of
space by time
Physics is giving mathematical terms a name.
Chapter01 Introduction Chapter02 Information is ….. Chapter03 The force being
differentiated by time Chapter04 Squared Chapter05 The
differentiation of space by time Chapter06 Making
third order gravity equations Chapter07 The
rotational transformation Chapter08 Overview Chapter09 Comparison
with Lorentz Chapter10 Comparison
with Einstein Chapter11 Einstein
has been in third order. Chapter12 Non
relativistic E=mc2. Chapter13 The difference between
relativity and third order model Chapter14 The definition of time ,
first second and third Chapter15 Changing “Force” to
second order interaction Chapter16 The invariance of speed
of light Chapter17 Again the Maxwell
equation Chapter18 Comparing an electron
with the third order mass particle Chapter19 The speed of light Chapter20 The philosophical
situation Chapter21 Selling the story Chapter22 Last words Result from a third order
equation. This picture is a rotating ellipse. This is known as the rosette
motion. 





Chapter 1: Introduction All sentences here have a sentence tag.
(s.1.1) The first number in the tag is the chapter. (s.1.2) The second number in the tag is the sentence
in the chapter. (s.1.3) This is done to easily refer to a sentence.
(s.1.4) I assume that the reader has knowledge of
electromagnetism. (s.1.5) I assume that the reader is an engineer. (s.1.6) The world is described by forces. (s.1.7) We have knowledge about the gravity force.
(s.1.8) We have knowledge about the electromagnetic
force. (s.1.9) We have knowledge about the weak nuclear
force. (s.1.10) We have knowledge about the strong nuclear
force. (s.1.11) The world is described by forces. (s.1.12) The reasoning here tries to show that forces cannot
be differentiated by time in a two dimensional situation. (s.1.13) The reasoning here tries to show that
differentiation of space in two dimensions by time for the third time, opens the possibility of new calculations. (s.1.14) Coriolis (17921843) differentiated space by
time twice (s.1.15) We will differentiate space by time in two
dimensions for the third time. (s.1.16) The differentiation of space by time for the third time has never been done before. (s.1.17)
We are doing the steps of Coriolis and one extra step (s.1.18) Result from a third order
equation. Chapter 2: Information is the meaning that can be given to facts in a
certain context. My son is 6 years old and asks for the matches
to light a fire. (s.2.1) He lights the candles and he burns his hand. (s.2.2) I tell him that fire is very dangerous.
(s.2.3) I also tell him that I am going to hide the
matches. (s.2.4) We have fairy tale midgets in the house. (s.2.5) If they find the matches they will light the
curtains and that will burn the house. (s.2.6) My son looks at me and starts thinking.
(s.2.7) Some moments pass. (s.2.8) He returns to me and says: “I am the fairy
tale midget, I will not light your curtains”.(s.2.9) Out of the blue someone sees the solution for
a certain problem. (s.2.10) You could think of Newton (1642 – 1727) and the gravity equations. (s.2.11) But you could also think of other problems.
(s.2.12) There is the fact that some persons can solve certain
problems. (s.2.13) And there is the fact that some persons cannot
solve certain problems. (s.2.14) The person who states that he can solve the
problem, start reasoning. (s.2.15) As soon as the solution is accepted then all
terms in the description are accepted. (s.2.16) The meaning of a word is now known, the
information is understood in the context. (s.2.17) Information is the meaning that can be given
to words in a certain context. (s.2.18) In the nonproblem situation all information
is obvious. (s.2.19) The explainer and the listener eventually
agree upon everything. (s.2.20) As soon as the situation is not understood
problems arise. (s.2.21) The meanings of the words chosen do not
completely fit in the observed circumstances. (s.2.22) Explaining starts with a small piece. (s.2.23) A small piece is an object with just a few
properties. (s.2.24) The explainer tries to describe all the small
pieces. (s.2.25) A problem can now occur as the listener cannot
recall all the small pieces. (s.2.26) The listener cannot recall the small pieces
out of informational overload. (s.2.27) There is simply too much to tell in too less
time. (s.2.28) The most likely problem with explaining is
that the meaning of a small piece is only understood if the whole situation with all its pieces and
properties are understood. (s.2.29) A small piece of the problem is not
independent from all the other aspects of the problem.(s.2.30) A small piece of the problem is only fully
understood if all the other small pieces of the problem are understood.
(s.2.31) You just see it all, or you do not. (s.2.32) If you do not see it all then you will
disagree with the description, explanation of a small piece. (s.2.33) If you will not accept the small pieces
description, you never see the complete picture. (s.2.34) Accepting a small piece temporarily is
necessary for understanding the whole picture. (s.2.35) This last sentence is easily written down but
also easily forgotten. (s.2.36) If you believe in something and you have
believed in it for all of your life, then who is going to make you to doubt it.
(s.2.37) Even if the doubt is only for an hour.
(s.2.38) If all of our life is understood then we will
never doubt. (s.2.39) The world is described by forces. (s.2.40) The document here will try to show that term “force”
is not a valid term in a two dimensional situation in which space is differentiated three times by time. (s.2.41) If the description of the world by forces is
not valid in all situations, then we have a problem with the description of
the world, as it is based upon forces.(s.2.42) The concept “force” being acceleration
multiplied with mass, will not work in all circumstances. (s.2.43) Chapter 3:
The force being differentiated
by time The world is described by forces. (s.3.1) If you have two parallel streams of electrons,
then one ampere is the stream of electrons that results in a force (Fa) of 2e7
Newton per meter. (s.3.2) Fa is the Ampere (1775–1836) force.
(s.3.3) The electrons will also interact with a
magnetic field (B). (s.3.4) The changing of the magnetic field will result
in a force (Fm) working on the electron. (s.3.5) The force (Fm) results in the acceleration of
the electron. (s.3.6) This acceleration changes the velocity of the
electron. (s.3.7) The changing of the velocity result in a
changing force (Fa) between the electrons. (s.3.8) The differentiated force is apparently working
in electromagnetic phenomena. (s.3.9) In short: (s.3.10) Most physical engineers do not see a mathematical
problem in this equation.(s.3.11) But there is a mathematical problem in this
equation. (s.3.12) This equation is simply “action is minus
reaction” differentiated. (s.3.13) The original description was with forces.
(s.3.14) Action is minus reaction. (s.3.15) I use the black dot for differentiation of space
by time.(s.3.16) That is d()/dt. (s.3.17) We have now a force being differentiated by
time. (s.3.18) Coriolis has added accelerations in his
Pythagoras (570  500) picture. (s.3.19) This was his equation. (s.3.20) Coriolis has created a space by time relation
for a twice differentiated situation. (s.3.21) Adding X triple dot and Y triple dot
will result in a different space by time relation. (s.3.22) We do not know what happens if space is
differentiated for the third time. (s.3.23) Space has never been differentiated by time
for the third time. (s.3.24) We will differentiate space by time for the
third time. (s.3.25) The Maxwell (18311879) equations in fact
state the existence of a differentiated force. (s.3.26) On the Maxwell equation is a magnetic field
that is differentiated by time. (s.3.27) Magnetic fields interact with other magnetic
fields and that has a force as result. (s.3.28) This result force is then differentiated by time.
(s.3.29) The differentiated two dimensional force is now a fact. (s.3.30) A two dimensional force cannot be
differentiated by time.
(s.3.31) To understand this you will have to
differentiate space by time for the third time. (s.3.32) Please read sentence (s.2.35) again. (s.3.33) 











Chapter 4:
Squared If you make four identical triangles and you lay
them out, the result will be a square. (s.4.1) But how do you get two lines completely perpendicular.
(s.4.2) There is a trick for this. (s.4.3) Make 5 identical sticks. (s.4.4) Let’s call these sticks s1. (s.4.5) Make a stick (s3) with a length of 3 times the
length of stick s1. (s.4.6) You have 5 identical sticks s1, so just lay 3
of the sticks s1 after each other and then saw. (s.4.7) Make a stick (s4) with a length of 4 times the
length of stick s1. (s.4.8) Make a stick (s5) with a length of 5 times the
length of stick s1. (s.4.9) Now just lay out the three sticks, that is
stick s3, s4, s5, the result is a triangle with two lines perpendicular.
(s.4.10) This trick was well known in the days of
Pythagoras (570  500). (s.4.11) If you do not know this trick, then you will
make a thousand sets of three sticks and result is not guaranteed perpendicular.
(s.4.12) The result of the sticks with length 3, 4 and
5 is guaranteed perpendicular (s.4.13) There is a reason why this is so. (s.4.14) The numbers 3 squared plus 4 squared is 5
squared. (s.4.15) There is another one. (s.4.16) The numbers 5 squared plus 12 squared is 13
squared. (s.4.17) So around 530 BC we could make things squared.
(s.4.18) The carpenters of those days now ran into
another problem. (s.4.19) The greater two sticks are expensive and I do
not want to saw them. (s.4.20) What is the length of the smallest stick to
make a triangle that has one angle of 90 degrees? (s.4.21) Pythagoras solved this problem. (s.4.22) The surface of the greater square (a+b) by (a+b) is equal to four time
the triangle plus the square c by c. (s.4.23) Reform this equation and you will get the
equation of Pythagoras. (s.4.24) A squared plus b squared is c squared.(s.4.25) The smaller stick has a value so that when it
is squared it is equal to the difference of the greater sticks squared.
