A great many ideas had been developed on the ARCHIVED threads on The Theory of Everything, and on Atomus Summus. These ideas are now being taken to the next level, to see if there is room in the realms of modern physics to in fact develop a new physics. If the current ideas of physics are as complex and convoluted as the Ptolemeic astronomy of the Middle Ages, then there may in fact be opportunity for totally new and fresh thinking on how our universe is structured, and how it interacts within itself. It may be that the final result is simplicity itself.

GRAVITATIONAL MACHINE?

In theory, it should be possible to apply the principle behind h/cw+g=m=1 (where h=Planck's constant, c=light speed in a vacuum, w=wavelenth lambda, g=dimensionless gravitational constant, m=mass) by making a machine that would alter the lambda wavelength resulting in a variable constant for g. We know from past developments on this Forum (see ARCHIVED Forums/Atomus Summus) that to satisfy the E=mc^2, from which this algorithm was derived, w is = approximately 2.2087x10^-42 meters, so that stretching this lambda into a longer wavelength would yield a greater value for g, the gravitational constant. I was curious enough to try this with a simple toy radiometer, but the results were inconclusive, since there are imponderables to consider which may alter the results. There seemed to be a much greater spin when two flashlights were put opposite each other, so in theory some of their wavelengths cancel out. When tried with the same flashlights at right angle to each other, or parallel to each other, the spin was less. This is potentialy important because increased spin would be one effect of increased gravity. However, other than a subjective observation, this experiment did not yield conclusive evidence, since in principle the radiometer's black-white spinning blades are activated by the few molecules in the less than perfect vacuum in the bulb. This is the usual explanation, that the black sided blade activates molecules that strike against it, thus pushing it harder than against the white sided blade. But this leaves a question: Why are the molecules that bounce off the black side not then recoiled against the upcoming white side? Or what happens to them, where do they go, do they simply cease to count once they hit the black sided blade? I suspect that this explanation is less than totally satisfactory for most observers, including myself, and that a better explanation may be offered. For example, if the light waves striking the black surface are absorbed more readily than on the white surface, then what happens? It would be similar to water waves hitting the shore, where some waves are absorbed by the soft sand on the beach (black sided blade), while others are reflected of the rocks back out into the water (white sided blade). The waves that are reflected are then subject to the cancellation patterns observed when this happens so that in that vicinity of the white sided blade, there is less light lambda then on the black side. Less lambda means more gravity there, and thus the white sided blade is drawn in to fill the vacancy. If so, then this would be an example of the vacuum acting as a gravity medium. However, this is not commonly thought to happen, under current theory, so I offer it only as one more possibility. (I should note that holding a light above the spinning blades does not yield as fast a spin as holding it horizontal to the blades. This is one more indication that the "cancelled waves" theory may be at work here, since the waves do not cancel as readily when light is from above.)

So the molecules spinning around the axis of the little blades are affected by both hot-cold differentials, and perhaps also by a gravity increase on the white faced blades. But again this is not proven here. To be objectively effective, to show that increased spin is due to increased gravity, the light would need to be a "cold light" (fluorescent?), of identical frequency, and coming from exactly the opposite direction in order to have the lambda cancel out, which is a difficult experiment not given to a simple toy. (Trying the same experiment with small laser lights, the kind used in pointers, showed no appreciable results, especially since it was difficult to accurately focus the light within the bulb due to glass distortion.) Furthermore, the light source would need to be inside the vacuum rather than outside in order to avoid wavelength distortion.

Therefore, in theory, if light could be sourced from inside a vacuum sphere and aimed from all sides towards the center so that the light waves would cancel out, given the theory as per above, there might be evidence of the center developing a different gravitational constant from that known at present. It would become gravitationally more active. In effect, if this were proven so, then the machine would become a kind of gravitation machine, where the canceled light lambda at the center of the vacuum bulb would increase gravity. Imagine what this would do to space travel: We could then have artificial gravity on our ships deep in space. If this proved to be true, it would also prove that h/cw+g=m is a valid algorithm, which means that the vacuum of space is naturally gravity rich, and only relieved of this force by the presence of light. However, this is still only a speculation based on how the algorithm reads, and not a known fact. But if it were proven, then it would lead towards a new physics, which in turn would lead to new understanding of "gravitational holes" at galactic centers, as these would now be understood to be a vast mechanism as described above. It would also greatly simplify the gravitational geometry of physics as we now conceive it. Relativistic theories of curved-space-gravity would disappear as a quaint anachronism in the evolution of our understanding. Thus space only appears to be curved conceptually, from observations of gravity action, but in fact space may be no more than a gravitation rich vacuum which has different gravitational constants throughout, depending upon the relative light environment of any given region.

