Hi everyone,

As the previous TOE page is getting rather heavy, pushing 500 KB, I thought it okay to start a new discussion thread: TOE/Theory of Everything - 3, where we can continue the most interesting ideas already presented regarding the physics and philosophical notions of an all comprehensive theory of everything. To begin this thread, I would like to list some links on Gravity which may shed more light on this, so it seems, rather contentious subject.

Electrogravity Physics.
http://rognerud.com/physics/

Charging a rotating cylinder to a high voltage.
http://rognerud.com/physics/html/rotating.html

Gravity Shielding.
http://rognerud.com/physics/html/tampere.html

The Speed of Gravity.
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

The reason I list these links is to demonstrate that there is research being done on the cutting edge of science which shows that Gravity is not simply a neutral constant force, but may have properties of which we are still ignorant. What the result of these new ways of seeing gravity may be may yet yield surprising data which will not plug in comfortably into the known physics, and which will force us to rethink how the universe works. In fact, is gravity but another manifestation of electro-magnetic forces, or is it some left over primordial force germane to the pre-evolutionary universe which became what it is today from its interaction with photonic light? Interesting to see the results of these new tests, for the old thesis of F = GMm/r2, may in fact need to be rewritten. Watch for anomalies of how gravity works, and that is the path to discovery, to go beyond what is known and expected, or hitherto believed to be true.

Enjoy the search, the truth is out there.

Ivan

Everyone,

Follows is an AP news release June 2, 1999 – I thought it rather interesting, but is it possible to explain away the contradictions within it? I don’t think so.

--------------------

Astronomers measure orbit of our solar system

June 2, 1999

Web posted at: 5:00 p.m. EDT (2100 GMT)

CHICAGO (AP) -- It may seem like the sun is just creeping through the heavens, but a new technique for measuring cosmic motion has found that sol is clipping along at an eye-popping 135 miles per second in its orbit of the Milky Way.

Astronomers using a radio telescope system to make the most precise measurement ever of the solar system orbit found that it takes the sun and its family of planets 226 million years to circle the center of its home galaxy.

That means that the last time the sun was at this point in its orbit of the Milky Way, dinosaurs ruled the world and human beings were not yet on the scene.

The new measurement is the most precise value ever determined for one of the fundamental motions of the Earth and its sun, said James Moran of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He spoke Tuesday at the national meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

"Our new figure of 226 million years is accurate to within 6 percent," Mark Reid, a Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer and leader of the team that made the measurements, said in a statement.

The sun is one of about 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, one of billions of ordinary galaxies in the universe. The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, with curving arms of stars pinwheeling out from a center. The solar system is about half way out on one of these arms and is about 26,000 light years away from the center. A light year is about 6 trillion miles.

Reid and his team made the measurement using the Very Long Baseline Array, a system of 10 large radio-telescope antennae placed 5,000 miles across the United States, from the U.S. Virgin Islands in the east, to Hawaii in the west. Working together as a single unit, the antennae are able to measure motions in the distant universe at an unprecedented accuracy. The accuracy is such that the VLBA can look at a bit of sky that has an apparent size one-ten thousandth the diameter of a human hair held at arms length.

For their solar system measurement, the astronomers focused on Sagittarius A.., a star discovered two decades ago to be at the center of the Milky Way. Over a 10-day period, they measured the apparent shift in position of the star against the background of stars far beyond.

The apparent motion of Sagittarius A.. is very, very small, just one-600,000th of what could be detected with the human eye, the astronomers said.

Reid said the measurement adds supports the idea that at the center of the Milky Way is a supermassive black hole.

"This ... strengthens the idea that this object, much smaller than our own solar system, contains a black hole about 2.6 million times more massive than the sun," Reid said in a statement.

Moran said the new measurement of the solar system orbit adds new accuracy to a fundamental fact of the universe: Everything is moving constantly. The Earth rotates on its axis at about 1,100 miles an hour, a motion that creates day and night.

The Earth orbits the sun at about 67,000 miles an hour, a motion that takes one year. The sun circles the Milky Way at a speed of about 486,000 miles per hour. And the Milky Way, along with every other galaxy, is moving away from each other, as the universe expands at a constantly accelerating rate.
----------------

My question to each of you is: What is obviously wrong in the information as presented?

If all galaxies are moving away from one another – howbeit possible for the Milky Way and Andromeda to collide as predicted?

Milky Way – Andromeda Collision

Claude

Hi Claude, G-man,

Claude, thanks for the above article. The expanding universe thesis is very much in question, given the observation. I think it is not expanding, only in motion, and the redshift illusion makes it appear to be expanding. But that may be only a function of light at great distances, which may undergo decay of some sort.

G-man, Claude, what do you think of the idea behind spinning magnetized disks displaying evidence of life? I suspect that it is not gravity related, but rather a function of intensifying the disk's electromagnetic field to the point where it engages the Earth's magnetic field, and if so, then it is merely another possible form of propulsion. The link to it is at: http://rognerud.com/physics/html/rotating.html

However, another question which is not answered in this link is whether or not this experiment has the same result at the equator, or more specifically, south of the equator. It may, but the result should be opposite, if my conclusion is correct. Below are other links on this. Meanwhile, here is something on Electro-gravity, just for summer fun. Go fly a kite!
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm

Electrogravity Vs Antigravity?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/electrog.htm
http://www.rexresearch.com/ttbrown/ttbrown.htm
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/elgo2.html

Pdkeltnov & Schnurer's experiments:
http://alephzero.gmxhome.de/antigrav/

Ciao for now! Ivan

Ivan: One of the points I raised earlier ties into the zero-point electrogravity concept. If in theory a sphere spins in a perfect vacuum, as it accelerates ever-faster it tends to flatten into a disc. Eventually, as it achieves c, the remaining mass achieves as singular point which was the sphere's original core, at which point v = c and m = 0. G-man

Ivan,

Concerning the Yamashita patent issued in England and the rotating cylinders – about all I have to say, how come it was not patented elsewhere? English patents are well known for being patently unpatentable elsewhere.

I cut my teeth on electro-gravity 1964, not so very long after I built my first computer – a Heatkit EC-1. What I learned is, Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radiation becomes so very uncomfortable after just a few seconds of exposure, the efforts were not worth the pain involved. It sure was not any fun in my book! Our device was huge compared to the itty-bitty ones described; ours weighed 34 ounces, but hey – we did not have many composite materials available in 1964.

Electro-gravity? No thanks - I would rather dance with a lightning bolt!

Claude

G-man,

G-man: “If in theory a sphere spins in a perfect vacuum, as it accelerates ever-faster it tends to flatten into a disc. Eventually, as it achieves c, the remaining mass achieves as singular point which was the sphere's original core, at which point v = c and m = 0.”

A sphere if a solid, will not flatten inside a vacuum if spun to c at the outer edge – the law of centripetal force denies potential for the center of mass cannot obtain c simultaneously with the outer edge. That is exponential function at work of which, cannot be predicted, or projected. In theory, such a sphere could become exactly like a spiral galaxy in as much, the sphere should appear as a disk with a globular center much like our own Milky Way, and in all probability would exhibit fingers as does all known spiral galaxies. That is what honestly explains our lumpy universe, for it is not gravity, or radiation of any type.

The only potential for vc = m0 to occur is in straightforward motion of the entire mass. That also explains why a photon is a wave, until trapped when it becomes a particle, yet it remains O mass.

Only “its” with O mass can obtain the theoretical c, even if in a vacuum.

If we have a sphere that is one mile in circumference, it must revolve at 186,000 revolutions per second to obtain c at the outside edge – The inside center at 3.82 inches from the pivot point of the sphere (12” circumference sphere) would only be moving at 186,000 feet per second = 35.228 miles per second. The innermost 1” circumference sphere would only be moving at 2.936 miles per second, and if we reduce the center point sphere to .25” it would be moving at .734 miles per second. Now we go bananas, and reduce the center sphere to .10” the speed reduces to a paltry .294 miles per second, and as we go totally insane, and reduce the center to the .001” the speed reduces to - .00294 miles per second = or just a bit more than 15 feet.

Yes, there probably is an error in the computations since I used MS Calculator with its idiosyncrasies, but I hope each of you get the gist of Exponential Function, and the impossibility of duplicating it, or even rendering it sensible by using numbers to the extent, we can even come close.

Here, I propose a thought exercise: The universe consists of 99.9% plasma, a given if you will for it has been conclusively proven! Since the universe has always existed, and never began so it will never end, I propose there is but one force at work in the universe, as we know it!

That force is “centripetal force,” as exerted by the universe as it rotates in its entirety at c^3.14 - Yes, I can explain how G – S – W – EM forces evolve – as they are required – from Centripetal Force!

Welcome to my world of Omegatron Dynamics!

Claude

Dear Claude,

(From yours on TOE-2, June 30, 2002)
RE "Photons have no method to interact with an atom- A photon can only mess with, and/or interact with an electron inside an atom, but it cannot alter the atom. Furthermore there is no such thing as primordial space, unless you agree with the BBT."

This is the crux of it, that photons do not interact with an atom's mass. They create the atom.

RE "...the interaction of photons with atoms can increase the energy state of an electron inside of an atom, but all that does is give “opacity” to the atom when it absorbs the photon – it causes no other effect, or affect. There is no potential to alter the mass of the atom, and the photon then becomes part of that atom, but the mass of the atom is not altered."

Precisely so, that photons once absorbed give "opacity" to the atom, as an example of how a photon "modifies" what is a primordial state of the atom before it encounters photon energy, which then creates it into being. If there were no photons in the universe, the universe would remain in its primordial state void of matter, and in a "supergravity" state, which is not the same a BBT, but it does resemble it. Once these atoms of mass are created, from the primordial soup of supergravity, they continue their existence. Remember that the basic atom is hydrogen, which travel typically in pairs, but then can be combined into heavier elements, as happens when stars go nova and then explode. But once they exist, you cannot turn back the clock to their non-existence, for they become a permanent state of physical reality, and thus can only be modified but not created. The only evidence of this photon/supergravity (not atomic) interaction is that gravity, which I say is only a left over byproduct of this interaction, varies in relation to its proximity to such photonically active areas of space. Where there is a lack of photonic activity, gravity would be greater than what we experience here in the vicinity of our star. Thus, what would be worthwhile to find out, and thus validate what I am saying, is evidence that gravity when observed far from a star is a variable and not fixed as we now suppose. And if this is found to be so, then we may be on a new path of understanding what happens inside the atom and how gravity is created from those interactions. But this theory needs validation through observation, which is what I am interested in finding, evidence that gravity away from the solar system, or other stars, is not the same as it is here.

Also, RE how can Earth's molten core of iron be magnetized? Scientist "fudge" on this one, by claiming that the very deep center of the planet has turned back to "solid" due to the great pressure of gravity, and thus the magnetism originates there. Go figure!

I will write more on this when I have some time.

Talk soon, Ivan

Dear G-man,

RE "v = c and m = 0".

Imagine this, that the universe is a spinning disk, ala Claude's description above, with a velocity of C at the perimeter, and exponentially progressively lesser speeds as we approach the center. What happens? The outer edges are pure energy, no mass, only photons; whereas the inner areas of the spinning universe is endowed with progressively more mass, until we reach the center, where mass is infinite in effect, or supergravity. Wow! Were this so, wouldn't that blow away scientific minds! It would give us a whole new way of seeing cosmic existence, where perhaps the edges of the universe are in the process of creating other universes as they interact photonically with the primordial supergravity found there, ad infinitum. So forget BBT, for the universe may be in the process of constantly recreating itself all the time, in an infinite dance of C and O. Super cool if it were so!

Thanks for the brain tease.

Ivan

Hi again Claude,

RE "That force is “centripetal force,” as exerted by the universe as it rotates in its entirety at c^3.14 - Yes, I can explain how G – S – W – EM forces evolve – as they are required – from Centripetal Force!"

Please! I would love to see how this centripetal force works, since it can be a very important contribution to our inquiries of TOE as we have examined thus far.

Many thanks, Ivan

Ivan,

Ivan: “Precisely so, that photons once absorbed give "opacity" to the atom, as an example of how a photon "modifies" what is a primordial state of the atom before it encounters photon energy, which then creates it into being.”

A photon – cannot modify an atom before the photon makes contact. Read what you wrote since I put it in italics. A photon does nothing to “create” anything – a photon only has the ability to excite an electron beyond its existing energy state. After the photon has excited the electron beyond its existing energy state, the photon is absorbed, and then the electron returns to its “normal” or “preexisting energy state,” after which the electron and its associated atom are identical to that as they were prior to the photon’s excitation of the electron involved. The opacity factor ceases once radiation source is removed (at which time, the photon becomes a particle), and the photon decays instantaneously, leaving no trace of its existence.

For photons that are not absorbed it is thought, the half-life is about 6.5 billion years as we humans, calculate years. That is what accounts for the Hubble mistake for it actually causes “redshift” to occur, and originally gave rise to the “old, or tired light” notions as were popular just a few years back. Think – if the half-life of unabsorbed photons is 6.5 billion years, it is would be impossible to calculate the age of any entity beyond that 6.5 billion years if light is the basis for making the calculation.

Ivan: “If there were no photons in the universe, the universe would remain in its primordial state void of matter,”

Here, again, you are relating to “a creation phase” for the universe, which is not in any way consistent with an always-existing universe. So far as to your first assertion that photons create something, it has been conclusively proven by Fermi-lab, and by CERN, not to occur. After a photon is absorbed the associated atom is not altered for the photon decays immediately, the atom’s electron then reverts to its original state after the photon is absorbed. The opacity when imparted lasts only for that duration the photon is a wave; however, after the wave stops (source is removed) the photon becomes a particle, which immediately decays leaving no residue remaining to even prove it existed.

Think- if absorbed photons did not immediately decay after they become particles, every object or entity would be “luminescent,” or “incandescent” in perpetuity after the photons were absorbed. Photons are necessarily absorbed; otherwise, the photons would travel at coefficient of c until reaching their half-life, which in theory would eventually illuminate the entire universe in perpetuity.

So far as I know, there is no method to actually calculate the half-life of a photon, but there is one example formula that might work, if “exponential function,” could somehow be incorporated into the equation. But, since we “cannot” formulate the Exponential Polynomial algorithm required to prove the equation, all bets are off.

Link to Formula for calculation of photon half-life

Here, I think it imperative to say – there is but one alternative to the BBT for people who reject the conceptual eternal universe (much like that of Hoyle) that I propose, that being, the theory as elucidated by Hermonn von Helmholtz (1821-1894) and Lord Kelvin (1824-1907). The main alternative explanation to fusion is called "solar collapse," which was worked out more than 100 years before the BBT originated. That theory destroys all conceptualizations concerning BBT universe, and can prove a very young age of perhaps, less than 100,000 years for the universe! Also the sparse neutrino count that physically arrives at earth is fully explained by it. Needless to say, that theory is strictly a “theory of design,” and I do mean “intelligent design,” specifically, a God created intelligent design, and done so with a specific purpose, which lends creditability to every religion, even more specifically, the religion identified as Christianity. Here, I must iterate – the BBT originated from within the very human imagination of one Belgian priest - Georges Lemaître, and his theory was “blessed” by none other than, Pope Pius XII in 1951. I ask why fore was the conceptual notion presented by Lemaître, “blessed?”

That latter two of the notions above, the world as I know it, would be better off without either.

Claude

Stage 1 – Putting motion in order

Obviously, we do not know the physical size of the universe, because it is a necessity, and necessity dictates the universe is infinite; therefore, as the universe rotates at light speed ^3.14, the equation … c^3.14 = Infinity. This removes us from conventions of physics as presently understood, but explains several anomalies as proven by quantum theory and mechanics- chiefly the Principle of Uncertainty, and the Planck Constant.

Proposition

Motion, once begun, requires force to stop it. If the universe is infinite, there can be no outside friction; therefore, without friction, the universe is an entity in perpetual motion that cannot cease.

Premise A

The universe has no beginning

Premise B

The universe cannot end

Premise C

Universal Time does not exist

Discussion: No discussion required.

Conclusion: the proposition, and ensuing premises already detail the conclusion.

Claude

Ivan,

Perhaps the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics will explain why your hypothesis for the “creation” of atoms is doubtful. I much prefer a “modern exposition” of Thermodynamic Laws in order to comprehend the implications, and repercussions they present. There is a good reason for doing this, because it better explains their true functions, which are more directly related to Chemistry than Physics.

0th Law- If A is in thermal equilibrium with B and B is in equilibrium with C, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C.

1st Law - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

2nd Law - Heat will not flow between two sources at thermal equilibrium.

3rd Law - A heat sink at temperature -absolute zero- is unobtainable.

The 0th Law is included here to explain the interaction between each of the laws as they are positioned.

According to the 1st law, energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is confirmed by E=MC^2; therefore, your perception of “creating” an atom is not possible because that would contradict E=MC^2, and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Remember, all of the matter that exists, has always existed, and all of available energy that exists, has always existed. It is impossible to “create” a new atom – The only thing that can occur is, one atom can become a different type of atom by exchanging, stealing, or shedding of some part of its physical component structure. That is what occurs when Fusion, and Fission transpire.

In essence, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is redundant, as is the 3rd Law, but the 3rd Law should be taught because, There is no limit to how hot an object can be, but the lowest temperature is absolute zero at -273.15 degrees Centrigrade, or 0 degrees Kelvin.

The lowest temperatures, known to occur naturally, are on Triton (a moon of Neptune) in out Solar System and in inter-galactic space. Much lower temperatures can be created in the laboratory, but not as low as Absolute Zero! The actual temperature on Triton as measured by Voyager 2, August 25, 1989 was 34.5 Kelvin, or -235 C, or -391 F-, which is about the same as for the estimated temperature on Pluto-

Claude

Claude,

This is becoming something of a merry-go-round, since we simply keep repeating to each other what had been said. I understand that today's physics cannot imagine light interacting with a primordial supercompact universe to create matter. I do not propose that this is happening now either. Rather, this happened at one time, and may be happening somewhere, but not here, because now all the atoms had been activated and are now happily doing their stuff, which is what you keep referring to about how photon interact with the atom. I know this full well. Again, that is not the point.

What interests me, though it obviously goes right over you since you dogmatically insist this cannot be, is that if there are variations in gravitational force beyond the solar system, which in today's physics would be unexplainable, then there could be reason to think that the photon/supergravity interaction which originally created the atom is still at work as a modifying force, meaning: gravitational mass is less in the environment of light photons, and greater in their absence. Hence, deep in space way beyond a star region, gravity would be greater than it is here. Period.

This is obviously subject to examination and observation of gravitational activity at distances beyond our solar system. If this proves to be so, then we would have to rethink everything we now know, or believe we know, about how the universe works. In your statement:

"According to the 1st law, energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is confirmed by E=MC^2; therefore, your perception of “creating” an atom is not possible because that would contradict E=MC^2",

this is certainly true for things as they are now, and perhaps as they will remain in perpetuity. It may not have been the case when light first interacted with superdensespacegravity from which were created atoms, though it may be happening somewhere in space that we are not aware of. Same as new life cannot incubate in today's world, since it would be eaten immediately by the life already here, the new atoms cannot be created from this photonic interaction, as the place is already taken. Your theories are not in contradiction with today's general thinking on physics; mine are. I do not expect you to come around to my way of seeing things, and that's okay, no argument there. I am interested primarily in discovering evidence that, according to my thinking, should be predictable as I had stated, that gravity is not a homogenous constant (thank you G-man), but is a variable that will throw off astronomers and physicist when this is discovered. Why would it be a variable? That depends upon where you are. Any good theory should have duplicability and predictability, and mine would predict that gravity is a variable.

G-man, Claude, an aside about a rapidly spinning universe.

If we can calculate where we are inside the universe sphere, near infinite that it may be, then we may discover that the 15 billion light years away images we are now getting from Hubble may be only a pin prick within the whole, and probably somewhere in between zero mass, and infinity mass, with a long way to go in either direction. We may be exceptionally myopic in our view in terms of what we can observe, though this does not mean that the universe may yet not be a self contained set that then redirects itself from its largest totalities into a constantly changing, and I dare say growing, entity. No, not growth in the perpetual Big Bang sense, but growing in terms of what it manifests within itself: Life. And as it grows, this life becomes increasingly conscious. Time? Time exists every time you have a change, whether it be chemical change, cosmic distance change, polarity change, rotational change, even thinking change, all these require time to pass for them to happen. So evolution over time is not something to be disregarded, but rather to be respected as how the universe redefines itself. This too is an important element of how I see TOE.

To all,

My thesis stands as it is. Not out of dogmatism, but because I do not think we have all the ingredients necessary to formally declare it yet, so I am willing to ask questions and seek proof. What is missing is how photonic light, which propagates as radiation from the stars in waves, and which compacts into a particle upon hitting an atom, as it interacts with the electron shells of the already existing atoms; how this photon energy interacts with the internal mechanisms of the supergravity force still latent within the atom, resulting in what we know as gravity. That is the search, to see if this gravity has observable variations. My prediction, based on (1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m, (see my Algorithm post on May 25, 2002), is that there will be more gravity away from the source of light, and less gravity where there is an abundance of this photonic light. Thus, the missing ingredient I am willing to search for is that light behaves in a way that modifies what I call primordial space, which is infinitely dense, and which, due to the fact that this density had been filled by energy, now exists only as a latent force within each atom. Period.

Keep thinking, as I know I will.

Ivan

Ivan,

One more time-

You keep missing the point - the Universe never began; therefore, all atoms have existed forever.

So, with my next post, which I did not really want to reveal yet, I hope that my knowledge will at last make a point that nobody, and I do mean, no human being that ever walked the face of this earth ever made before!

Claude

Everyone,

The calculations that follow are © Copyrighted in the fabric of the text 1998 by the author.
----------
Calculations for the age of Planet Earth, and Sun –

Local cumulative motion involved

Earth rotates on its axis 0.5KM/sec
Earth orbits the sun 30KM/sec
Solar system orbits Milky Way 250KM/sec
Milky Way orbits Local Group 300\KM/sec

Earth’s cumulate speed within the Local Group of Galaxies is 580.5 KM/sec, which if converted using the standard formula = 1231433.4276 Mile Per Hour. A goodly sum!

If the universe is infinite O; the universe is spinning @ c x 3.14^ the speed of rotation is also infinite; therefore, we can say, O x O = the universe as we perceive it. But we can now add a numerical constant to our theory, that is, Infinity = 584,040 miles per hour in local time and dimension. Next we divide Infinity – O – 584,040 by the cumulative sum of earth’s speed when combined to equal all forward motions = 1231433.4276 Miles per hour, which = 0.47427655195154457085325917296871 – Remember, Infinity = O, and we must now remove that Infinity from our result whereas, we remove the O. leaving the resulting numbers as calculated - 47427655195154457085325917296871, of which only the first ten are of significance (a number beyond 10 digits either side of a decimal point is worthless) – 4,742,765,519 – Which is the exact age of planet earth!

Using the same formula, we can calculate the exact age of our Sun.

Solar system orbits Milky Way 250KM/sec
Milky Way orbits Local Group 300\KM/sec

O – 584,040MPH divided by 1230314.9616 = 0.47470771162570246353736612155006, and when we remove O. the result is 4,747,077,116 years since our sun was born. What this means is, from the date our sun began to form, until the earth began to form, Local elapsed time was 4,311,597 years. It should be noted the planets within our solar system are not of the same ages.