(s.4.26) Around 300 BC Euclid of Alexandria declares space to be perpendicular in 3
directions. (s.4.27) From now on space has three dimensions. (s.4.28) The picture of Pythagoras would not change
under velocity. (s.4.29) The velocity to be chosen for the picture has
a minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of infinity and the picture would not change. (s.4.30) The picture of Pythagoras would not change
under acceleration. (s.4.31) The acceleration to be chosen for the picture
has a minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of infinity and the picture would not change. (s.4.32) The assumption of Coriolis is that the picture
of Pythagoras will not change under velocity. (s.4.33) The assumption of Coriolis is that the picture
of Pythagoras will not change under acceleration. (s.4.34) I assume that the picture of Pythagoras will
not change under a changing acceleration. (s.4.35) I assume that the picture of Pythagoras will
not change under any kind of movement. (s.4.36) If this is so then we can differentiate space
by time. (s.4.37) If this is not so then we do not know how
space changes under movement and we cannot continue with is reasoning.
(s.4.38) For any progress to be made we assume that the
picture of Pythagoras will not changes under any kind of movement. (s.4.39) Chapter 5:
The
differentiation of
space by time Coriolis differentiated space by time twice.
(s.5.1) 

















Continue with this calculation. (s.5.2)
Now do this differentiation for the twice
differentiated space by time equation. (s.5.3)
The equation above is the second order space
time relation. (s.5.4)
It was first written down by Coriolis
(17921843). (s.5.5)
The gravitational interaction is: (s.5.6)
The interaction of mass with mass has no
angular component Fa. (s.5.7)
If you now push the planet towards the sun, the
radius r becomes smaller. (s.5.8)
is not zero and the angular velocity is not zero. (s.5.9)
This means that the object planet is
experiencing the Coriolis force. (s.5.10)
This is the Coriolis force (Fcoriolis).
(s.5.11)
It means that the angular velocity is getting
greater out of a pushing inwards. (s.5.12)
The pushing of the planet inwards is the red
arrow. (s.5.13)
The reaction of the planet, the increasing angular
velocity is the blue arrow. (s.5.14)
It is now obvious that a theory written down in
components of acceleration (that is forces) can never be complete if it is not
2 dimensional. (s.5.15)
The second order space by time relation
dictates acceleration in the other direction. (s.5.16)
As I do this year in year out, I would wonder
what happens if, I differentiate space by time for the third time. (s.5.17)
Now do the Pythagoras. (s.5.18)
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
This results in: (s.5.19)
This means that an interaction written down in
components of changing accelerations has a unique space by time relation (s.5.20)
This is the third order space by time relation.
(s.5.21)
The third order space by time relation dictates
reactions that we did not expect before the calculation. (s.5.22)
The second order space by time relation dictates
the Coriolis Effect, the third order space by time relation dictates other
reactions. (s.5.23)
It also means that when we see a force,
acceleration being differentiated by time, we have the possibility of a
mistake. (s.5.24)
If the force being differentiated by time is
two dimensional, we are in third order space by time territory. (s.5.25)
With these new equations be are able to
mathematically describe things that we could not describe before. (s.5.26)
If you cannot be sure about calculations with a
differentiated force, you cannot be sure about calculations with energy per
second. (s.5.27)
Al work until now has assumed that there is no
possibility of a mistake when differentiating a force, that is acceleration by
time. (s.5.28)
As
this in now no longer the case, we are confronted with a very hard conclusion. (s.5.29)
All three times space by time differentiated,
two dimensional, situations need to be checked. (s.5.30)
From now on we will question whether the
described situation under investigation is a real second order situation or
that it is a third order situation. (s.5.31)
Force being acceleration multiplied with a mass,
is only a valid term in twice space by time differentiated, two dimensional, situations.
(s.5.32)
There are a lot of
three times space by time differentiated, two dimensional, situations. (s.5.33)
If you see three dots above an x, y or
zposition, then you could be in third order. (s.5.34)
If
the triple dot situation is claimed to be two dimensional then there is a
mistake. (s.5.35)
Chapter 6:
Making third order gravity
equations
Planets are described with the following two
equations. (s.6.1)
Differentiate these equations by time (s.6.2)
From the third order space by time relation we
have: (s.6.3)
Replace the and
the and you will get a new interaction. (s.6.4)
Show this result in a picture. (s.6.5)
The result we now have is a mathematical result
just like the mathematical result of Coriolis. (s.6.6)
No one can contradict this mathematical result.
(s.6.7)
It is describing the Newtonian gravity
infinitely precise. (s.6.8)
This is a remarkable result (s.6.9)
The extra degrees of freedom in the equation
will make the gravitational ellipse rotate. (s.6.10)
This is known as the rosette movement. (s.6.11)
All planets have an orbital motion as a rosette. (s.6.12)
This is stated by Le Verrier. (18111877) (s.6.13)
So the stated equations are an improvement of
the second order equations. (s.6.14)
Chapter 7:
The
rotational transformation
Le Verrier stated that the gravitational
ellipse should rotate. (s.7.1)
The following equations should be rotational
transformed. (s.7.2)
This transformation is like a velocity transformation
in the x direction, but than in the angular direction. (s.7.3)
From Kepler (15711630) we have: (s.7.4)
So: (s.7.5)
From now on we will leave out the quote for
indication of the new system and recalculate the interaction equation. (s.7.6)
Differentiate the Kepler law and this will get
the new Coriolis equation. (s.7.7)
Divide this equation by r. (s.7.8)
Differentiate this equation by time. (s.7.9)
This result is equal to this: (s.7.10)
Move the nontriple dot terms to the other
side. (s.7.11)
The angular third order interaction is the
following equation. (s.7.12)
Fill in the r angle triple dot. (s.7.13)
Reform the equation. (s.7.14)
Mercury orbits in 88 days and has a radius r of
about 57 million km. (s.7.15)
The angular velocity is than 8e7 rad/sec. (s.7.16)
The angular velocity out of the rosette motion
is 35 km in one orbit. (s.7.17)
The angular velocity for the rosette motion is
8e14. (s.7.18)
Do the same for the radius interaction. (s.7.19)
Fill in the new angular velocity. (s.7.20)
Differentiate this by time and leave out the ‘ for the new system. (s.7.21)
The radial interaction of the third order was: (s.7.22)
Replace the r triple dot. (s.7.23)
Write out all the terms and collect them. (s.7.24)
Write the equation in the original form to see
the deviational terms. (s.7.25)
The deviational terms are small compared to the
original terms. (s.7.26)
W e started with the two equations from
Coriolis and differentiated them by time. (s.7.27)
But before the differentiation we can multiply
the equation by r, r dot or angle or angle dot. (s.7.28)
This then gives totally different interactions,
all describing gravity infinitely precise. (s.7.29)
Multiply the radial interaction with r squared
and the gravitational constant C completely disappears. (s.7.30)
This means that gravitation become a property
of a planet. (s.7.31)
We could of course differentiate space by time
for the fourth time. (s.7.32)
This will make all kinds of new equations. (s.7.33)
All the new equations are describing gravity,
infinitely precise. (s.7.34)
The rosette motion of mercury can be partly
explained by calculating the gravitational interactions with the other planets.
(s.7.35)
Only a small part cannot be explained. (s.7.36)
This is then explained by the relativity theory
of Einstein (18791955). (s.7.37)
The relativity theory of Einstein stretches and
shrinks space and then contradicts the Pythagoras squares. (s.7.38)
This is at the beginning of this document. (s.7.39)
The relativity contradicts its own assumptions.
(s.7.40)
Le Verrier stated that the gravitational
equations should rotate. (s.7.41)
Stating this means that you want to make an
equation capable of holding more parameters. (s.7.42)
Holding more parameters means differentiate
space by time one time extra. (s.7.43)
What is wrong with just doing the mathematical
exercise, as we just did? (s.7.44)
Chapter 8:
Overview
0 Zero order  Pythagoras (570  500)
The Pythagoras
equation only has a fixed x and fixed yposition per object. (s.8.1)
In the 0 order model
of the world motion is a problem. (s.8.2)
When an object moves,
its movement is dictated by the will of the object. (s.8.3)
Motion is not
mathematical describable. (s.8.4)
The 0 order model was
over thrown by Ptolemeus (87150) (s.8.5)
1 First order  Claudius Ptolemeus
(87150)
The world is
explained using objects moving in circles with a constant velocity. (s.8.6)
So the Ptolemeus description of the world has 4 parameters per
object. (s.8.7)
The Ptolemeus vision of how the world works ruled for 1400
years. (s.8.8)
The elliptic movement
of the planets is not mathematical describable. (s.8.9)
The 1st order model
was over thrown by Kepler (1571 – 1630).
(s.8.10)
2 Second order  Coriolis (17921843)
The second order description of the world has 6
parameters per object. (s.8.11)
The world is explained by acceleration, which
is equal to forces divided by the mass of the object. (s.8.12)
This vision of the world cannot mathematical
describe the rotating elliptical motion of the planets. (s.8.13)
The second order model cannot mathematical
describe differentiated forces. (s.8.14)
The 2nd order model was over thrown by Le Verrier
(18111877). (s.8.15)
3 Third
order space by time
The third order description of the world has 8
parameters per object. (s.8.16)
The third order model cannot mathematical
describe phenomena that are dictated by changing differentiated forces. (s.8.17)
In this case you are in 4^{th} order
territory. (s.8.18)
4 Fourth
order space by time
The fourth order model has 10 parameters per
object (s.8.19)
The differentiation of space by time as it is
done here implicates that no relativity is needed to mathematical describe the
rosette motion as stated by Le Verrier. (s.8.20)
This work is contradicting the Relativity
theory. (s.8.21)
The differentiation of xndot and yndot and
the squaring and adding up of the terms can be called “Pythagorising”.