I should note that there is evidence that laser light in a vacuum has some accelerating effect on electrons. A paper by Prof. Yu-Kum Ho, China, can be found at: http://bc1.lbl.gov/CBP_pages/SEMINAR/020621.html . This same is discussed in greater detail by Ph. Mine', France, in his paper, as PDF download: http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e98/PAPERS/THZ03A.PDF . There is no question light has power. However, does it have the power to influence gravity?

Ivan

"I think we have it ! - The GUT" --J___.

A DIALOGUE

This dialogue was initiated by J___ and replied by Ivan A., which took place over the period October 6 and 23, 2002. (J___ is blue lettering, Ivan A. is in black.)
------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday 6 Oct. 2002, 9:40 PM:

Hi Ivan,


I recently wrote to my friend in India - I asked him two
questions. Follows is the email I sent to him, and his reply
to me.
------------------------------------------------------

Ram,


I am trying to sort out two problems; 1) Einstein's photon
mess; 2) Gravitational field hierarchical structure.
So, a few questions you might have some thoughts about-


1. Is it possible gravity and EM is the same force in two
different states?


2. Am I wrong by assuming there is no place in the universe
without particle matter? -


In other words - I no longer believe the universe is a vacuum,
and voids do not occur anywhere in the universe.
If we go anyplace in the universe, and take samples of the "empty space,"
we will find matter present in that empty space.

If I am correct - with your work on the Einstein theories,
Planck's constant, some help from Halton Arp, and
thermodynamic principles, we can prove the BBT is fantasy.


---------------------------------
His response to me-


The nature of a force/field is intimately related to that of
the basic charge, which generates, feels and is felt by it.
Since the gravitational charge i.e. mass, differs from the em
or electric charge, the two forces and fields are also
different in kind. The gravitational, electric and colour
charges are the most basic cosmino charges. These are
inseparably unified and integrated with the cosminos.
Therefore the three basic forces and fields are inherently
unified. Their propagation velocity is also the same and
equal to the velocity of light. Einstein attempted but failed
to unify them mathematically into a 4-D spacetime of the
general relativity.


As you cannot empty a water pond with a sieve, the sharmon
medium cannot be removed by any physical means. So the
"vacuum" is NOT empty. Any sample of space will normally
contain not only sharmons but also photons, electrons, some
atoms and even molecules.


The Big Bang Theory is invalid, so is the Steady State Theory,
on several scores as you have already pointed out, and my
theory of non-expanding universe explains.


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

Ok Ivan, here we go - After reading Ram's unification theory

again for about the 100th time, I think both of us are barking

up the wrong tree. You with photons, and me with neutrinos;

fact is, both of us are worrying about triviality instead of

grasping hold of a solid understanding of forces. I agree

with Ram, there can only be the three forces, not four as is

the perspective I have been working from. That gave me a

problem when I tried to incorporate "universal spin" into the

equation to explain where the four force source originated,

which is contradictory to my idea that everything in the

universe is structured within a hierarchical framework in sets

of four. Now, spin can be proven as the basic source of all

forces without compromise of the four tier structuring. What

is even more common sense like is, we were treating each force

individually, which for all practical purposes is one force

that is already unified from the three forces - what is the

real kicker however - we are considering the forces as forces,

when in essence they are charge states! Gravity charge - EM

charge - Color charge; Pay particular attention to the phrases

by Ram that states,


"The gravitational, electric and colour charges are the most

basic cosmino charges. These are inseparably unified and

integrated with the cosminos. Therefore the three basic forces

and fields are inherently unified. Their propagation velocity

is also the same and equal to the velocity of light."


After some thought on this all day (I received his email last

night), I twisted in three factors - set the fourth factor to

query-respond, and set Omegatron Dynamics to the task of

proving validity. Twenty-seven minutes later the answer is

.137 exact, and I do mean Perfectly Exact! The magic number

that everyone is searching for is 1/137- Ram had known the

answer all along, and has known it for a long time. QM

theorists have came up with it as 1/137.035 - but the .035

part throws everything out of whack, and renders too many QM

equations insensible, or totally absurd, whereas, the pure

1/137 is the Grand Unification Theory in the flesh!


