---

quote:

Likewise, Einstein faults classical Maxwellian electrodynamics for an asymmetry in the way it explains electromagnetic induction depending on whether it is the coil or the magnet that is assumed to be at rest. (italics mine) If the effect is the same -- a current in the coil -- why, asks Einstein, should there be two different explanations: an electrical field created in the vicinity of a moving magnet or an electromotive force induced in a conductor moving through a stationary magnetic field? To be sure, whether it is the coil or the magnet that is taken to be at rest makes no observable difference, but the problem, from Einstein's point of view, is the asymmetry in the two explanations.

---

---

quote:

The one piece of evidence standardly cited for a youthful flirtation with positivism is Einstein's critique of the notion of absolute distant simultaneity in his 1905 paper on special relativity (Einstein 1905c). Einstein speaks there of "observers," but in an epistemologically neutral way that can be replaced by talk of an inertial frame of reference. (italics mine) What really bothers Einstein about distant simultaneity is not that it is observationally inaccessible but that it involves a two-fold arbitrariness, one in the choice of an inertial frame of reference and one in the stipulation within a given frame of a convention regarding the ratio of the times required for a light signal to go from one stationary observer to another and back again.

---

---

quote:

Comet rethink?
Of course, Tempel-1 deep inpact is only a sample of 'one'. But there seems to be enough evidence that perhaps comets are not 'dirty iceballs' anymore, in fact have little water, and are more like dirty 'dust balls' instead.

I've long had a notion (if any had followed my past posts) that comets are little solar region 'vacuum cleaners', gathering molecules and dust on their way out into the colder regions, and letting them loose again into the inner regions of the solar system. At this time, I'm not sure we really know what comet tails are made up of, but they should turn out as de-pressurized dust particles from comets in the hotter inner regions; in the outer colder regions, the process should be opposite, where they gather particles; hence, they don't shrink into nothing over time, but remain replenished. This is not the same as now theorized, that comets are remnants of the early solar system's formation; rather, they are cosmic entities in their own right. Will comets turn into asteroids eventually? Hard to say, but probably not.

BTW, this is perhaps more ATM for now, but as more data comes in from the outer solar system, we should get a better fix on why comets do what they do, and are fluffy dust balls rather than ice balls. (However, for dust to be more attracted on the comet's mass in outer regions might mean something that had been debated on ATM, that G is greater out there than here, but that's a line of reasoning which is not crickey to discuss here.) One way to confirm whether or not comets are distant solar system scrapers is to tally what loose dust and molecules constitute 'empty' space out by the Kuiper belt and beyond.

---

---

quote:

Originally Posted by clj4

This is clearly not the case, this concept (which belongs to Ritz) has been refuted experimentally multiple times in the past 100 years. You have been given ample proof in another thread, you are simply reopening the same discussion

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36020

using an experiment (Sagnac) this time.
Here is one of the many refutations of the 'c+-v'.

http://imaginary_nematode.home.comca...echer_1977.pdf

Here is one of the many correct explanations of the Sagnac experiment:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

You just opened another identical thread and you got plenty of explanations here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=112002

---

(bold mine)

The 'refutation' of Sagnac experiment may be spurious, in that it involves 'renormalizing' relativistic proper Time, where the difference in 'travel time' is adjusted. In effect, we have time factor=(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 in one direction, while we have time factor=(1+v^2/c^2)^1/2 in the counter direction. If you make 'proper Time' variable, you get around the fact that it will take less time in one direction and more time in the counterdirection. Or, as the paper referenced says:

---

quote:

Of course, the result represents the time difference with respect to the axis-centered inertial frame. A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor y = (1-(v/c)2)1/2, so the Sagnac delay with respect to such a clock would be [4Aw/c2]/(1-(v/c)2)1/2. However, the characteristic frequency of a given light source co-moving with this clock would be greater, compared to its reduced value in terms of the axis-centered frame, by precisely the same factor, so the actual phase difference of the beams arriving at the receiver is invariant. (It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a Sagnac device, because each successive wave crest in a given direction travels the same distance from transmitter to receiver, and clocks at those points show the same lapse of proper time, both classically and in the context of special relativity.)

---

Once you adjust Time, you get the relativistic effect desired. How can it be claimed to falsify the experiment, if the experiment is designed, using relativity, to achieve invariant results? The only clue you get something is variant (in Sagnac experiment) is in the Doppler lightshift.

That said, I stand to be corrected if I got it wrong.

---

quote:

"Dark energy stars and black holes would have identical external geometries, so it will be very difficult to tell them apart," Lobo says. "All observations used as evidence for black holes - their gravitational pull on objects and the formation of accretion discs of matter around them - could also work as evidence for dark energy stars."

---

---

quote:

"The normal outgassing of the comet has been modelled by different people as coming from bare ice on the surface to subsurface ice that migrates through pores to escape, or from 40-50m below the surface," Deep Impact's chief scientist Mike A'Hearn told the BBC News website.
"I think it is clear from what we have here that the ice that is subliming is within the upper metre. Whether it's 5cm or 20cm below, I wouldn't want to say; but it's not below the top metre. That rules out a lot of the models."