(s.8.22)
N is a number, greater than minus one. (s.8.23)
Pythagorising introduces new equations. (s.8.24)
These equations are able to describe
mathematically the equations of the previous order infinitely precise. (s.8.25)
The extra degree of freedom in the equation
makes it possible to mathematically describe different motions. (s.8.26)
Order n has 2(n+1) parameters. (s.8.27)
For a normal 0 order Pythagoras we need one X0
and one Y0 to solve the problem. (s.8.28)
For a first order we need (t=0, X0, Y0) and (t=t1,
X1, Y1) (s.8.29)
Assuming that measurements can only contain a
finite number of data points, then we can always make an n order Pythagoras
equation, which will fit the data points infinitely precise. (s.8.30)
A lot mathematical engineers do this to day.
(s.8.31)
The technique is used in stock market trading.
(s.8.32)
So any set of data points has its own infinite
precise equation. (s.8.33)
Ptolemeus stated that all objects move in circles.
(s.8.34)
Kepler stated that all objects move in ellipses.
(s.8.35)
Le Verrier stated that all objects move in
rotating ellipses. (s.8.36)
The mathematical techniques used implicate a
third order model. (s.8.37)
The reasoning here introduces more and more
parameters to describe a finite number of measurements. (s.8.38)
If reality is build up out of an infinite
number of measurements then we would need an infinite number of parameters.
(s.8.39)
If this is not the case then life is
predictable. (s.8.40)
In the case of an infinite number of
measurements and a infinite number of parameters, the measurements
are predictable and unpredictable at the same time. (s.8.41)
Logic implicate that there is a certain pattern
in the measurements. (s.8.42)
And the Nth order fit of reality could predict
a lot of the movement of a particle, but we are free to state that this is
based upon a finite number of measurements. (s.8.43)
The finite number of measurements implicate
that reality could and probably is different. (s.8.44)
Accepting a small piece temporarily is necessary for
understanding the whole picture. (s.8.45) (s.2.35)
The reasoning here forces us to believe that more
degrees of freedom, more parameters are needed to describe the world. (s.8.46)
The work here tries to introduce a third order model.
(s.8.47)
The model is not perfect but allows forces to change
over time in a two dimensional way. (s.8.48)
The world is now described by forces, but these forces
cannot be differentiated by time in a two dimensional situation. (s.8.49)
The change introduced by Pythagoras resulted in
the correct calculation of the distance between two point (x0,y0)
and (x1,y1). (s.8.50)
The change introduced by Ptolemeus
resulted in the correct calculation of the circling stars. (s.8.51)
The change introduced by Coriolis resulted in the
correct calculation of the elliptical movement of the planets. (s.8.52)
The change introduced by a third order model
results in the correct calculation of the rotating elliptical movements of the
planets. (s.8.53)
The reasoning here distinguishes between
measurements and reality. (s.8.54)
Measurements indicate that there is a possible
logical sequence of events. (s.8.55)
And we make equations to describe the
measurements. (s.8.56)
Reality holds an infinite number of
measurements so science cannot make an equation to make it logical. (s.8.57)
A scientist can tell you what is done but a
scientist cannot tell you how it is. (s.8.58)
Chapter 9:
Comparison with Lorentz
Lorentz (18531928) introduced the two system
relativity model. (s.9.1)
In this model you have two systems with a
constant velocity between them. (s.9.2)
The only difference between the two systems is
that there is a relative velocity between them. (s.9.3)
Various experiences have shown that there is
the fact of the invariance of the speed of light. (s.9.4)
This implicates that a physical laws can be
Lorentz transformed from system 1 to system 2. (s.9.5)
The invariance of the speed of light is based
upon experiments with the orbit of the earth. (s.9.6)
The means that the transformation should not be
linear, as Lorentz did, but rotation. (s.9.7)
This is what we have done in chapter 7. (s.9.8)
Another problem is with the constant velocity
between the two systems. (s.9.9)
As this velocity is constant you do not have
the possibility to alter the velocity between the systems over time. (s.9.10)
The question:”How is space contracting under the
acceleration of the velocity between the two systems in relativity?”
cannot be answered as relativity does not allow the
thinking in changing the velocity between the two systems. (s.9.11)
The relativity theory does not allow the
changing of velocity between the two systems as it is the speed of light.
(s.9.12)
The two systems are described with acceleration
and there is a relative velocity between them. (s.9.13)
The velocity between the two systems is
independent of the accelerations of the objects in the systems. (s.9.14)
This implicates that the velocity between the
two systems is independent. (s.9.15)
The independency of the velocity between the
two systems implicates the extra differentiation to become one system. (s.9.16)
The situation Lorentz describes is a third
order model. (s.9.17)
Relativity states that space is shrinking when
it is moved. (s.9.18)
This statement is not
completely true, but assume,
for now, that it is true. (s.9.19)
Then relativity would contradict is own
assumption of the squared Pythagoras picture. (s.9.20)
Then you are not able to do the tricks of
Coriolis and then you will not be able to mathematically describe anything.
(s.9.21)
But the relativity statement “Space is
shrinking when it is moved” is not true. (s.9.22)
It is only observed to be shrinking. (s.9.23)
I have tried to show this with the little
Pythagoras picture in the System1 and the System2. (s.9.24)
Pythagoras is valid in both systems and there
is no contradiction. (s.9.25)
This description will always raised questions as there are two contradicting
statements. (s.9.26)
Space is contracting under velocity, Space is
observed contracting under velocity and when you are the observer in System1
then space will not change under velocity. (s.9.27)
The reasoning here switches
very fast from contradiction to nocontradiction, based upon small verbal
differences. (s.9.28)
Lorentz states that there are two systems.
(s.9.29)
There is one system for observer1 and one system
for observer2. (s.9.30)
This states that there are particles in system
1 and particles in system 2. (s.9.31)
If an atom of one neutron and one proton would disintegrate
into one neutron and one proton, do all these particles then stay in the system
of the particle before the disintegration? (s.9.32)
If the answer is “yes” then all the particles
in the universe are in one system and there is no interaction with system 2.
(s.9.33)
If the answer is “no” then a following question
arises. (s.9.34)
Based upon what rules does a particle become a
particle of system1 and based upon what rules does a particle become a particle
of system2. (s.9.35)
As the particle disintegrates there is at least
one moment in which particles of system1 and system2 are mixed. (s.9.36)
So particles of system1 and system2 are mixed.
(s.9.37)
This is a strange situation. (s.9.38)
It implicates that there is one system. (s.9.39)
It implicates that we should differentiate
space by time for the third time. (s.9.40)
The statements here implicate that the third
order model is an optional model for mathematically describing changing
accelerations. (s.9.41)
Chapter 10:
Comparison with Einstein
Einstein stated “Gravity interaction cannot be
instantaneous.” (s.10.1)
It is spooky if one mass particle knows the
position and the velocity of another mass particle instantaneous. (s.10.2)
He declared nothing can go faster than the
velocity of light so the interaction works through gravitons. (s.10.3)
Gravitons depart with a small portion of the
force that needs to be exchanged from the one mass particle to the other mass
particle. (s.10.4)
The gravitons are the yellow circles in the
picture. (s.10.5)
The small portion of the force that needs to be
exchanged is transferred to the graviton with an interaction. (s.10.6)
The interaction between mass particle and the graviton
took some time (dt). (s.10.7)
And the result is a small force, that is mass times
acceleration. (s.10.8)
So the interaction is exchanging force per second
during the time it took to release the graviton. (s.10.9)
This is an interaction of acceleration per second.
(s.10.10)
This is obvious a third order model though. (s.10.11)
The description of gravitons demands a third order
model. (s.10.12)
The mathematical problem of the earth around the sun
demands a third order description (s.10.13)
It is spooky if the departing graviton knows the
position, velocity and acceleration of the host mass particle. (s.10.14)
So you cannot solve the spookiness problem by
introducing gravitons. (s.10.15)
The differential equations have a result that fits
reality. (s.10.16)
The calculation is the only thing that is important.
(s.10.17)
Any reasoning will have a starting point and an ending
point. (s.10.18)
The ending point in this reasoning can be either
ending point 1 or ending point 2. (s.10.19)
See the picture above. (s.10.20)
If you choose ending point 2 to be your ending point
of the reasoning then you will be confronted with: It is spooky if the
particles know each other’s position instantaneous. (s.10.21)
So then you will be forced to say that there is a
graviton arranging the interaction. (s.10.22)
And then you will be forced to choose ending point 1
as the ending point of this reasoning. (s.10.23)
Otherwise there is no ending point in the reasoning
and that would be unacceptable. (s.10.24)
So we now choose ending point 1 as the ending for our
reasoning with the knowledge that we cannot go any further with the term
“graviton”. (s.10.25)
The term “graviton” will not have any connection with
calculations. (s.10.26)
The term “graviton” is only used to stop the thinking
in instantaneous knowledge of particle of other particles. (s.10.27)
The terms we make up to describe our world should be
connected to a mathematical term, otherwise we could
make up a lot of terms with no connections with calculations. (s.10.28)
The term “graviton” is not a scientific term.