Now, I have either got to get real smart real quickly or find

someone who can modify the Planck constant equation, whereas

it does not include the quirky error it is now so famous for.


Websites where you can read - the Gospel about 137.


http://www.137.com/137/


http://www.scs-intl.com/online/frameload.htm?/online/137.htm


Now we tie in the aether (everyone's plasma) concept with the

number 137.


http://www.energyscience.co.uk/ph/p004.htm


Ivan, do you know what this means, what it truly means? This

is big, no huge, nay it is preponderant, totally magnificently

preponderant!


Ram calls the aether/plasma, the sharmon medium, but it is the

same thing, and I have known for some time it was one of the

keys but didn't know what to do with it. Now, with the early

Michelson-Morely stuff, that of Dayton Miller, mix it with Ram

's ideas, stir in your concepts of interaction, blend in my

ideas of infinite everything and infinite spin, fix Planck's

constant, and we can have a TOE that is so beautifully simple

it will blow the socks, no underwear off the fields of physics

and cosmology leaving them both stark naked!


J___.


------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/6/02 9:40:29 PM, j___ writes:

<< What is even more common sense like is, we were treating each force

individually, which for all practical purposes is one force

that is already unified from the three forces - what is the

real kicker however - we are considering the forces as forces,

when in essence they are charge states! Gravity charge - EM

charge - Color charge; >>


Hi J___, regrettably, I have not yet read Ram's book. I had written a couple of weeks ago to him and his publisher, asking how I can buy the book but, unless it got lost in the daily junk mail, I have not yet received a reply. Anyway, how can I get a copy?

In the above quote, I think that you and Ram are right, the forces are already expressions of each other, as charge states, which greatly simplifies things. I postulated only two forces really, that of gravity and that of electromagnetic energy. The two interplay, through harmonic interrelationships, in such a way that results both mass and a very weak residual gravity, what we experience here on Earth. In its raw form, gravity is immensely powerful, but it is modified by light, either understood as electromagnetic waves or photons, which then modifies this raw gravity into units of mass. The gravitational constant is only a constant within a given star system, but is a variable away from it, and is once again in its most raw form where the light has not ability to modify it, since then the waves flatten out into nothing. I think this happens in a black hole, but can't know for sure. I also do not know if gravity will prove a variable, so this is evidence still pending. However, this in only as far as I've taken it, since I do not know what happens inside the atom, yet. I also subscribe to the KISS principle (keep it simple and stupid), so do not search for more complications then necessary. I know 137 is an important relationship number, same as the gravity constant is an important number because it can be applied to any mass, whether grams, kilograms, ounces, pounds, cubic centimeters, etc,; they all are modified by this constant. When I multiplied the harmonic ratios for hydrogen, taking the harmonics for the electron shells (I had posted this), the result was twice 137, which is puzzling, until you remember that hydrogen atoms travel in pairs. As far as Planck's constant goes, I took it at face value, since I had no reason to modify it. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm always the first to admit that I do not know, then I will have to find some way to understand why this is so. If Planck got it wrong, like Einstein in his post E=mc2 days, and Minkowski in his space-time work, then I would have to find out why. And if the constant is different, so be it. We will simply have to incorporate the different value. What is important is to express E energy as some function of light (electromagnetic) energy and lambda wavelength so that the wavelength can be calculated, even if C is different that we commonly assume it to be, and then come up with a number that is short of one (mass unit), which will result in a remainder that equals the gravity experienced within that star system. The same goes for a galaxy system in toto, so there will be constants that dominate the space regions outside the star system, and which will be different from the regions outside the galaxy system. So the great big void blotches of space, which are not empty since they are filled with residual redshifting light from all directions, and gases and dust particles, that region will be closer to the raw gravity, hence stronger gravity as a constant. Now, this is all well and good as far as the two basic forces are concerned, gravity and light, but it does not necessarily explain the colors, sharmons, cosminos, leptons, muons, etc, since these are what happens inside the atom, as to how the light modifies the otherwise raw gravity it encounters to create mass. Time in this system is extremely simple, and merely a measure of change. Space is likewise not empty, and in fact is full of debris of the universe, including free floating molecules. But there is a tendency within this system to clump together, the work of gravity and electromagnetic field charge, so that some part of space are much more crowded than others. But a pure vacuum, even if it is close to that, is nevertheless filled with energy and gravity, which itself is a kind of medium for energy. And the spin that results from all this energy, as I understand it, is due to the F=G=Mv^2/r equation, so that the more G you have, the more F(centripetal), and thus the more spin velocity v. (This I had also posted). So spin is not the cause but the result, as far as I can tell. But I don't know, really, for sure, none of it, so it is always subject to doubt and further research. I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that BBT is fiction, okay as pulp fiction for the masses, but should not be taken seriously by minds of inquiry who really want to understand how the universe works.