---

---

quote:

Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.

---

W = m^2 kg s^-3, N = m kg s^-2, and A = m kg s^-2 /m = kg s^-2.
So taking V = W/A, we get V = m^2 kg s^-3/ kg s^-2, which reduces to: V = m^2 s^-1.

---

quote:

Richard Keating was surprised in 1972 that two atomic clocks traveling in opposite directions around the world, when compared with a third that stayed at home, showed slowing that depended on their absolute speed through space -- the vector sum of the Earth's rotation and airplane speeds -- rather on the relative velocities of the clocks. (italics mine)

---

m^3*a = kg is gravitational mass

V m^2/s = V^2 = kg is electromagnetic mass

kg = kg is universal energy mass

kg/kg = 1 is universal mass (m = 1)

---

quote:

F*v = kg*a*v= E

---

1. Dark matter is no more than higher G gravity in intergalactic space, why it cannot be found.

2. Higher G in intergalactic space naturally shifts distant cosmic light to the red, a (dark matter) gravitational redshift.

3. Atomic clocks will slow while traveling in any gravitational field, a natural phenomenon unrelated to slowing 'time'.

4. Aether drift, along with Mercury's (low G mass) precession, are merely momentum transfer phenomena.

5. Gravity G is very low near hot stars and progressively higher far from them.

The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the scientific domain have been achieved by bold thinkers who perceived new and fruitful approaches that others failed to notice.  If one had taken the ideas of these scientific geniuses who have been the promoters of modern science and submitted them to committees of specialists, there is no doubt that the latter would have viewed them as extravagant and would have discarded them for the very reason of their originality and profundity.  As a matter of fact, the battles waged, for example by Fresnel and by Pasteur suffice to prove that some of these pioneers ran into a lack of understanding from the side of eminent scholars which they had to fight with vigor before emerging as the winners.  More recently, in the domain of theoretical physics, of which I can speak with knowledge, the magnificent novel conceptions of Lorentz and Planck, and particularly Einstein also clashed with the incomprehension of eminent scientists.  The new ideas here triumphed; but, in proportion as the organization of research becomes more rigid, the danger increases that new and fruitful ideas will be unable to develop freely.
 Let us state in a few words the conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing. While, by the very force of circumstances, research and teaching are weighted down by administrative structures and financial concerns and by the heavy armature of strict regulations and planning, it becomes more indispensable than ever to preserve the freedom of scientific research and the freedom of initiative for the original investigators, because these freedoms have always been and will always remain the most fertile sources for the grand progress of science.

Nobel Laureate Louis de Broglie,  April 25, 1978

---

quote:

This has been tested in cyclotrons where an electron or proton accelerated to near light speed does indeed 'appear' to have gained mass, since it takes progressively larger doses of energy to keep accelerating it. However, this is done with stationary magnets accelerating the particles. But what if the magnets were themselves moving with the particles, so that the magnetic accelerative force is not F but F*v instead? This may be difficult, if not impossible, to do in real life, but it would appear that if this F*v = mass*a*v, then E remains the same, and mass kg is not growing as now believed. This would mean that, in theory, as the particle accelerates and the force pushing it is keeping up with it, F*v, then it will take less energy to keep accelerating it than when the F was stationary. Though F*v may be testable and falsifiable only at very low velocity, for example, it should yield enough result to show that the particle's mass is not growing as expected. Rather, it is the force needed to propel it at higher velocities that is growing. And this is a fundamental difference from what Einstein's equations predict. Furthermore, it also means that, in theory, the lightspeed limit velocity c can be violated, if F*v itself is continuously accelerated to v=c (though we have no way of doing this today), where the particle's velocity would be accelerated beyond v=c.

---

---

quote:

In another profound assertion, which goes directly to the heart of unraveling the mystery of E=mc2, they state: "We have proposed our own aetherometric analysis of these type of experiments, where it it shown that the experimental velocities of massbound charges are predicted by a theoretical model that does not take recourse to any of the Lorentz transformations. That means— no time dilation and no relativistic mass increase with acceleration of inertial mass. The inertial mass of a system is only a measure of its rest energy, unlike what SR proposes it is."

---

---

quote:

"The Titan-A flyby in October of last year was our very first opportunity to swoop down and sniff the atmosphere. We did it on purpose, going down to about 1,200 kilometers [750 miles]. We turned the Ion Neutral Mass Spectrometer [INMS] in the direction of the spacecraft motion and literally sucked particles into a mass spectrometer, analyzing what the upper atmosphere of Titan was like. At the same time, we also took the information from the thrusters about how hard the spacecraft had to work fight the atmosphere. The answer was, ‘harder than we thought.’ At 1,200 kilometers they were fighting at 6% capacity."

Six percent may not sound like much, but when that number was extrapolated to a lower altitude, the navigators found a problem. "At 950 kilometers they’d be fighting at over 106% capacity. If you’re over 100%, you’ll tumble the spacecraft," Ray said.