(s.10.29)
The term “graviton” is purely theoretical. (s.10.30)
There is no machine detecting “gravitons”. (s.10.31)
At least we now know that we do not know what we are talking about with the term “graviton”. (s.10.32)
There is one way out of this reasoning and that is
assuming an indivisible particle. (s.10.33)
Assume a non deformable mass particle with mass m1
with velocity v1 and a non deformable mass particle m2 with velocity v2.
(s.10.34)
When the two mass particles collide and exchange an impulse,
the force needed to exchange is infinitely large and toke one divided by
infinity time. (s.10.35)
Interaction cannot take no
time and an interaction cannot have a infinitely large value. (s.10.36)
This last statement is like: “interaction cannot be
instantaneous”. (s.10.37) (s.10.1)
It is a mistake to reason about the properties of an interaction
in this way. (s.10.38)
The mathematical result is the only thing that is
important. (s.10.39)
The assumption of non deformable particles was
successful to a certain point. (s.10.40)
The assumption states that the world consists of a
finite number of particles. (s.10.41)
The world consisting of an infinite number of
particles, is not understandable, but turns out to be more successful in
describing the world. (s.10.42)
I know that I do not understand an infinite number of particles;
I know that I do not understand instantaneous, but I do understand the
mathematical result on the computer. (s.10.43)
In this reasoning there is no other solution then the
mathematical one. (s.10.44)
And if the root cause of this equation if a
differential equation, then there is no problem as long as the equation
describes the observed data the best. (s.10.45)
We have to believe the equations, we have no other
choice. (s.10.46)
Many scientists do not accept instantaneous
interaction. (s.10.47)
So the gravitational differential equations are not accepted. (s.10.48)
Einstein stated
“Gravity interaction cannot be instantaneous.” (s.10.49) (s.10.1)
So, a graviton particle was introduced, capable
to carry the interaction. (s.10.50)
The gravitonlike particles have not been
detected, but that seems to be of no importance. (s.10.51)
The “feeling” that we now understand what we
are doing is much more important. (s.10.52)
This is just a trick of the mind; the
differential equations make the result and they are instantaneous. (s.10.53)
Let us do the same for the third order
differential equation and introduce a gravitonlike particle. (s.10.54)
The third order interaction is carried by a “topcion” particle. (s.10.55)
“Topcion” stands for
a third order particle carry interaction to an other
particle. (s.10.56)
Topcions have not been detected yet, but that is – at
this point in time – of no importance. (s.10.57)
We now understand what we are doing. (s.10.58)
There are two ways in describing this world;
finite and infinite. (s.10.59)
Some scientists state that there are 1e+186
particles. (s.10.60)
If we choose the world to be finite then we
must state that there are indivisible
particles. (s.10.61)
The atom was assumed to be indivisible. (s.10.62)
“Atom” means indivisible in Greek. (s.10.63)
If we choose the world to be infinite then we
must state that we do not understand “infinite”. (s.10.64)
Our human body has intellectual limitations. (s.10.65) (s.1.22)
If we state that a certain object exists, then we do
this by its measurable properties. (s.10.66)
If the object has an infinite number of measurable
properties, then we do not understand the object. (s.10.66)
Thinking in finite numbers makes our reasoning more
understandable. (s.10.67)
The real results of physics are made with the
assumption of infinity. (s.10.68)
A scientist can tell you what is done but a
scientist cannot tell you how it is. (s.10.69) (s.8.58)
Chapter 11: Einstein
has been in the third order.
The derivation below is the derivation of E=mc2 as it
is done by Einstein (18791955). (s.11.1)
You would expect more equations, but no, this is all.
(s.11.2)
P4 is the velocity dependent mass times the speed of
light c. (s.11.3)
See equation 1 and 11, (eq.1) and (eq.11). (s.11.4)
P4 is differentiated by time, this results in an
equation which contains velocity time’s acceleration. (s.11.5)
This is equation 3 (eq.3). (s.11.6)
This is a triple dot equation. (s.11.7)
The reasoning here must be one dimensional as Coriolis
has shown us that strange cross products will arise in two dimensional problems
that are differentiated twice, or more, by time. (s.11.8)
This equation is then transformed into energy per
second. (eq.8) (s.11.9)
By integrating equation 8 by time, we get back into
the second order, a double dot situation. (s.11.10)
The derivation of E=mc2 is completely independent of
the relativistic meaning of P4. (s.11.11)
Einstein differentiates (eq.1) and then later on
reintegrates this equation by time. (s.11.12)
Normally there is no advantage in differentiating (by
time) and the reintegration (by time). (s.11.13)
The
left side non functional differentiation and integration by time is indicated
by the red arrows. (s.11.14)
The intension of the reasoning was to keep imc on the left side all along. (s.11.15)
This is indicated by the blue allows. (s.11.16)
The reasoning creates iE/c
on the right side. (s.11.17)
This is indicated by the green arrows. (s.11.18)
In the gravity equation there is only one type of
mass. (s.11.19)
One thousand kilogram is a volume of one cubic meter.
(s.11.20)
Now we have three types of mass. (s.11.21)
We have the velocity dependent mass. (s.11.22)
We have the velocity independent mass, as in a photon.
(s.11.23)
And we have the mass that has no mass but is only
energy. (s.11.24)
The rules for mass particles to change from one type
of mass to another is not at all clear.
(s.11.25)
But we can now state that a mass particle has no mass,
it can by only energy. (s.11.26)
So we have a mass particle which has no mass.
(s.11.27)
This last statement is very important. (s.11.28)
It shows that the words chosen to describe the
situation are not successful. (s.11.29)
The words chosen implicate a contradiction. (s.11.30)
A least we now know why there is no progress.
(s.11.31)
The term mass is no longer clear in its meaning, it
can have no mass. (s.11.32)
The reasoning starts at step 1 in the picture.
(s.11.33)
It states we have velocity dependent mass on the left
and right side. (s.11.34)
The left side stays the velocity dependent mass.
(s.11.35)
The right side is transformed into energy, declaring
velocity independent mass along the way. (s.11.36)
We only doing this to describe why mass is energy.
(s.11.37)
A successful description will use a new term, will use
new words and these words will show when the particle will have mass and when
the particle will only be energy. (s.11.38)
The new words will do this with no implicated
contradiction. (s.11.39)
Mass and energy are then no longer independent
identities. (s.11.40)
They are the same identity. (s.11.41)
The derivation of E=mc2 is completely independent of
the relativistic meaning of P4. (s.11.42)
Is a non relativistic derivation of E=mc2 possible?
(s.11.43)
Chapter 12: Non
relativistic E=mc2.


Action plus reaction is null. (s.12.1) So action is minus 1, times reaction. (s.12.2) This is equation 2. (eq.2) (s.12.3) If the action is a photon with impulse Px per second on a large mass object Mt, then this object
will increase its mass and or increase its acceleration. (eq.5) (s.12.6) Assume that the acceleration has reached its
maximum. (s.12.7) Then the larger mass object Mt can only increase its
velocity in reaction on a hit by a photon. (m0c)(s.12.8) Now assume that the mass Mt of the large mass object
is linear heavier with the velocity. (eq.6) (s.12.9) Then fill in equation 6 (eq.6) in equation 5 (eq.5).(s.12.10) The result is equation 7. (eq.7)(s.12.11) Energy is mass over a distance X times the
acceleration. (eq.8) (s.12.12) Differentiate equation 8.(s.12.13) This results in equation 9. (s.12.14) Assume that the variance of the acceleration over
the distance X null is. (eq.10) (s.12.15) We can replace the right side of equation 7 with
energy per second. (s.12.16) This results in equation 11. (eq.11)(s.12.17) Equation 11 is written down for the first time by
Einstein (18791955). (s12.18) Equation 13 and 14 are the very famous next steps.
(s.12.19) We now have the result equation 14. (s.12.20) E=mc² (s.12.21) You can do this the other way around. (s.12.22) If you have the result E=mc² you could say that the large mass object Mt is getting linear heavier with its velocity.(s.12.23) This is equation 6. (s.12.24) This conclusion is only valid under the assumptions
stated. (s.12.25) This reasoning contradicts Einstein as it assumes a
maximum on the acceleration. (s.12.26) This reasoning contradicts Einstein as it assumes
that the large mass object Mt is getting linear heavier with velocity. (s.12.27) Until now there are no experiments weighing a large
mass object Mt under high velocity or high acceleration. (s.12.28) If a mass is heavier when it has velocity is never
proposed an experimental result. (s.12.29) The reasoning here is purely theoretical. (s.12.30) The result of this very long reasoning is that mass
is getting heavier as it moves. (s.12.30) This result contradicts the original assumption that
mass is independent of its velocity. (s.12.31) No reasoning can contradict its own assumptions.
(s.12.32) The gravity, second order equations should
have solved the problem, apparently they do not. (s.12.33) The above picture is the work of Lagrange
(17361813). (s.12.34) We are only doing the left part. (s.12.35) The outcome of the reasoning is that the
kinetic energy is ½ m v². (s.12.36) The blue arrow is the most important step.