What's at stake? Either we figure it out and use it, which means future propulsion systems will be very different from what we know today, or we remain ignorant and continue to play with matches to make fire: rocket ships, steam engines, simple electric motors, gasoline engines, nuclear reactors, etc. I think we are on the threshold of doing better, but will be held back until we are socially more mature to handle the new energy and understanding of how it affects mass. So we can be patient, because the rest of the universe is patient with us.

Let me know if I can get a copy of Ram's book. I'll be most interested to see how he sees it. Mind you, I am a devotee of no man, and perpetually question the validity of even what I think and believe. So "all ideas are welcome"! But remember... KISS, it's a universal principle.... even the universe likes to take the most direct route.

Thanks friend, we'll talk again soon, but I've got to sign off.

Ivan

Ps: See http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/16/black.hole/index.html , Star in Galactic Hole, Sagittarius
-------------------------------------------------------
16 October, 2002:

Ivan,


Do not be taken in by news releases about black holes. Such

releases are commonplace, and done so for a purpose - to keep

the public snowed about present state of cosmology.

Sagittarius A is not a black hole, and if you look at the

Hubble view of the same area it is evident because: "These

youthful 4-million-year-old stars are too distant and crowded

together to be resolved from ground-based telescopes." The

link that proves the truth follows first - the others reveal

"publication dates" from the link you sent me back to 1998-

the order of the links reflect that, and they move the time

line backward. In the Chandra views, there is no indication

of a black hole; I believe the x-rays, and Hubble, not the

news releases. Study the text of the First Link, and notice -

no mention of a Black Hole.. J___.


http://heritage.stsci.edu/2001/39/table.html


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/our_black_hole_000920.html


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/mw_blackhole_010905.html


http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/hfalcke/bh/sld5.html


http://www.nature.com/nsu/010906/010906-10.html


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29feb_1m.htm


http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2000/blackhole.html


http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/07/black.hole/


http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/learning_center/discover_0200.html


http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~adimond/


http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/cycle1/0204flare/


-------------------------------------------------------
18 October, 2002:

ATOMS TRAP PHOTONS

J____,

Imagine out in space there is a postively/negatively charge point of absolute darkness. How that point originated is still a mystery, just something that is a property of raw space. Now imagine that there are electromagnetic waves traveling to that point. These waves are photons/quantas of light, which are both positive and negative, which at some high frequency become trapped within that point, so that a standing wave is created there, bouncing around that point. Only the negative stays on the outer shell, while the positive is anchored in the nucleus. Now that point has a negative shell around it, which we have come to know as an electron shell, and it continues to vibrate at its high frequency around the raw space of absolute darkness, which is now lit with the energy that has given it mass. This is a "mind's eye" exercise, but it helps one understand what happens inside an atom.

We know that when a photon/quantum of light hits an atom, it generates an electron shell. We know this because when an electron shell gives up energy, when an electron is bumped off, it gives off a photon/quantum of light. We also know that when a photon/quantum of light is absorbed by an atom, it tightens the electron shell around the nucleus. There is a clear interaction within the atom's nucleus, which is a positive force, and electromagnetic wave photons which get captured by this nucleus as an electron, which is a negative force. The result, called mass, is thus an interaction of positive and negative forces. Why is this important?