Using Omegatron Dynamic algorithms as designed by the author, these calculations were generated and © Copyrighted 1998 under the laws of the United States of America. The accuracy is believed + or – 1%. It must be noted here, Universal time cannot be applied to the Universe; however, local time is based on the significant entity i.e., the sun for our solar system, and can be applied to other similar systems in the Universe.

At present, I have not calculated the age of our Galaxy, the Milky Way for reasons that I elect not to reveal now, or the near future for what should be, obvious reasons. I can say this however, the existing state of cosmology has lost its objective direction whereas, the rejection or blackballing of prominent scientists, and physicists involved in modeling the universe as it is – MUST CEASE! Too many $$$$ are expended on frivolous research of no consequence; therefore, the continuance of “ignoring” conclusive evidence must stop.

Claude

G-man,

This is an aside - I thought you might be interested.

---------------

Earth Simulator Press Release

The ultra high-speed parallel computing system, "Earth Simulator" attained the best computing performance in the world according to the Linpack benchmark test. The result of this test of execution performance, 35.61 TFlops (trillion operations per second), was approved and the Earth Simulator was registered as the world' s fastest supercomputer by Dr. Jack J. Dongarra of the University of Tennessee, USA, who announced the world Linpack benchmark test results.

The Earth Simulator consists of 640 supercomputers that are connected by a high-speed network (data transfer speed; 12.3 GBytes). Each supercomputer (1 node) contains eight vector processors with a peak performance of 8GFlops and a high-speed memory of 16 GBytes. The total number of processors is 5120 (8 x 640), which translates to a total of approximately 40 TFlops peak performance, and a total main memory of 10 TeraBytes.

35.61 TFlops is achieved from the operation of 638 nodes (5,104 processors) and an efficiency performance percentage of 87.2%.

According to the TOP500 list of supercomputers in the world, the second is the ASCI White system in the US, whose performance is 7.266 TFlops (peak performance 12.288 TFlops, peak performance percentage 58.8%). The Earth Simulator has five times the capacity of the US system.

April 18, 2002

* TeraFlops (TFLOPS)

1 TFLOPS is a term for a trillion floating-point operations per second."Tera" is a prefix for one trillion (ten raised to the twelfth power),"giga" for one billion (ten raised to the tenth power).

When the Linpack program was executed, the Earth Simulator achieved 35.61 TFLOPS, which is 35.61 trillion floating-point operations per second on average.

* Linpack benchmark test
A numerically intensive test that has been widely used to measure and compare the processing performance of supercomputers, and similar devices. Propounded by Dr. J. Dongarra of the University of Tennessee, the test measures the processing performance (in Gigaflops) of a computer program that solves a large-scale linear equation.

* All the test results are reported and updated on the Web, with the latest results indicating that the Earth Simulator is the fastest supercomputer in the world.
(Report Home Page http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/performance.ps)


* TOP500
A web site listing the sites that have the 500 most powerful computer systems installed. The best Linpack benchmark performance achieved is used as a performance measure in ranking the computers. The TOP500 list has been updated twice every year since 1993.
(Homepage http://www.top500.org/)

* Vector Processor
A processor that executes computational operations at high speed with a single instruction. Vector processors provide high-sustained performance
--------

My robots found it someplace-

Claude

Claude,

RE "One more time- You keep missing the point - the Universe never began; therefore, all atoms have existed forever."

This is a statement of your "belief", which is cool, but keep it in perspective. My "belief" is that atoms were, and possibly still are and will be, created from an interaction between energy and supergravity.

Having said that, I always believed that two, or three heads, are better than one, to the factorial!

So let's keep working on these ideas, each within our own belief system, and then share the results. However, the real value of the results of our thinking and research does not lie in our agreeing or disagreeing, though this has value as a stimulating exchange, but in the results we gain from observing reality, and its repsonse to our ideas when tested. After all, no matter how smart we humans may think we are, it is reality that is the final judge and executioner.

Take care, talk later, Ivan

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." [Gen. 1.3]

G-man, all,

Though I am loathe to quote biblical sources, since I do not think those ancient scribes knew a whole lot more than we know today, I would like to present an idea, in their acknowledgement.

If the universe is indeed spinning, then there would have to be some center somewhere, same as there would be a periphery. On the edges, there would then be pure energy only, zero mass, light; in the center there would be pure mass, zero energy, gravity supreme. Does this make sense, so far?

Now, let's suppose that we are within this system somewhere in the middle, let's call it the midway life-zone band, so that things look pretty stable from here, as far as the Hubble eye could see. Now let's imagine we go to the periphery of this universe; what would that look like? Would there be perpetual light? Or would it be an invisible light instead, since it has nothing with which to interact? I vote for the latter. At the periphery, there is no mass with which light can interact, so though it is pure energy, it is dark.

Now let's suppose we go the other way, towards the universe's imagined center. Would that center be devoid of light, due to some super black hole effect? Or would it be brilliant with light? I would vote for the latter, that it would be brilliant, because there the photonic energy has something with which to interact, the super massive black hole of infinite mass. I also base this supposition on the observation that visible light is very abundant surrounding the center of our galaxy, where it is expected is a black hole.

With this in mind, two things come to mind that could act as a test of this thinking. One, is there an abundance of light at the galaxy centers where black holes are thought to exist? The answer is yes, a great abundance of it. So the second thought is this: Should we be looking to see if there is a higher concentration of light somewhere in the Hubble visible universe? If there is, then it may be pointing towards the universe's center, with the opposite direction being the closest edge of the universe to where we are in it. If such a center exists, and we can actually see it through all the haze of cosmic dust, then we can better estimate where we are within the whole. One possible measurement is to use the decreasing wavelength of light, the so called redshift, as an application of Zeno's paradox: where the red shift is half in intensity, double the wavelength, of what it was at the source as the half way point between here and the light source. If we could see the universe's center, then we could estimate where is its perimeter.

In conclusion, it would be this observation that would add one more ingredient to the photon interaction with some prmordial dark force of supergravity. Notice how light gathers around galaxy black holes which, like antibodies gathering around an infection, try to overcome the lack of light there. These interactions between light and supergravity are not to be ignored, but should be used as evidence of what it is that we are trying to span, the way the universe interacts within itself into a complete whole that can produce life, even sometimes conscious life.

Interesting, no?

Ivan

Claude:...YOU have to slow down a tad. Keep going...but understand, your jumps are leaving huge ?gaps in the wake. You've got a lot of explainin' to do:) G-man

Claude: Your hypothetic premises remain philosophic/meta-physic because they do not internally contain their causation (probable, or otherwise). Revisit one of your June 30 posts. We realize (and share) your excitement. But your attempt to disprove the existence of Time falls short due to certain gaps (which, based on my own personal experience of hubris don't avail apparency until after the fact:) Also--and I'm still reading your latest--if we assume a universal (galactic or otherwise...) spin, the math model must also account for its alternative, namely, the many spinning wheels within a vastly larger...spinor spheric ?:) G-man (Call me da book keepa:)

Ivan, Claude:

The only was for a continuous self-perpetuating universe (cosmology) theory to work is...it must incorporate energy deflation into an inflationary model. It is distinctly different to say...the universe had/has no beginning, therefore it follows that x... is the case; versus, the universe had no [final] beginning because..., therefore it follows x. What's at stake here, really are answers to the how questions posed by...well, largely, the BBT crowd. G-man

Claude,

Thanks for the math on your post July 1, 2002, on the age of the Earth and Sun. I'm a little stuck, however, at the number of Infinity as 584040 MPH. How did you arrive at that number? I don't know it.

Many thanks, Ivan

G-man,

If Claude's numbers are right, then Earth moving through space at a velocity of 1,231,433 MPH means we're really cookin'! Talk about things being in motion, and spin as an all universal phenomenon. All things are then spinning within the Great Spin, which I think is a more credible theory than everything expanding within the Big Bang.

Ivan

G-man, Ivan,

As I stated earlier, each component set belongs to a hierarchy of sets, stemming from the master set; by that, until sets 11, 12, and 13 – no compilation can occur; therefore, I have no alternative but post sets as completed, instead of the progressive order situated by rote.

Concerning time; I have spent the better part of 30 years attempting to prove Time exists, but a consensus of technical papers accumulated from a broad spectrum of sources prove that whenever Time is a factor in computations, that computed eventually provokes some type of error that cannot be reconciled, such as Singularity, which always results with the problem of an infinite regress. Time cannot be ascribed to the Universe, nor is theoretical use of time applicable when formulating or evaluating exponential function, which is the price we must pay when dealing with an analog device using digital apparatus. Time can be a factor only when concerning local events, even then, reliability diminishes, which is a contributive factor to the errors in R, SR, and several constants as now applied in order to make – something fit, where it does not fit; i.e., Hubble Constant, which has changed so often few physicists today remember what the current ratio is. Again, I must point to Einstein and his theories, R and SR, within which, E - categorically stated using his own words, “Singularity cannot possibly occur in Reality.”

Today, there are more than 1,000 existing alterations to R and SR used by physicists to “make them fit” the existing BBT – science calls them “fudge factors,” and people who challenge their use such as Halton Arp does regularly, are blackballed for their efforts?

Fact: There will be no math model.

I can apply Omegatron Dynamic algorithms to local events only, but I also realize the error potential; therefore, I strive to use them only for Local Events, which, obviously occur only within our Solar System. For instance, I calculated the ages of sun and the earth using only basic figures available to everyone; however, the results are similar to existing comparisons that required considerable expense to calculate. Simplicity is the key, which has been lost in the clouds of formulas required to say, “The earth rotates on its axis,” scientifically.

You are thinking like an engineer (causation) – which today, cannot duplicate a Pyramid equivalent to those in Egypt within the same tolerance of construction. I know the BBT cohort will challenge me, and I realize those challenges must be met head on but as I am putting this together, I also have enough conflict/contradictions on record to cause them to prove their own conceptual enterprises as less worthy or reliable because of complex distortions within existing methodology, and observed phenomena.

Because my theory is based on a Plasma Universe, it is a necessity that I unify the four forces – strong, weak, EM, and Gravity into a GUT whereas, each will explain the other, and prove the interaction sequences logically without error. I have done that, and the lone factor that allowed me to accomplish fact is based on the 1st Thermodynamic Law, which is for all practical purposes, a law pertaining to both chemistry and physics. That fact in essence, should reveal the bridge that physicists and chemists seldom stand upon, for without a total understanding of how two differing materials interact to become some other material, particle studies are worthless. Yes, forces are involved, but reactions of a specific catalytic are the method of formation of matter through a synthesization process, whatever it may be. In other words, how often will physicists ask for advice from other fields such as Thermo-Chemistry?

Quote: Beyond Our Universe

“If space is infinite, and how could it not be, then our Big Bang and the universe born of it, leaves a lot of space to account for. What's out there? Could be unimaginably exotic things. In our little corner of infinity, there was a big bang event. It's not too hard to imagine the remnants of billions and billions of other big bang events clustered together in local groups, clusters, and super-clusters of big bangs.”

The above quote was made by a modern physicist, and a supposed believer in the BBT; but is it logical for someone to make such statements?

“In our little corner of infinity,” infers, we are “inside of infinity,” and specific inference, “If space is infinite, and how could it not be,” proves the contradictory conceptuality of many practicing physicists and cosmologists.

Claude

Ivan, G-man,

Omegatron Dynamics is of my own theoretical design, developed to allow incorporation of as near – true – analog calculations as possible using exponential function potential. It is based on a theory: Everything that is, is, as it is – or, if you prefer the analytical format,

E = I + I + I

It is an algorithm language wrought of years attempting to build an analog computer that I can program simply by twisting knobs in relationship with one another, but without the convention of using numbers whereas, digital calculations, are not required to obtain the resulting – digital statement; i.e., readout of information delivered. My first success did prove the theory as viable, but I kept having problems with the zero - 0. - and - .0 - when or if they occurred in the readouts. One day while trying to interpret readouts, it came to me that – 0. and .0 represent – infinity when the O falls immediately before and after the decimal point. That was my first wakeup call, which said to me, “Only the first ten digits function as they should in conventional math,” but the “first digits” on either side of the decimal point must be a physical number, not the placeholder O. For example:

.01234567891 – is an invalid number or sum – reason being it begins in -infinity, instead of reality-

Conversely,

19876543210. is also invalid number or sum – reason being it begins in +infinity, instead of reality-

Reality is pure – and consists of the reality of each individual object as it appears to us; it does not appear as – individual – segmented – parts; therefore, John Wallis, the inventor of the Infinity symbol 1657 (the horizontal figure 8) – knew it could not be written OO -with a separation between the greater than 1 and lesser than 1 point, – between – the two sides of conventional equations; by that, we cannot divide by 0, neither can we divide an integer into 0, for the result is the same – one is positive, one is negative, and never shall one meet the other!

Pondering what was seemingly a paradox for a while, it dawned on me that a circle is the one geometric figure that represents a continuum such as the universe if made into a 4D object (sphere) with – length, width, height, depth – What happens if the sphere begins to spin? Nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, no matter what velocity, or the direction of spin involved, for all forces “cancel one another” and in Reality, the object retains its spherical appearance, and in essence, becomes perpetually, and permanently stationary! By simulation of exacting facts, I conclusively proved that to be true, without a shred of doubt possible. The four forces that we commonly know as, weak, strong, EM, gravity, are but four effects of perpetual “infinite” motion in a state of perpetual neutralization.

The result was, there is negative O, positive O, and True O (infinity), and when we play the numbers game, we are playing with negative and positive infinities only; therefore, if we elect to play the numbers game, everything must be done in multiples of not 3, but PI for that is the only sum that works reasonably well to establish the dimensions of circles, and spheres. C = 186,000mph, therefore, C X 3.14 = 584,040mph, which = true infinity.

Hoyle and cohorts were very close with their SST, but only the entire universe is in what we would say is – a steady state, for outside of it – no thing can possibly be; however, in the inside of the universe, there are four forces, which constantly neutralizes every effect of the external perpetual motion endured by the universe. It is those forces, which cause Real Events that we experience as the Event’s Reality, as they occur, of which, results in our physical experience.

Yes G-man, my model fully incorporates energy deflation into an inflationary model.

Infinity Game

Claude

Ivan, G-man,

Now, do either of you want to explain how Time can be a universal factor, if in fact that I am correct, and the universe as a whole, is infinite, in every respect, as pertaining to, age, dimension, is an externally closed entity that no other thing can enter into it from outside of it, and it cannot change its external appearance, size, age, or dimensionality because it is permanent?

The universe as it exists, is forever permanent because of its infinity; therefore, this will reduce arguments to only those relative to what occurs inside the universe; moreover, the very definition of infinity precludes such arguments, including causal for but one reason, The universe is spinning inside in a “totally frictionless” environment; therefore, insuring its own perpetuity.

Claude

Hi Claude (& all),

Okay, I think I get it:

RE your: "The result was, there is negative O, positive O, and True O (infinity), and when we play the numbers game, we are playing with negative and positive infinities only; therefore, if we elect to play the numbers game, everything must be done in multiples of not 3, but PI for that is the only sum that works reasonably well to establish the dimensions of circles, and spheres. C = 186,000mph, therefore, C X 3.14 = 584,040mph, which = true infinity."

So the mph is a function of C and Pi, and infinity is the Omega, O, an infinite sphere. That makes sense. But there is still the puzzle as to why only "10" digits are valid, as opposed to say 9, or 12? Would a different number of digits yield different results, by a factor or 10, or even 100, or more? If you cut off the decimal, after you drop the O, at say 11, isn't the result 10 times greater, meaning the Earth is not 4,742,765,519 years old, but 47,427,655,195 years old instead? So I'm not clear I follow here.

Time, as you define it, as a function of infinity within infinity, then does not exist, except for the interactions within infinity as they affect each other. But, on the other hand, do these interactions, spin, chemical change, motion, physical distance change, etc., do these not interact of necessity with the infinity? And if so, what happens to their time value? Does it simply cease to exist? Again, this is a puzzle to me.

I can see how the universe, because of its infinity, is permanent in perpetuity, but change within it can also have the effect of altering the nature of that permanence, so that there can be evidence of either progression or regression in relation to what was. Maybe the totality of infinity remains unchanged, and unchangeable, but change is registered within this totality's parts, and if so, then change alters the universe's permanence somehow. Is this not so? Take the progression of changes in life, in how species adapt to changing environments. Where does this change originate? Is it due to some change in the living organism, or is it from the changing conditions within which it finds itself having to survive? Or can it be both. I agree that mutation is a poor excuse, and that there is too much order in the universe to leave it to chance. But where does this change originate?

What a brain tease! Thanks for so many great thoughts.

Ivan

Ivan,

Tongue in cheek on this one,

Ivan: “But there is still the puzzle as to why only "10" digits are valid, as opposed to say 9, or 12?”

Logic says, “What is the total number of digits you have on both hands?”

Why?

Claude

Ivan,

Think about it- if the universe is infinite, there cannot be a place outside of infinity for finite entities to exist; therefore, finite entities only have one place to exist, that being within the infinite place, which is the universe. There can be only one infinite place or entity, for there is no place for another infinite place or entity to exist. Remember, but one O is, so everything inside the infinite place, is finite. Every finite thing or entity is subject to the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, but the infinite place is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics; therefore, change only occurs inside of infinity, and does not affect the infinite place – the universe. The universe is completely equipped with every particle of matter, and every erg of energy; therefore, it requires nothing for the continuation of it in perpetuity.

Interaction does not occur between finite entities, and the infinite place, which is necessarily outside of every finite thing or entity. Finite things and entities often interact with other finite things and entities, and it is necessarily so; therefore, it is apparent then, that finite things and entities can/will/do readily displace the space within the infinite place (universe), in order to have a place for them to occupy.

Think of it this way – the space before your face is infinite, until a finite entity or thing displaces the space in front of you.

Time, is a specific non-entity or non-thing of each individual finite thing or entity, which begins with formation/birth/creation of whatever; therefore, it can be said, Time is local specific only to that, of which, is capable of perceiving changes, if/or when changes occur.

Changes can only occur in finite entities and things; however, such changes do not affect the infinite place other than expansion or contraction as required for entities and things to displace the space required for them to have their own place inside of the universe. Thus, expansion, contraction, and inflation, deflation – are automatic internal functions of the universe, as required.

All changes to finite entities and things begins according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which begins an Omegatron Dynamic function, which inevitably leads to the total conversion of all matter to energy, and all energy to matter on a regular basis. The process is in essence, the methodology of a perpetual recycling universe that is in every respect, a totally closed self-sufficient system.

Claude

Hi Claude,

Did you mean MPS, when you wrote "C = 186,000mph, therefore, C X 3.14 = 584,040mph, which = true infinity"? I believe that this is the velocity per second, not per hour.

As an Addendum to my "Let there be Light" post July 1,2002, I notice that the description of the whole universe, with an energy rich outer shell and a mass rich inner center, as I described above, is actually not a bad analogy of the singular atom. This fits in rather nicely into my description of the atom, as being a supergravity center modified by photonic energy into the electromechanics forces, resulting in weak and strong forces within the atom. This description is supportive if the [zero x infinity = one] premise, while at the same time is true to the conclusions of interrelationship, which state that the largest is expressed in the smallest. So the elements describing an infinite type universe is then, through the interrelationship principle, replicated within the largest system's smallest components, which happen to be its atoms. So you have infinite mass at the center modified by massless energy on the periphery. Well, it's something to think about, at least interesting from a conceptual point of view.

Hi G-man,

Self-perpetuating cosmology has to be, unless we fall back on the BBT system (where things expand and then collapse). I'd go with a perpetual motion model, where individual parts may undergo change, and thus reflected within the whole, but the system, like the atom/universe examples above, works indefinitely. So, inflation/deflation is only an element of change within the whole, but the whole is perpetually in balance.

Chat later, Ivan

Ivan,

MPS it should be-

Claude

Ivan,

Remember, we are talking about a spinning universe, not a universe in forward motion; hence, an infinite universe would mean, no center is, and no outer is. Which means, in essence, everywhere in the universe is the center, and everywhere in the universe is the outer. It cannot be otherwise; no matter where a location is inside of the universe, that location necessarily is pinpointed in the exact center of the universe.

Remember – and think, “spin characteristics.” The above paragraph, explains the ½ spin characteristics of particles; moreover, it explains the paradoxical Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty, exactly, without error!

Claude

Claude, and All!

How do you solve the infinity spin "without a center" conundrum? One way is to spin infinitesimally, that is atomically, throughout infinity. And that, my friend, is exactly what cosmic reality is all about.

Have a great 4th of July!

Ivan

Everyone,

Recently trying to put to rest vagaries that continue to confound scientist/cosmologists and physicists today, I came across the following documentation as written by Edwin Hubble himself concerning the Redshift Phenomena.

"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."

Source -Edwin Hubble, Royal Astronomical Society, M. N., 17, 506, 1937

Claude

Good source of info, Claude!

This universe may be one big humongous place. How
do you measure infinity? I think physicists who
are clinging to the Big Bang have an inherent
insecurity, like children who are afraid of
looking in the closet. In fact, boys, it's a very
big universe, and we're only in a very tiny
portion of it, as far as the Hubble eye could see.
I love it!

Cheers! Ivan

Everyone,

Still chasing the dastardly snakes of Science, I came across an old issue of Nature. I had always wondered about the magic of Albert Einstein, but if one searches long enough the truth can be found. In general science, E=MC2 has been used since J.J. Thompson noted the energy-mass equivalence for the case of an electrically charged body. In the April 5, 1900 volume of Nature the following quote can be found.

"The calculations of M. Henri Becquerel show that this energy is of the order of one ten-millionth of a watt per second. Hence a loss of weight of about a milligram in a thousand million years would suffice to account for the observed effects, assuming the energy of the radiation to be derived from the actual loss of material. The assumption that accounts for the stated figures is E=mc2."

M. Henri Becquerel is credited with the discovery Radioactivity-

Claude

Everyone,

Am I bonkers?

Relativity is applicable only when two objects are involved. If that is true, it is a basic, fundamental weakness in R and SR, and can be used to deny that a Singularity such as Black Holes could occur, for a Singularity is not relative to any other thing! Relativity cannot, and does not apply to a Singularity. If one is to listen to advocates of the BBT, Gravity exists between all entities in the universe, but I doubt that can be true, for if it were, we would be attracted toward Alpha Centauri as well as earth, but that does not accord with my reasoning – It would require an infinite amount of energy for us to be attracted toward Alpha Centauri, and since the Theory of Relativity is “regional,” how could it be possible for the Gravity of Alpha Centauri to effect us here on earth? Fact would be: The water in a pond ripples only until it reaches the edge of it!

According to E=MC2, mass increases as it is accelerated to C; therefore, should not a mass “diminish” in proportion as speed decreases? Or, are the laws of the BBT crowd strictly one-way affairs that nobody can doubt, or stomp upon?

Concerning – divide by O, which is the mathematic equal of Infinity – SR and R are now totally wrong and flawed for – a Singularity is both “Infinitely large, and Infinitely small simultaneously - Thus 9999999999 / 0 = Infinity, as is 1 / 0 = Infinity; therefore, a Black Hole cannot be defined mathematically! Do not believe?

If something in our universe approaches a singularity (black hole), the something would appear very tiny, but when it leaves the universe to enter the black hole, it would become infinitely large as it crosses the Einstein-Rosen-Bridge!

Think – Relativity is based only on light; therefore, it is a pure ghost affair of “perception only,” and Black Holes are figments of lost physicists whimsy.