(s.12.37) Lagrange would do the following for the third
order theory. (s.12.38) The kinetic energy of the third order is
equal to the non relativistic energy in E = mc². (s.12.39) The kinetic energy of the third order is mass
time’s acceleration time’s velocity. (s.12.40) Einstein’s reasoning created third order
kinetic energy. (s.12.41) Einstein’s reintegration by time was
necessary because he thought that the result was energy per second. (s.12.42) Energy per second is a three times space by
time differentiated statement. (s.12.43) Coriolis has shown us that strange cross
products appear in the two dimensional reasoning of twice space by time differentiated situations. (s.12.44) Three times space by time situations have the
same characteristics. (s.12.45) The reasoning here will not work two
dimensional. (s.12.46) 
Chapter 13: The
difference between
relativity and
third order model
The main difference between third order and relativity
is that relativity deforms space and time in order to change the interaction.
(s.13.1)
The third order model changes the interaction itself
in such a way that the result is a rotating ellipse. (s.13.2)
The
mathematical techniques used to achieve this result are treated in chapter 5. (s.13.3)
The observed data does not influence the Euclidean
perpendicular space for a third order model. (s.13.4)
The observed
data does not influence the progression of time for a third order model. (s.13.5)
The
relativity result is derived, came as a result, of the invariance of the speed
of light. (s.13.6)
The third order model result is a result of
constructing equations that result in the observed data. (s.13.7)
Relativity
claims to be the result of logic. (s.13.8)
The third order model and it techniques will accept
any data and will create equations for it, without claiming logic or reasoning.
(s.13.9)
Relativity
and the third order model are derived from the second order model. (s.13.10)
In the
second order model duration of time is equal to, is defined as, the change in
position. (s.13.11)
If your change in position is 1 meter and you are
travelling with a speed of 1 meter per second then 1 second has past. (s.13.12)
The second order model, the gravity equations,
dictates the change of position and the change of position then dictates the
duration of time. (s.13.13)
As this
no longer works, all planets are rotating ellipses; both models came with a
solution. (s.13.14)
Relativity
deforms space and changes the progression of time. (s.13.15)
The term
“force” is untouched and is not changed by relativity. (s.13.16)
The third order model
differentiates force, which is mass times acceleration and declares that a
third order Pythagoras is needed as Coriolis has shown us. (s.13.17)
Acceleration
cannot be easily differentiated by time as Coriolis has shown us. (s.13.18)
The work
of Coriolis is redone in chapter 5. (s.13.19)
The third time of space by time differentiation has
never been considered. (s.13.20)
The unexpected changing of the acceleration is the
root cause of the rotating ellipse. (s.13.21)
Changing acceleration can only be treated as it has
been done in chapter 5. (s.13.22)
If a particle changes its position from (x,y) to (x+dx,y+dy)
then we have divided the trajectory in an infinity amount of small pieces in
the first order. (s.13.23)
The amount of time dt has a fixed relation with dx. (s.13.24)
If an unexpected change in the velocity is recorded,
then we need to divide the dx in an infinity amount of small pieces. (s.13.25)
The second order model is now created. (s.13.26)
As the unexpected change of the acceleration is
stated, we would expect the third order model to be stated. (s.13.27)
But that would destroy the term “force” as it is not
always mathematical correct to be used. (s.13.28)
If one disagrees with the statement (s.13.28) then
rework chapter 5. (s.13.29)
The reasoning that follows the red arrows, keeps the
space Euclidean, perpendicular. (s.13.30)
The relativity path is state with the blue arrows.
(s.13.31)
Imagine two particles going into interaction.
(s.13.32)
The particles that go into interaction dictate the
inertial system. (s.13.33)
A third particle cannot dictate the inertial system as
it would then interfere in the interaction and it is not. (s.13.34)
There is one big difference between the (1, 2, 3)
order, red reasoning and the relativity, blue reasoning. (s.13.35)
If we imagine the particle during an ever smaller
duration, then the change in its position then would become zero. (s.13.36)
If we would then stop this state for some time and
then start the particle again,
then there
would be no change in the outcome of the experiment in the case of an (1, 2, 3)
order model. (s.13.37)
If we do the same in the case of a relativity
experiment, then the knowledge of the velocity is lost. (s.13.38)
The outcome of the relativity experiment
is different in case of a temporarily stop and start of the particle. (s.13.39)
These statements are only valid if the particle knows
its own (x, y) position and its own (x, y) velocity and its own (x, y)
acceleration
and loses
the knowledge of the other (x, y) velocity and the other (x, y)
acceleration. (s.13.40)
The other position is not important as the own (x, y)
position is already in the inertial system. (s.13.41)
The particle has knowledge of the inertial system.
(s.13.42)
But the inertial system cannot have a velocity or
acceleration as this would contradict the position, velocity and acceleration of
the particle itself. (s.13.43)
Particles going into interaction dictate the inertial
system and this dictation is not logical to be changed afterwards. (s.13.44)
Imagine an electron colliding on another electron,
some information of the real state of the electron is lost. (s.13.45)
The mathematical description is not capable of
holding, recalling all of the properties. (s.13.46)
This is the same as the Heisenberg (1901 – 1976) uncertainty principle.
(s.13.47)
The principal came of out the mathematical technique
chosen. (s.13.48)
Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing.
(s.13.49)
The last statement is from Warren Buffett (1930xxxx).
(s.13.50)
Whether nature is losing information or not in its
processes, can only be told by the one who has made nature itself. (s.13.51)
The work here is only claiming that the
differentiation of space by time is an option to be considered. (s.13.52)
If nature loses information in its processes, the outcome
is not predictable. (s.13.53)
If nature loses information in its processes, progress
of science will eventually stop. (s.13.54)
The mathematical techniques explained in chapter 5,
opens new and unrestricted possibilities in describing the mathematical
problems. (s.13.55)
First we had the theory of Pythagoras. (s.13.56)
Then we stated that this picture of Pythagoras would
not change under constant velocity. (s.13.57)
This would the enable us to differentiated space by
time. (s.13.58)
Then we stated that this picture of Pythagoras would
not change under constant acceleration. (s.13.59)
This enabled Coriolis to differentiated space by time
twice. (s.13.60)
The term “force” is then created. (s.13.61)
Science found the invariance of the speed of light.
(s.13.62)
Science then concluded that space stretches and
shrinks and that the progression of time is dependent on the velocity.
(s.13.63)
The shrinking and stretching of space contradicts the
assumption that the picture of Pythagoras is not changing under acceleration.
(s.13.64)
No theory can contradict its own assumptions.
(s.13.65)
There is one way out of this reasoning and that is to
state that sentence (s.13.62) or (s.13.63) is not correct. (s.13.66)
Some scientist state that (s.13.63) is for the general
public and not correct. (s.13.67)
This means that science is not willing or not capable
of translating the mathematical outcome of a very complicate reasoning into a
clear statement. (s.13.68)
Compare this situation now with the simple proposal of
the differentiation of space by time for the third time. (s.13.69)
Everything is fair and simple. (s.13.70)
The speed of light is defined in a Euclid space that
will not exist anymore after the reasoning. (s.13.71)
In a calculation everything is logical correct.
(s.13.72)
If this is not the case that the words, the terms
connected to mathematical terms are not useful in describing the phenomena
observed. (s.13.73)
Knowing that the words chosen do not hold the meaning needed,
is the first step in overthrowing the theory all together. (s.13.74)
Physics is now describing the world with forces, a
term that will not work in a two dimensional three times space by time
differentiated situation. (s.13.74)
Chapter 14: The definition of time: first,
second and third There are 9 planets circling the sun. (s.14.1) 





























So there is a relation between all the orbittimes
in days and the distance to the sun. (s.14.2) There are 24 hours of 3600 seconds in one day. (s.14.3) That is 86400 seconds in one day. (s.14.4) So there are 31,558,118.4 seconds in one year. (s.14.5) The earths distance to the sun is 149.6 Gm. (s.14.6) Most of this work is done by Copernicus (14731543). (s.14.7) Copernicus states the planets circle the sun. (s.14.8) One circle of the earth around the sun is 365.256
days. (s.14.9) From Pythagoras(c. 570500 BC) x=rcos(a) and
filling in equation 2 gives: (s.14.10) Let’s make a differential equation for this result. (s.14.11) The variation of the radius is zero. So dR/dt = =
0. (s.14.12) 





This differential equation is an interaction
equation. (s.14.13)
The interaction equation works just like
Newtonian gravitation interaction equation. (s.14.14)
Newton lived from 1642 – 1727. (s.14.15)
The result of this interaction equation is a
circular movement of the planets. (s.14.16)
The earth does its orbit in 365.256 days. (s.14.17)Now
differentiate equation (5.1) and (5.2) again. (s.14.18)
The result differential equation (6.1) and
(6.2) is the Newtonian gravitational interaction equation. (s.14.19)
At the university I was never taught this
logic. (s.14.20)
But I now assume that the first men to write
down the Newtonian gravitational equation got to this equation by this
reasoning. (s.14.21)
It is unlikely that someone did just write down
equation (6.1) and (6.2) by looking at a falling apple. (s.14.22)
The statement “Newton (1642 – 1727) saw this
equation by looking at a falling apple” is untrue. (s.14.23)
The interaction equations (5) en (6) both
describe the circular movement of the planets. (s.14.24)
Both equations state that 1 circle of the earth
is 365.256 days. (s.14.25)
Yet the progression of time is completely
different for each equation. (s.14.26)
The single space by time differentiated
equation (5) means that the circle of the earth has been divided in infinitely
small pieces and then integrated. (s.14.27)
The double space by time differentiated equation
(6) means that the circle of the earth has been divided
in infinitely small pieces and every infinitely
small piece has been divided into infinitely small pieces
again. (s.14.28)
In the integration of equation (5) we have
infinite (∞) pieces. (s.14.29)
In the integration of equation (6) we have
infinite times infinite (∞*∞) pieces. (s.14.30)
Although both equations state that 1 circle of
the earth is 365.256 days,
they are completely different in the way of the
progression of time. (s.14.31)
The equation (5) holds, is the first order
definition of time. (s.14.32)
The equation (6) holds, is the second order
definition of time. (s.14.33)
The equation (6) is a better description of the
world, as it can describe movement that the equation (5) cannot do. (s.14.34)
Kepler (15711630) states that all planets
ellipse the sun, not circle. (s.14.35)
As the equation (6) can describe the planets
ellipse around the sun, equation (6) is adapted and equation (5) is forgotten. (s.14.36)
Le Verrier (18111877) states that all planets
make a rosette motion around the sun. (s.14.37)
A rosette motion is a rotating (circling)
ellipse. (s.14.38)
We now simply need a new equation resulting in
a rotating ellipse. (s.14.39)
Differentiate equation (6) again. (s.14.40)
Differentiate equation (7) again. (s.14.41)
We started this discussion with a planet at a
position x en y with velocity dx/dt en dy/dt. (s.14.42)
It appeared that this was not good enough and
we introduced a second order (gravitational) equation (6). (s.14.43)
It appeared that this was not good enough and
we introduced a third order equation (7). (s.14.44)
All equations have the definition that if one
rotation of the earth has happened 365.256 days has passed. (s.14.45)
But, all progression of time is different for
each equation. (s.14.46)
In a first order description of the earth
around the sun, we divided the rotation in 1 time infinity (∞) pieces.