From a TOE perspective, it is important because it reduces mass to only two forces: electromagnetic photons/waves (light), and the deep force within the atom's nucleus (deep gravity). I might add that we do not know how big or small this nucleus actually is, and it may in fact not have any size at all. At some frequency, according to the rules of harmonics (which itself may be no more than the way numbers work!), the waves are trapped and reverberate within a certain shell around the nucleus. Low frequency light is shown to have a higher shell (farther from the nucleus) than high frequency, which is a tighter shell. The atom's mass does not change, but its electron shells respond to the light wavelength according to harmonic ratios. This is a natural result of how a standing wave works, like any guitar string, or air inside an oboe, where harmonic notes occur. If however all the light is drained from this atom, then it loses all negative charge, and its mass reverts back to what it was before the light entered it: it becomes once again the raw space it was before, a black hole, and super dense with gravity. However, if you bombard raw space once again with light, it springs back into action, and atoms come alive to capture electron shells in harmonic ratios around the nucleus. This is an ungoing process, never ending, since the beginning of time when some original positively/negatively charged space differentiated itself into atomic units. This is how photons/lightwaves modify atomic mass. However, now as then, it is not a perfect cancelation of forces, since the light can only stand within the atom at harmonic shell levels, and thus it leaves a lot of unused space within it. That space left unanswered for is what is left over from the original raw space, and that left over is what results as a very weak force around the atom: Gravity (and some electromagnetic force). In the aggregate of all atomic units in our part of the universe, our galaxy, our star sytem, our planet, it is all reduced to what we experience here as gravity, which is a force constant unique to our region of space.

Why should we care? I suspect that if we do not better understand this process, we will not be able to progress beyond our current science. And that means that we will be stuck on a world where the only propulsion given to us is playing with fire. i.e., rockets, nuclear reactors, gasoline engines, all of which affect mass by chemically propelling it with controlled explosions. The exception is the electric motor, but even there it is only used as an electromagnetic reverse dynamo to run a wheel. To rise above this level, we need to understand how the electromagnetic waves that radiate around us infinitely all the time interact with units of mass. If we do that, then we will know better how to propel future engines with that principle, where the mass propells itself.

To get past fire, we need to better understant how h/cw+g=m is an interactive unit, with a given C for free raw space, h as the interactive constant, w as lambda wavelength of electromagnetic energy modifying the atom, and g as the residual force of gravity contigent on the value of w. I would further venture a guess that in our star system, this process is launched by w=2.2087x10^-42m photon wavelength, which results in our gravity being a force constant of g=5.9x10^-39, as it applies to any mass within our solar system. Whether or not this constant varies in other star systems or out in the depths of space is yet to be discovered. I would further venture to say that the proton in the atoms of our system is created by the 2.2087x10^-42m lambda energy, which may also be the energy needed to squeeze a hydrogen atom's first shell back into the zero shell of the nucleus. And if this is so, then E=mc^2 expresses only that, what energy lambda is needed to collapse the electron back into its nucleus.

In summary, atoms capture light photons to create electron shells and mass; but because they cannot do that for ALL the spaces within the atom, a residue of gravity from the original raw space remains, which is the gravity constant we experience. To better understand how light modifies this raw gravity, we need to better understand how the harmonic electron shells manifest themselves from the interaction between all frequencies of light and the nucleus. Once we can do this, we will be on our way to using gravity as a force. Think of light radiating not as ocean waves, but as electromagnetic shock waves, so that they broadside the atom with their frequency, and you will be able to better understand in your "mind's eye" how the light wave collapses into the space that is trapped by the electron shell.

What thinks thou? Can you "see" it?
--------------------------------

Hi J___, another thought after we talked, that fits neatly into my theory of electromagnetic wave energy being flattened out and losing their "grip", (on being able to modify whatever it is inside the atom into mass), are the red giants, which very likely are stars near the end of their natural lives. If the fission within the star is ending, there will be less light generated there, and as the light fades, the amount of light energy that flattens out at the center of the star is also fading, so that the central region is less active with flattened, or canceled out, light waves. If so, then the strength of the "black hole" inside the star fades with it, having less of an attraction on the mass surrounding it. Hence, as the star fades, the gravity loosens, and the star grows in size, but not in mass. When this fades out to where the central core can no longer hold the star together, it blows apart. The corollary to this is that the star should spin more slowly as it fades, since the gravity within it weakens. I do not know if this actually happens, but it's another piece of evidence worth looking for, if my idea is right. Of course, blue stars should spin the fastest.

I know this is not exactly in tune with your ether theory, but it is evidence worth looking for. Like I said, I keep an open mind and wait for the evidence to come together, like a good detective. In time, the little gray cells will figure it out.