Claude

Everyone,

Follows are the words of Louis Essen concerning errors in R and SR – Essen is the inventor of the Cesium Atomic Clock, and a man who should know something about – Time.

“Einstein’s theory of relativity was dealt with very briefly in my university course but we were told that we must not expect to understand it. I accepted this situation and I have since discovered that most physicists are content to remain in the same position assuming that it must be right because it is generally accepted. My doubts about it arose when I found that the experts did not understand either. An exchange of letters in Nature between Dingle and McCrea showed that they had opposite views about some of the predictions of the theory and the arguments advanced on both sides were in my view illogical and unconvincing. Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks.

It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einstein’s famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments. This practice is contrary to the scientific method, which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject. The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that, the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute, but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel Prize winner. Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einstein’s paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion.

Special Theory flawed

There were definite errors about which there can be no argument. One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein’s assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe.

The question of units is a rather complicated one; and in this instance some writers are confused by the fact that the velocity of light is now often used as a standard, distances being calculated from the time of travel of a pulse of light or radio waves; but the value used is the measured value and the conditions of measurement are carefully defined. Quite recently a further complication has arisen. At the end of our work at the NPL we made the suggestion that as the techniques improved it might be advantageous to redefine the units of measurement, keeping the atomic second, giving a defined value to the velocity of light and discarding the unit of length. This has now been done, but these developments do not affect the criticisms of the theory. Even with these units it would still be absurd to assume that the velocity would be the same for two observers in relative motion. Units must be used with common sense.

Thought experiments

The other glaring mistake occurred in the course of one of his thought experiments. Einstein had never made any actual experiments, as far as I can find, and he certainly had no idea of how to compare clocks. He imagined two identical clocks side by side and supposed one of them to move away at a uniform velocity and then return. According to one of the results deduced from the theory a moving clock appears to go slower than the stationary one when viewed from the stationary position. Calling the clocks A and B the predictions are:

B is slower than A as seen from A

and since velocity is only relative and either of the clocks can be regarded as the moving one:

A is slower than B as seen from B

This is certainly strange although not logically impossible. It implies that something happens to the signals during their transmission. He then outlines his experiment without giving any details of how the measurements are made and concludes that:

B is slower than A

and although he does not specifically say so:

A is slower than B

in accordance with the relativity principle.

This result is of course impossible, and is usually called the clock paradox. Many thousands of words have been written about it, but the explanation is simply that he did not go through the correct procedures in making his experiment. It is a very simple experiment, being carried out every day in clock comparisons, and the correct result agrees with his predictions, as indeed it must do since a thought experiment cannot give a new result. The predictions themselves are also inexplicable but this is one of the consequences of the duplication of units.

I had rather naively thought that scientists would be glad to have an explanation of the confusion, which had existed for so long and would at least pay some attention to my explanation, since I had more practical experience in these matters than all the relativitists put together. But I was wrong. No one attempted to refute my arguments although they justified Einstein by repeating his thought experiment and his mistakes in different forms. I was, however, dropped some pretty broad hints that if I continued to criticise the theory my reputation and career prospects were likely to suffer. It was only a sideline to my experimental work, but I found it so interesting that I did not feel like dropping it, and felt that it was very important that the theory should be exposed. My Director was good about it and said he had no objection himself as long as I did not involve the NPL. I was beginning to realise that scientists could be just as irrational as anyone else and having accepted the theory as a faith without understanding it they closed their minds to argument. They also tried to suppress opposition and two of my papers after being accepted by the referees were mysteriously never published.

I was not entirely without support and was invited to write an article by the Oxford University Press. It was not so comprehensive as they hoped, since I was not able to devote as much time to it as I would have liked, and lacked the secretarial assistance of my department, but it was accepted and published as one of their Research Papers (No. 5). The Director of the Royal Institution also invited me to give one of their Friday Evening Discourses. This was quite enthusiastically received and I had many letters of congratulation, although, as I noticed with some amusement, most of them were written on private notepaper and not on the paper of their organisations, as one would normally expect.

The history of relativity would make a fascinating study and I regret that I do not feel competent to do it myself. I have kept to those aspects dealing with units of measurement and the comparison of clocks which I know something about. It was inspired by the puzzling results of an experiment made by Michelson and Morley. They argued that if light travelled at a steady velocity through the medium, or aether, and the surface of the earth was moving through this medium there should be a detectable effect on the movement, but they failed to detect any. Fitzgerald and Lorentz gave an empirical explanation that moving rods were shortened and moving clocks were slowed down. Scientists badly wanted a more detailed satisfactory explanation and this is what Einstein thought he had done. All he did was to introduce irrational ideas into physics and incorporate the Lorentz explanation into electromagnetic theory as an assumption. The original puzzling results, therefore, remain and it is important to science that a true explanation should be found.

Joke or swindle!

The famous paper published in 1905 does not appear to have attracted any attention until Eddington returned from an expedition to study the eclipse in 1919, and with great publicity announced to a meeting of the Astronomical Society in London that the results had proved Einstein’s theory. What he thought he had confirmed was Einstein’s value for the bending of light round the sun. Scientists were prepared to go to a lot of trouble to obtain experimental evidence for the theory as they realised that this was necessary and yet Eddington is supposed to have said that the theory was so satisfactory that if the experimental results did not confirm it then they must be wrong. A criticism of the results made later pointed out that in order to obtain the result he wanted, some of the observations, which did not fit were ignored. Also someone has pointed out, with some evidence, that Einstein himself had predicted two results differing by 2 to 1 for the deflection. Finally the deflection of the sun’s rays has nothing to do with the special theory and the clock paradox and yet in some mysterious way it was claimed to confirm it. Still searching for experimental support an experiment was made in the US some years ago. Four atomic clocks were carried by plane in opposite directions round the world. The discrepancies between the results for different clocks were many times greater than the effect being sought, and yet by ignoring the results they did not like and performing some undescribed statistical analysis the authors claimed to have confirmed Einstein’s theory and specifically the clock paradox. There was a spectacular television programme about it in which a well-known actor was installed in a simulated space shuttle and told that he would come back younger than if he had stayed on earth. Being an intelligent man he appeared to regard it as a lot of nonsense as I hope the viewers did.

Unified field theory

My intrusion into theoretical physics must be regarded as a failure in that I did not convince the relativitists of their mistakes. It may have had some benefit in encouraging scientists to look for a rational extension of electromagnetic theory to explain the many mysteries not yet explained. There have been several attempts, that of Rene L Vallée being in my view particularly encouraging. It is a unified field theory giving an electromagnetic explanation of gravitation, and including a most important suggestion that it might be possible to harness the gravitational energy of space safely and economically. He argued that the nuclear energy programme in France was wasteful and misdirected and was in consequence obliged to leave the authority for which he worked. It is sad if his ideas were not fully studied because the nuclear fusion programmes throughout the world seem to make little progress in spite of the billions spent on them.”

--------
Claude

Hi Claude,

Definitely bonkers! But not worse than me.

RE: "According to E=MC2, mass increases as it is accelerated to C; therefore, should not a mass “diminish” in proportion as speed decreases?"

It would seem that at C, mass becomes infinite, but not necessarily infinite in the sense that it is infinitely dense. Rather, it makes more sense that in being infinite, it is infinitely diluted, so that there mass is actually = zero, same as the mass of a photon. This BTW is what happens in my model, where at light speed, mass is zero, same as photonic mass. What makes this whole thing intriguing is that zero mass has the power to then interact with infinite mass, which becomes expressed in the atomic mass of one, ie., zero x infinity = 1. So E=mc2 is not a crazy idea, if this is how the universe works, for it is an accurate expression of light and infinity interaction, which results in mass, which is then scattered throughout infinity in clumps. Why clumps? This can only be answered by how the universe structures itself, though there is plasma and neutrinos and light and gravity throughout the system.

As for relativity, that is only a function of perception, depending upon your point of viewing events and relative to your velocity when doing so. It is that simple, though physics, through its complex math, has made it something more than what it really is, by making it model of space-time rather than merely a function of perception. So this is much ado about nothing, since it is only a way to measure events in motion, and it does not have any bearing on how the universe has structured itself, which in fact will prove to be of amazingly simple. It is now up to observation to validate what the universe is doing within itself as an infinite machine capable of producing Life and Consciousness.

Keep bringing those great resources, so they will be recorded under our heading of TOE. Thanks!

All the best, Ivan

Neutrino reference science article:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/08/soudan.mine.ap/index.html

What does it mean?

Ivan

Ivan,

Mass at C (forward straight line velocity like a light beam) = Infinite Density, and Size- which is what gave us the BBT- and Singularity. Spin velocity = less density and size, exponentially reduced by the inverse square of PI x distance outward from the center. The inverse square of PI = 6.4265076052

What it means is, photons do not have the ability to interact and produce matter – but the neutrino can, and will – Neutrino mass has been confirmed several times; however, there are anomalies that require corrections before precise standards are established since there are three type of neutrinos. That is the purpose of the Soudan, Minnesota site.

Super-Kamiokande

Upper Limits Neutrino Mass

Claude

Claude, thanks for the info on neutrinos.

RE: NEUTRINOS AND COSMOLOGY: http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/significance.html

"The problem of missing mass or dark matter has received widespread exposure. In observational astronomy, gravitational influences are evident, within and among galaxies, which exceed those expected from the visible matter (i.e. stars). Neutrinos have been suggested as one source of this gravitation, but the small neutrino masses implied by the Super-Kamiokande result may be insufficient to account for all, or even most, of it. More likely is renewed theoretical attention to the cosmological effects of neutrinos with mass. At the very least, the neutrino is the first serious particle physics dark matter candidate actually known to exist."

I still do not understand how neutrinos create mass, or gravity for that matter. Dark matter is a measurable gravitational anomaly whereby deep space does not account for all the matter of the universe. In my proposal [(1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m] this anomaly is accounted for by mass being a variable, which means that away from energy sources, mass increases. This may account for the "missing" mass of the universe, since this mass is only a fraction of universal mass in the vicinity of star systems, like the one we live in, because of the abundance of light (neutrino?) energy in the star's environment. Keep in mind the quote from above: " In observational astronomy, gravitational influences are evident, within and among galaxies, which exceed those expected from the visible matter (i.e. stars)." So this means that the real mass of the universe, as represented by deep space (away from light energy sources), is greater than here.

I should note that conceptually, the May 25, 2002 algorithm [(1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m] which expresses both the light energy (with zero mass), and an atom's supergravity center (with infinite mass), can be understood either as 1/c2 representing the infinite mass center, and the zero mass of photonic light; or on the other hand, hc/w can represent zero point of supergravity mass, and infinite radiation of photonic light energy. (Note that the effective intensity of this radiation decreases with the R^2 ratio at a distance, so that it loses its strength rather rapidly in the great distances of space). Either way, these forces cancel out into a unit of mass (minus the small left over byproduct of a weak gravitational force). Together, this interaction then accounts for the mass in the universe, except that the mass in the vicinity of a star, or galaxy, or surrounding a black hole event horizon (before it sinks into the black hole, in which case it is then absorbed by the supergravity there), is less than when far away from these in deep space. So if you were to get aboard a space ship and travel a million light years away from our galaxy, your mass would be much greater than it is here on Earth. To find measurable evidence of this would be most exciting, since it would revolutionize our understanding of physics, and with it the Theory of Everything.

Not being too "heavy" I hope, Ivan

Ivan,

Perhaps the following link will help you get started.

Mirror Neutrinos

Ok- The next link explains the dark matter problem. Here, a reminder: In all experiments concerning photon collisions creating matter, the one factor most people forget is, one of the photons is a “virtual” photon, not a true photon-

Solar Neutrino Problem Solved

Finally a test to prove Einstein was right or wrong concerning Time Dilation-

Time Tests

Concerning algorithm of May 25, 2002, you must insert actual numbers to prove validity before assuming anything-

Claude

Ivan,

I had to dig the following link out of my archives. Perhaps it will help you understand neutrinos. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it - the HTML version sucks.

Neutrinos

Claude

Ivan,

One more link - this one concerns discovery of the "tau" neutrino. Most physicists believe it was the "final building block of matter" to be discovered. Personally, I am not convinced that it is the last building block, so I am content to wait until the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN to go online -

Tau Neutrino

Claude

Question: We tend to understand/measure mass according to a functional triangular coordinate proximity, for location purposes, i.e. velocity, gravity, travel distance. Is it possible that a singular force/phenomenon could explain all variable...assuming that such singular force were measurable (variably) according to time sequential phases? (Example: Absent polar em ionization factors, consider the mass of an inert stationary sphere in a vacuum, versus an energeaicly spinning sphere. We tend to define mass for both the still and spinning as equal & constant, according to relations to other mass/gravity sources. Yet does a grounded 747 weigh the same as a 747 flying at 600 mph?) My point? Ad more background and context here...for each and all. (The purpose of this forum is for ruthless critical challenge--so as to allow/encourage refinements for a world-class audience:) G-man

G-man,

I have been working on the problem as you stated it, but the results are going to be most difficult to explain for it cannot be done numerically, or symbolically. There is a limit to what can be achieved with determinate calculus and geometric function, when function is purely analog and such action occurs in a wholly fluid environment, which can inevitably annihilate every known logic for pressurized density necessitates an additional fourth and fifth factors – density of fluid the 4th (most difficult to ascertain), and the obvious motion of the ‘aether’ the 5th, which is for all practical purposes – a given at this stage of proofs.

I desperately need the full content study by Dayton Miller as compiled 1933 concerning motion of the aether (Miller was the student of Michelson & Morely), which was so far as we know – destroyed by Robert S. Shankland 1955, fourteen years after Miller died, which is totally suspect in light of the evidence that reveals Shankland could not defeat the studies while Miller was alive.

It is the motion of the aether that confounds Relativity, and Special Relativity, but so far as I know no similar studies have ever been made with the expertise and rigorous means expended by Miller to substantiate conclusive, irrefutable results. If the Miller study is undeniable, that means the BBT is totally dead in every respect, for that study was the single barrier to full acceptance by physics in general of R and SR. E himself wrote a letter to Shankland, thanking him for his “refutation” of Millers’ study –

Follows between the ------- lines is a quote from a thesis by James DeMeo, Ph.D., and it is © Copyright by James DeMeo.
------------------------

After his death in 1941, Miller's work was finally "put to rest", in the publication of a critical 1955 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics by Robert S. Shankland, S.W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone and G. Kuerti (hereafter referred to as the "Shankland team" or "Shankland" paper), which purported to make a fair and comprehensive review Miller's data, finding substantial flaws.

Lloyd Swenson's Ethereal Aether (1972) presents a cursory discussion of Miller and his "inexplicable" positive results, giving a high degree of significance to the Shankland team's critique. Swenson wrote:
"...Shankland, after extensive consultation with Einstein, decided to subject Miller's observations to a thoroughgoing review ... Einstein saw the final draft [of Shankland's pre-publication manuscript] and wrote a personal letter of appreciation for having finally explained the small periodic residuals from [Miller's] Mount Wilson experiments." (Swenson, p.243)

In August of 1954, Einstein replied to Shankland:

"I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted. You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause [having] nothing to do with 'ether wind', but with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles which produce the bands of interference." (Shankland, 1973a, p.2283)

From the above accounts, it certainly would appear that the case was finally closed on Miller, and that all the lose ends were finally cleaned up. With the strongest support for cosmological ether-drift swept aside as the alleged product of temperature errors, Einstein's theory of relativity continued to grow in popularity and dominance.”
-------------------

As you can perceive, Einstein knew R and SR were in trouble, and remained in trouble across a broad spectrum of physicists, until Shankland published the study 1955. Soon after, the BBT slowly began to be the model of choice, which even went against ideas of Einstein himself. Still, most physicists ignore Albert’s complete denial that a Singularity could occur according to R and SR – yet, we have Black Holes running rampant in the universe without one factual, and believable candidate observed, and this is 60 years after physics fell into the bottomless abyss of the BBT- where it continues to wallow in ignominious mediocrity-

Claude

Atomic line-up, a surprise discovery.

Sandia National Labs in New Mexico reports that atoms do not distribute randomly, but arrange themselves into patterns. Is this a validation of the concept of "interrelationship", as set totalities defining their individual parts in relation to the whole? Could be.

If we think of the 10,000 atoms of lead constituting a whole, and the collective of their internal forces then interrelating in such a way that they then "redefine" themselves into the patterns evident, then the characteristics of an interrelated whole begins to make sense.

Question is, does this happen in all cases when atoms are left on their own, so that instead of forming random patterns, they actually form recognizable patterns? Is this a duplicatable event? If so, then not only does it satsify the definition of an "interrelationship totality redefining itself", but may also have industrial applications.

See science article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1539000/1539873.stm

How would this fit into our TOE?

Can you beat entropy?

There is evidence the answer is "maybe" in very small systems, for a very short period of time. However, like the article on atomic patterns above, it may in fact show that entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in very small systems may not always be true. The same may be theorized for very large natural systems, such as those that interrelate systems tending to infinity. Or, as in the atomic evidence above, in any closed system that organizes itself at the atomic level, i.e., crystals.

See Science article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2135000/2135779.stm

Ivan,

For me to answer the questions is dependent on finding of the Omegatron Neutrino- If what I suspect is true, atrophy does not occur at the universal level - only at the finite levels we are familiar with inside OF the universe.

Claude

G-man,

Chasing you down is hard - zipping across the Inet is not the easiest method either.

Watching your posting times- send me your dratted telehpone number via email.

Claude

This Pi is a piece of cake.

"How random is Pi?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2146295.stm

Lotto anyone? Of course, ten digits after decimal is... Pi runs into the zillions!

Ivan,

Now you understand why I don't trust math.

Claude

TOE resource / Ultimate Physics.

http://www.ultiph
ys.com/

Wu Chi Kay © 1999-2001 All rights reserved.

TOE SUMMARY, to date:

Hi All!

This is a TOE Summary, as "Natural Simplicity", which I will be presenting to "Ultimate Physics" at: http://www.ultiphys.com/ to share where we've gone thus far. But we are not far enough. We can go more!

All the best, Ivan

(revised Aug. 16,2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATURAL SIMPLICITY OF TOE.

If we were to summarize all that had been written in Humancafe's Forum to date on the TOE, I think it results in an amazingly natural simplicity, which then branches out into both physics and philosophical ontology. As you will see below, there is no need to creat mathematically derived distortions of space, or multi dimensions of space-time, to understand TOE. It is much more simple and natural than that. It starts with One. (See: 5/22/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html )

The foundational idea behind this Theory of Everything is that Total Being equals Identity.

This means that all things in existence are interconnected to each other from their point of being to the infinite totality of the universe. These interconnections form patterns, which may be called interrelationships, which in turn interconnect to the universal totality. Since each point is now defined by these patterns in terms of where it is in relation within them, then at infinity, in a kind of universal calculus, the totality interrelationship patterns totally define each point of existence in relation to where they are within that whole. (See: 7/14/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/61.html /to Inexpressible Committee "Total being = identity" ) To put it another way, A=A not because Aristotle said so, but because all of "infinity minus A" says so, so that it becomes itself, as A=A.

This new way of seeing identity as a product of an infinite interrelationship yields a surprising result of unity, so that it can be expressed as "zero x infinity = one". This is the same as saying that each thing within the universe is define by its unit in terms of everything else. Because infinity must incorporate all numbers, those from zero to one, and those from one to infinity, we have the unique phenomenon that all numbers can be expressed as their inverse within an infinite system. So that all numbers from one down to zero, expressed as fractions, have their counterpart as digits from one to infinity. In other words, 0 x Infinity = 1 is also 1/3 x 3 = 1, or 1/3000000 x 3000000 = 1, etc., which then yields the interesting phenomenon whereby any fraction multiplied by infinity yields one minus the fraction (for fractions, One is Totality); and any whole number multiplied by infinity yields itself, and "infinity minus the number", so that both results are correct. (See: 6/1/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html ) So that multiply 3 x infinity = 3 , and "infinity-3"; multiply 1/3 x infinity = 2/3. This new way of seeing numbers as products of infinity then yields results that can be used in a new way of seeing "zero x infinity = 1". This Unity of One is realized simply in nature because things also have their inverse, and also have their definition from totality as themselves, as all totality minus the thing identified. Therefore, zero to one represents one totality; whereas one to infinity represents the other totality, together multiplying out into One.

This then lends itself to application in real terms, though I caution it is only a philosophical model: If we take an atom to represent mass as equal to one, m=1; and we take energy to represent infinity, E=infinity, or its inverse; and we take zero to represent the atom's infinitely powerful force (equivalent to Black Hole gravity) as a binding force, or its inverse; then we can substitute and rewrite Einstein's famous formula of E=mc^2. Therefore, it is rewriteen as E/c^2=m, which further can be substituted, using m=1, E=pc=hc/w (p=momentum, h=Planck's constant, w=wavelength of light, c=light speed), we can rewrite Einstein's formula as 1/c^2 x hc/w = m=1. (See: 5/25/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html , also see Momentum of Photon: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html#c2 ).

However, this formula, hc/w=m, then yields another surprising result, in that light energy is a variable which influences the equation. The remainder of that equation becomes gravity, what is left over from within the deep force (infiniton?) of the atom as it is modified by energy to produce mass. This variable, residual gravity is not witnessed within a particular star system, since the system exhibits a gravitational constant due to the constant level of energy received by it. However, going deep into space, far from a star system, by this algorithmic formula, would be revealed a gravitational variant. So the formula would be rewritten as (1/c^2 x hc/w) = m-g, where g is the gravitational constant. Or, for the sake of simplicity, it would be (1/c^2 x hc/w) + g = m. This then represents the TOE algorithm formula, based on E=mc^2.

What does this mean in the cosmos, in nature?

If we take all the fractional numbers to represent the forces within the atom, as absolute deep force gravity to represent either zero or some value tending towards one, then the atom is represented as one. If so, then all variables within that force yields the physical results we have identified through physics to represent the interior and electromagnetic forces of the atom, both in their strong and weak forces. If we take all the integer numbers to represent atoms, and all their interrelationships to some cosmic totality, some set that includes all that is in existence, then all of existence is spanned by the forces accumulated to infinity which is the total universal mass, minus gravity, which is the left over byproduct. This means that gravity in the vicinity of a stable energy source is likewise stable, a constant, but away from that energy source, where it is unstable, it becomes a variable. If so, then mass away from a stable energy source grows in intensity. In a Black Hole star, it is absolute, so that nothing survives as energy, nor mass; at the periphery event horizon of this absolute gravity is a superabundance of energy, which is evidenced by the great concentration of star energy sources surrounding it, as we have at the galaxy center. Taken as a whole, the galaxy then represents a stable energy source, so that gravity tends to be more constant, but away from the galaxy, or at its absolute center, gravity is intensified, and with it mass, or gravitation attraction. This prediction would be vindicated if it can be shown through observation that gravity away from a galaxy is greater than within it. As of now, this is still unknown.

As for the Totality of Being equal Identity, this would be satisfied by each thing within the universe, by its position within the whole, then taking on the characteristics of infinity minus itself, so that an apple is that by the nature of everything else that is around it, or had been around it through the process of existence, in an infinite regress to some obscure beginning of time. Therefore, the identity of anything in existence is determined by its place within it now, and over time.