(s.14.47)
In a second order description of the earth
around the sun, we divided the rotation in 1 time infinity (∞) pieces and every infinity small pieces is
also divided into infinity (∞)
pieces. (s.14.48)
For the second order description there are
infinity times infinity (∞*∞) pieces. (s.14.49)
For the third order description there are
infinity times infinity times infinity (∞*∞*∞)
pieces. (s.14.50)
During the time span of delta t (dt) all parameter are expected to
be constant, but they may vary in a equation of one order higher. (s.14.51)
This technique only makes better computational
results and is not explaining. (s.14.52)
I cannot change this. (s.14.53)
Le Verrier stated: “the planets are making
rotating ellipses around the sun”. (s.14.54)
Stating this is equal to introducing new
parameters. (s.14.55)
Introducing new parameters means
differentiating space by time for one time extra. (s.14.56)
Einstein (18791955) did not see that the
progression of time is different for the first order differential equation
compared to the second order differential equation. (s.14.57)
The next step in this theory is very difficult
as it introduces Jacobi (18041851) and Coriolis (17921843). (s.14.58)
The equations 7 and 8 are a shock for me
because they describe the gravitational, second order equations and have the
possibility to describe more phenomena. (s.14.59)
Anything we state is as good as the data we
have. (s.14.60)
It implies that there are always more data. (s.14.61)
But we cannot prove that there are more data. (s.14.62)
The data we now have is that the ellipses of
the planets are rotating. (s.14.63)
So the second equations need to be
differentiated one more time. (s.14.64)
This
mathematically means that the term “force”, second order interaction has lost
its meaning. (s.14.65)
Chapter 15: Changing
“Force” to second order interaction
“Eppur si muove” and yet it moves, is one of
the legendary statements of Galileo (15641642). (s.15.1)
At that time
people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. (s.15.2)
The earth is
not moving and everything around it, is moving around
the earth. (s.15.3)
Believing that the earth was moving, meant that we
were prepared to make our place, the earth, less important, less special in the
universe. (s.15.4)
The
earth is moving, means that something else is dictating the inertial space,
system. (s.15.5)
The
heliocentric and Newtonian, gravitational theories state that the earth orbits
an ellipse around the sun. (s.15.6)
This
ellipse is fixed in space and time compared to the stars. (s.15.7)
Our
own star, the sun, is not dictating this inertial system as she rotates. (s.15.8)
Heliocentric
means the sun is the centre. (s.15.9)
Being
the centre makes the sun important, but not important enough to dictate the
inertial system. (s.15.10)
The
rest of the universe is far away and dictates the inertial system. (s.15.11)
That is not very likely. (s.15.12)
Our
orbit around the sun is very special, she is in such a way that it appears that
the stars are not moving. (s.15.13)
It
can be the other way around. (s.15.14)
They
took the stars to be not moving, so that they could describe the movement of
the earth the fastest and easiest way. (s.15.15)
The
implied relation came out of convenience. (s.15.16)
It
is more likely that our sun and earth system is a sort of an island. (s.15.17)
In
fact the sun dictates the inertial system. (s.15.18)
The sun is rotating, so the earth is making a rotating
ellipse around the unmovable sun. (s.15.19)
The following two equations describe
the earth’s movement around the sun according to Newton (16431727). (s.15.20)
They are called the laws of gravitation. (s.15.21)
The C in the equations is the
gravitational constant multiplied by the mass of the sun. (s.15.22)
m is the mass of an object orbiting
the sun. (s.15.23)
To arrive at the gravitational laws
the following mathematical things happened. (s.15.24)
It all started with Pythagoras (c.
570500 BC). (s.15.25)
Pythagoras stated that the area of a
square the size of (A+B) by (A+B) equals the smaller square, the size of C by C,
plus the 4 halve rectangles. (s.15.26)
See the picture below. (s.15.27)
This equation results in A squared + B squared
is C squared. (s.15.28)
Newton and Coriolis (17921843) were
not aware of any space and time dependency. (s.15.29)
Space will not deform under
velocity. (s.15.30)
So we can differentiate space by
time. (s.15.31)
If space would deform under
velocity, then we cannot differentiate space by time and there would be no
result. (s.15.32)
Coriolis differentiated space by
time twice. (s.15.33)
And he did the same for Y. (s.15.34)
The full story of this is in chapter
4 and 5. (s.15.35)
The picture of equation (eq.15.1)
and (eq.15.2) is the same as the picture of Pythagoras. (s.15.36)
So we can state that the force in
the x direction squared plus the force in the y direction squared is equal to
the force along the radius squared. (s.15.37)
If one divides this equation by the
mass m of the object, one gets the equation of Coriolis. (s.15.38)
Gravitational interaction is
described by a set of equations in which space is differentiated twice by time.
(s.15.39)
If we take equation (eq.15.1) and (eq.15.2),
we can let the computer calculate the orbit. (s.15.40)
And indeed the orbit is an ellipse. (s.15.41)
We will have to choose four
parameters: xposition, xvelocity, yposition and yvelocity. (s.15.42)
Newton looked at this description
and stated: (s.15.43)
1) Every object with a mass will
stay in its state of constant position or constant velocity unless there is a
force working on the object. (s.15.44)
2) If there is a force working on
the object with mass, than the object will accelerate proportionally to and in
the same direction as the force. (s.15.45)
3) The action is minus reaction.
(s.15.46)
If one looks at the calculations the
computer is doing for you, to show you the orbit of the object, one will
recognize that names like “force” and “mass” are not important. (s.15.47)
They are made up to facilitate a
description of the facts observed. (s.15.48)
The only thing there on your
computer is a mathematical model that has the outcome of the observed. (s.15.49)
There are 4 constants you can
adjust: xposition, xvelocity, yposition and yvelocity. (s.15.50)
Newton and others do not state
anything about the inertial system. (s.15.51)
But from the equations (eq.15.1) and
(eq.15.2) we can state that the inertial system is decided by the objects,
particles that perform the interaction. (s.15.52)
This is fair. (s.15.53)
A particle not entering into
interaction cannot dictate other particles that do. (s.15.54)
The first star, outside the solar
system, is at one hundred thousand times the distance from the earth to the
sun. (s.15.55)
The influence of the nearest star
will be around one 10 billionth of the interaction of the sun. (s.15.56)
Only if this influence is neglected,
the sun is allowed to dictate the inertial system. (s.15.57)
The sun is now dictating the
inertial system of the planets around the sun. (s.15.58)
One 10 billionth is simply too small
and not leaving the influence out is too complicated. (s.15.59)
Now as the sun rotates, we need to
put in two more variables, enabling the earth’s orbit around the sun to be
calculated. (s.15.60)
The variables are the constant angle
at time zero and the rotation of the sun. (s.15.61)
If we choose rotation and angle to
be zero, the result should equal the equations (eq.15.1) and (eq.15.2). (s.15.62)
The constructed mathematical model
is more complex. (s.15.63)
It will have 6 starting constants
namely: xposition, xvelocity, xacceleration, yposition, yvelocity and
yacceleration. (s.15.64)
As we now want to construct more
complex equations, we need to differentiate space by time as Coriolis has
taught us to do. (s.15.65)
Differentiating space by time 3
times results in: (s.15.66)
This equation (eq.15.4) may be
called the 3^{rd} order spacetime differential equation. (s.15.67)
Differentiating space by time 4
times gives: (s.15.68)
This equation (eq.15.5) can be
called the 4^{th} order spacetime differential equation. (s.15.69)
The Coriolis spacetime differential
equation (eq.15.3) can become the 2^{nd} order spacetime differential equation.