---

---

quote:

"In the end, we flew by at 1,200 kilometers and we were using 6% of the thrusters. If it scales exactly the way we think it should scale, no matter who says what about density, then we wouldn’t be able to fly by at 950 kilometers. Of course, there’s several questions. Did the thrusters actually see a higher density, and the instruments are giving a lower density? Or are the thrusters seeing something and interpreting it incorrectly and taking action that they don’t need to take? Maybe it’s just a flight software problem. It could be any number of things.

---

---

quote:

Energy is always energy, but mass is different, in principle:

m^3*a = kg is gravitational mass

V m^2/s = V^2 = kg is electromagnetic mass

kg = kg is universal energy mass

kg/kg = 1 is universal mass (m = 1)

---

---

quote:

What are you people on this thread smoking??!

---

I'm not a scientist (actually, I'm a mainstream stockbroker with a major Wall St. firm), so it may be out of character for me to delve into the mysteries of astrophysics. But I got there in a roundabout way through philosophical discussions, so what you see is several years of gravitating (no pun intended) about these ideas. Mostly from reading hundreds of science papers and articles, several books, I too came to the conclusion that Big Bang is a bad and untenable idea. So I set off, with my limited highschool math, to explore an idea first conceived as a philosophical question on the nature of what reality is made of. The eventual findings (described on my BAUT posts) is where this finally took me, to what I called the Axiomatic Equation, which shows an inverse relationship between radiant EM energy and the gravitation 'constant' G. The SMBH idea that emerged from this is mere speculation on my part, since I can't think of how to falsifiably test for it. I also think that cool stars, where EM radiance is low, such as brown dwarfs, should have more gravity per mass density; the so called neutron stars should fall in this category too. If you follow the paper, you should see that EM lambda for our solar system works out to be l=1.32x10^-15 meters; this could mean that for other stars, if cooler (lower E) and thus of longer wavelength (longer lambda), the proton (and neutron) mass should be greater than our ~1.67x10^-27 kg. This is the only way these super gravity stars, or gravastars, can make sense. By extension, this also implies that whatever mass exists in a SMBH, its gravitational power is immense, perhaps the maximum it can go. The way this works out in the (simplified) math is as follows:

G^2 = gc^2 , where G is Newton's gravitational 'constant', and little g is proton gravitational 'constant'; so if g goes to its max of g=1, then you get G^2 = (1)c^2, so that G = c (approximately)

What this means, conceptually, is that the ratio of attraction between masses, which is what Newton's G represents (leaving SI units aside for now), is equivalent to the speed of light; if so, then anything inside the SMBH becomes invisible to us. In fact, it is visible only by the radiation all nearby matter and stars give off at their very high velocities, so we see intense radiation of x-ray and radio waves from the galactic center.

What I think happens at the SMBH is that as matter falls in, remember matter is really just energy confined within an atom, it gets chewed up by the intense gravity and 'recycled' into basic proton-neutron proto-matter which is spat out the axials (it can't go any other way because of immense spin, so the axis is the path of least resistance), to re-seed the universe with new matter. That's why I think the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to a whole system like our universe, because matter gets recycled. Then it gets interesting if this new proto-baryonic matter is of very high gravitational density, because (before it gets modified by star radiant EM) it will clump under this immense gravity when there is enough of it, and combust into a new star. That new star is what breaks entropy. But I can't go into any kind of detail about this on BAUT because they would close the thread, IMO.

So the basic Axiomatic Eq. says E = hc/(lambda)(prot m) = (1-g)c^2, and when this E is maximum, g goes to zero, and mass simply cannot hold together (it actually happens at a number above zero, and may be the cause of solar wind origin in very hot solar corona); and conversely if g goes to its max 1, then E becomes zero. This is another way to show the same (gravity conversion Eq.) where at either extreme, something happens. But what really makes it interesting is that if 'gravity G for baryonic matter' is so much greater in deep intergalactic space than here within our Earth region, it may be gravitationally red shifting distant cosmic light as it travels through space into the Hubble constant. If so, then NO BIG BANG!, since the red shift is a non-Doppler effect, no expanding space (illusion only), and no need for an original start of when it all began. The other dividend of this, if it proves true, is that if EM and G are somehow inversely proportional, it may be subject to our manipulation. And if we can do that, then we're on our way towards a new physics of manipulating gravitational energy which is inexhaustible and accelerative. That has huge potentials.

In the end, all this rests on whether or not we find evidence that G is different from what we postulated it to be on Earth, and that it is not a universal constant but a (well hidden) variable instead. That's why in the past I called for a dedicated test for inertial-gravitational mass in the outer solar system, and I'm not the only one saying this as mainstream (ESA et al) is calling for this too. So what happens to GR? It is interesting with many good observational successes, but it may not be the best way to understand what is really happening to light red shift, or to SMBH and neutron stars, or why the gas giants have such great atmospheres. In effect, GR would have to be rewritten to accomodate a variable G; or it gets scrapped altogether, since you get the same relativistic results by measuring for red or blue shifts of light. Of course, that makes modern physics look bad, so expect resistance to this new idea, even if the empirical evidence proves it right, and research funding politics may keep it buried for some time, which is too bad. But not my concern, since I'm not a scientist whose livelihood depends on this. I just stumbled on something interesting.