If this reasoning is then applied to living things, then each thing within the universe that is alive has its essence of life going back to the beginning of life, since each living thing is descended from its parents, and simultaneously is alive with the essence of all of existence around it, interrelated to infinity, the universal totality. Does this mean the universe is a living entity? In a way, yes. Does this then mean consciousness as we know it in ourselves is already a universal phenomenon? Very likely, yes. We live in a universal totality that is consciousness. Some of this consciousness is thus evident in all living things, as long as living things have locomotion, ability to learn, and to choose, but in us it is paramount because we are actually aware enough of it to give it a name: consciousness. Therefore, in conclusion, what the universal consciousness has done through time is evolve a replica of itself, which we call Mind. This will also be the opening for a new kind of biophysics still unknown to us.

What does this all mean?

We are beings of light, in how light interacts within the deep forces of the atom, to make it into a unit of mass. This means that all of creation is a product of light and the absolute darkness of nothingness. If there were no light energy present, the universe would very likely revert back to some stygian singularity of absolute gravity. We, as living entities, are also replicas of universal consciousness, for we have a mind. All living things are replicas of universal life force, and universal consciousness as it manifests in them. In us, we being the most conscious beings of which we are aware to date, that consciousness has evolved enough to make us conscious of it. We are who we are, as individual entities, by the force of being products of an infinite interrelationship that defines each one of us in relation to everything else in existence. This is the conscious Who we Are in our self identity, in our minds.

Thus, being entities of light, and being aware of who we are as individual identities, we can philosophize, and even create a Theory of Everything. (See: 5/25/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html ) This is the complexity of all existence brought down to its natural simplicity: We are who we are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that this TOE as mentioned above is the result of a team effort by many contributors, so that I cannot claim its sole authorship in its entirety, but am merely one more contributor to its creation. To read more on how these ideas were derived, and other ideas expressed in parallel, please see the Forum at Humancafe.com >> Theory of Everything: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/ Thank you to all who had contributed to this development of ideas. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility for any of its defects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I invite all ideas, criticisms, support, parallel thoughts, logic, algorithms, brain storms, feelings, or graffiti, in response to my above. All ideas are welcome.

Sincerely, and truly with joy,

Ivan Alexander©

Dear Claude,

In reviewing some of our earlier posts while
composing the entry for Ultimate Physics TOE
(above), I came across this quote, which I think
needs reexamination:

"By Claude on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 12:43 pm:
The Four Forces of the Universe-

Strong Force
Weak Force
Electromagnetic Force
Gravity

Again, the four forces identified by science,
reinforces the conceptual Hierarchical Order of
Structure of the Universe. The conceptual
Hierarchical Order further retains the sense of
order as perceived by humans, of which could
possibly be subject to change; however, if in fact
such a change is required, it would demand
conclusive, irrefutable proof."

As you will see from the post above, NATURAL
SIMPLICITY OF TOE, I have not come to the same
conclusion as you have. The first three forces
you mention: strong force, weak force, and
electromagnetic force; are all forces WITHIN the
atom, not germane to the rest of the cosmos. Only
gravity is external to the atom, the universal
force that exerts influence throughout the cosmos.
Electromagnetic force also leaks out of the atom,
but is lost at a fairly short distance. Thus only
gravity is truly universal, though it too leaks
out of the atom, since it spans space to infinity.
I bring this up because in my post above, I make
the distinction between what happens between zero
and one, as inside the atom, and one to infinity,
which is what is outside the atom. The structure
of TOE, as here presented, then is contingent on
how these two sides of one, fractions decreasing
to zero, and integers increasing to infinity,
interact as their inverses.

This is important, because by showing it this way,
I can interrelate both the infinitesimally small
with the inversely infinitely large. Then
combining this thesis with the thesis of
interrelationship, I can further combine them into
a totally comprehensive, and easily
comprehensible, thesis of how the universe is self
interactive, and consciousness. This
consciousness is then evident in all its living
species, most dominantly in us.

I hope this helps clarify my view somewhat better,
and explains why I see it this way. If it is to
be truly a Theory of Everything, then it must be
able to reconcile what at present are
irreconcilable, and philosophically contestable,
issues. Those issues are whether or not
objectivity is compatible with subjectivity, or
whether reason can validate self consciousness.
In the universe as constructed by TOE as stated
above, those issues are easily resolved, for we
live in a conscious universe, and we are the light
filled conscious beings within it.

Take care, please continue on your TOE, as I think
we are very close to an important breakthrough.

Ivan

Well, Gentlemen, I rest my case.

In his excellent critique of modern physics as being mainstream mathematical physics, as opposed to a reality based natural physics, Wu Chi Kay says: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html

"A detective or a Don Quixote seeking the Theory of Everything may trigger the renaissance of natural physics. The outsider sees the best. One of the outsiders may notice the key, while insiders usually see the trees but not the forest."

We are "outsiders" and in our thinking have come up with a "key" which, if nothing else, is simply elegant. With it we are able to incorporate atomic structure, gravity, infinity based mathematics, the interrelationship of all existence, and the phenomenon of conscious Being. And all this was done with the deceptive simplicity of "zero time infinity equals one". I suspect Nature takes the deceptively easiest course in its economy of how it structures itself. Nature does not live in a Wonderland world of multi-dimensionality of space-time, though other dimensions of reality may exist beyond ours. Though the mathematical games of modern physics may be intriguing, they are merely models describing themselves, same as Ptolemeic astronomy described only a model of itself. The concentric circles within circles, to explain how the planets and the sun went around the Earth, were fascinating, but it took for Copernicus to prove the Earth is not at the center of the solar system. Thus the unbelievably complex astronomy of the Middle Ages was replaced with the simple elegance of the Copernican idea. I suspect we are there, that we are about to blow apart the mathematical models of modern physics, with their anywhere from 5D to 17D dimensions. The breakthrough will happen when we discover Gravity is not a "universal constant", but a constant only within its locale. So now we wait for confirmation. It will come.

Again, thank you so much for all your fine thoughts, for my thoughts could not have germinated without them.

I am most Gratefully yours,

Ivan

BBC article re gravity deflection experiment:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm

Whether or not this is plausible, or just bad science, will come to light. However, if it is good science, then it will be one more road marker on the way to the new TOE as developed above. This may mean that photonic energy may influence the gravitational mass of matter to give the effect of a gravity shield by influencing the mass above the spinning-super conduction ring. It does not mean that gravity is "cut off", but that the device has influenced the mass around it, or above it. At least, that's how our TOE would explain it.

I should note here that gravity may act as a kind of medium in its own right, so that a denser gravity mass (away from energy source) may be attracted to the less dense gravitational environment near the photonic energy source, in a way similar to hot air rising within cooler-denser air. If so, then matter in deep space would be naturally drawn towards star systems, and in so doing would lose density upon approaching the energy filled solar systems. This would also explain why those comets which have orbits that take them way past the last planets return again, since as they exit the solar system their mass increases, which makes them fall back towards the "lighter mass" area of the sun, only to be sling-shoted back out again. Mind you, this is only thinking out loud and would need observational validation, but it could explain why space is lumpy with large stretches of the cosmos relatively empty of mass. This same reasoning could also have ramifications on our calculations of mass within solar active stars, since there the mass would be much lighter than for an inactive star.

Ivan

Ivan,

Yevgeny Podkletnov's theory has ran rampant off and on since 1997, but so far, has never been duplicated anywhere in the world that I am aware of. Most of these stories originate in the UK, but there is no credibility to them. NASA has tried several times with no luck; moreover, the original research is not consistent in its findings; in other words, one time = one result, the next time = a different result.

Boeing dropped the notion 3 days after beginning tests because Yevgeny Podkletnov could not tell them how to make the "ceramic disks."

Claude

G constant may not be?
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm

New gravity model by David W. Allan introduces an energy density component and diallel, gravitational-field lines as part of new Unified Field Theory.

I don't know if this gravity model has merrit, but I was intrigued by a line in David Allan's paper on the Deep Space probes, Pioneer 10, 11, and Ulysses, where he says: "The space vehicles exhibit a pull toward the sun greater than current theory would predict by about 2e-8 cm/s^2," vs. G constant of 9.8 m/s^2, which is a miniscule difference, but as our TOE predicted above. I suspect, and still looking for verification of this, that the variance will be much greater outside the planetary system, and greatest in deep space away from the galaxy. Of course, this is only theory, and my explanation of why this is so may be lost in space, but that's how it stacks up.

Keeping eyes and ears open, and mind too.

Ivan

Hi Ivan,

The problem with Allan’s theory is we have never identified - gravity lines - in the same sense as we have electromagnetic field lines. EM field lines are a direct affirmation for polarity based on strength intensity; however, gravity does not exhibit any polarity, and should it ever be detected, that would defy the laws of motion for gravity is based upon mass, whereas EM is based on charge state as ionized by particle flow, which is directly associated with speed of wave oscillation. If gravity is not a constant the explanations as presently used that explain the circular orbits of large bodies (stars, planets, ect.) is not valid, and in essence would prove all current laws of physics as invalid. Yilmaz, V.N. Strel’tsov, and a host of other gravity experts believe that the problems associated with the anomalies of Pioneers 10 – 11, and with the Ulysses probes is “time related,” and the phenomena has nothing to do with gravity whatsoever. There are associated problems of the same type being corrected in the GNS (global navigational system), and it seems the anomaly is an effect of earth’s magnetic field (a variable), which causes propagation of radio waves to distort rendering some electronic compass readings nearly worthless.

Claude

PLANETARY MAGNETIC FIELDS

Hi Claude, G-man, and All,

I think there may be a simple explanation, again using our TOE derived thus far, for planetary and stellar magnetic fields. I believe it was Claude who pointed out earlier that the Earth's core is molten metal, and if so, then a magnetic field could not originate there, since motel iron does not have a magnetic field. Well, while walking the dogs this evening on the edge of the Pacific ocean, I kind of had an idea. What if... and this is sheer thinking out loud... what if each atom has a super-mini magnetic field, non directional, but in the aggregate, it sort of aligns itself with all the other magnetic fields in a non-random fashion, so that though the mass may not be magnetic per se, in the aggregate you get a magnetic field. I would think that this field would be rather weak (unlike a magnetic field I would imagine if in fact the Earth's core was solid iron, for then the field should be quite strong). So this is more like the leakage of a magnetic field from within the forces that compose the atom, and resulting in a planetary or solar magnetic field because in the aggregate of the zillions of atoms that make up a planet or star. The question then becomes: Does the sun's magnetic field, which is obviously not solid iron, though it has iron in it, influence the planetary alignments of magnetic fields throughout the solar system? But if so, then how would we explain Uranus's field, which apparently points towards the sun? Or, is the aggregate field also influenced by planetary spin, so that it is more or less on its axis, except that there is variation for this due to the influences of other magnetic fields around the planet, mainly solar? Earth's magnetic field does not line up correctly with its axis, and it wanders only over thousands of years, though it apparently also reverses abruptly. So how would an aggregate of atomic minifields shift so quickly, or for that matter, so slowly, unless there are forces within the planet's interior that shift with it? Do tectonic plate movements affect magnetic fields over great spans of time, for example? Interesting, but my walk was too short to come up with any real answers. Though math is a rather imperfect approximation of forces in reality, it would be interesting to estimate the number of atoms within Earth's volume, adjusted for the known distribution of elements, and then divide the magnetic field by that number to see what you get as a result. The answer would equal the "leakage" of magnetic energy from each atom, though the Gauss/Maxwell would be infinitesimally small. Then compare that magnetic measurement with results derived from Quantum physics ... interesting. Gotta walk the dogs some more.

Take care, hope you have some input that could help us out, let us know!

Ivan
-------------------------------------------------------
Hi Claude,

Thanks for the clarification on Allan's theory of gravity. I suspect you are right, that it is more a problem of measurement, of radio signal travel, than of gravity variations. However, I am open to more data in the future. My thinking would not have the effect happen so close to the solar system, but rather much further out in space. And then, maybe not, for now it is only conjecture. Time will tell.
--------------------------------------------------------
Afterthoughts on Planetary Magnetism:

According to A.D. Fortes, in his paper titled "Introduction to Planetary Magnetism", he says: "Ferromagnetism is temperature dependent and, above a critical temperature (unique to individual minerals) called the Curie temperature, the material becomes paramagnetic and so is unable to retain a permanent field. Metals such as iron, nickel, and cobalt are all ferromagnetic." --(from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/students/planet/student/work/magrev/magnetic.htm ) So this leads one to think that Earth's magma and inner core, which is molten, then is ferromagnetic, being largely iron and nickel. If so, then there should be no permanent magnetic field evident. But this is not what happens, so the "dynamo" theory is introduced to explain it; further it is postulated that the inner core of the planet is resolidified due to high gravity pressures of the planet's mass. Realizing that the Earth's mineral composition is extremely complex, we are forced to fall back upon aggregate estimates of what is going on in its total mass to understand how the planet's magnetic field is generated, as would be the case for all the other planets, sun included. They dynamo theory breaks down, however, upon real observation of the heavenly bodies, so that a new postulate of latent decay magnetic energy is applied to explain why dead bodies, those not geologically active such as the moon or Mars, can have magnetic fields, while others which are geologically active, such as Venus, have a very small magnetic field. Obviously this is a patchwork quilt of theories here, so that in the end, one must conclude that we still do not know why heavenly bodies have magnetic fields, though we can measure that they do, and even have the math to explain them. But observation and mathematical explanations are one thing, while understanding is another. My suspicion is the same as before, that Nature takes the easy route, and that the resulting planetary magnetic fields are aggregate forces of their atomic compositions, which merely reflect in toto each atom's magnetic leakage, combined with the same for all the other atoms. That they then find a way to align themselves, in some chaotic manner, into a field is truly a miraculous event, except that it is real.

Ivan

Some Theoretical Papers/pages on Planetary Magnetic Fields:

How are planetary magnetic fields produced?
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q1057.html

Magnetic Fields of the Planets.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/students/planet/student/work/magrev/magtoc.htm

Magnetospheres of the Planets
http://earthsci.org/space/mag/mag.html

Jupiter's Quadrupole Magnetic Field
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/jupiter/magnetosphere/J_mag_moments.html&edu=high

And then there's...

The Creationist Theory of Magnetic Fields
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/crs/crsq/21_3.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We really don't know what causes planetary/solar magnetic fields. How about galactic magnetic fields?
So this is one more aspect of TOE still open to pioneering explorations.

Good luck! Ivan

Hi Claude,

RE UR "Yilmaz, V.N. Strel’tsov, and a host of other gravity experts believe that the problems associated with the anomalies of Pioneers 10 – 11, and with the Ulysses probes is “time related,” and the phenomena has nothing to do with gravity whatsoever."

I found a paper which talks about that, titled "Review of the Anomalous Doppler Data from Pioneer 10 and 11" by Curtis E. Renshaw and William L. Kallfetz. http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/prl-pi/prl-pi.stm . It seems the issue has to do with space-time rather than gravitational anomalies. However, using Stein's Law of adjacent clocks, all clocks return to same time equality when brought back together. See: http://www.mathpages.com/home/albro/albro22.htm . I might note that this too is contested, since it invalidates the reality of relativistic time differences due to the clocks's different velocities. So in the end, which is it? Is the apparent gravitational variant of the distant space probes a function of measurement, or time, signal doppler effects, or gravity? A lot of theories based on a lot of math. But what is the truth? Case in point, is Stein's Law of adjacent clocks valid?

Ivan

Light red shifted due to gravity?

Here is something else I just came across, which explains red shifted light passing through gravity; http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11485.html

It's cosmic poetry, since it may mean that the so called Doppler red shift is not due to expanding space, but to conditions within space that are related to gravity. You'll recognize in our TOE as posited thus far the equation E=hc/w, which is part of the (1/c^2 x hc/w)+ g = m algorithm, which is astral music to my ears!

Ivan

I hate to harp. I, too, love math, logic, physics. But the key to TOE can't reside in all the formulae of constants or algorithms. Why? Because it doesn't provide us with a 'way' to observe from both inside and outside a system at once. As I see it, the enduring issue (beyond metrologic definitional refinements) is one involving delay versus simultaneity: How is it that the Observer is the Observed? How to develop a new calculus that extends beyond the subject-object/observer-observed paradigm? Uncle Albert took things as far as he knew how to. But we still find ourselves at an impasse. How is it that an actual is never a true actual [since in motive process, it's ever-unsettled], but can and does become truly actual only at that point at which its total [futural] potentiality is achieved/reached/subsumed? As Yogi Berra famously said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." What if only the past--that which has occurred--were affirmationally 'actual'? And yet, also what if such actualness of the past were contingent on the ultimate/final/omega of all that is 'now' in process? Would it simply add a further margin of doubt/improbability to our current model assumptions? Finally, is 'futurity' interior, aka 'inside' or exterior to our operative postulative system?:) G-man

Hi G-man,

Do I detect a flat note in the TOE? Can we model a system that is self-examining? I think this is what the idea of interrelationship offers us, that we can model a system that is self defining, in how it structures itself, so that we are both on the inside and the outside at the same time. Its potentiality for future is then based on its interrelated totality to the present, as those patterns affect themselves to manifest future patterns. We are then existing within that system, so that as we observe it, it observes us.

Uncle Albert and family created some rather creative ideas of inter-relativity, but these appear to be more observational than explaining how reality interrelates within itself. The idea that the observer is in motion, rather than fixed at some central point of the universe, is valid. However, then we must discount the expanding universe concept, because perforce it places us at the center, since all the universe is expanding away from us. Rather, I would think the expansion is an optical illusion, so that if we were to return a thousand years from now, we would not notice expansion, but merely motion instead. There are parallel ideas that can coexist, to make it look like something is happening, whereas it is totally different in fact. So that the gravitational lens idea, for example, which works, may be explained differently than currently understood. Rather, it may be more of a sling-shot cause, same as planets are used to sling-shot probes into space, so that light is shot around a gravity mass to create the lens effect. If it proves to be correct that mass is relative, and thus gravity is ultimately relative to its position in relation to a massive energy source, very un-mainstream idea I might add, then the gravity lens effect would also be explained thus. The deep space gravity acts as a medium within which light travels differently from within light space, for example, so that same as mass is drawn to light space and away from deep space, so would be light. If so, then the lighter gravity of a galaxy, being light space, acts as a lens for the light coming from deep space. But I digress...

I keep comparing what I have seen thus far in TOE as presented here with data as it comes in from physics, astronomy, philosophy, biology, etc. and am looking for where it fails. So far, the idea that the atomic mass of matter is an interplay of deep gravity with light is holding up fairly well. However, this is only a philosophical guess, an intelligent guess, but not scientific fact. There is much to be done to either prove or disprove such an idea, or for that matter, to even give it intellectual expression through observational facts and some form of mathematical explanation. Why would the math be important? It is because we need to find some expression that allows us to duplicate future results, so even if the math is only a rough approximation, a kind of aggregate of the infinity of forces that interrelate into what is reality, it can offer us some gray level of understanding, within parameters of error, so that we know we are on the right track. The all inclusive formula of zero x infinity=1, is just that, all inclusive. But it is very preliminary. To break it down into specifics is where I suspect future work will need to be done, for I have only taken it one step further, by re-expressing Uncle Albert's famous formula of E=mc2.

Have you put together a comprehensive idea of TOE, one you would be willing to share with us? Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, only paths to more questions.

Take care, glad to have you harping along, Ivan

Claude,

RE UR "If gravity is not a constant the explanations as presently used that explain the circular orbits of large bodies (stars, planets, etc.) is not valid, and in essence would prove all current laws of physics as invalid."

Not so. The presently understood laws of physics work very well within a given energy system, such as our solar system, or galaxy. Where the laws of gravity change is when taken out of such a stable system, far out in deep space, for then the light/deep gravity interplay defining mass and the byproduct of gravity would be different. The weaker the light energy, in whatever way this interacts within the atom, the greater the deep gravity force within the atom, and hence the greater the measurable mass, and its commensurate gravitational force. Think of a neutron star, for example, what is left over after going nova, where all the light is drained from it. This is what I mean, that the mass created there is much heavier than in an energy active star.

Do I know any of this for a fact? Of course not. I am only following a thread, very thin at that, and seeing where it takes me. Dead end? Deep space? Lost in space? Maybe all of the above, and maybe not. But wouldn't it be grand if this reasoning about matter and gravity were true? It would simplify physics immensely. Forget all the multidimensional space-time curvatures, for they would in one swipe be erased. In their place would be a simple and elegant theory of how the universe interacts within itself.

Just a probability guess, no more.

Ivan

Ps: The puzzle that intrigues me now is whether or not new atoms are being created. I suspect they are, but don't know where or how. My first inclination is that whatever mass was going to be created already had been done so, so that whatever mass will be created will only replace that which already is. But this is only a wild guess. Why are no new atoms created on a regular basis? Because the space that was taken by them was taken by them, thus a kind of cosmic equilibrium resulted, which is tough to break.

Ivan,

No new atoms are being created.

Atoms merely become another atom.

Claude

OUT OF PURE LIGHT, PHYSICISTS CREATE PARTICLES OF MATTER

September 16, 1997
"A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the Sept. 1 issue of Physical Review Letters."...

http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/roche/roche.htm

The title caught my attention. As did this:

"The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced. Similar conditions are found only rarely in the universe; neutron stars, for instance, have incredibly strong magnetic fields, and some scientists believe that their surfaces are home to the same kind of light-to-matter interactions the team observed. This experiment marks the first time scientists have been able to create such strong fields using laser beams."

I'd like to see more research on this. Note how a neutron star has an incredibly strong magnetic field... so much for the "dynamo" theory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's something else way out there, but even more interesting:

"The electron itself is a black hole... In practice we should be able to create the electron using only the constant of gravitation, Planck's constant and the speed of light... The Planck mass m0 related to time t0 is defined as h / t0 c2 = 3.078x10-8 Kg. This particle with mass m0 is considered as our ideal black hole."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5185/phys.html

Is this another measure of mass? Not exactly what I had in mind, but sort of in that direction! Could it mean that (h/c^2 x c/w) + g = m is same as (1/c^2 x hc/w) + g = m? It would appear both explain the same phenomenon, that light interacting with a black hole creates mass... ???
==========================================================================
Claude,

I suspect you and I, and G-man, are on the same mental "wavelength". Now we can see there are others too!

See the "Quarks and Other Particles" portion of this paper:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5185/physics1.html#ANTIG

Maybe no new atoms are being created, for now, but was this always so? And can it happen again? I suspect so, but we have not witnessed it yet, except for the miniscule micro-time matter mentioned above.

Ivan

"Zero Origin Concept" by Max Keon

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html


Interesting paper that shows current atomic theory
is badly outdated, and even logically absurd. I
liked this line:

"Electrons and positrons are "popped" into
existence in areas of very high E/M activity,
presumably being created entirely from E/M
radiation. However, this is strong evidence that
e-e+ pairs do exist together in undetectable
relationships. The E/M energy that was expelled
during the amalgamation process is returned, thus
the pair are separated."

Like I said earlier, the universe's matter had
reached some sort of equilibrium, so no new matter
is being created, that we know of, but it does get
converted.

Ivan

Ivan,

Strange phenomena occur in particle accelerators, but one fact has never occurred: No matter has ever been “created” in one. Fact: particle accelerators – in fact, accelerate, particles; therefore, all particles are matter; thus, no new matter will be created as the abstract proposed. Remember, light is a wave, until it is absorbed, or source of wave ceases. When light is absorbed, it becomes a “part of” that, of which absorbed it.