Very nice talking with you today. We'll keep chipping away at it until it makes sense. We'll talk again.

Cheers! Ivan

-------------------------------------------------
20 October, 2002:

Hi Ivan,


You wrote: "We know from past developments on this Forum that

w, to satisfy the E=mc^2 from which this algorithm was

derived, is = approximately 2.2087x10^-42 meters, so that

stretching this lambda into a longer wavelength would yield a

greater value for g, the gravitational constant."
--(see above: Towards New Physics-TOE-/Gravitational Machine?)


That cannot be true for stretching of the wavelength would

alter the frequency of em (lower it) radiation accordingly,

which in fact would theoretically "lower' the value for g as

the wavelength increased. The problem is not addressable in

the manner attempted for two reasons; 1) the frequency of

light is variable dependent upon source; however, light in a

waveform is a single frequency, but when split into the

various spectrums of colors, the frequency also divides

accordingly; 2) the waveform envelope divides into packets,

each of which also functions at its individual frequency. -

that last is easily proven by the two-slit experiment using a

beam splitter.


You wrote: "To be objectively effective, to show that

increased spin is due to increased gravity, the light would

need to be a "cold light", of identical frequency, and coming

from exactly the opposite direction in order to have the

lambda cancel out, which is a difficult experiment not given

to a simple toy."


What you propose is not possible for two reasons; 1) there is

no such thing as "cold light"; 2) the temperature of light has

nothing to do with its effects - fact is, it is the

temperature of the medium that light passes through which

effects light properties, dependent upon i.e., the refractive

index. Temperature is relative in that, each color is

temperature specific; thereby proving the specific frequency

of every color of which, becomes an infinite problem because

the color spectrum is infinite. This also proves number

theory is - very problematic (addressed later in this email).


In the first reference you gave - please note the Abstract

says "vacuum," but in the reference text it is more specific

i.e., - "It has been found that for a focused laser beam

propagating in free-space," the word vacuum is not used.


It has been conclusively proven - light cannot transverse a

vacuum, neither will light permeate a vacuum, nor can light

pass through a vacuum. Necessarily a true vacuum cannot

possess - temperature - in other words, the temperature within

a true vacuum would be 0 degrees Kelvin, or absolute zero

where atoms freeze and the electrons no longer orbit. For such

a state to exist demands that no matter is present.

Bose-Einstein condensate forms at .000000006 degrees Kelvin,

and if a temperature reaches that point, light thence slows to

17 meters per second. When the temperature nears 0 degrees

Kelvin (about .000000002 degrees) - light stops. It is not

possible to achieve 0 degrees Kelvin, but light ceases

momentum before 0 degrees is reached. Follows are the links

to the two files attached in PDF Format, which verify

experiments noted.


I renamed them as Light-slowed.pdf -and- Light-stopped.pdf


http://www.rowland.org/atomcool/lightspeed.pdf


http://www.rowland.org/atomcool/stoppedlight.pdf


In quantum tunneling experiments light is believed to have

traveled at c x 310, which is in my perspective preponderantly

huge, but tends to validate my theory of the universe

revolving at hyper-speed, which I should start notating as -

Superluminal speed, which then does not demand that I apply

any physical numbers to the actual speed of which I honestly

believe the universe is rotating.


Attached is a number proof concerning Real Numbers (Reals), of

which I have spent some effort to resolve. I now understand

numbers somewhat better than before, but I cannot trust them

for anything but basic calculations after what I discovered,

which should turn the world of physics upside down, and then

twist it inside out! I have © Copyrighted the proof, but have

yet to formalize it for publication. What the proof validates

is the fact that the numbers 1.0 and -1.0 and 6.0 and -6.0 are

the only four Whole Real numbers, which are absolutely

perfect. To clarify there are only four true numbers that are

Whole Reals, which are 1 and -1 then 6 and -6. Cantor and

cohorts were wrong! Title is - Proof - Real Numbers.


Attached is another proof that is formal and ready to publish.

It is titled, Dimensions in the Universe - 3D or 4D - With it,

I am going to destroy Relativity, Special Relativity, String

Theory, and Symmetry Theory, all in one fell swoop. I have

run the numbers, and proved them using Omegatron Dynamics -

Fact is fact, and no speculation in this one!