So let me think on your points mentioned, and I'll write some more later. I think I should leave a trail of 'bread crumbs' on how all this came together for me, which I may do at some point on the Humancafe forums, maybe under "Ivan's great works" thread.

Cheers, Ivan

Ps: in the paper on Pioneer Anomaly I explain how mass is not kilograms but kg/kg = 1, though the kg units are conserved. I'm still working on that, since I think it is something important to understanding mass in a variable G scenario, which we never had to consider before in a universal constant G universe. However, I don't know if any of this is any good, not until we find real evidence for a variable G.

I've thinking about this M theory. And also on this in your last note:

See, here you immediately assign the deep space gravity to a Baryonic Matter function, and then go on to say that the Hydrogen molecules can bind easier in this environment. How can 'all' of  "Dark Empty Space" have this remainder of atomic mass, and where did the Hydrogen come from? Now, as I said earlier, I DO NOT DISAGREE that it (the gravity) is there, BECAUSE IT IS. This is the reason I was intrigued by your work, because you are saying it is there, it's just how it gets there that is the real difference.

And yes, it is good to have a discourse with someone whose mind is open enough to consider that maybe we hadn't got it all right yet.

I think there is something I need to clarify first. I do not think space itself creates gravity. Rather, I think of any baryonic matter in space where radiant EM energy is low will become subject ot very great gravity, at least much greater than we know here, living close to our hot star. Let's if I can explain this better.

The key is how the atom forms and the four basic forces: Electromagnetic, strong force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. The way current physics theory has it, according to the Standard Model, the first three forces are unified, but the last, gravity, doesn't quite fit in. From little I know of M theory, or QTF, is that gravity generates infinities, so sensible results become meaningless. (See: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html ) These unwanted infinities were later removed through Strings, or M-Theory, but it remains a largely fanciful and untestable theory, not falsifiable, nor of predictive value. So for now, in my opinion, it is a fabrication of curiosity, which is fine with me. But I think where they missed the boat, was in combining the first three, so that everything became definable as particle theory, which then included gravity as particle theory, gravitons. I suspect this is wrong. Here is my thinking on it.

I think that EM particle and wave energy belongs on one side; while gravity belongs on another. Not even considering variable G here, but the stuff we know now. The way the Axiomatic (Quantum) equation works out, when gravity is included into it, is that gravity and electromagnetic energy are opposed forces. There are no graviton particles, because it is not unifiable with the other three forces. So if these are in two camps, gravity and EM energy, then how do the forces fit in? I suspect, without having all the necessary math and theory behind it, that the nuclear strong force is in the same category as gravity; and that the nuclear weak force is in the same category as electromagnetic energy. So nutrinoes, electrons, positrons, isotopes beta decay, photons, are all in that category; while on the other side we have nucleus mass, strong force, proton and neutron mass, and from their interactions with EM energy, there is a 'remainder' gravity, what we experience. So my vision of how the atom is built is of necessity different from what is now part of the Standard Model. But I don't know how all this works, except that the model painted by combining the Quantum and Energy equations seems to look like this: gravity and EM energy are inversely proportional by some function. Of course, this is not how it is understood today! So to make it a viable alternative to Standard, we need to find evidence of this inverse proportion, which would show up in a variable G, as the Axiomatic predicts.

So given this conceptual scenario, it is not space per se that is deep gravity (as I had said perhaps without realizing how this is misleading), but that when an atom is in deep space far from EM radiant energy, that atom exhibits greater gravity. If we think of the atom as a strong force (gravitational) force held together, and when in the vicinity of hot EM radiant energy it 'captures' that energy (as a standing wave of light), then the atom is formed. The Quantum restrictions on photon energy is well defined, but when it falls outside the norm, other things start to happen. One of these anomalous events is the forming of isotopes, which are then subject to radiation decay. The other thing is that if the EM energy is too low, hypothetically for now, the atoms retain much more of their gravitational component, so they exhibit great gravity. I think this is what we see in neutron stars (I read that new measurements of 'neutron' stars shows they are not magnetically neutral). If the EM energy is too great, the gravitational remainder (if the standing wave of EM energy is too hot), gravity is too low to keep matter together, and it flies apart. I think this is what we see in the solar wind (notice how it actually accelerates away from the sun, which may be an energy function of combined kinetic energy, solar energy, and too low gravity). Otherwise, what we see as baryonic matter is all very nicely balanced, since this is what survives the test of time. I also read that the Strong force is unique in that it attracts more strongly as you move the protons and nuetrons further apart! Think about that a moment, since it really is counterintuitive, unless we are dealing with the gravity of space. Then, pulled appart means less 'hot' energy and more 'strong' gravity, and it makes sense. So this is another reason I think the Strong force belongs in the gravity camp. But the whole key to all this is to move beyond the Bohr model of the atom, which is okay for use in chemistry, but to see that it is more than merely dual charge acting on the electron and proton, and that in fact the very strong gravity holding the nucleus together is modified greatly by the presence of the electron, and that what is 'left over' is the gravity we experience.