You must also remember – theoretically, the environment in particle accelerators is a vacuum; in the world that I live in, no vacuum can or will occur, for a true vacuum is in essence – the absolute totality of nothing. Besides, a vacuum would collapse into itself, which proves in fact: Particle Accelerators totally absent – any thing – are impossible to build, which denies credibility of science that “pretends” such things as vacuums can be built.

Claude

Ivan, Everyone,

Interesting article follows-
----------------------------

Aug. 1 — Something strange has been going on under our feet for the past four years. Earth’s gravity field suddenly shifted gears and began getting flatter, reversing a course of centuries during which the planet and its gravity field grew rounder each year.

THE SCIENTISTS who noticed the change and report it in Friday’s issue of the journal Science suspect Earth itself may be flattening out, with the oceans rising near the equator, but they aren’t sure.

What they do know is that Earth has never been round. It has always bulged at the equator and is about 0.3 percent fatter there, partly a result of the planet’s rotation.

GETTING ROUNDER

Yet ever since the last Ice Age, the planet has been getting rounder as ground beneath the polar regions, relieved of the weight from ice that was miles thick in places, has been rebounding. In some parts of Scandinavia and Canada, the ground rises a quarter-inch (a centimeter) per year.

Since the late 1970s, satellite measurements have shown that this post-glacial rebound, as it is called, generates a corresponding rounding of Earth’s gravity field.

Suddenly the trend has reversed.

“Sometime around 1998, something began to make the Earth’s gravity field flatter,” says Christopher Cox of Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services. “The result is it looks as if post-glacial rebound has reversed itself. But we do not have any reason to think that post-glacial rebound has in any way stopped or changed.”

In effect, Cox said in an interview, while post-glacial rebound continues to make the Earth rounder, some movement of mass on the surface of Earth must be making the gravity field flatter. It’s not a change anyone could notice; it’s only revealed by sensitive satellite measurements.

The shift, however, is significant.

“The effect is twice as large as post-glacial rebound in terms of effect on the gravity field, and it’s in the opposite direction,” Cox said. “Whatever it is, it’s big.”

LIKE A RUBBER BALL

Cox, who also works at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, described post-glacial rebound as similar to pushing a rubber ball in at the top and bottom with your fingers. “The sides come out, and the top and bottom go in. Take your fingers off that rubber ball, and the sides are going to go in and the top is going to come out again.”

What does this have to do with Earth?

“You have material moving inside,” Cox explained. The rubber is compressed, but air is also pushed around. Some of the post-glacial rebound is caused by the ground simply decompressing. But scientists have long known that to account for what they’ve measured, Earth’s physical shape must change. Material — ground, water or air — must be moved around. Though the planet’s shape and its gravity field are not directly correlated, they are related.

Cox and his colleague, Benjamin Chao of Goddard, were at first baffled by the sudden reversal and flattening of the gravity field. They considered that ice melting at the poles and raising the overall sea level could be the culprit. Calculations showed, however, that “you would have to drop a 10-by-10-by-5-kilometer cube of it into the ocean every year for the past five years.” Separate measurements of sea surface height from NASA’s TOPEX/Poseidon mission don’t support this scenario.

Material in Earth’s crust can’t be responsible — it couldn’t move so quickly from the poles to the equator. Molten rock oozing around in Earth’s core might be to blame, but data do not support such a scenario. Changes in the atmosphere might be involved, but no data supports that being the primary cause, either.

SO WHAT IS IT?

Instead, Cox said, long-term circulation patterns in the ocean seem to be the most likely cause.

Shifts in huge ocean currents — similar to El Niño but on larger scales and moving in a north-south direction — might transport enough water toward the equator to account for the flattened gravity field. One such cycle is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

“We have a strong suspicion that it’s in the ocean,” Cox said.

“Whatever the cause, the results of Cox and Chao emphasize the importance of gravity variations as a barometer of integrated mass changes in the Earth system,” write scientists Anny Cazenave and R. Steven Nerem in an analysis of the research for Science. “Monitoring these variations with improved spatial and temporal resolution would provide an important tool for studying Earth system changes.”

Since Cox and Chao submitted their paper to the journal, they’ve continued to look into the mystery and are more confident that the ocean is behind it all. “But we need more data,” Cox said.

That data could come from NASA’s GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite mission, which will provide the most precise measurements ever made of Earth’s gravity field. GRACE launched in March.

Claude,

Thanks for bringing to our attention the above article on Earth's changing gravity field. The researchers seem to be pointing to changes in the planet's oceans, which would appear right at first glance. However, if this were so, Venice and the Seychelles would be well underwater by now. So this leaves changes in the planet's crust and magma filled interior. But what would trigger such a change? This still leaves door open for minor variations in gravitational fields, though current physics cannot explain that. I am looking forward to NASA's GRACE mission results.

Ivan

Ivan,

I believe the researchers are correct that it is the oceans causing changes in earths’ gravity field as the density of mass changes through convection; i.e., El Nino. As El Nino heats up, density of mass changes; therefore, if we compare gravity effects during the 1997-98 El Nino, we find comparable circumstance concerning earths’ gravitational fields, but an effect such as that is not enough to significantly alter tide levels around the globe itself.

Claude

Hi Claude, G-man, and all,

I'm intrigued by this article about the speed of light, "Einstein's theory 'may be wrong'", which showed up in the 8 Aug. 2002, issue of BBC news online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2181455.stm

Paul Davies, author of "The Mind of God" is mentioned. I wonder if there may not be another explanation for the apparent change in speed of light and electron charge since 10 billion years ago. Rather than thinking that light had slowed down over the billennia, how about if instead light had been constant, but the size of the universe, as presently estimated, and the whole redshift idea, are actually wrong? If, for example, instead there was a slow down in light over great distance, so that it appears to redshift to us looking at it from our vantage point billions of years later, then there is no reason to think light was faster back then. Does it not reason that instead we ignore the redshift phenomenon, and rather think of light not 'tired' as had been supposed before, and disproven, but as a function of how we measure this. What I mean is that if we remove the idea that the universe is expanding, brought on by the redshift effect of light traveling over great distance and time, and instead accept it as being more or less fixed, and that light redshifts because of dark matter/deep space gravity instead; then we could see the current observation as being the same it was 10 billion years ago. This means that the 'slower light/weaker electron' are merely manifestations of observation and not fact. In fact, light may have been the same it was a zillion years ago, acting according to fixed laws of physics, and only appears to be different today because we had factored in a redshifted expanding universe. Take that theory out, and light and electrons remain unaffected.

Does this make sense?

Ivan

Ivan,

Davies goes off the deep end on occasion, and I think this is one of them. His thinking is still a BBT theorist, but if the universe always was, there is no problem whatsoever.

Claude

Post addendum to deep space gravity effect:

I'd like to go back to something mentioned earlier about the distant space probes (Pioneer 10, 11, Ulysses) showing signs of slowing down as they head out to the end of the solar system. There is a possibility that this deep space gravity effect had gone unnoticed before because we were looking at the distant planets, those beyond Saturn, with no apparent change in gravitational relationships. But that may be an error on our part. Same as an astronaut in orbit will experience zero gravity, so the planets in orbit around the sun experience zero gravity, as it applies to the sun. But their relative masses to the planets closer in may in fact be greater, though this would not be observed as such. However, if you were to stop (somehow) an orbiting astronaut in orbit, his gravity would suddenly change from zero to some value as a percentage of gravity on Earth. The same would happen if you were to stop a planet, say Neptune, in its track, for then it would exhibit real mass, which may be different from its gravitational mass if it were closer to the sun. This is just a thought, but the reason this observation eludes us is because the planets are in a gravitational state of equilibrium in their orbits, so even if their mass, as relative to mass closer to the sun, should be different, it would not be noticed by us. A way to test this would be to take a scale from Earth and place it on Neptune, and weigh yourself. You might weigh more, adjusted for Neptune's mass, than you did on Earth. Now, if this were so, then it would reason that a space probe out in those far regions of the solar system would also weigh more, and thus be affected by solar gravity more than expected. In the end, the space craft will fail to escape the solar system completely and will fall back into an orbit around the sun. That, I suspect, is how deep space debris is trapped by stars, to ultimately become planets, comets, and asteroids.

Is this a possiblity?

Ivan

Claude!

You're quick on the draw! :-)

Ivan

"Deflected light 'sees' dark matter"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/744730.stm

Is this fact or 'shear' nonsense?

TOE as posited here has a much simpler answer: 'Dark matter' is deep space gravity, and the cosmic lens effect is due to light passing through 'light gravity' regions around stars and galaxies. Of course, this is very much outside of the mainstream of today's astrophysics, but it is more elegant, and much less complicated. All that is needed is observational proof to see which is fact, and which is 'Einsteinian/Ivanian' illusion.

Ivan

Ivan,

Gravity is gravity; theory proves it and we can test it via observation i.e., man has walked on the moon. There is no doubt about these facts. I suppose the unknown factor to most people without fully understanding of rotating objects would be Coriolis force, which is a byproduct of spinning objects. It is my belief the universe imparts Coriolis force to every object in the universe, which is what accounts for the fact no straight-line trajectory being possible in the universe for objects, which includes the minutest of particles. Yes, I know I have not entered this subject into the TOE, but it is the one factor that I have studied for many years, and eventually caused me to eventually develop Omegatron Dynamics. It is from my studies in this area that I readily reject the notions of ‘dark matter,’ black holes, and ‘super gravity.’ Reasoning – inside the universe every object is subject to friction[s] of one type or another; however, since the universe is infinite, it is not subject to friction.

A gold bar weighing 100 ounces on earth, weighs 16.6 ounces on the moon, but density of the gold bar’s mass remains the same on the moon as it is on earth; therefore, we can prove without doubt if we remember – the closer an object is to the ‘center’ of mass the greater ‘gravity’ will be.

I will be publishing a paper for Stanford concerning the Coriolis Effect when I can test the equations required with Omegatron Dynamics; however, I don’t yet know how many twists of each of four knobs will give me the results required to prove fact. I hope that a close friend in India will be able to help me refine the dynamics involved, which might mean a trip to India early 2003.

Concerning the link in your last post, gravitational lensing has been used for a number of experiments, but needless to say, the information as posted in that article does not match up with the abstracts as published in Nature. Moreover, why was it published in Nature if the information was so important? The answer is $$$$$. Reliable research does not use Nature as a venue of publication … another deviation used by ‘institutionalized science’ to ‘snow the public’….

Claude

Claude,

You are 101% correct in saying "Gravity is gravity". (They use this term 101% in India, where it is common usage! I spent 6 months there.) What I am suggesting instead is that a bar of gold is more massive away from an energy system, such as our solar system or galaxy, where the gravitational effect is "deepened", so that gold becomes 101% of mass! This is not a fickle idea, but one that warrants searching for the evidence, for if as predicted mass is a function of light, and light is lessened, then the natural state of the atom approximates the black hole gravity found at galaxy centers. I realize this is a contested idea, and many do not believe black holes exist, and I am not so sure they do either. But assuming that there is some universal phenomenon where gravity is so great that nothing escapes it, then it would be analogous to the "deep gravity" effect of mass in space away from light source. Remember that light as understood here is more than merely what we see, but is a force function of energy frequency. Not having the tools to test this, I am forced to go by intuitive reason alone, that at some magical wavelength, the deep gravity inside the atom becomes modified to become the interactive electromagnetic forces we know as the strong and weak forces to make up an atomic unit of mass.

How small is the center of the atom? Nearly infinitely small, for it is nearly infinitely "heavy" with gravity. Remember that I see Gravity as a left over product from the light/deep force interaction within the atom. No light energy, the atom reverts back to being that point in space which is super heavy with gravity, and hence mass. Take the same atom out of the energy fields around a star, or galaxy, and it reverts back to being more heavy than here. How can we observe this phenomenon, if it is true? I don't really know how, so I gave the "scale" example above. Of course, this would not work with a balance scale, only with a spring scale! If you have any ideas on how one can prove that deep space gravity is the same, or different, as star system gravity, let me know. The only example I can think of, being somewhat dull witted, is that a space probe going out beyond the solar system takes on mass, and thus fails to exit into infinite space, and falls back into the star system instead. If so, then the exit velocity of a space craft to leave a solar system, or galaxy, would need to be of a much greater magnitude than we now suppose.

I realize I am way out in space, or left field, on this, but that is how my ideas on TOE have manifest so far. Question, why are planetary orbits elliptical? Can this be a minor evidence of changing mass? Or is it merely a function of catching up with the moving star? As you see, my search is for evidence of gravitational mass not being a constant as now believed. And if so, then a lot of things now misunderstood in physics, such as space curvature, fall into place. What we think of as curved space is no more than an intensifying gravity deeper in space away from energy sources. By the same token, is gravity and mass different within a star than the planetary system around it? Is it possible to make a cosmic straight line after all? My answer would be yes, but still do not have the evidence I need to prove it. But if I find it, then we work out the math.

Again, only questions, but not yet answers. The search goes on...

Ivan

Ivan,

Although we disagree concerning black holes, the questions you ask are valid, but I think they have mostly been previously answered in existing research data. If black holes were in fact, existing phenomena in the universe, we would not be able to detect their presence except by proving an area in the universe that is ‘absolutely void of light.’ Such an area would be significantly and clearly explicitly defined by the appearance of a total void, of which all objects in or near close proximity would appear to be collectively drawn toward the black hole. To picture a black hole, imagine a roughly circular or elliptical area in the universe absent any light whatsoever, and then picture surrounding objects that would be ‘moving toward’ that ‘black hole’ area from all directions surrounding it. So far there is but one possible candidate that matches the criteria as outlined here, that area is what we call “The Great Attractor” in our own Milky Way; however, it appears that area is not in the Milky Way, but somewhere beyond it in the direction that we cannot ‘see through’ to know what is on the other side of our own galaxy.

What you are suggesting, that,

Ivan: “What I am suggesting instead is that a bar of gold is more massive away from an energy system, such as our solar system or galaxy, where the gravitational effect is "deepened", so that gold becomes 101% of mass!”

What you are trying to prove is within the bounds of methodical science to test, and it has been tested. We calculate density by the number (known) of atoms as a given artifact of an object’s mass; therefore, a bar of gold that weighs 100 ounces has the known number of gold atoms that comprise it. The number of atoms in an ounce of gold can be acutely calculated. For a 100-ounce bar of gold to become 101% of itself, the only method that could cause it would be for the number of atoms in the bar to grow or increase somehow, which offhand appears to be impossible. It is impossible if the additional atoms originate through interaction by photons. Theoretically speaking, it might be possible if Neutrinos are the source of the additional atoms; therefore, it would be through the study of particle physics such phenomena can be proven by testing, and validated or disproved; however, we know gravity has no effects whatsoever when it comes to neutrinos and their actions, reactions, and interactions.

The one part of your theory that I have great difficulty with is,

Ivan: “Remember that I see Gravity as a left over product from the light/deep force interaction within the atom. No light energy, the atom reverts back to being that point in space which is super heavy with gravity, and hence mass.

If by “force” you are referring to “strong force,” you must remember, strong force is highly and significantly local, and it cannot extend beyond the atom itself, for if it did or could, the atom would then ‘expand its size,’ but regardless of size, the density is the same since the “specific gravity’ is not altered for you still have only one atom. I also have problems with the idea that ‘space’ is ‘super heavy’ with gravity, for space implies – the absence of atoms, which is an impossible state to achieve. From real samples of material collected in the supposed or theoretical ‘voids in space,’ none of our research vehicles has ever indicated a place – in space – where particle matter does not exist; however, from your notions an interesting possibility just might be formulated. That being, an explanation of ‘drag’ (friction) that does exist in space of which, so far as I am aware of, has yet to be explained, or expounded upon except by one person; therefore, I suggest that you try to find a book written by, Amitabha Ghosh, titled, Origin of Inertia, paperback, Aperion, 147 pages, ISBN 0-9683689-3-X $20.00 US.

To my knowledge the book is not available in the US except from

Aperion

Read from the Preface to the book at –

Preface

Pay particular attention to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 at the above link.

Claude

Dear Claude,

Thanks for sharing information on Amitabha Ghosh's "Origin of Inertia", for in this you have anticipated my next post below!

I think the 'cosmic drag' Ghosh refers to can be explained with the TOE as I see it. If my thesis is correct, though it is obviously subject to modifications, then the cosmic drag experienced by a quasistatic universe plays comfortably into the deep space gravity effect I posit. However, this is truly an unknown at this point, and as you point out, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Of course, what is known is easy. It is what is unknown that is hard and challenging, even exciting. Here is my new post, dealing with a new way of thinking of motion.

Thanks, Ivan

Ps: Question, lest you become too comfortable with the 'known': What is the gravitational mass of the elements inside a neutron star?

Theoretical Propulsion based on new TOE:

If we could theorize that light and gravity are interactive, supposing this is actually so, then why could this interactive force not be used for propulsion? The unknowns are still many. For example, at what light wave frequency does the atom's deep gravity respond? Why do atoms become agitated when exposed to light energy? Is the existing atom already in such equilibrium that there is no way to influence it further, or not? But if so, at what point does this equilibrium shift? Can this possible shift in the atom's equilibrium be used as a force, one that moves the atom? Why is an electron given off when a photon is absorbed by the atom, and reabsorbed when the photon is released? These are the questions going through my mind. So many 'whys'!

According to this TOE, I see the atom as a manifestation of forces that interact, which in turn activates forces that energize it. There is probably no such thing as an atom at rest, even at zero Kelvin. There is always an energy/activity relationship within the atom, and subsequently molecules, and then matter. Given enough energy, the atoms separate, or sublimate, or even break apart as in a nuclear reaction. So there is much within the atom that is highly energetic, for if not, then it reverts back to being what it was before its creation, a miniature black hole. This is how my mind sees it. The questions that keep coming up, again assuming this is some approximation of what actually happens in the atom, is then: What part does light energy frequency play in this activity?

I suspect that the universe has created all the atoms it needs. What I mean by this is that the potential for filling up those little miniature black holes has already taken place. Why would the universe have a myriad zillion gazillion black holes that then filled with light to become atoms? Don't know. But they are here, all filled in nicely with light to make them into units of mass, atoms. So then, all that exists does, and new matter is not created, to our knowledge. But of the matter that exists, all is in motion. This is important, that motion exists either because matter is ejected from solar sources, or due to the pull of gravity, or because it is bumped by more matter. This last, that matter is bumped, is how we use propulsion today. All our mechanisms are due to force applied either mechanically or electromagnetically to cause motion. As the propeller spins, it bumps against the atoms of water or air. A billiard ball moves when the energy from another billiard ball strikes it, and thus exchanges its force into the one that is struck, so that it now moves. Inside a rocket motor, the molecules ejected under the force of the explosion pushes on the walls of the engine. But the motion inside an electric motor is already different, for it is due to the electromagnetic field activation's movement from one pole to its opposite pole, so that motion results. Magnets create motion without bumping. Also, when I rub a plastic wand, it creates motion by satisfying the electromagnetic/static force when a piece of paper is lifted. So we already have means of creating motion using forces other than being bumped, but what happens that causes this other kind of motion?

Gravity induced motion is, according to this TOE, due to the pull by one gravitational field on another. If gravity is the unsatisfied portion of deep gravity within the atom, it wants to combine with the unsatisfied deep gravity of another atom. Hence, when light energy interacts with the deep force within the atom, it does not satisfy it completely, and something is left over, which becomes the gravity we observe. However, what if there was a way to satisfy this gravity deficit with more light? Can we alter how atoms attract gravitationally by either adding more light energy, or subtracting it somehow? Would a kind of light energy shield make the atoms 'heavier', whereas an overabundance of light energy make them 'lighter'? And if so, then would this not of necessity create an alteration to the normal motion we presently observe? For example, if I apply this light energy from a given direction, as opposed to any other direction, would it not result in motion? This is what is so enticing about this idea, that we can duplicate motion internally, within the atom, rather than bumping against it. I suspect we already do this, though we do not think of it this way, when we use electric motors, or magnets, or as evidenced by the pull of static electricity.

So we may be already using the principle of affecting the atom from within, when we use electromagnetic forces. It is already evident as motion when mass is drawn gravitationally, though we have not found any way to control this. But now may exist a theoretical possibility of affecting mass internally, in the same way gravity affects it, by manipulating the energy the atom absorbs. Think of the molecular activity within a common household microwave oven. Of course, we only use this to heat food, but the energy that excites the atoms, that which heats them up, is a light energy form, though in the microwave range and not visible to the eye. It is this kind of energy I suspect affects the atom from within, that which is of the very short wave range, though we also know long waves, such as infrared, also affect the atoms. So what should we be looking for?

I think we need to better understand how the various wavelengths of energy affect atoms. This is research that is ongoing, especially as it applies to laser light. But it is not focussed on atomic motion, rather on the photon itself. If we were to focus on how these photons interact within the atom, I think we may come one step closer to being able to duplicate a gravitational variant. And if we do this, then we are on our way to a new form of propulsion, not by bumping into things, but by moving them from within their atomic structure. And that would be a giant leap forward for science, as well as for how human beings travel in the future.

If anyone has come across research, either in laser technology or gravitational studies, that shows atoms acting in unusual aberrant ways, share them with us. For this may lead to new thinking, a kind of rethinking, of what makes matter move.

Thanks again to all for your attention.

Ivan

Ivan,

The question: “What is the gravitational mass of the elements inside a neutron star?”

Boy you sure know how to rough a guy up! A neutron star has an approximate mass of 1.4 X that of our sun; however, the radius of most neutron stars is about 15KM, or 9.32 miles, but one teaspoon would weigh about 10,000,000 tons. These figures are approximations using the best of available data – yet remember, got’s to watch them oughts’ before and after the decimal point! It is commonly thunk that neutron star’s gravitational fields are so strong, the escape velocity is more than 75,000 MPS for an object to motor away from one. Conceivably, electrons and protons do not exist as separate entities in neutron stars; therefore, electrons and protons are fused, and or compacted into neutrons. The collapsed peculiars are so dense the outer layers are very rigid, which explains why they survive their extreme rotational speeds thunked to be in excess of 38,000 RPM! Neutron stars do have an atmosphere that consists of highly energetic electrons and ‘hyper exotically excited atoms!’

Neutron stars resemble rather large magnets, with their magnetic poles tipped at an angle to axis of rotation. Like earth, the pulsars are surrounded by magnetospheres, which are regions where electrons and other particulate matter is accelerated by the magnetic field. Electrons in the magnetospheres of neutron stars flit about at speed of theoretical C, and emit synchrotron radiation as narrow beams along the corridors of both magnetic poles. Nuclear fusion loses its potential for neutron stars after they become pulsars, for the neutron star has no new internal energy source; therefore, a neutron star simply becomes invisible once its rotation slows, and the magnetic fields decrease in intensity whereas no pulses occur.

For an interesting twist, some astrophysicists thunk or believe that neutron stars can be spun up again to become millisecond pulsars. I am not so sure I can buy into the notion, but it is fun to think about!

Spin-up a Millisecond Pulsar

Got’s to cogitate a bit about your last post -

Claude

Ivan,

Wave forms, are waveforms; therefore, all waveforms oscillate as propagated, and the oscillations can be counted, which gives the frequency of a particular type of wave. If or when the ‘transmission’ of a waveform ceases, oscillations cease, and momentum also ceases. In the case of light, it does not consist of particulate matter as streamed, so the byproduct of ‘absorbed’ light is the accumulation of heat. Again, when propagated light sources cease ‘radiating’ light, heat will not accumulate. The core problems of the answers you seek are not within the realms of conventional physics; instead, its possible the answers you seek might be found among plasma engineers and theorists if coupled to chemistry and thermodynamics.