(s.15.70)
The equations (eq.15.4) and (eq.15.5)
need to be multiplied by the 3rd order and 4^{th }order mass to make
the interaction equation of 3^{rd} an 4^{th}
order. (s.15.71)
Gravitational equations can be
called interaction equations of second order. (s.15.72)
The mathematical model does not go
any further than differentiating space by time twice. (s.15.73)
The gravitational laws need to be
reformulated. (s.15.74)
The gravitational model is the
second order model. (s.15.75)
In describing nature with the Nth
order model the following can be stated: (s.15.76)
1) Every object with an Nth order
mass will stay in its constant Nth order state, unless there is an Nth order
interaction working on that object. (s.15.77)
2) If there is a
Nth order interaction working on the object, than the object will change its
state to compensate for the Nth order interaction that it endured. (s.15.78)
3) The Nth order interaction is
absorbed by a (minus) Nth order reaction. (s.15.79)
The next question is: What is
energy? (s.15.80)
Energy is the integration of a
force, a second order interaction, over a distance. (s.15.81)
Is energy a useful term in 3^{rd}
or 4^{th} order? (s.15.82)
Probably not. (s.15.83)
Physics is giving mathematical terms a name. (s.15.84)
We choose these terms as they are
convenient. (s.15.85)
We are here only constructing an
equation slightly more complex, from 2^{nd} to 3^{rd} order.
(s.15.86)
Chapter 16: The
invariance of speed of light
The work in this chapter is the JasevaJavanMurrayTownes
experiment. (s.16.1)
The experiment is done in 1964.
(Physical Review, A 1221) (s.16.2)
We have two lasers, one in the northsouth
position and one laser in the eastwest position. (s.16.3)
The
assumption is that the particles (red) have an inertial system dictated by the
sun. (s.16.4)
The lasers are moving with the velocity of the
earth. (s.16.5)
This moving changes the space in which the two
lasers can make their waves and frequency. (s.16.6)
The assumption is that the wave length times
the frequency is constant and equal to the speed of light. (s.16.7)
This is (eq.16.1). (s.16.8)
The v is the speed of the earth. (s.16.9)
What happens if the speed v becomes very large?
(s.16.10)
This reasoning will not work at the speed of
light. (s.16.11)
Because then the wave would not travel to the
other side of the laser. (s.16.12)
The time needed to register the wave arriving
at the detector would become very long. (s.16.13)
The
theory breaks, fails at the speed of light. (s.16.14)
We have the assumption that the particles inside
the laser know the inertial system dictated by the sun and therefore there is
no speed higher than the velocity of light? (s.16.15)
The experiment is
done with a frequency of 300 thousand Giga Hertz. (3.0e+14 Hertz) (s.16.16)
The deviation in
this frequency is 20 Hertz. (s.16.17)
The speed of
light is 300 thousand km/s. (3.0e+8 m/s) (s.16.18)
The velocity of
the earth is 30 km/s. (3e+4 m/s) (s.16.19)
The expected
change in frequency is the used frequency times v/c squared. (s.16.20)
This is equal to
3 Mega Hertz. (3.0e+6 Hertz) (s.16.21)
The experiment
should produce a deviation in the frequency of 3.0e+6 Hertz. (s.16.22)
The uncertainty
in the mathematical result is around 20 Hertz. (s.16.23)
The experiment
produces no deviation in frequency. (s.16.24)
And there for, we
have a result the invariance of the speed of light. (s.16.25)
The no result of
the experiment has a result the invariance of the speed of light. (s.16.26)
This invariance
of the speed of light results in the curving of space and time. (s.16.27)
The derivation
uses Pythagoras as one of its assumptions. (s.16.28)
Now we have a
result contradicting its own assumptions. (s.16.29)
The contradiction
is that space is curving and the Pythagoras picture is still perfectly squared.
(s.16.30)
This
contradiction will always raise questions, but we will continue reasoning.
(s.16.31)
Lorentz has
solved this situation by stating that Pythagoras is valid and there is no
contradiction. (s.16.32)
Lorentz has to
state that Pythagoras is valid, because otherwise, there is no derivation.
(s.16.33)
Then there is a
logical mistake. (s.16.34)
The logical
mistake is: the result is contradicting its own assumptions. (s.16.35)
For any progress
to be achieved, he simply continues with his reasoning. (s.16.36)
The assumption is
that the particles have an inertial system dictated by the sun. (s.16.37)
If this is not
so, we expect no deviation in the frequency. (s.16.38)
If photons do not
know the inertial system dictated by the sun then we expect no deviation in the
frequency. (s.16.39)
But because we
know for sure that the particles have an inertial system dictated by the sun,
we continue with this derivation. (s.16.40)
The sun dictates
the inertial system. (s.16.41)
This is stated by
Pythagoras (570,500), Copernicus (1473, 1543), Bruno (1548, 1600) and Galileo
(1564, 1642). (s.16.42)
The first laser
was made in 1960. (s.16.43)
If the velocity
of light is 1000 times faster we could not see the expected result. (s.16.44)
We now have the
fact of the invariance of the speed of light. (s.16.45)
Lorentz now continues
with his reasoning. (s.16.46)
To solve the
implicated contradiction, we are going to introduce observers. (s.16.47)
We have a system
seen by observer 1 (left) and a system seen by observer 2 (right). (s.16.48)
Between the two
systems is a velocity. (s.16.49)
For both systems
Pythagoras is still valid. (s.16.50)
This is indicated
by the two squares. (s.16.51)
Any law that is
valid in system1 is valid in system2. (s.16.52)
If we want to
know how system1 observes observations from system2 then we need to Lorentz
transform the law from system2 to system1. (s.16.53)
Lorentz now makes
his transformation formulas and calculates space and time dilatation. (s.16.54)
Any law can be
Lorentz transformed. (s.16.55)
Einstein fills in
the impulse equation in the Lorentz transformation and gets to energy is m
times c squared. (s.16.56)
Any law seen in system1
is seen the same way in system2. (s.16.57)
If there is a
relative velocity between the two systems and there is a difference, than it
could mean that the way of seeing is different and the law is the same.
(s.16.58)
Pythagoras is
still valid in both systems, otherwise the derivation fails, and we easily say
that space is curving, contracting because we see it contracting. (s.16.59)
You could say
that space is not contracting; Pythagoras still valid, but we are only seeing
space contracting. (s.16.60)
The statement
“space is contracting” is equal to “the observations indicate that that space
is contracting”. (s.16.61)
This is not the
same. (s.16.62)
The small textual
difference is because Pythagoras is still valid and at the same time it cannot
be valid. (s.16.63)
The small textual
difference is removed to have the result “space is contracting”. (s.16.64)
This step is not
allowed. (s.16.65)
The small textual
difference is between “being seen” and “is”. (s.16.66)
The observations
of space contracting and Pythagoras still valid do not exist. (s.16.67)
This is all
theory. (s.16.68)
This is only the
result of the invariance of the speed of light assuming that the sun dictates
the inertial system. (s.16.69)
The inertial
system for particles, going into interaction, is dictated by the particles,
doing the interaction. (s.16.70)
A third particle cannot
dictate the inertial system, as then it would intervene in the interaction.
(s.16.71)
And this is not
the case. (s.16.72)
In the laser the
particles doing the interaction are electrons and atoms. (s.16.73)
Still the sun
dictates the inertial system. (s.16.74)
This is not
logical. (s.16.75)
The sun
intervening in this experiment is simply not the case. (s.16.76)
Lorentz describes
particles with forces, that is accelerations, in a
moving system. (s.16.77)
To “freeze” this
picture we need to differentiate space by time three times. (s.16.78)
The picture of
Lorentz contains a collection of particles, having acceleration, in a constant
velocity frame. (s.16.79)
This means that a
triple dot, three times space by time, differentiated situation is created. (s.16.80)
This gives us the
task to differentiate space by time for the third time. (s.16.81)
The small
deviation in the progression of time is the result of a force differentiated by
time, being unequal to a third order interaction. (s.16.82)
All activity and
reasoning with relativity is based upon the invariance of the speed of light.
(s.16.83)
The invariance of
the speed of light is the result of an experiment with no result. (s.16.84)
Normally we do
nothing with experiments with no results. (s.16.85)
This experiment
is known as the most famous experiment with no result. (s.16.86)
Anyone continuing
with the relativity theory should be aware of the following statements.
(s.16.87)
The sun is
dictating the inertial system for electrons and atoms on the earth, although
the sun in not participating in the interaction when these electrons and atoms
produce light waves. (s.16.88)
This experiment will
not work at the speed of light, so the invariance of the speed of light at the
speed of light is a problematic situation. (s.16.89)
The reasoning
uses Pythagoras, the Euclidean space, and after the reasoning the Euclidean
spaces does no longer exists, although the reasoning is dependent on the
Euclidean space to exist. (s.16.90)
If the assumption
is that the particles have an inertial system dictated by the particles doing
the interaction, then we expect no deviation in the frequency and we have no invariance
of the speed of light. (s.16.91)
Then we have no
relativity theory. (s.16.92)
The third order
theory is based upon the third time differentiation of space by time. (s.16.93)
If you say no to
the third time differentiation of space by time, then you say no to the
Coriolis differentiation of space by time, the twice, double differentiation of
space by time. (s.16.94)
And then you say
no to all of science. (s.16.95)
Chapter 17: Again
the Maxwell equation
A mass particle
will stay in the state of constant velocity, if there is no force working on
the mass particle. (s.17.1)
By assuming the
existence of a differentiated force and the changing this into a third order interaction,
we state the existence of a particle that is capable of keeping its state of constant
acceleration unless there is a third order interaction working on the particle.