So M-theory may not be directly addressed by this new model of the atom, though I do not now it well enough to say this for sure. What I think is happening in deep space is that baryonic matter there exhibits a greater 'remainder' gravity force, since EM energy is weaker, and that this greater gravity is what is now being called Dark Matter. If so, then light traveling the cosmos naturally redshifts (gravitationally) due to the greater gravity of all the molecules in intergalactic space. And this is why I think the Big Bang is dead: there is no Doppler expansion going on al all, a mere optical illusion.

As far as how stars are born, or galaxies form, I still don't know. I suspect deep space gravity (for molecules there) may at some point be great enough, given enough mass accumulated, to trigger critical mass and star combustion. Once enough stars are in a vicinity to form a potential galaxy, then will find within their collective mass a center where the EM cancels on a point, and that starts the Black Hole around which they will eventually form a spiral galaxy. But how can we test for this? I don't know, so leave it as a curiosity only.

So in yours:

I think what you 'may' have done is shown how, by including the 'g', gravity can be included in GR in a more realistic way, even though it may very well be variable. Getting the scientific world to understand that, is a whole other story.

I agree, but don't know how to fix GR, of even if it needs fixing. Let me think on this some more, and look forward to more of your ideas.

Cheers, Ivan

23 Dec 1998 (see orginal above by date)
Derivation of the Space-Energy Equivalence
With the increasing interest in zero-point energy
and similar concepts, itÕs natural to wonder how
much energy space might contain. A formula for the
space-energy equivalence may be derived as
follows: The universal gravitational constant (G)
is an expression of the relationship between space
and mass. Fundamentally, G is the space-mass
equivalence. Expressed dimensionally, G=L^3 / MT^2
where L=length, M=mass, and T=time. Bringing the
quantity to unity, it can be written M=L^3 / T^2
and simplifying, M=rC^2 where C=the speed of light
(L/T) and r stands for a radius (L). Substituting
M into the mass-energy equivalence (E=mC^2) yields
E=rC^4 where E=energy. Thus, the total amount of
energy contained in a volume of space defined by a
given radius is equivalent to the radius times the
speed of light to the fourth power. Written in
dimensionally balanced form, the space-energy
equivalence is E=rC^4 / G.
Nelson Zink mailto:zink@newmex.com

This translates into the funny mass equation, whereby m^3*a = kg becomes "volume times acceleration" (or gravitational potential Gm/r=a, for each m1 and m2) so that it should read as: m^3*(G'/G)^1/2*(Gm/r) = kg*, which now reflects the equivalence adjustment for gravitational mass cum inertial mass.

"In an extreme case the plasma may consist of heavy negative particles (dust) and less massive, positive particles (positive ions) contrary to ordinary plasmas with light negative and heavy positive particles."

1. Consider first an intersellar cloud of 100 solar masses... The temperature of the cloud is T = 10-10^2 K...The number of atoms present in the clouds is ~10^+59 ... we find that an electric current of I ~ (5x10^12)-(2x10^13) e.m.u = (5x10^13)-(2x10^14) A has to flow through the clouds in order to produce a considerable compression effect.

"If it turns out that the strong interaction does contribute to the mass, we will face a major crisis in physics - it will not be clear what compensates the negative contribution to the mass that originates from the strong interaction."

"Therefore, the classical electromagnetic mass theory does say not only a word, but offers a detailed mechanism explaining the origin of inertia and mass of charged particles: it is the UNBALANCED repulsion of the volume elements of the charge of an accelerating electron that gives rise to the electron's inertia and inertial mass."

---

quote:

What banged the something and where was the nothing(vacuum)?
Why the bang had acceleration <0> 0 .

---

---

quote:

I think that the real formula must be "close" to E/m=constant and here we don't have to speak about the speed of light if we think in this way.

---

---

quote:

This might be because the black hole "swallows" the radiation generated as the hole gobbles up the matter around it, preventing a destructive explosion.

---

---

quote:

How does the universe appear to a photon ? I understand that light is not subject to time (meaning time doesn't flow at light speed) therefore :
-does zero time mean zero distance ? to a photon, is the universe all in one point ?
-does zero time means zero change ? to a photon, is the universe always the same ?
-if I was a photon, would take me zero time to reach the other side of the universe or would it only appear that way to an outside observer while a "clock" is still somehow ticking for me ?

---

---

quote:

In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may possess and is the energy of the ground state of the system. The concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913. The term "zero-point energy" is a translation of the German Nullpunktsenergie.

---

---

quote:

In cosmology, the zero-point energy offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive values of the proposed cosmological constant. In brief, if the energy is "really there", then it should exert a gravitational force. In general relativity, mass and energy are equivalent; either produces a gravitational field.