Last is another proof, and one that you will have a problem

with. It denies those what is called Singularity, and Black

Holes are possible, and prove they cannot occur in Nature. Few

people today ever learn about the Pauli Exclusion-Principle,

and it is a Principle that the institutionalized establishment

wishes were not true, but it is - for it proves with no doubt

that atoms with more than a single electron cannot possibly be

compressed to the extent, that every electron in an atom will

obtain the same quantum number state, a requisite for Black

Holes and Singularity. This one is solid as perfectly cured

concrete- its titled, Proof - Black Holes and Singularity


The basics are where all solutions will inevitably be found,

for they will not be found in the refinements of physics

theory, or quantum mechanics. Physics and QM are ok for a

research experiment, but there are simply too many formulas

out there to compile into a sensible and coherent Theory of

Everything; moreover, too many of those formulas are

worthless-


J___.


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


While taking pictures of a couple of galaxies this morning, I

did some searching on M87, which most people believe contains

a black hole in its core - What I found is rather interesting

because a few of us that observe M87 on a regular basis have

begun to believe that at the core is a preponderantly

monsterous Quasar Star, and with some other evidence think M87

is in fact a Star, not a galaxy. Anyway, the link gives some

info that blows away black hole theory - Also, the jets

involved propogate at more than six x light-speed! ~ ~

Relatity!


Two links - first one the one I just found -


http://starbulletin.com/2001/10/30/news/story7.html


Second one - from where my first info that M87 could be a

star - not a galaxy.


http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/news/M87.html


J___.
------------------------------------------------
21 October, 2002: Critique and Explanation.

Hi Ivan,


1.. Vacuum in space is an absence of molecules but not

empty. It is a gravity field filled with energy.

Space consists of free atoms, combined atoms, separate

particles but it also has a base of some type of medium, which

for the moment I am content to use the word aether until after

we have a chance to study Sharma's work. I once thought we

could simply use the word plasma; however, I do not think that

plasma is correct. There are huge clouds of free gas, mostly

hydrogen, which we cannot see without using radio telescopes,

or some type of sensing device. The one thing we do not have

is evidence that gravity has much strength in the gaseous

clouds; hence, I agree free space is ripe with energy, but

disagree gravity is more than a trivial factor other than what

is conventional, which matches with multitudes of

observations.


2.. Rewriting Einstein's E=mc2 yields h/wc=m, in which g is

missing, so the real formula is h/cw+g=m=1 (where 1 is the produce of

infinite inverses).

If the universe is infinite, that demands that only finite

potential is possible, which then denies infinite inversions-

singularities, and infinite regress can occur. This also

deals with the law of causality, and the Pauli

Exclusion-Principle.


4. Space vacuum is full of light, so g is moderate. In the

absence of w and c, g becomes maximum gravity.


Space is not full of light. The vast majority of space is

free of light, which has been verified by radio telescope,

HST, and any good large refracting telescope, even those used

by amateurs.


5.. Increased g equals increased spin.

That is not necessarily true.


a. Universe and atom are structured on a principle of

harmonics.


I disagree with a. - for the atom exhibits no harmonic

whatsoever - I think it can be safe to assume waves are based

on harmonics.


b. Evidence of some supergravity force that holds together

galaxies, what I call a "gravity hole", and is most commonly called "black

hole".


Why does it have to be a black hole? Why not a Neutron Star,

or a type of star that we have yet to identify and name? So

far, all of the black hole candidates exhibit tendencies

identical to that of neutron stars; moreover, going on

intuition and experience, my bet is such strong gravity fields

are generated by a specific type of quasar, of which exist

both as free stars, and as a part of galaxies.


3.. Gravity is a variable on planets, especially as it

relates to the light/dark sides of planets.

Gravity is a variable of planets, but it is strictly based on

density and not spin. Asteroids have gravity - many asteroids

are devoid of spin..


4.. Distant space probes are slowing down as they approach

edge of solar system.

That could be for many reasons not just an effect of gravity

e.g. density of space itself, which would be a friction

coefficient problem. It could be caused by solar winds, and

or galactic winds and even the very problem that Einstein

rejected - aether drift. There are too many variables to pin

the slowdown on gravity alone-


5.. Gravity slows down light. The result is a redshifting

over great distances, which has nothing to do with the expanding

universe syndrome.