I cannot break through the shell of an atom to comprehend the potential of utilizing the strong force for anything other than what it does, hold the nucleus of atoms together. If you were considering the weak force, you might be on to something significant, for it is the weak force interactions that causes transmutation p -> n so that deuterium can form, and cause deuterium fusion to occur.

I am not sure the potential to ‘effect’ gravity is a viable possibility using the mechanics as iterated; therefore, I am at somewhat of a loss of where to point your search for answers. I suppose the best place to begin is the basics of forces so you would have some numbers to work with – at the following URL, begin at the top of the list, which is color. What is to become readily apparent to you is, you will be tinkering with quantum gravity, and on this planet earth there are not more than a handful of theorists that can even come close to understanding the complexities of it. The present state of knowledge concerning gravity of the quantum type is totally particular, and preponderantly peculiar, to the extent, some theorists believe we have yet to discover the additional particles beyond what is presently in vogue. They have even set aside names for them! This you can read for self in the last article at the same URL that now follows.

Remember – begin at the top, and study every link, and you should probably do it in the order as listed. The website was just put up last month!

Forces

Claude

Euclidean "space-time" Relativity?

PUTTING RELATIVITY TO THE TEST: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html
On this page it reads:

"The apparent displacement of light results from the warping of space in the vicinity of the massive object through which light travels. The light never changes course, but merely follows the curvature of space. Astronomers now refer to this displacement o f light as gravitational lensing."

So this is to be understood that the "bent" light around a massive object is actually straight, only the "space" was bent to allow for the light to behave in a lensing effect. Is this truly a valid way to see Relativity?

I would give another example: When driving down a country lane lined with trees, white puffy clouds in a blue sky, the clouds appear to be moving ahead of you as you move forward. Obviously this is only an illusion, but think of it this way: You are the stationary observer, the trees flying by are the normal progression of time, and the clouds moving ahead of you are space-time. So here is a simple Euclidean example of space-time, so that the effect is that time does not work in the normal progression, but appears to be slowing down instead.

Same for the bending of light. You can say that the clouds are the light being "bent" around the trees, so that it appears to be coming around. But is this too is an illusion. That gravitational lensing works is observable, but the explanation for it is about as absurd as a Euclidean explanation for time slowing down. Light does bend around massive objects, but then this defies the orthodoxy of light being a constant in space. So something had to "bend" to accommodate the observation, and in this case, it became "space".

Neither is true in the real world, for time is either a figment of our imagination, or is a measure of change. It does not exist outside our observing it and giving it meaning. It certainly is not part of the space fabric of the universe in any way other than an abstract measure of change taking place. Then this leaves the possibility that light can travel faster than C in space, since it has to detour before coming back to its original path. That is all that happens, light gets bent by the gravitational differentials around a massive object, and then continues in a straight line, which is impossible given Relativity, to continue on its original course. Euclid would be rolling over with laughter were he alive today to witness what astrophysicists have made of geometry.

Cynical to the max,

Ivan

Claude,

Thanks for the "Force" link above. I especially found this link useful at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html#c1 , which shows at what frequency radiation interacts with matter. What I am looking for is still an unknown, I suspect, for it be below the microwave range, and thus for now is still "transparent", which would be like looking for bacteria through a telescope. Nevertheless, I am curious, so will continue to seek what I am after. When we get down to those very small wavelengths, I suspect all we could hope for is circumstantial evidence? Or it may be that the visible light spectrum does something in the atom with which we are as yet unfamiliar... or maybe it's those nutrinos... I am sure there is still more to discover here.

Thanks, Ivan

Ivan,

Concerning the Relativity Test, welcome to the world of contradictory science!

Claude

LIGHT PHOTON WAVELENGTH FOR TOE

Dear Friends, fellow TOE seekers,

I have worked out the math for the TOE as I had posited in the above posts, and have computed what is the wavelength of the photons to satisfy the algorithm derived from E=mc2, as being approximately 2.2087 x 10^-42 m. !!!!. By using Planck's constant "h" of 6.626 x 10^-34, and using "C" as 3 x 10^8 m/s, I come up with the photon wavelength [to satisfy the TOE formula of (h/cw) + g =1 = m] as "w" is 2.2087 x 10^-42 m.

This is an extremely small wavelength, if you consider that visible light has a wavelength of approximately 6 x 10^-7 m, and microwaves are about 3 x 10^-2 m, and FM radio is about 3 m (or 10 feet long), then you can appreciate how small the energy wavelength must be to satisfy the algorithm (as it works out restating Einstein's famous formula with the philosophical concept of zero x infinity = One). But this is the "magic" photonic light wavelength, for our solar system, that neutralizes the extremely powerful gravity force within the atom, which is far greater than the so called Strong force. (It may be that this deep force works out to be approximately x10^39(+or-) times mass as measured on Earth, but I don't know yet.) I suspect we would find this same deep gravity in a black hole star, if such exists. Deep space would not be quite this heavy, however, for it receives a great deal of diffused light from all the solar and galaxy sources spread through the cosmos.

I hope to have the full work posted within a few days, to show how this wavelength was arrived at. One of the spin offs from this is that as the photon energy decreases, or downshifts to a redshifted longer wave, it increases the (C x w) portion of the equation, whin in turn would increase the gravitational constant. If so, then instead of "g" being approx = 5.6 x 10^-39, it would upshift to a higher number... maybe. But this needs to be shown through observation to be confirmed as valid. Remember Einstein said that light passing through gravity redshifts. In effect, the reason light is redshifting through great cosmic distances is because it is passing though increased gravity in the dark regions of space, those away from the energy sources that produce the very fine wavelengths which produce atomic mass, or matter and its commensurate light gravity. Instead, light has to then labor through heavy gravity of deep space, which is a drag. The only sweet spot for light is around a solar or galaxy system, for then it can be itself.

I will show how this works when I write out the full TOE, in its final cut, now that I have the wavelength worked out. Of course, it is still puzzling, as to how do we find such fine wavelengths? I'll have to work out the wavelengths of gamma rays, about 30 x hydrogen atom, for it may be smaller than that!

Take care, hope to all this formalized soon,

Ivan

Ps: thanks for the "Forces/hyperphysics" link Claude!

Ivan,

Beware of Planck's constant! You need to study the work of Halton Arp concerning Redshift - and there is some info available elsewhere that might move you closer to fact. Offhand, I need to sift through 400GB of database to find the info that might help (that can be a tedious task!).

What is visually seen in deep space appears optically identical to what we can observe from earth; therefore, if you started an excursion across the universe, objects will appear in a never-ending stream. As distant stars disappear behind you, different galaxies, stars and objects will emerge or appear before you. So, the amount of available light will be very similar everywhere in the universe, dependent on how close you are to bright stars and other objects; therefore, I believe that ‘deep space’ is a fallacy, in that, space is the same everywhere, no matter where in the universe observers may be present. So here, terminology must be carefully considered – if by referring to deep space, a clarification must be made, for we have no knowledge of space beyond what we can observe. By that, why should we expect ‘space’ 200,000,000,000 light years away to be different than what we can observe from earth?

Claude

Hi Claude,

No, not different to the eye, only different in how it affects mass. Deep space does not have the same light intensity as does solar space. We live in a "light cocoon" because we are close to a star. Take us far out into space away from all stars, and the gravity/mass dynamics change. Out there, there is less superhigfrequency energy to counteract the very deep gravity inside atomic "bubbles", so that these atoms exert a greater amount of gravitational force than those within the solar system. Remember, light to reach us from 200 billion years away will have to traverse all that deep gravity space to get here, which will have redshifted it. This means the further you go out in space, the more redshift will be apparent. Of course, the resulting illusion is that space is moving away from us in all directions equally. But this is a modern physics fallacy, and is very resistant to alteration because it has earned itself in the hearts of today's intellectuals as dogma. What this TOE suggests is that deep space is much heavier than here around a star. Theoretically, if you go far enough away from any star system, or galaxy, you could implode enough deep gravity to create a black hole. Neutron stars are part way there. But this is hype, and I do not want to go there. I am much more interested to see how these forces interact within the atom to give it the strong/weak forces, and how they influence the electron outershell.

In my model, I see all that happens inside the atom as a product of how this photon energy, of extremely high frequency (10x^50 Hz), interacts with the very deep gravity that identifies the existence of an atom, with the remainder force of gravity as what leaks out, along with other electromagnetic forces. That gravity is so light here is due to the great abundance of this super energy, but farther out in space it it less abundant, and hence the gravitational leakage becomes greater. By this same model, though I have not worked out the math yet, the electromagnetic leakage would be less than here. But these are only models to help me understand what happens inside the atom. Remember that all this is predicated on the basic philosophical model of "zero x infinity = 1", so I stay true to that and go with it, no matter where it goes. But so far, it has yielded rather interesting results. Regretably, we do not have enough evidence to show this as a proof, since we have not explored (mainly because we did not look for it) the gravitational variants of deep space. So instead, what I propose is that this is a missing factor to consider, and thus predict we will discover that gravity is constant only within the range of a star system, and comensurately within the range of a galaxy system. Go away from these, and things change.

I hope I am not confusing anyone with this "alternative" thinking, but in studying what physics already knows, I feel there are missing links. I hope to at least point in what direction they may be found.

Take care, thanks again,

Ivan

BLACK HOLE STAR ALGORITHM:

This is an addendum to the above post figuring the wavelength necessary to satisfy E=mc^2 in our solar system.

In having rewritten this famous formula as E/c^2=m, we then substituted the E with pc=hc/w, which yields the formula now expressed as (1/c^2 ) x (hc/w) = m, (where w is wavelength and h is Planck's constant, m is mass, c is light speed ), which further reduces to h/cw=m. We than added in the remainder g as the gravitation difference from this force, which is expressed as 1x10^-39, to complete the atom's unit of 1=m. So the complete algorithm now looks like this: h/cw + g = m =1. This is the basic algorithm of this TOE as derived from E=mc^2.

Now, we then take the following values to compute the algorithm:

h=6.626x10^-34
c=3x10^8 m/s
w=2.2087x10^-42 m, which is also (1x10^50 Hz), an extremely high number!
g=1x10^-39
m-=1

So the resulting values as per the algorithm above become:

[(6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)x(2.2087x1^-42)] + (1x10^-39) = 1, which further computes to be: [(6.626x10^-34)/(6.6261x10^-34)] + (1X10^-39) = 1.

These are the normal values of the TOE algorithm for mass and gravity in the vicinity of our solar system, where gravity is a very weak force. But look at what happens if you redshift light to the max, by stretching it out the light wavelength from its extreme frequency to be nearly equal to the distance light travels in one second, i.e., w=0.333x10^8 m. Then you get:

(3x10^8 m/s)x(0.333x10^8 m) = 1 (x10^8 m/s); however, what this represents really is 1w, since the wave and the distance are equal; so that now the denominator of (h/cw) becomes approximately (~) equal to 1, so that TOE looks like this: h/~1 + g = m=1.

However, if the value of cw is 1, and the numerator h remains Planck's constant, then for the equation to remain equal to one, which is the atomic unit, this means the g constant would have to increase to a level of [1 - (1x10^-39)], which means, for all practical purposes, it comes in value very close to being 1. And that is significant also because it so happens that the so called Strong force = 1.

So if the photon energy is stretched out to being such as a light wave multiplied by its velocity equals 1, in essence a flat wave, then the resulting gravity, which is the remainder force, grows to be almost equal to 1. So, if g=10^-39 in our solar system, out where the light wave is stretched out to where it is equal to 1w/s, then the gravity reaches a maximum value of nearly 1, which is (1x10^39) times greater than the gravity we experience in our solar system. (This is the result of (1x10^-39)x(1x10^39)=1.)

Think what this means! If light is stretched out to where in essence it no longer has a wavelength, since it cycles as fast as it travels to be equal to itself, then it ceases to exist, and there is maximum gravity, according to this TOE algorithm. This, I declare, is the gravity to be found inside a Black Hole star. (It is also coincidence that the present convention in physics has the atomic Strong force equal to 1.)

So now we have another clue: Light inside a Black Hole star has no frequency.

In theory, if it were possible to see light coming from the other side of a Black Hole, it would disappear when it reached it, for its wavelength would be negated into nothingness so that it ceases to be light. However, there is no known way of doing this, since one would expect that the "gravitational lens" around the galaxy's Black Hole would bend most of it around so that it would escape from falling in. Though there will be light lost inside the Black Hole, we will not be able to see it.

Therefore, this is the second clue to test TOE's algorithm as here posited, that light disappears when its frequency is stretched to a value of 1. The first is that gravity intensifies when out in deep space away from a star or galaxy system. I should note here that the gravity intensity effect of being away from a star system will be smaller, whereas being away from a galaxy system the effect will be greater, since the galaxy's photonic energy would still dominate in between the star systems which are part of it. I would also guess that outside the galaxy, this gravity intensity would still be moderated by the photonic energy released by the billions of galaxies in the cosmos, so even there the gravitational strength will never reach Black Hole proportions. The question remaining then is why Black Holes? How do they come into being? What is it about them that flattens out the light wave to being neutralized of its ability to form mass?

It would seem obvious that at light wavelengths greater than 2.2087x10^-42, but less than 1, the gravity would be greater than what we experience on Earth, but less than what is total Gravity in the Black Hole star. By the same reasoning, light wavelength shorter than experienced in our solar system, i.e., of greater frequency, would also mean the Gravity force would be commensurately less. But how do you achieve this?

The last question: Is our sun capable of producing photonic light only at the starting range of 10x^-42 ? Are there stars that produce either greater or lesser light waves? So here is a third possible clue: Are there stars which produce light waves starting at wavelengths different from those of our sun?

However, since we cannot measure energy waves below those of gamma rays, which are about (3x10^-10) , we are left in the dark. But it can also mean this universe is one hell of a mathematician!

Thanks for bearing with me while I peer algorithmically into a Black Hole. Next we'll tackle electromagnetism.

Ivan Alexander©

Hi G-man, Claude,

After I posted Black Hole, which I wrote because I couldn't fall asleep for a short afternoon nap, I then took the dogs for a walk when it got dark in a little park by a stream, and I had another thought.

How did uncle Albert come up with that lovely formula E=mc2? It seems to be so adaptable, except that it was missing a small piece for TOE. The best I could imagine, and I do not know how he came to his equation, is that he figured somehow that E=m, if C is taken into account. So he probably figured that "energy divided by the speed of light is the same as mass times the speed of light". This translates into the simple equation of: E/c=mc. But this did not seem elegant enough, since it had c on both sides, so he brought it over to one side to come up with: E=mc2. What a wonderful idea! And now, by adding a little seasoning to it, g, we could do wonderful things.

Ciao for now, giving up for the day.

Ivan

WHY THERE ARE BLACK HOLES:

When you think of all the events taking place at the center of a spiral galaxy, given the algorithm above, the Black Hole center is almost a given.

A list of the events at the galaxy center: First, you have the axis of spin, which in itself has no centrifugal or centripetal force, so it is neutral. Second, you have all the residual gravity from all the stars in the arms of the spiral converging on the center axis, so there they are bunched up from all directions of the spiral wheel, like spokes converging on the center. Third, you have the gyroscopic event, where the energy of the spinning galaxy is transferred as torque up the axis, so there is precession force there. Fourth, and this is the most interesting one, you have all that light energy converging on this one spot at the center, so that all the electromagnetic waves of all frequencies, from all the billions of stars, converge on the axis of the galaxy.

Now, this last is important, because it will employ the TOE as presented above, as the cause for the near infinite gravity there.

What happens to waves when they meet? Do they not either cancel out or amplify? I suggest that the electromagnetic waves coming in from all directions of the galaxy spiral arms converge at the axis, so there they either amplify each other, or negate each other. So you have the phenomenon where some waves are taking on huge amplitudes, which likely are thrown out into space along the axis, while others waves flatten out completely. The waves that get thrown out should show up as some form of axial energy perpendicular to the spiral arms of the galaxy. But the waves that flatten out become responsible for a gravitational increase which, to hold together such a large spinning mass, increases to those infinite like proportions of a super Strong force. So, thus, the galaxy is a self contained, electromagnetic and gravitational system, that holds together in perpetuity as the forces that would implode it are counterbalanced by the forces that would tear it apart. And this is why there are black hole stars at the center of spiral galaxies.

It would take a super computer to demonstrate all these forces at work, but I do think it is doable, and it will show up. In TOE as presented, the photon energy wavelengths being flattened, as per h/wc + g = m, then create maximum gravity at the center: the Black Hole from which no light can escape, because there it is totally neutralized and gravity intensified to the max.

Gentlemen, I am leaving for Mt. Wilson to see if I can catch the meteor showers, or the fly-by asteroid, since it is cloudy here on the coast. But think about it! If it is true, then it is one more example of how gravity, which is constant for us hanging around the sun, is in fact a variant in the cosmos.

Ivan

RE "Next we'll tackle electromagnetism."

Hi Y'all,

I'm looking for any ideas that apply 'harmonics'
as an expression of the quantum states of
electrons around the nucleus. If anyone has any
ideas on this, please let us know.

Many thanks, Ivan

QUANTUM HARMONICS?

Here's a clue from "Hyperphysics" web page, on Quantum Harmonic Oscillation: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc.html

Don't know if this takes me where I need to go, but will check it out. Also: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/qnenergy.html#c1

And: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c4

All worth study, I would think.

Ivan

"Lucy in the sky with diamonds! ta ta di dha.." --or are Black Holes forever?

Great pix of galactic beauty:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/13/chandra.centaurus/index.html

HARMONY OF ATOMS AND PARTICLES.

Below is the link to an excellent paper by Ray Tomes, titled "Harmonic Theory: Atoms and Particles", dated 1 Dec. 1994:

http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt109.htm

In the article, which shows the harmonic relations between particles mass, as well as particles and nucleus mass, Mr. Tomes writes:

"To see this from a harmonics perspective, it is necessary to not see a nucleus as made of baryons, but to see it as a frequency which is so many times a baryon. It is also some number of times a variety of other particles, including an electron. These relationships are important, and if it were not for the existence of charge, I would say that some nuclei are as fundamental as a proton. I am trying to have people see that all these things are oscillations, and that a small number of sub-atomic particles are NOT the building blocks of the universe."

He then goes on to say: "The relationship electron x 68 = 34.76 Mev x 27 = proton indicates the possible existence of a particle mass 34.76 Mev. No such particle has ever been detected to my knowledge."

I would add my idea to this, that there may be some harmonic ratio between photonic light energy wavelength/frequencies and the particle mass/atomic mass relationships, which bring the two fields of inquiry together. The goal of this inquiry is to find the relationships that cause light to modify mass and gravity.

In the TOE as presented above, all cosmic reality is a super dense heavy Gravity, such as approximates the Strong Force within the nucleus, or the supergravity within a Black Hole, which is the "medium" within which photonic energy of all frequencies act as "modifiers" to this medium so that the atomic mass values, and thus gravity values, are stabilized within star and galactic systems, though not so in deep space where gravity would be expected to be of greater density. This is based on the TOE algorithm: h/cw + g = m = 1 (h=Planck's constant, c=light speed, w=light wavelength, g=gravitational constant, m=mass), and may explain the illusive "dark matter" plaguing astrophysics. (The missing mass of dark matter would be the higher density gravity of deep space, if such is proven.) From this theory we can surmise that the initial light wavelength for our star, the Sun, is 2.087 x 10^-42 m, and thus from this results the relatively "light" gravity inside our solar system, which is g=10^-39. This may not be true for other stars, so that their relative gravity constants may be different, depending upon what light frequencies they generate. If so, g may have different values for different star systems, or galaxies. This would also explain the very "heavy" gravity around neutron stars, those which have cooled to where the energy generated by them is of longer wavelength than those of more active stars, and thus not as able to modify the Gravity medium. This explains their more dense gravity. It also explains why there is total Gravity within Black Holes, since there light frequencies are totally flattened out and have no modifying effect on atomic mass. This is where the TOE stands at present. What is sought after is "how" these light wavelength frequencies affect the internal composition/electromagnetic interactions within the atom, which is the topic of our next search. Harmonic theory may play a part in this search, in particular as it interrelates to electromagnetism and the 1/137 relationship of electron to proton, or 1/alpha.

Any thoughts on these harmonic relationships within the atom mass may lead us to where we need to go.

Thanks, Ivan

* * * *
I would also reference his prior paper titled: "Harmonics Theory Overview" (referred to in the above paper) as important reading: http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt103.htm

ELECTRON "HARMONICS" FOR HYDROGEN ©
by Ivan Alexander

Gentlemen, I think I got it. I did the calculations for relative electromagnetic energy wavelengths "w" (I don't have a lambda key) for the quantum shells of a Hydrogen atom. The ratios, derived from dividing the wavelength of the higher shell by the shell immediately below it, approximate Pythagorean harmonics, in reverse order, so that the largest number is for when the electron jumps from shell 6 to 4, which approximates the harmonic ratio of 2, "do"; (for lower shells, 3, 2, 1, the ratio results exceed 2); and the lowest approximates 1.33, "4/3", which is "fa" as it jumps from 12 to 11. I did not find it coming all the way down to 1, though it tends that way. Below are the calculations as derived from "Hydrogen energies and spectrum" on the Hyperphysics page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c4 , which has a calculator built in.

1. Music harmonics as derived by Pythagoras, as shown by Ray Tomes in his paper "Harmonics, Pythagoras, Music and the Universe": http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/alex-ha.htm :

do= 1
re= 9/8 = 1.125
mi= 5/4 = 1.25
fa= 4/3 = 1.333
so= 3/2 = 1.5
la= 5/3 = 1.666
ti= 15/8 = 1.875
do= 2

2. Electron shells, "n", in declining order (n2-n1), and their lambda wavelengths "w" in nanometers "nm", all for atomic number "1":

n2-n1 = (12-11) = 69034 nm (i.e., 6.9034 x 10^-5 m), or 4.35 x 10^13 Hz.
= (11-10) = 52506 (5.2506 x 10^-5 m)
= 10-9 = 38848 (3.8848 x 10^-5 m)
= 9-8 = 27788
= 8-7 = 19051
= 7-6 = 12365 (1.2365 x 10^-5 m)
= 6-5 = 7456 (7.456 x 10^-6 m) Note the waves are getting smaller.
= 5-4 = 4050 (4.050 x 10^-6 m)
= 4-3 = 1875
= 3-2 = 656 (6.56 x 10^-7 m) The energy waves get smaller still, as we approach nucleus.
= 2-1 = 122 (1.22 x 10^-7 m) Very high frequency here, 2.459 x 10^15 !!
(I suspect that if we were to caculate the 1-0 shell's energy, it would be much higher still.)

3. Okay, so now we know what the transition "lambda wavelengths" are for each electron jump to a lower shell. Now, if you divide each of these wavelengths by the lower shell's, successively, you will get ratios which look like this:

(3-2)/(2-1) = 5.38 (i.e., 656 divided by 122)
(4-3)/3-2) = 2.86
(5-4)/(4/3) = 2.16 vs 2 (Pythagoras)
(6-5)/(5-4) = 1.84 vs 1.875
(7-6)/(6-5) = 1.66 vs 1.666
(8-7)/(7-6) = 1.54 vs 1.5
(9-8)/(8-7) = 1.46 vs. 1.5
(10-9)/(9-8) = 1.40 vs ?? (i.e., 7/5 on fifth's scale)
(11-10)/(10-9)= 1.35 vs. 1.333
(12-11)/(11-10)= 1.31 vs 1.333

Of course, the same applies for the quantum energy ratios, expressed as "eV", for the above shells, since they are relative to the energy wavelengths.