---

---

quote:

One obvious difficulty with this association is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is absurdly large. Naively, it is infinite, but one must argue that new physics takes over at the Planck scale, and so its growth is cut off at that point. Even so, what remains is so large that it would visibly bend space, and thus, there seems to be a contradiction. There is no easy way out, and reconciling the seemingly huge zero-point energy of space with the observed zero or small cosmological constant has become one of the important problems in theoretical physics, and has become a criterion by which to judge a candidate Theory of Everything.

---

---

quote:

We can then work out how big a black hole we need for its Compton wavelength to equal its Schwarzschild radius! This sort of black hole will have mass about equal to the Planck mass, and radius about equal to the Planck length.
What does this mean? Well, remember that the Compton wavelength of a particle is the length scale at which quantum field theory becomes very important in describing it. So the Planck length is the size of a black hole for which quantum field theory becomes very important. Hawking has predicted that black holes of any size emit radiation due to quantum-field-theoretic effects - the bigger the black hole, the less radiation. His calculations treat the black hole classically and only use quantum field theory in treating the electromagnetic radiation. For a black hole about as big as the Planck length one would expect this approximation to break down drastically.

---

---

quote:

The zero point field can be thought of, roughly speaking, as a superposition of electromagnetic waves with random phases and directions, with a power distribution proportional to the cube of frequency, i.e., 1/2 h-bar times frequency per normal mode. Since this spectrum diverges, that implies that there is an infinite amount of energy at every point in space (as does conventional QM for different reasons), a cutoff frequency on the order of the reciprocal of the Planck time is often introduced in principle. Planck's constant then appears as a scale factor for quantum fluctuations in the zero point field.

---

---

quote:

1. Introduction

We exist in a universe described by mathematics. But which math? Although it is interesting
to consider that the universe may be the physical instantiation of all mathematics,[1]
there is a classic principle for restricting the possibilities: The mathematics of the universe
should be beautiful. A successful description of nature should be a concise, elegant, unified
mathematical structure consistent with experience.

Hundreds of years of theoretical and experimental work have produced an extremely
successful pair of mathematical theories describing our world. The standard model of particles
and interactions described by quantum field theory is a paragon of predictive excellence.
General relativity, a theory of gravity built from pure geometry, is exceedingly elegant and
effective in its domain of applicability. Any attempt to describe nature at the foundational
level must reproduce these successful theories, and the most sensible course towards unification
is to extend them with as little new mathematical machinery as necessary. The further
we drift from these experimentally verified foundations, the less likely our mathematics is
to correspond with reality. In the absence of new experimental data, we should be very
careful, accepting sophisticated mathematical constructions only when they provide a clear
simplification. And we should pare and unite existing structures whenever possible.
The standard model and general relativity are the best mathematical descriptions we
have of our universe. By considering these two theories and following our guiding principles,
we will be led to a beautiful unification.

1.1 A connection with everything

The building blocks of the standard model and gravity are fields over a four dimensional base manifold. The electroweak and strong gauge fields are described by Lie algebra valued connection 1-forms,..

---

---

quote:

"The Riemannian geometry of general relativity has been subsumed by principal bundle geometry | a significant mathematical unification. Devotees of geometry should not despair at this development, as principal bundle geometry is even more natural than Riemannian geometry. A principal bundle with connection can be described purely in terms of a mapping between tangent vector fields (dieomorphisms) on a manifold, without the ab initio introduction of a metric."

---

---

quote:

Leonardo uses the Roman architect Vitruvius’ archetypal proportions of the human body and the Golden Ratio to “solve” his day’s great squaring of the circle problem – to greater than 99.8% accuracy. For all practical purposes, Leonardo’s solution, encoded in his Vitruvian Man, is definitive. His solution is also ingenious, previously undiscovered and elegant in its simplicity. (A geometric solution of 100% accuracy is not possible because the underlying mathematics involve Pi, the infinitely repeating decimal places of which, p = 3.14159265..., defy the drawing of perfectly measured geometric shapes.)
...

---

Theorem: Given a method to draw a circle in area equal to a given square, it is possible to draw a square in area equal to any given circle.

Proof:
Let the given circle have a radius r.
The area of the circle is Pi*r2
The side of a square of equal area is sqrt Pi* r.

We achieve our goal if we find a procedure to multiply the given radius by sqrt Pi.

Since we are given a procedure to draw a circle of equal area given any square, let us draw a square of side 1 with area of 1. The circle of equal area has a radius of 1/Pi. (this should be 1/sqrt Pi? - this may be a typo in original?)

Let the center of the circle of unit area be O. Draw a triangle AOB where AO is the radius of the circle of unit area, OB is a side of length 1 and AB is the other side.

To get the square with area equal to the circle of radius r, extend OA to OX such that OX is equal to r. Draw a line through X which is parallel to AB. Extend OB to intersect this parallel at Y. Consider the triangles AOB and XOY. These are similar triangles. Hence the ratio OB/OA is the same as the ratio OY/OX. By construction OB/OA equal sqrt Pi. Therefore OY equal sqrt Pi times OX, that is sqrt Pi * r. The area of a square with OY as side is pi*r2. The required square is the square with OY as a side. QED.