(s.17.2)
“Gravitational
mass will keep its velocity constant; I do not believe this” one student once
stated to me. (s.17.3)
Galileo
(15641642) stated:”An iron ball will fall the same way down as a feather”. (s.17.4)
The statements
are true in idealistic circumstances. (s.17.5)
The idealistic
circumstances are not here in nature, but the statements are valuable as they
help us to describe nature. (s.17.6)
Some students
were idealistic out of their own character. (s.17.7)
Others had to be
told that although the circumstances were never to be seen, it was a valuable
statement
as it helps us to describe nature. (s.17.8)
As soon as they have
done the calculation themselves, they accepted the reasoning out of the results
they had calculated themselves. (s.17.9)
The calculation
is always idealistic as we cannot describe all of nature. (s.17.10)
Something can
keep its velocity constant under idealistic circumstances. (s.17.11)
Something can
keep its acceleration constant under idealistic circumstances is about the
same. (s.17.12)
The mass
particles lose their velocity to other mass particles, but the total of mass
time’s velocity stays constant. (s.17.13)
Now state the
same for acceleration. (s.17.14)
The total of mass
time’s velocity per particle stays constant before and after the interaction,
is the momentum before and after the interaction is constant. (s.17.15)
The total of
third order mass time’s the acceleration before and after the interaction, is
constant, is the third order momentum before and after the interaction is
constant. (s.17.16)
Now we are going
to stated this for the angular momentum. (s.17.17)
The “V” is the
velocity; the “A” is the acceleration. (s.17.18)
These equations
are for two particles. (s.17.19)
To change these
equations to equations for a ring of particles, we need to replace the “r” with
delta. (s.17.20)
We do the same for
the third order mass. (s.17.21)
Let’s now move
out the “1begin”,”1end”, “2begin” and “2end” after the delta’s because they
have no meaning. (s.17.22)
And this is it for
the third order mass. (s.17.23)
Now let’s change
this into the difference equation. (s.17.24)
And this is the
result for the third order mass. (s.17.25)
Let’s change the
difference in time between the begin time and the end time into dt. (s.17.26)
The Maxwell
electrons are circling and Maxwell calls this a magnetic field. (s.17.27)
The magnetic
field is the angular momentum of third order. (s.18.28)
When mass absorbs
velocity we have the law of conservation of moment. (s.18.29)
When mass is
arrange to absorb velocity in a circular system we have the law of conservation
of angular momentum. (s.18.30)
When third order
mass is arranged to absorb acceleration we have the law of conservation of
third order moment. (s.18.31)
When third order
mass is arranged to absorb acceleration in a circular system we have the law of
conservation of third order momentum. (s.18.32)
The differentiated
magnetic field is an imposed change in angular momentum of the third order on
the system. (s.17.33)
As we now have
the law of conservation of angular momentum of the third order, the imposed
change in angular momentum of the third order needs to be absorbed somewhere
else. (s.17.34)
This is the left
side of the equation. (s.17.35)
This is above and below the red arrow.
(s.17.36)
The story can be
told in a one dimensional way. (s.17.37)
For a mass system
the angular momentum is constant. (s.17.38)
The angular
momentum is the summation of the radius time’s the mass time’s the velocity of
all particles in the system. (s.17.39)
We can do the
same for particles having the property of storing acceleration. (s.17.40)
And we can do the
same for magnetic fields. (s.17.41)
The angular
momentum is constant, so a change [d( r mv)] needs to
be compensated with a change in the system in such a way that the total change
is zero. (s.17.42)
This is indicated
with the red and blue box. (s.17.42)
In
some experiments the distance between the part of the system producing the
subtraction and the part of the system accepting the quantity becomes very
large. (s.17.43)
In
these experiences a result will only be created if one part of the system can
produce the subtraction of the quantity and another part can accept the
quantity. (s.17.44)
If the
experimenter does not know that the two changes are connected because of their
nature, then the experimenter will state that there is a not understandable
relation between the two changes. (s.17.45)
Today
experimenters state this last sentence. (s.17.46)
Chapter 18: Comparing
an electron with the third order mass particle
Chapter 19: The
speed of light
The speed of light is a long and
complex story. (s.19.1)
Chapter 20: The
philosophical situation
If the world is logical, then this
sentence is predestined to be written down here at this moment and one will be
asked to explain the cause of writing down this sentence. (s.20.1)
Many philosophers have tried to tell
that we cannot explain the creation of the most fundamental building blocks of
our world. (s.20.2)
The only way out of this is to
declare the creation of something out of nothing and that is not an acceptable logical law. (s.20.3)
Because then we can create
everything at any time at any location and declare that to be logical. (s.20.4)
We can only state that we will not
completely understand this world, but we will do our best. (s.20.5)
When I try to explain or discuss a certain
problem, I sometimes draw a picture that should create some kind of an
overview. (s.20.6)
I then start explaining the reason for using this picture. (s.20.7)
However, I sometimes fail to convince other people. (s.20.8)
When I  e.g. draw a picture showing 8
small rabbits and 1 big rabbit and ask: ‘How many small rabbits are there in
this picture?’, I occasionally run into problems, if the other party is 4 or 5
years old. (s.20.9)
I
then respond with: ‘I have just given you the overview’. (s.20.10)
Let us compare
this with the picture of a rotating ellipse. (s.20.11)
The relativistic as well as the thirdorder reasoning both states: ‘there is a rotating gravitational ellipse’. (s.20.12)
But both parties fully disagree on the
reasoning. (s.20.13)
All planets have an orbital motion as a rosette. (s.20.14) (s.6.12)
This is stated by Le Verrier. (18111877) (s.20.15)
(s.6.13)
If we accept this as a fact then we have simply
the task of making equations resulting in rotating ellipses. (s.20.16)
The logical aspects, the reasoning, are no
longer in the story to be told. (s.20.17)
If this happens then this equation will
describe it. (s.20.18)
The leaving out of logic and reasoning is not
acceptable for some scientists. (s.20.19)
The world is logical; otherwise the world will
not form logical collections, something like a human body or a moon. (s.20.20)
Assume the existence of a two dimensional
differentiated force and remember the work of Coriolis.
(s.20.21)
Coriolis added
xdoubledot and ydoubledot squared. (s.20.22)
The differentiated two dimensional force
is a xtripledot and a ytripledot. (s.20.23)
This gives us the task to differentiated space by time
for the third time. (s.20.24)
This results in the following conclusions. (s.20.25)
The term “force” is a not valid term in all
circumstances. (s.20.26)
The term “force” is simply a term out of the second
order model of space and time. (s.20.27)
The mathematical problem of the earth around the sun
demands a third order description (s.20.28)
The electromagnetic phenomena are third order
phenomena. (s.20.29)
The conclusions are based upon sentence 25 of chapter
5. (s.20.30)
The work here can be summarized into one question: “Is
differentiating space by time for a third time scientifically sound? (s.20.31)
Is the work done here logical? (s.20.32)
If the answer is “yes” then the work in this document
is a breakthrough. (s.20.33)
If the answer is “no” then the work in this document
is a mistake. (s.20.34)
Differentiation
of space by time has been generally accepted. (s.20.35)
Why should a further differentiation of space by time
be a problem? (s.20.36)
Why should a further differentiation of space by time
be, not scientifically sound? (s.20.37)
I have checked the third order gravitation equation
with a computer program. (s.20.38)
All the pictures of rotating ellipses are output of
this program. (s.20.39)
I enjoyed working on these equations. (s.20.40)
Chapter 21: Selling
the story.

Chapter 22: Last
words.
Anyone who has differentiated space by time
for the third time knows that a two dimensional force cannot be
differentiated. (s.22.1) It has been shown in chapter 5 that new cross
products between the two dimensions appear by further differentiation of
space by time. (s.22.2) This is already shown by Coriolis.
(s.22.3) A differentiated force is not a valid term in
all circumstances, means that the description of the world by forces, as it
has been done until now, has to be adjusted. (s.22.4) This is a remarkable statement. (s.22.5) The email of the previous chapter has been
send to some scientists. (s.22.6) The intention is to make the wish for, the want
for the mathematical exercise reasonable. (s.22.7) If it is accepted; the want for a rotating
gravitational ellipse as the result on a computer; then the third time
differentiation of space by time is accepted. (s.22.8) If the third time differentiation of space by
time is done, the description of the world by forces is known to be not correct
in all circumstances. (s.22.9) This is then the result of this document.
(s.22.10) Le Verrier stated
that the gravitational ellipse should rotate.(s.22.11)(s.21.2) It is not unreasonable to want the creation
of this mathematical result. (s.22.12) So sending the email should be successful.
(s.22.13) The email was not successful until now.
(s.22.14) 


29august2013
Ir. S.J.Boersen (Junior)(Stefan) stefanboersen@hotmail.com
Ir. S.J.Boersen (Senior)(Simon) sjboersen@hetnet.nl