So here above are some ratios, as highlighted, that closely match the harmonic musical scale, though not a perfect fit. It could be that either the numbers calculated as wavelengths have some margin of error in them, or that the harmonic scale is too pure for reality. Remember the ancient Greeks loved the perfection of forms and ideas, and so some of their ratios, alas, may not be so perfect after all, at least not in this reality. However, there is obviously some sort of relationship between quantum energy and harmonics. If you were to continue this exercise for progressively higher electron shells, you would find that the ratios tend towards the number "1", which is "do" all over again.

4. So what does this mean? Is the universe, or God, a musician? Does God sing, and we spring into being? Interesting, but this above now dove tails nicely into the other algorithm of our TOE, as an expression of light energy, in all of its frequencies, thus is an interactive force within the atom. So this means that (h/cw) + g = m, plays out inside the atom in such a way that the electron shells follow some pattern of harmonic relationships. This means that the value of mass, "m", is relative to the energy received, though for it to be equal to "1", it needs a much smaller wavelength than expressed above, with a much higher frequency, which we calculated as 10^50 Hz, or as approximately: w = 2.2087x10^-42 m.

I owe a debt to the excellent work done by Ray Tomes in figuring out the above, since my inspiration to look for these ratios came from his paper titled "Harmonic Theory: Atoms and Particles" at: http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt109.htm as well as the at the Hyperphysics Group, page titled "Quantum Harmonic Oscillator: Wavefunctions" at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc5.html , for these pages, and their related links, gave me an insight of what to look for. I think I found it, since there is a harmonic relationship between electron shells in the atom.

No doubt I am not the first to discover these relationships, but to date I have not found them written anywhere else.

Questions remain, as to what the other values represent in terms of harmonics. Regrettably, I could not calculate n2-n1 as 1-0, since the system did not allow for it. But I am sure the number as a ratio of (2-1)/1-0) would be extremely large, since the wavelength would be of much higher energy, and thus of an extremely small magnitude in nanometers. The other question would be if this same type of ratio applies to more complex atoms within the elements periodic table? Also, would these ratios hold if we were in a more energetic star, or one that is less energetic, i.e., a blue dwarf as opposed to a neutron star? Lastly, I wonder if the scale ratio of 1.40 has musical qualities? For that matter, would it be the same for 2.86 and 5.38, that they too are harmonic notes? But that is not the issue, for what interests me here is that the universe has a built in harmonic scale in how it allocates the energy within the atom.

Now what remains is to put all this together into a comprehensive Theory of Everything, or a final TOE, keeping in mind that Gravity is both a medium within which photonic light operates to create mass, as it interacts with the super dense gravity within a potential atom, and that Gravity is also a residual force from this interaction, for which evidence we need to find. That is where we are now.

Ivan

(Also see "The Electromagnetic Spectrum" for light energy wavelength and frequency conversion calculator: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html )

Ivan,

Lots of numbers – problem is numbers, which for us to explain anything using them, we must first prove the universe uses a system of formulation that is equal to the systems we devise in our attempt to understand – the universe. First, I do not believe in complexity, neither do I think complexity can or will answer the questions everyone asks. I think the universe is holistic; therefore, I am still searching beyond formulas to come up with what is a composite whole. To some extent, Omegatron Dynamics has opened the way for me, but it still relies on digital readouts, which I think are superior to theory, but the numbers game still gives me problems.

Are there laws at work in the universe? I don’t think so! Neither do I think the universe was/is planned; instead, I think the universe functions on pure intellect, and intellect is a ‘force’ that we do not understand. After much research in this area, there is no force data available that explains what actually transpires as objects begin to form in the universe. I do not now think particle physics will answer the hard problem, i.e., what gives rise to an individual planet?

There is some factor missing in all of our thinking!

I have been doing some research at a local – big brain research school, but what I find is not what we observe in real life as we experience the universe daily. For example, many modern cosmologists sincerely believe the earth is about 4.5 billion earth years in age, so too does my method of Omegatron Dynamics verify a similar duration of earth; however, when I calculate the age of the sun using Omegatron Dynamics, my figures agree within a range to believe what science tells us concerning age of the sun is close to being right.

In 1920 Sir Arthur Eddington wrote,

“If, indeed, the sub-atomic energy in the stars is being freely used to maintain their great furnaces, it seems to bring a little nearer to fulfillment our dream of controlling this latent power for the well-being of the human race---or for its suicide.”

The problem is, gravity is what originates solar fusion-

Ok, so I threw the problem back to you. You think it is the interaction of light that causes gravity, when instead it is gravity that causes light to radiate! If you can correlate the interactions required to prove light does what it supposedly does as you perceive it, then correlate the explanations required to understand gravity - I might be convinced to do a bit of Omegaton Dynamic programming (I get tired of twisting knobs!).

You can begin - Sun

Do not quit until you have read the entire essay. It was written by John N. Bahcall, whose credentials are available by clicking on his name at the top of the article.

Claude

"Ok, so I threw the problem back to you. You think
it is the interaction of light that causes
gravity, when instead it is gravity that causes
light to radiate! If you can correlate the
interactions required to prove light does what it
supposedly does as you perceive it, then correlate
the explanations required to understand gravity -"

Claude,

Thanks! I will read the essay on the Sun.

However, I must correct something in how you
perceive my TOE. It is not that "light causes
gravity". Gravity is. And in its raw form it is
formidable. What light does is modify it into
mass, so what is left over, the residual value, is
the gravity we experience, which is now a
relatively weak force. This is a very important
point, that if misunderstood misses it entirely.
We live in a weak gravity environment because
light modified the very powerful gravity that is
the "lightless" universe, the kind you find in the
atom's strong force, or black holes.

The "medium" of the universe is gravity, and light
its "modifier". Everything else in TOE follows.

I'll check out how the Sun creates light. Very
interesting. Remember in the film "Amadeus", when
the Emperor says to Mozart, "too many notes!" Are
"Lots of numbers" like that?

Ivan

In the paper on Solar Energy Fusion by the Nobel Foundation, "How the Sun Shines" by John N. Bahcall, in "V. Testing the Hypothesis of Nuclear Burning", there is an interesting footnote:

footnote 5 "Perhaps the most imaginative proposal was made by Stephen Hawking, who suggested that the central region of the sun might contain a small black hole and that this could be the reason why the number of neutrinos observed is less than the predicted number."

http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/fusion/sun_5.html

It seems that suddenly "black holes" are everywhere! Are they the primordial form of the universe? Bahcall ends his paper with "The richness and the humor with which Nature has written her mystery, in an international language that can be read by curious people of all nations, is beautiful, awesome, and humbling." Hear, hear!

Why does the Sun create light? I truly do not know. But will think on it.

Ivan

Ivan,

If what you propose occurs, we are missing one factor still – that being, what causes the huge hydrogen gas clouds to condense or contract? It cannot be gravity! In other words, we are still missing the boat on this, and I have examined it from every angle that I have been able to compute via Omegatron Dynamics. Free atoms do not combine or mix, and will not mix or blend, without a ‘catalyst’; instead, free hydrogen atoms merely fly away from one another – if they are not ‘contained,’ they disburse even further. To understand the phenomena, the following quote cannot be proven or justified. I split the quote so we can consider the implications- The quote is as written by John N. Bahcall in the link that I provided above.

“According to the modern theory of stellar evolution, the sun is heated to the enormous temperatures at which nuclear fusion can occur by gravitational energy released as the solar mass contracts from an initially large gas cloud.”

Clearly, the model is wrong!

“Thus, Kelvin and other nineteenth-century physicists were partially right; the release of gravitational energy ignited nuclear energy generation in the sun.”

There is no potential for free hydrogen atoms to contract or condense without a container in that, of which, such contraction or condensing can occur. It simply is not feasible, nor will it occur; therefore, I do not think the study of particle physics is where the answer is to be found. I still maintain the universe is holistic, and when dealing with holistic things to deal with a minute part or parts of that thing will not result with honest or true answers.

From various models that I have experimented with, but one seems to match existing data so far as gravity, and proven particle physics; however, none of the four known forces are capable of beginning the required interactions among free atoms that explains condensing and or compression from the free states of hydrogen atoms in a gaseous cloud. We know that such clouds often move at hyper velocities, but those clouds are more like walls, not a cloud. Moreover, such walls do not exhibit the strong rotation required to compress, or condense, or contract into a ‘core,’ which would be necessary prior to the fusion process beginning. If a theory is essential to explain star formation, and I propose that to be true, the existing theories of star formation are seriously lacking, or totally false.

About the only consolidating factor common thus far between our differing theories is, a force – you have identified that force as Supergravity, but I cannot validate such a force is even theoretically possible. I still think we must get outside the box on this one. If I am correct, the force is centripetal force, of which, is imparted by the universes’ rotation directly to all objects in the universe, which necessarily begins at the basic particle level, and is superior to all other forces. Through tests and observation, fusion, compression, condensing, contraction, or compaction, cannot induce circular motion; therefore, a star cannot form without the gaseous mass first being rotated at near light speed! We know that gravity permeates equally in all directions, but those directions are straight line, and do not curve. The same can be said for EM force, but we can track or trace the lines of EM force fields, whereas we cannot track or trace the lines of gravitational force fields.

In your model, you must somehow explain the method of rotation required for the fusion process to begin. In other words, how do you propose for the gas cloud to condense?

Claude

Claude, go with the Force!

RE UR: "About the only consolidating factor common thus far between our differing theories is, a force – you have identified that force as Supergravity, but I cannot validate such a force is even theoretically possible... If I am correct, the force is centripetal force, of which, is imparted by the universes’ rotation directly to all objects in the universe, which necessarily begins at the basic particle level, and is superior to all other forces."

Centripetal force (the opposite of centrifugal force) may be the answer. One possible way this would work is that this centripetal force originates outside our universe, in another dimension, to manifest here; though this is fanciful at best. But if so, this would be caused by the energy waves from another universe manifesting as standing waves of mass here. It would not contradict the idea that the primordial universe is Supergravity, i.e., black hole gravity, since it would be there that matter, or even possibly solar combustion, originates. My way of seeing it, still unsupported by physical evidence, is that this supergravity is universal, and only "relieved" where there is photonic light energy, in all its spectrums, right to the super high frequencies (i.e., 10^50 Hz) which then convert this supergravity into mass. This way of seeing it then melds with your: "In your model, you must somehow explain the method of rotation required for the fusion process to begin. In other words, how do you propose for the gas cloud to condense?"

Overall, I agree with what you say, that hydrogen clouds have no business combining into stars. That is another example of the creativity of the astrophysics mind, that we will create something from nothing.

Truly, I too do not have the answers, only more questions. But in answering these questions, some interesting ideas have come up, like the Electron Harmonics idea above. Whether mass is truly the result of the interplay of electromagnetic frequencies with primordial supergravity is totally subject to revision, or even discard, if we cannot find evidence of the gravitational constant being a variable away from an energy system, like our sun's, or a galaxy's. This is a critical test, that gravity MUST be a variable, or else the TOE algorithm, (h/cw) + g = m = 1, becomes useless, and remains merely a curiosity... like so much of modern physics, in my opinion.

We shall see. But I truly appreciate your input of ideas, and wholeheartedly support your research in this. We will come up with something yet!

As regards your earlier, that TOE must show how planets combine, I did find something on Ray Tomes's page about "Standing waves in the Solar System", which possibly explains why the planets are distributed as they are, though not conclusively, in my opinion. You can find this at: http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/plan-wav.gif


Muchas gracias amigo,

Ivan


Ps: do you have a reference link for you Dynamics theory?

PS on my above, Claude.

This is just a "pipe dream" due to too many cigars and glasses of wine, I'm sure, though I touched neither today. But what IF...

"Hydrogen atoms are created in the Sun, totally compact, and in stripping off their electron's shells, progressively, give off photonic light, the light we see from our star." ???

... end of pipe dream, snooze..zzzzzzzzzz...

In fact, upon reconsidering, I am sure this would not work, since light is given off when an electron is absorbed rather than given off. For this to work, it would mean that some force within the sun was reabsorbing electrons into the hydrogen atoms... can't imagine what would do that... unless Hawking is right, there is a "black hole" at the center. Ha!

I had a very late night last night!

Ivan

Ivan,

Ref UR: “Centripetal force (the opposite of centrifugal force) may be the answer. One possible way this would work is that this centripetal force originates outside our universe, in another dimension, to manifest here; though this is fanciful at best.

In my TOE, only one universe is possible; therefore, I have no place outside of it that I can potentially explore, which means, the four inherent identified forces are common, and originate of a single superior force, of which, necessarily imparts each force on a direct basis. There is no problem incorporating weak, strong, and EM; however, when the force is gravity nothing works, for it appears gravity of evident strength cannot, and does not occur until sufficient mass is accumulated to measure. We cannot measure the gravity of an atom accurately; moreover, the significant unknown factor is the neutrino, and what happens to the neutrinos emitted by the sun or stars.

Concerning light, through Omegatron Dynamics I think it can be verified light decays in much the same manner as all other waves decay; if that is true, light that never comes in contact with a ‘surface’ that can absorb it eventually diminishes to nothing. If we take a sound wave, it can be completely absorbed by several known materials; the same can be said for radio wave propagation, as all amateur radio operators know via experience. By that, we also know wave propagation ceases whenever the wave is absorbed, and when a source ceases to propagate. The hard problem of light interacting to convert energy into matter is, the light must be ‘absorbed’ for it to become a particle; otherwise, the light is a light wave until decay (atrophy) takes its toll. I have not been able to work through that one!

Claude

GRAVITY VARIANCE TEST

Claude,

I think I figured out a way to test if there is an increase of gravity outside the solar system. It came to me intuitively, but when I did the math, it worked. If gravity for the same equal mass increases, then the spin velocity increases with it. I did this by using the formula for rotational spin and force:

F (centripetal) = mv^2/r (see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf )

then I also reworked this equation for v, rotational velocity:

v = (Fr/m)^1/2 , which is square root of Fr/m.

If I took an example, say m = 1, r = 5, v = 10, then my result is F = 20.

Now, if I kept mass the same, radius the same, but increased Force, for example:

F1 = 1 = 20
F2 = 1.1 = 22
F3 = 1.2 = 24 etc.

The results I get from figuring out spin velocity are, as per above:

v1 = 10
v2 = 10.49
v3 = 10.95 etc.

What does this mean? It means that if Gravity is not constant, except as described within a star system, but that by leaving the star system it begins to increase, meaning F increases, so that there is increased centripetal force on the body, then spin increases with it. The space probes being very small and not massive, this effect will be minute, but even an increase of one millimeter per day would bear this out.

Therefore, here we have a very simple test for whether or not gravity is constant outside the solar system. If our deep space probes begin to spin more as they go past Pluto, then here is our answer, that gravity is increasing. Something worth watching for, I would think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE UR "In my TOE, only one universe is possible; therefore, I have no place outside of it that I can potentially explore, which means, the four inherent identified forces are common, and originate of a single superior force, of which, necessarily imparts each force on a direct basis."

I have no basis for thinking there are other universes, except in an offhand sort of way, that what is matter mass here is due to a standing wave from another dimension traveling at light speed there, but appearing "stationary" here. This is pure speculation, however, and I have no basis for saying this. So for now, I'm with you on this, that there is only one dimension of existence that concerns us as far as TOE is concerned. If I had reason to think otherwise, I would, but none for now. As I see it, the "superior force" is that infiniton supergravity I postulated.

Well, gotta run the dogs before it gets dark. Brain is truly tired, so basta for now!

Ivan

SOLAR ENERGY EXPLAINED

Claude,

I wrote something earlier which may help explain our Sun's energy source.

"How small is the center of the atom? Nearly infinitely small, for it is nearly infinitely "heavy" with gravity. Remember that I see Gravity as a left over product from the light/deep force interaction within the atom. No light energy, the atom reverts back to being that point in space which is super heavy with gravity, and hence mass." --as posted above, Aug. 10, 2002.

Then I also wrote how at a galactic center, all the surrounding light radiating towards that center negates its wavelengths into nothing, so that the light reaching the center has wavelength x velocity of =1, (i.e., equal in length and frequency), so it ceases to be a wave. I also wrote:

"Think what this means! If light is stretched out to where in essence it no longer has a wavelength, since it cycles as fast as it travels to be equal to itself, then it ceases to exist, and there is maximum gravity, according to this TOE algorithm. This, I declare, is the gravity to be found inside a Black Hole star." --as posted Aug. 15, 2002

Now, if we can apply this reasoning to black holes at galactic centers, assuming it proves correct, then why not apply it to the center of a star?

Work with me on this. But what happens to all the light generated by the sun's mass as it converges on that mass's center? Does it also cancel out? If so, then Stephen Hawking may not be far off, that there is a mini 'black hole' at the center of our star, or any star. And if this is so, then what it means is that as hydrogen atoms in the solar mass re-absorb electrons, then the photonic light given off is radiated: outwards towards what we see and the heat and energy that radiates into space; but also inwards, which according to the new TOE I am presenting, cancels out the light waves into a mini black hole. So, if so, this is what holds the solar mass together.

But it also raises more questions:

1. How did this process start in the first place? Why did hydrogen atoms converge there?
2. What happens to hydrogen atoms when they give off their photonic light, are they converted to helium as believed, and then 'blown off' into space? ... Or what?
3. Is there a 'recycling' of hydrogen through the convections taking place in the solar mass, so that in effect there is a 'perpetual' motion powered by the 'mini black hole'?
4. Why are hydrogen electrons falling in their orbital shells, giving off photons?
5. What happens to the photonic light 'absorbed' by the mini black hole in the center?
...and last, but not least:
6. How does this process affect the 'Coriolis Effect'?

What I find interesting is that TOE equation, (h/cw) + g = m, makes all this possible with incredible simplicity. At least, it is something we could set our mental sights on, and search for evidence, if it exists. And if proven right, then it may be on the way to explaining Solar Energy, for all the stars.

Ivan

(Ps: As you can see, I am sculpting this TOE a little piece at a time, but with each hammer blow on the chisel, another interesting little piece falls off, and we get a clearer picture of the whole. Of course, it all hinges on how I rewrote Einstein's famous E=mc^2, and whether or not this equation is true. It also hinges, most importantly, on whether or not gravity is a variable, for if it is not, the whole theory collapses. So watch those Pioneer space probes leaving our Solar System, to see if they respond to a gravity "variance", or spin faster. The truth will show up there. And if they do, we have a TOE! )

Gentlemen, we may be onto something here, where all of Existence may be expressed in what is an elegantly simple program, and yet from its simplicity manifests the infinite interrelated reality complexity that is our universe, including life, and summus of all, Consciousness.

And Claude, I suspect that if this is all true, your TOE will merge comfortably with mine with surprising simplicity, and elegance. Like you, I also think light fades out over great distances, what results as redshift, into eventual nothingness. But we need to verify Gravity, for this may be the keystone for all our theories of seeing the universe in a whole new way, one which in the end hinges on natural 'harmonics', defined as: frequencies which are 'integral multiples of the frequency of a fundamental tone'. That fundamental 'tone' is photonic light at lambda =2.2087 x 10^-42 m. (This lambda value may be off, but I will keep working on it; it should also be the energy level for hydrogen atom's electron going from orbital shell # 1=> zero.) And if it proves true, then all those physics theories of 'multi-dimensional-curved-space-time' will end up on the shelves with the other science fiction writers. The universe is much too simple and elegant for that.

We'll keep the light on, 'till the day is done.

Ivan

PPs: Of course, it is understood that if this TOE is wrong, then IT will go on the trash heap!

Ivan,

Your math does not work-

Claude

Claude,

Can you be more specific?

thanks,

Ivan

Ivan,

“That fundamental 'tone' is photonic light at lambda =2.2087 x 10^-42 m”

Cannot validate fact- what is the figure for “m” in this case?

Claude

Oh! I see...

RE 2.2087x10^-42m, "m" stands for meters, as a unit of measure of wavelength (not mass), but the equation multiplies out into kg's.

Sorry for confusion. Did you check the math on the harmonics? I think that is okay, since I used the on-line calculator at Hyperphysics.

Thanks again, Claude, for pointing it out.


RE g value:

I used the Gravity "Force Coupling Constant" because it fit in better with what I was trying to do in the TOE. You may find this constant for g at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

On this page you will find ø^g = 5.9 X 10^-39, which is a gravitational coupling constant. However, I am not totally clear if this is better than the gravity force between two bodies, which is F(g)= m1m2/r^2. I selected the one I did because I needed it expressed as a constant that may be subtracted from kg of mass. Anyway, that's the reasoning behind my choice. In time, I will figure out if it is the right choice.

Ivan

WHY THE MATH WORKS: for (h/cw) + g = mass =1.

Not using the numeric values, but rewriting it in terms of units of measure only, it looks like this:

(Please note that "°" is "multiplied by")

h (in units)= m^2°kg°s^-2 ...Planck's constant
c = m°s ...light speed, as meters per second
w = m s ...lambda wavelength, as meters (also per light distance in one second)
m = kg ...mass, as kilograms
g = ? (I'll leave this one out for now)

So you get, as per equation above:

[(m^2°kg°s^-2)/(m°s)°(m°s)] + g = kg

Multiplying and cancelling out we get:

[m^2°kg°s^-2]/m^2°s^2] + g = kg

then further:

[kg(m^2)/s^2]/(m^2°s^2) +g = kg

Now, m^2 cancel out, leaving:

(kg/s^2/s^2) + g = kg

Now, s^2 cancel out, leaving:

kg (+g) = kg


So this is how the units used cancel out and become equal to mass as kg. The g factor is still a problem, since the number used, 10^-39, is a dimensionless constant (which I do not know what it means!).

Very late at night, and gotta turn in. Ciao,

Ivan

Ivan,

As long as you have-

Ivan: "h (in units)= m^2°kg°s^-2 ...Planck's constant"

included in your formula - it is meaningless to the extent, Planck's constant, is not a constant. Truth is, it was a bad dream.

Claude

Claude,

I think Planck had some rather neat insights, some of which are still unexplained today. They were worked out first as probabilities, and only later confirmed through observation. (See Max Planck: http://webserver.lemoyne.edu/faculty/giunta/planck.html ) One of the remaining mysteries is the 1/137 ratio for the so-called Weak Force.

In thinking of it, it somehow makes sense to me that light interacting with the near infinite mass of the atom should manifest itself as a positive/negative relationship, since this means the electromagnetic light wave has the positive/negative charge built into it. (See Neils Bohr: http://webserver.lemoyne.edu/faculty/giunta/bohr.html ) So it is no wonder that what manifests in this light/supergravity interaction within the atom should result in a positive/negative force interaction. We call this the proton/electron interaction, which also happens to interact in a harmonic ratio of quanta.

I think Planck's insight in his "h" constant is absolutely brilliant!

Ivan

DOs & DON'Ts on Current TOE:

Claude, and All,

I think there are some patterns developing so far that may be identified.