#[Note: This is the same as Pi*r^2 for circle's area equal to (Sqrt Pi*s)^2 so it is Pi*s^2 for the square's area, where both areas have Pi as an equivalent function, so though Pi is transcendent it is equal on both sides of the equation. - IDA]

---

quote:

The above is a Geo Gebra generated solution to the generation of a circle with the same area as a square. This is a variation of the circle squaring problem from antiquity. The Geo Gebra software package confirms generation of a circle and square that match in terms of area. In the diagram both are 4 CM in area each.

This approach to circle squaring differs from that of the ancient problem in that it starts with a square and then generates a matching circle.

Regardless of the inverse of the approach this is a great breakthrough in geometry that has yet to be fully explored.

---

---

quote:

Life's work

One of the most endearing and enduring qualities of humans is that we're so often sure that we can find the answer to any problem if we just try hard enough. For 3,500 years, humankind has attempted to solve the puzzle of pi, also called "squaring the circle", calculating the exact ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. However, no matter how hard anyone tries, they find only a new approximation.

In ancient Greece, the great mathematician Archimedes worked tirelessly to discover the ratio, uncovering only a few digits of accuracy. When he tried to stop a Roman soldier from blundering over his work by shouting "do not touch my circles" he was unceremoniously murdered.

---

---

quote:

This model is simplified; for example, it assumes the speed of light in the atmosphere is c, and it ignores the theory of relativity; but this simplified model is useful to gain insight into the principles of GPS. From Pythagoras Theorem, we can write...(p.14, italics mine)

---

---

quote:

Since for a particle at rest v = 0 then from (2) dm/dx = dm0/dx = 0. If it were also dc/dx = 0 we would have dE/dx = 0 and our dE/dx = 0 would fail as a candidate for gravitational force acting on the particle and E as a candidate forpotential energy of a particle. In teories of gravitation in which dc/dx = 0 it would be the end of our calculations. Luckily in the real world the light ray bends in the vicinity of a material object twice as much as it would be required by curvature of space and so it means that around materal objects speed of light changes and it better be dc/dx = - g/2c because otherwise energy (1) couldn't be potential energy.

---

1  Who invented relativity? Bzzzt—wrong. Galileo hit on the idea in 1639, when he showed that a falling object behaves the same way on a moving ship as it does in a motionless building.
2  And Einstein didn’t call it relativity. The word never appears in his original 1905 paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” and he hated the term, preferring “invariance theory” (because the laws of physics look the same to all observers—nothing “relative” about it).
3  Space-time continuum? Nope, that’s not Einstein either. The idea of time as the fourth dimension came from Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein’s professors, who once called him a “lazy dog.”
4  But Einstein did reformulate Galileo’s relativity to deal with the bizarre things that happen at near-light speed, where time slows down and space gets compressed. That counts for something.
5  Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl published the basic equation E = mc2 a year before Einstein did.
6  Never heard of Hasenöhrl? That’s because he failed to connect the equation with the principle of relativity. Verdammt!
7  Einstein’s full-time job at the Swiss patent office meant he had to hash out relativity during hours when nobody was watching. He would cram his notes into his desk when a supervisor came by.
....

Okay R____, I think we're getting somewhere here.  RE yours:

IF, you say that the SMO (Super Massive Object) is either a Compact Core Object (Which would mean it has some kind of 'physical surface' ie; Huge star like entity/Neutron/Quark (There is a guy who has a "Neutroid" theory) OR that the SMO is "White Hole" 'spewing' electrons/protons as the Jets, Then that is not a "Real Black Hole".
 
1. How do those 'jets' make the SMBH for the new galaxy it is supposed to be making?
2. How does your model explain the Voids between the galaxy clusters?
3, How does "Space" get here in the first place, and what is it made up of?

Most definitely the whole BB shebang is nonsense, so scratch any ideas of some grapefruit sized compact pre-time ball of plasma inflating suddenly into a whole universe 13.7 billion years ago.  That's just stupidity at the highest mathematical level.  So no Big Bang, and the universe's dimensions are unknown, age unknown, and that brings us down to what is happening inside galaxy centers.  Are they SMOs or SMBHs or SGMOs?

Okay, we only have distant observations to account for what is holding the galaxy together gravitationally, since it obviously does not fly apart, and interior gravitational dynamics show very high gravity activity, fast spin around the central galactic core, x-ray generation out axial poles, and a halo in most of them.  So what's going on?

What does that add up to?  First of all, there is not enough self-gravitating mass at the galactic center to account for the super gravity evident there, so something must exist at its center that is of exceptionally high gravity.  We cannot see past all the swirling dust and stars around the center of our own Milky Way to know.  Observing other galaxies at all angles gives us a clue, that a super massive gravity center does exist, and it may have an 'event horizon' from which no  light escapes, so it is 'invisible' to us, except for the polar jets of high energy.  We seem to think  those are positive charged jets, which escape out the axial line at near light speed, which itself then creates strong magnetic fields for the galaxy.  (We may in fact live in an electric universe, but it is not well defined as to what that means.)  The very powerful gravity of the galaxy center is not understood at present in any other way than a 'black hole', and it may be a 'super massive object', but if so, what is it made of?  Not neutron stars, since those exist independently.  

