to know the nature , limitations, dangers and advantages of this new  form of energy. I believe that even if the objectives are peaceful applications, we should try to avoid situations where we are doing something just because "it works" and "can bring money" without really understanding in (collectively) conscious way the nature and consequences of our technologies.Before a massive use of this form of energy is implemented, a thorough analysis and experimental study of its properties should be carried out , together with proposals for an ecologically mature and friendly regulation of it. The author is not in favor of  fast applications of the possibilities that open with the new physics, before the wider groups of scientist have worked out and elaborated in sufficient quality and reliability the mathematical and physical details of the new physics. First we must know how to think and account with appropriate mathematics, about such newly discovered phenomena, with continuity of sufficient historical depth but also with  innovation relative to the evolution of ideas in physics, before we are to know how to get useful results. By simulating first the phenomena with mathematics we can chose what to discover and what is useful for all. I am in favor of  discovering only what we can apply for the good of all, versus applying what ever we can discover.

4) A  new system of equations and potentials, of the classical field theories of universal attraction, macroscopic neutral interaction  and electromagnetism,  introduced through the heuristic the context of 2-layered fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems.(1995-2000)

5) Speculations about the need of international laws about  the balances of an  ecology of the resources of the inorganic world of the planet.(2002)

The implications of  above theoretical developments if worked both theoretically at first and experimentally too, it could give applications that  could range from corrections of the predictions of the orbits of celestial bodies and satellites, to new methods of electromagnetic propulsion, improvements in the  energy models for the societies,  that may become more friendly to the ecology of the environment, and new insights in the cure of the cancer. My main interest, personally, is philosophical and epistemological.

 Nevertheless as the modifications in the fundamental physics are radical (changes about Einstein's theories, Maxwell's equations etc) , it could be speculated that it may take many decades before the academic community, collectively can integrate and elaborate all the implications and, many decades,  after this has happened,  before the industries can device their inventions. So some of its crucial applications might wait so long as the beginnings of the next century. We should remember that Herz anticipated theoretically the existence of electromagnetic waves long before they were discovered experimentally and used for practical purposes.

It may also turn out that the human body, besides the known organic structure and functionality of material layer 0 (like a hardware from protons, neutrons and electrons) , might have also an organic structure and functionality within the Field-gas , material layer -1 (like a software, from links and knots of vorticity lines, that makes a 4th field-gas circulation system), which could give precious insights in the explanation of the alternative Chinese medicine methods, like the acupuncture, and new insights in the cure of the cancer. 

 It is of course obvious that,  one man's work, is not enough to integrate and elaborate all the implications. What one man can do is to give to other people, new key-ideas that occur to him  from the work of  again of other people. The present ideas are not unique and the Internet is full from similar informal or formal ideas, not to mention the original manuscripts of the old masters in physics. The Internet is also  full from many relevant new events and experiments. Some of them are unreliable and some are more reliable. As my main activities, by profession, is investments in the capital markets, it is the job of the University and by career physicists, to investigate further the theoretical   implications of the above ideas ,and the job of the engineers to work out new devices. My main interest here is philosophical and epistemological.

The roads in the new millennium are there waiting for us, if only we are to walk them carefully.

References:

[1] "Mathematical Foundations of quantum Mechanics" By John von Neumann Princeton 1995, Chapter iii.

[2] "Derivation of the Shrondinger equation from Newtonian mechanics" E. Nelson Phys.Rev. ,150 ,1966, 1079-1085.

[3] [De la Pena-Auerbach ,L.]                                     A simple derivation of the Shroendinger equation from the theory of Markoff processes”

                                                                                   Physics Letters 24A pp 603-604 (1967)

[4] "Action at a distance in Physics and Cosmology"  F. Hoyle , J.V. Narlikar

[5]   Dirac P.A.M       "Is there an aether?"

Proc.Roy.Soc. A.209 ,291 ,(1951)

[H. A. Lorentz]  "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity less than that of light"        Proceedings of the Academy of sciences if Amsterdam, 6, 1904

 [Sir E. Whittaker] "A  history of the theories of Aether and Electricity"          

    Philosophical Library NY    Freeman and Company p 29