Areas of agreement are:

1. Big Bang is fiction.
2. Redshift is from other causes than expanding universe.
3. Numbers are representational only, like math, and not reality, though they may be used to test models of what is.
4. Observational data is mandatory to test model theory.
5. Space-Time continuum is mathematical fiction.
6. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon.
7. Universe is in a spinning motion.
8. Wholeness principle, that only the whole can be a TOE, not its atomic component alone.
9. Time is NOT a fabric of multidimensional space.

Areas of disagreement are:

a. Black holes exist as centers of galaxies, possibly also of stars.
b. Gravity as a variable 'constant'.
c. Centripetal force causes gravity (or is only manifestation of spin due to gravity?).
d. Planck's constant is a 'pipe dream'.
e. Neutrinos are basic force of TOE.
f. Basic universal structure is made up of interaction between light and supergravity, from which is created matter, where gravity is a residual force.

I think what is missing from this list, because I am not sure whether or not we agree on this is the "Simplicity Principle", which is in essence that the universe is a very simple place, and the physics explaining it, within TOE, will turn out to be extremely simple.

Well, that about sums up where I am at present. Maybe someone else has other issues of agreement or disagreement they would like to point out. I'm signing off until 9/11, when back from Italy.

Ciao a tutti, a presto!

Ivano

Ivan,

Disagreements as listed-

a. Black holes

Black holes have no purpose in that, they annihilate matter but have no place, or method to dispense that annihilated; therefore, logic cannot deal with such an anomaly. For the black hole to exist the problem of event horizon must be explained; to wit, there is not a theory of available physics to deal with a solution. A black hole thereby, can only be an infinite regress, which is demanding everything consumed by a black hole condenses, or compacts to less than nothing. That is the problem of singularity, which is not addressed by Relativity, or Special Relativity. Remember, Einstein himself wrote – A singularity is not possible within the perimeters of Relativity and Special Relativity. Numbers always fail if infinite/infinity must be dealt with; Einstein died knowing physicists were using the basic formulas incorrectly, but for some reason – the experts knew more about Einstein’s work than Einstein himself, which Einstein corroborated on several occasions. Perhaps the most significant of the rejections was one written to his dear friend, M. Besso, 1951.

To put it bluntly – by accepting the concept of black holes as potentially possible, you are in essence, placing your TOE squarely in the camp of modern physics, and accepting the Einstein/Minkowski 4D Space-Time Continuum as gospel fact.

b. Gravity as a variable constant.

If gravity is not a constant, the Newtonian Laws are worthless, and meaningless. We have no data that suggests gravity is not a constant as presently formulated. Works by several (mostly Russian) physicists have neatly overcome the problems of gravity with far too many proofs available that in effect, prove gravity is one known constant that is reliable, even more reliable than the conceptions and evidence for the weak and strong forces. It is my opinion EM is equally reliable.

c. Centripetal force causes gravity (or is only manifestation of spin due to gravity?).

Centripetal force is the basic force that drives the universe. It is from centripetal force that all motion is imparted in the universe, and it imparts the strong and weak forces directly, EM indirectly, but does not impart gravity. Gravity is the result of a specific reactionary process of which, unites particles into a single mass, and it will not possess an adequate strength field (measurable) until at such point when mass becomes a solid of adequate dimension to ‘effect’ other ‘solid masses’ nearby.

d. Planck's constant is a 'pipe dream'.

Think – waveform: Consider heat as a waveform since light produces heat. Now for the Planck constant to be real, you must somehow explain how that light can become ‘chunks’ of heat. I have asked several of the ‘great physicists’ that question but not yet have I received an intelligible answer; moreover, in this realm of factuality, I do not foresee such an explanation emerging. The peculiarity of light phenomena were never successfully dealt with by Einstein, although Albert won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the photoelectric effect, he never understood light quanta, again written in words to his best friend M. Besso, December 12, 1951-

"All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question: What are light quanta?"

Here, it becomes apparent the Raleigh-Jeans law must be drawn upon for reference since in classical physics it explains the spectral distribution function of light; however, at very short wavelengths Raleigh-Jeans law fails, giving rise to the Ultraviolet light catastrophe. Planck’s constant is not adequate to explain light phenomena; instead, it takes three laws as ‘devised’ by Planck – Planck’s constant – Wein’s Law, and Raleigh-Jeans Law. Thus, if you can master three differing laws concerning light sobeit, but when push meets shove the numbers simply do not work, and a failure occurs.

e. Neutrinos are basic force of TOE.

In the end, I have enough evidence to doubt that the Neutrino plays the role now given to it; however, I am not ready to throw out the Neutrino at this point because I must muster a new analog programming sequence via Omegatron Dynamics to validate fact. If what I surmise happens, does happen, the formation of matter only begins when a specific ionic reaction occurs, and if that is the case, light at most has a very small role in the formation of matter. I believe it is heat, and electromagnetic wave function that causes ions to react after which, matter starts to condense and/or compact. At this point I am positive of one thing – modern physics has at least 110 basic particles to deal with, which to me is highly illogical and improbable. I do not consider the parts of particles as a particle; therefore, I think modern physics has lost the pathway to prove real events as they occur. I also think dealing with parts of particles of less size than an atom is probably an exercise in futility; therefore, I am content to allow physicists so predisposed to play with folly and chase the ghosts of Quantum everything.

f. Basic universal structure is made up of interaction between light and supergravity, from which is created matter, where gravity is a residual force.

What you are proposing is two distinctly different gravities, and I am not sure that I now understand exactly what it is that you are identifying as Supergravity. Gravity is gravity, and the intensity of that gravity is wholly dependent on mass; moreover, I do not know of a methodology to separate the two. The basic structure of the universe is particle matter, not an interaction; it is forces that cause interaction, but gravity cannot ‘affect’ anything, until after the mass of an object becomes dense enough to cause an effect. This is basic physics, and I do not think going beyond the basics is required to produce a TOE, which will withstand serious inquiry from the various fields of study involved.

I agree with the simplicity concept totally. When subject becomes so intense, a theorist cannot formulate a composite that encompasses all aspects of the universe, that TOE is not realistic, and is beyond the realm of understanding, which is precisely where I think the state of existing cosmology is now entrenched. If one gives serious consideration to the multitude of existing ‘theoretical laws,’ there is no way possible for anyone to make sense of them when combined. If but one law is flawed, every calculation made using it destroys the credibility and validity of the whole formulation. So, I go out on the limb with a single sentence.

All particles are conscious, and being conscious, they interact accordingly and comprise the universe in a manner that is self-perpetuating, and self-regulating based on need.

Claude

Ciao Claudio!

I'm back from Roma and Sicilia. Very interesting
list above regarding where lie our disagreements.

At quick glance, it seems we have gotten into the
old "particle vs energy wave" debate, which is not
a surprise really. Hasn't this been a debate from
the start? I'll write more when more coherent,
since just got home after 24 hours of travel.

Really recommend Sicily, especially Syracussa and
the southern tip around Pachino. Great beaches
and food, and truly lovely people.

Ciao! A presto, Ivano

Ivan,

Glad to know you returned safely, and enjoyed your visit. Last time I was in Sicily was 1985, and they were trying to clean up the beaches!

Claude

137, as a 1/2 product of hydrogen atom harmonics?

This is a curiosity, that if you multiply natural harmonics of hydrogen electron shells (i.e., 1.33, 1.4, 1.5, 1.66, 1.84, 2.1 ), and then multiply the result, which is approximately 17.9, by the harmonic ratios of the second and first electron shells of the hydrogen atom, which are approx. 2.86 and 5.38, you get the result of 275, which if halved, becomes 137.5.

You may recognize the number 137 as being part of the dimensionless constant of electromagnetic force coupling, which is 1/137. This is a number which appears naturally in the equations for many electromagnetic phenomenon, where "E photon" times "photon wave lambda" = hc = 137.

See: Hyperphysics

"This coupling constant is also called the 'fine structure constant' since it shows up in the description of the fine structure of atomic spectra." -- Hyperphysics.

But why is the product of the harmonic ratios "double" the constant? Don't know... but it is intriguing.

Ivan

Dear Ivan:


I have not spent as much time as I wish on your paper yet, having only just

returned from England and being a bit jet lagged. However you are

reinventing Prince Louis De Broglie’s work

( http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/ and many others) relating mass to

equivalent wavelength. You do however have to get the values in compatible

units, and indeed you have. And yes the wavelength of a large mass is

indeed very short, and the associated frequency very high.


Your wavelength (in meters) w=h/p where h is in Joule seconds and p is Kg m

/ s (mass times velocity of light), hence for a 1 kilogram mass the

wavelength is close to 2e-42 m, as you find. This is why bricks don’t

manifest visible interference patterns – they would be too small to see :-).

The equivalent frequency is about 1.5e50 Hz, again as you find, with no

surprises. This is outside the range of convenient observation.


There are no surprises in your correct calculations, except perhaps that the

numbers are in regimes not common in everyday experience. Physics is

sometime like that. The real usefulness of these concepts, although they

are also exactly correct for classical masses (of the order of worldly

experience) is for particles in the atomic range and below, where the

numbers get reasonable. For example the electron with a rest mass of

9.1e-28 g can be accelerated through a few hundred or thousand volts to make

an electron microscope, because its wavelength becomes shorter than that of

light, and hence gives higher resolution.


With respect to your alleged finding of ‘coincidences’ between quantum

mechanics and music, invoking Pythagorean (he was a numerologist!)

philosophies, is no more than the curiously beautiful properties of the

sequence of real numbers, in which the definition of reality in our Universe

is firmly rooted. Everything follows from the sequence of numbers, which

itself is created by imagining the existence of any entity (ONE) and adding

another (ONE+ONE=TWO) and so on to infinity (Hilbert, Cantor and transfinite

numbers notwithstanding).

Hope this is helpful or at least interesting

Anthony


Dr Anthony E Smart

2857 Europa Drive

Costa Mesa

California 92626-3525

United States of America

Telephone: (714) 754-1870

Email: AnthonySmart@sbcglobal.net

Ivan, G-man, Dr. Smart,

I climbed outside the box using Omegatron Dynamics-

Wave ~

Particle *

Sound (((

Heat ///

How can ~ become * --?

How can /// become a * --?

If ~ can become a * – why does not ((( /// become a * --?

Sound ((( ~ /// can be absorbed –

~ cannot become a * !!!

~ is radiation

/// is radiation

((( is generated

~ is the product of radiation via fission

~ is a /// wave

~ cannot pass through a ‘true vacuum’ !!!

Nothing can pass through a ‘true vacuum’ !!!

Only where there is matter present can ~ travel !!!

Only where there is matter present can /// travel !!!

Only where there is matter present can ((( travel !!!

Light is a pure wave in that, what ‘appears’ to be photons, is the residue of atoms that are ionized when light passes through them. If photons are the residual product of ionization, photons are not massless; if that is true the mass of a photon is 2x10-68.5eV.

What this means is – playing with subatomic particles will not give us the answer to the questions we seek, although the potential benefits to medicine are so great we would be fools to stop such research. If I am correct, there is another tier of basic particle matter, which is smaller in size than present subatomic structures suggest; if that is true there is another tier of particle matter that is even smaller! Omegatron Dynamics indicates there is at least 3 tiers of particle matter smaller than subatomic; it also suggests there is not an intermediary particle between nothing and the smallest particle.

The question is, how far can science chase and prove fact? The fact is, there is nothing so tiny that could possibly be the intermediary between – no thing – and a thing; therefore, I believe it logical and theoretically correct to say: The potential of nothing is nothing, and of nothing, nothing can be made to manifest. In other words, if you smash a quark, there will be something smaller as the result of the smashing. If we smash an electron, there is some thing smaller than the electron, which will result.

Claude

Hi Claude,

RE "~ cannot pass through a ‘true vacuum’ "

Keep in mind that a 'true vacuum' does not exist. Photon waves travel through a gravity medium, with which they interact, to manifest as 'particles' when caught within the vortex of an atom. It does not mean photons are particles in their wave form, but become particles when they collide with an interactive medium, which I call 'supergravity' within the atom, which we call the proton-neutron atomic mass, also known as a 'strong force' within the atom. This is the mental image I have to explain how waves become particles, or how particles are released again as photon waves from the atom.

RE "Light is a pure wave in that, what ‘appears’ to be photons, is the residue of atoms that are ionized when light passes through them. If photons are the residual product of ionization, photons are not massless; if that is true the mass of a photon is 2x10-68.5eV."

Photons have effective mass due to their interactive momentum only, which then converts the wave into a particle of mass. When not interacting within the atom, they have no mass of their own, and continue to exist only as electromagnetic waves.

RE "I believe it logical and theoretically correct to say: The potential of nothing is nothing, and of nothing, nothing can be made to manifest."

This would be true if 'nothing' really existed. In my view, this nothing is an absence of interactive energy so that only pure gravity, in its very deep primordial form, exists. When modified by electromagnetic energy, it becomes a 'something', which then combines into the various elements that compose the atom.

* * *
Finally, smashing atoms is like throwing a clock against the wall to see how it works to tell time. The subatomic particles of the atom are merely debris, which are a curiosity but do not explain in and of themselves how the atom works.

I hope to have a more formal proposal soon on how all the varied pieces of the four basic forces fit together, but cannot do so until I have a better understanding of the so called 'weak force'. The other forces are now accounted for.

Take care, thanks for sharing your ideas, talk soon,

Ivan

Ivan,

Ivan: “Keep in mind that a 'true vacuum' does not exist. Photon waves travel through a gravity medium, with which they interact, to manifest as 'particles' when caught within the vortex of an atom. It does not mean photons are particles in their wave form, but become particles when they collide with an interactive medium, which I call 'supergravity' within the atom, which we call the proton-neutron atomic mass, also known as a 'strong force' within the atom. This is the mental image I have to explain how waves become particles, or how particles are released again as photon waves from the atom.”

I do not think photon waves travel just through a gravity medium – they also travel through plasma, and I am not so sure that photons are not plasma! If photons are plasma ...?

Ivan: “Photons have effective mass due to their interactive momentum only, which then converts the wave into a particle of mass. When not interacting within the atom, they have no mass of their own, and continue to exist only as electromagnetic waves.”

Interactive momentum – is not possible without real mass to function with. That is the problem Albert bestowed on us, and one that Bohrs refused to tackle. The only man in all of history that I am aware of that knew the answer is now dead, Louis Essen. Quoted next-

“Einstein’s theory of relativity was dealt with very briefly in my university course but we were told that we must not expect to understand it. I accepted this situation and I have since discovered that most physicists are content to remain in the same position assuming that it must be right because it is generally accepted. My doubts about it arose when I found that the experts did not understand either. An exchange of letters in Nature between Dingle and McCrea showed that they had opposite views about some of the predictions of the theory and the arguments advanced on both sides were in my view illogical and unconvincing.”

There is something dreadfully errant in present understanding of wave theory. Maybe with further programming Omegatron Dynamics can produce the answer I am looking for.

Claude

Ivan,

In an effort to learn if we can eliminate some of our differences as you outlined earlier, I keep coming back to one that I cannot seem to work my way through, which became a bit more troubling with your last response.

One of our apparent differences you outlined is:

f. Basic universal structure is made up of interaction between light and supergravity, from which is created matter, where gravity is a residual force.

In your last post you wrote: “This would be true if 'nothing' really existed. In my view, this nothing is an absence of interactive energy so that only pure gravity, in its very deep primordial form, exists. When modified by electromagnetic energy, it becomes a 'something', which then combines into the various elements that compose the atom.”

We both agree the Big Bang is fiction (item 1 on your list). If that is true, where does the “very deep primordial gravity” originate? I cannot fathom a place where nothing is, but I also cannot fathom a place without – gravity. Gravity, the force, is present everywhere in the universe, and so far as it is possible, there is no place in the universe that is free of at least some gravitational effects. Gravity is what effects all motion in the universe, but I am not ready to say, gravity ‘causes’ all motion in the universe. I am willing to believe that gravity controls (influences) all motion in the universe, for I cannot think of a reason to reject the conceptual aspects that such could possibly be true; however, based on that idea, many existing available studies tender more than enough evidence to indicate light is possibly the ‘wave carrier’ but might possibly not be the medium of light itself. If light is or were such a ‘medium,’ it would not be able to ‘refract’ into the many frequencies it does.

Ok- out of the box now: An electromagnetic wave – the key is ‘magnetic,’ which means polar attraction – the ability to attract. What is wrong with the synthesis of all this? An ‘electromagnetic wave’ cannot attract! If it cannot attract, it is passive - is it possible for a wave to be passive? Yes, all waves diminish unless constantly renewed by the source of the wave, which means – only an electromagnetic field has the potential to attract! If what I now suspect is true, there are only four forces, not the previous five that I had at first thought. But, the problem is – science has possibly made a serious mistake in that, there is no difference between EM and Gravity, and they are potentially one force, but a force that has two differing characteristics dependent upon the state of that force! That opens the door for the “other force” that we have previously discussed.

If you think it prudent – move any response to the private board and start a new thread.

Ok- talks to me!

Claude

Hi Claude,

Very interesting comments on EM wave theory and the four forces.

RE "There is something dreadfully errant in present understanding of wave theory. Maybe with further programming Omegatron Dynamics can produce the answer I am looking for."

I look forward to seeing more of Omegatron Dynamics. Thinking "outside the box", I would propose the following: Atoms formed where gravity/space vacuum/ether had (and still have) positive charge. Now, this is a bold concept, but what it means is that EM, which are bipolar, interacted with positive charged supergravity points, resulting in a vortex of existence modified by the electromagnetic waves, which stabilized the positive charge with negative charged particles, electrons, to make an atom. If so, then atoms are points in space where the cosmic primordial gravity, which is super strong, is the proton/neutron nucleus of the atom; and the electrons are the resulting harmonic shells which modify this nucleus into a unit of atomic mass. Why "harmonic"? Because the universe works that way: God sings and atoms dance.

The resulting four forces: Strong force, electromagnetic force, weak force, and gravity, are all derived from this positive/negative interaction between the nucleus deep gravity and electromagnetic photon energy. Of these, strong force and weak force are neutralized at very close range, so they cancel out to zero (in and of themselves almost immediately); electromagnetic and gravity both leak out of the atom, so they extend to infinity. Now, remember that all this started with the rewriting of E=mc2 as a function of zero x infinity = 1 = atom mass, with cosmic gravity observed as a very weak residual force. And what do we have again? Zero/strong-weak forces X infinity/em-gravity = mass. Like Yogi Bera said, it's deja vu all over again!

However, and this is a biggy, all this is contingent upon the ultimate discovery that gravity is a constant only locally within star systems, and is a variable constant away from star systems. If this could be proven, then the whole structure of the atom as I described above would fall into place. And if so, it would negate the need for a Big-Bang, or a curved space-time cosmology, which would greatly simplify astrophysics into a new Theory of Everything. And if this TOE falls into place, it could then be proven that the universe is a conscious entity, right down to the atom, which manifests itself in all its life forms.

Ivan

Claude,

RE "We both agree the Big Bang is fiction (item 1 on your list). If that is true, where does the “very deep primordial gravity” originate? I cannot fathom a place where nothing is, but I also cannot fathom a place without – gravity. Gravity, the force, is present everywhere in the universe, and so far as it is possible, there is no place in the universe that is free of at least some gravitational effects. Gravity is what effects all motion in the universe, but I am not ready to say, gravity ‘causes’ all motion in the universe."

These are most interesting questions, because I cannot answer them. In particular, I do not know where 'very deep primordial supergravity' originates. I merely accept it as a given, that somehow the universe is made up of this crushing stuff, which through the presence of electromagnetic photon energy gradually evolved into the cosmos as we know it. The Big Bang has too many things that need to be accepted on faith alone, such as what happened within the first nanoseconds where the universe expanded at great multiples of light speed... why should this be? Also, as regards motion, I do not think gravity creates motion but it does, as you say, influence motion. Remember the centripetal F=mv^2/r can be used to calculate spin velocity, V=(Fr/m)^1/2, so that in an increased gravity region of space the spin 'v' increases. This would be an important test for deep space, to see if our probes leaving the solar system increase in spin, which would indicate increase in 'F', as the gravity force within the space probes increases. I do think that motion can be explained through wave theory, however, if you think of motion as being a relatively slow wave of kinetic energy traveling with the mass, and which can be transfered to other mass when bumped against it, like billiard balls do. Beyond that, I have no clue at present.

Another question: Why did electromagnetic energy originate to form stars and galaxies? Admittedly, a Big Bang theory makes it easier to answer this, but I cannot buy it.

Ivan

"BLACK HOLE" KITCHEN EXPERIMENT:

Looking up at our Milky Way galaxy inspired me to try a kitchen experiment in physics to simulate wave energy from around a galaxy. The goal was to see what happens to energy waves coming together from a circumference into the center, same as would happen to light energy coming from around the galactic spiral into its center.

I filled a round black bowl with water and applied against the rim a vibrating device to stimulate waves in the water. (I chose black so as to more easily see the waves against the dark background.) As expected, the rim was teeming with energy waves, which uniformly radiated in perfect concentric circles towards the center of the bowl. There, to my pleasant surprise, the waves came together into a nipple that stood out, as I expected in my mind's eye. This demonstrated how the waves bunched up at the center, coming uniformly from all directions of the perimeter, so that they canceled out to rise above the surface in amplitude. Surprisingly, there were not waves returning from the center, so that all were absorbed there.

Taking these results into the cosmos, it would seem that the radiating energy from all the stars of a galaxy, radiating inward towards the galactic center, and outwards towards the rim where they dissipate into space, would cause a bunching up of wave energy at the center, where they cancel out. This would therefore express itself either as flattened out waves, or waves of greater amplitude. Based on the gravity effect of photon energy waves when they are stretched out, or flattened, the result should be an increase in gravity at the center of the galaxy. (See post above, TOE-3: By Ivan A. on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 07:47 pm: WHY THERE ARE BLACK HOLES; also Aug. 15, Black Hole Algorithm.) The high amplitude waves would represent a deflected energy that would be perpendicular to the galactic spiral, but ineffectual on the circumference of the galactic wheel. What then results is that the light energy waves at the galactic center are neutralized and thus cease to function as the energy wavelength needed to simulate mass. With this failure to simulate mass, the galactic center reverts back to the primordial force of gravity in its most intense form, thus resulting in what is theorized as being a Black Hole.

[Please note the "Gravity Variance Test" equation (posted above, 8/25/02) for centripetal force, F = mv^2/r, may be used to calculate a galactic black hole’s gravitational force (F), if it could be estimated as to total galactic mass (m), and radius (r), and spiral velocity (v).]

The kitchen experiment yields the desired results to bear this theory out, but to be truly pure, it would need to be performed in a totally spherical bowl, which I did not have, so that all the waves generated come into the center from all areas of the circumference. I settled for the experiment as performed because I figured the water surface simulated the flattened spiral of a galaxy, such as the Milky Way in which we live.

The enigma, of course, is how could this be applied to the Hoag Galaxy recently imaged by the Hubble space telescope, where the galaxy is a ring around a brilliant center rather than a flattened spiral? Based on the above, it could be that Hoag has a superhot radiant center, it still being a rather small galaxy, so that instead of a Black Hole its center is actually a super massive star, and all the stars surrounding it are merely satellites of that center Superstar. (see: http://fr.news.yahoo.com/020905/202/2qn62.html )

Ivan

BLACK HOLES NEWS from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2268755.stm

"An unexplained fact is that a black hole's mass is related to the mass of the stellar environment it inhabits. That is, supermassive black holes are found in the centres of galaxies."

This may be explained by some of my posts above? I find the "experts's" explanation rather lame.

Ivan