So my conclusion on this, since we can't get there to find out, is that we use whatever knowledge we have of local conditions and apply the physics there.  When I mentioned earlier Matusmoto's hot plasma simulation, there were characteristics of 'self-gravity' at the center of the spinning hot plasma.  That dovetails into what I realized from how works the equation made up of Louis de Broglie's quantum equation, E=hf, and Einstein's (really Thomson's) equation of E=mc2, but these were incomplete.  To make it work, I had to assume something, that e.m. energy and gravity are counter opposite forces, not complimentary but opposite, in the same way n* 1/n=1 are opposites.  The atom then becomes m=1, and E becomes n, and gravity becomes 1/n, per the Axiomatic equation's reasoning.  So that we get the full thing (not including magnetism, which is treated separately as another function of e.m.), looking like this:

1)  E=hf become E=hc/ (lamda*proton mass)  .... this is on the left side of Axiomatic, a quantum equatiion 

where the lambda is 1.32E-15 m, and proton mass is 1.67E-27 kg, and the whole thing works out for E=9E+16 Joules
(BTW, lambda 10^-15 m is about range for neutrinos)


Then on the right side we get the gravity equation portion, using proton-to-proton gravitational constant g, so that:

2)  E=mc^2 becomes E=(1- g)c^2

where m= kg/kg = 1 always ... using Earth based kilograms, but those are different per Equivalence in other G regions


When E => 0, look at what happens in the equation:

3)  0 = hc/ 0*proton mass = (1-1)c^2  ... where at no e.m. energy lamda disappears and proton gravity goes max to 1,

At that point, where there is no lambda (because it all cancelled out, which can ONLY happen when all lambda converges on a point from a spinning ambient hot-plasma sphere, as Matsumoto's simulation shows), the gravity goes to its maximum value, which I worked out using a conversion equation from proton-proton g to Newton's G:

G^2 = g c^2 pi^2  so that if g=1, you are left with:

G = (1)^1/2 c pi, which means G=c  (pi drops out on a point, since there is no sphere anymore) and that is what this interaction of quantum (left side equation) with gravity (right side adjusted) becomes at a galactic center, where you have Newton's G go to 3E+8 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, so it 'eats' all the light it can, and it becomes invisible.  What's there?  We don't know...

Now is there an event horizon to such a point of maximum gravity?  Sure there is, but what's inside it?  Is it super massive matter, or is it empty of matter?  That I can't know until we duplicate this process in a lab, the way Matsumoto did, and start to study the science behind this phenomenon.  Then, and only after a lot of lab testing, can we understand what this means.  Guessing at what's in the black hole is good for storytelling and philosophy, but it is not science.  For that, we need to examine real evidence.  One of the evidenced energies coming out of Matsumoto's simulation of spinning hot plasma was magnetic fields mimicking the sun's surface; the other was polar jets of high particle energy. So we have the tools (in theory) to test this hypothesis, but we haven't done so.  Why not?

I think the answer is that we're stuck with Einstein's GR explaining the whole universe as if it were some giant space-time geometric reality, with gravity as a universal constant 'warping' space.. It's silly.  That is holding us back, and then led to stupid ideas like BB.  If we can get away from Einstein's long enough to observe what the variable factors of gravity (NOT a universal constant) are in relation to quantum energy, we will get one step closer to understanding both the universe and galactic black holes, including 'dark matter', which is just invisibly dark higher G space dust and gas very far from hot stars and galaxies.  Then it all falls together into a real theory, rather than that silly nonsense about expanding space and 13.7 billion blah blah stuff. ... SR is ONLY useful for observational purposes, has nothing to do with how works the universal physics, except as an observational tool to measure using light c.

 We need real science done once more, and Einstein's GR/SR is not the right path.  In fact, he led us astray for about a century, and we're way off track...

... where to look for this stuff on Humancafe:  

1)  Variable G:  http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300

2)  Modern Universe in G-flat (really curved):  http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/475.html?1194407574

3)  Matsumoto's experiment:  http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/475.html#POST4550  (see Feb. 15, 2008 post)

4)  Deep Space gravitational redshift at 1z:  http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/185.html#POST3594
(where intergalactic space is 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G on Earth)

5)  Index of gravity related research at Humancafe:  http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/294/294.html#POST3939


Okay, that's all for now!  Can this explain 'voids' between galaxy clusters?  Not any more than to say they're empty! ... It's just the space in between things, full of gas and energy, but at much lower density than Earth's atmosphere, where space density is about one atom per cubic centimeter.  What's in between those atoms?  Well... what's in between molecules of gas on Earth?  It's empty, no molecules in between molecules, so what's to explain?  It's like asking how could the universe exist? ...who knows!