I cannot validate the fact that gravity can cause light to

slow or decelerate. I can verify that light slows as the mean

temperature cools below 2.7 degrees Kelvin, but otherwise I

don't know of a method to test the premise. The coldest known

measured temperature in space is the 2.73 degrees Kelvin of

the Background Radiation.


6.. Gravity is everywhere.

To some extent that is true, but measurable gravity is

insignificant in the huge gas clouds in space, which again

tends to validate the fact that gravity is dependent on

density -


You wrote: "I should note that I understand readily how spin

is increased by gravity, but I fail to understand why you

think spin also causes gravity. This is an interesting puzzle

for me, since I think you are right, and I don't know why."


I worried with that one for nearly fifteen years, and the

answer is so simple it is totally mind bogging. The center or

core of all universal orbs or spheres necessarily is a single

element, and it cannot be a mixture of elements.


The key that unlocked the mystery of gravity was centripetal

force; however, a force will only impart or control motion.

What I discovered is - two forces can create a force field,

which is also dependent upon mass. I could not prove a fact

by using calculus; hence, the attempt to solve the riddle of

math so I could explain the methods that prove fact, which

caused me to work on the odd Real math problem because

calculus failed every time! I solved the problem of gravity

with Omegatron Dynamics, but had to go the long route by

overcoming bad number theory - the theory of Reals; thus, you

have that proof in hand. Computer is still verifying it; but

I know it is correct as formulated.


The one weird part to all of this is- gravitational theory

could possibly end up being only a curiosity..


J___.


------------------------------------------------
21 October, 2002:

In a message dated 10/21/02 10:46:46 PM, j___ writes:

<< If the universe is infinite, that demands that only finite

potential is possible, which then denies infinite inversions-

singularities, and infinite regress can occur. >>

Hi J___, in the above, you neglect to consider the inverse law of infinity, that all potentials of a macro nature are offset by their micro nature. So that an infinite force is also a singularity at the same time. This is another example of numbers tending towards infinity being offset by their inverse numbers tending towards zero. Or, as I had shown in the past, my algorithm is no more than merging Einstein's formula relating mass and energy and the "zero time infinity equals one" concept. This was how I arrived at h/cw=m. But what was missing from that equation was the gravity component, so I added g, which then became a function of the amount of electromagnetic energy modifying mass. There is a hierarchy here that may make sense to you:

1. Gravity: a universal force that is everywhere throughout infinity.

2. Energy: light and all electromagnetic spectra which is everywhere throughout infinity.

3. Gravitation constant: a modified version of pure universal gravity, as it is modified by energy.

4. Spin: a universal motion everywhere throughout infinity, also contingent on G force.

Now, what intrigues me at the moment is the possibility that this hierarchy can be reversed. If this is possible, that Spin can cause Gravity, then applying energy would change the gravitation constant, which would influence how gravities interact. What this means is that if the energy is high enough, the gravity of an object (space ship) could lighten versus the gravity within which it is found. In effect, it would float within the medium of denser gravity. The converse is that if the energy is low enough, the gravity could be enhanced, which would be useful to create a gravity environment in deep space travel.

There is something else that you should consider. If you were to go into any part of the universe, even billions of light years away, what would you see? Light! You would always see some light coming from distant stars and galaxies. So this energy is everywhere all the time. And so are all the other invisible spectra of electromagnetic energy. No matter where would go, you would never be free of this energy. In theory, if space were curved as believed in today's physics, then there should be pockets of space where no light reaches it, and there you would have total darkness. By my theory, you would also have total gravity. But that does not happen, except in one important case, where the light waves come together in such a way that they cancel each other out. And that, my friend, is what happens at the center of a galaxy (remember the water bowl experiment?), what I call a gravity hole. Yet, even there it is not total. In theory, there might have been a time when it was total, but that would have been a singularity before the birth of the universe. And since neither you nor I believe in the Big Bang, this total gravity never actually existed. Energy had been a component of the universe from the very beginning, in effect, forever.

So we have two competing ideas, gravity as a constant force and a function of spin; or gravity as an a priori fundamental state of the universe, not a force but the medium of space itself, and only in its energy modified form does it behave as the gravity we know.

Now, back to the reverse order of the hierarchy:

How can spin be made to generate an approximate force of gravity? I think the force experienced in gyroscope spin is one such example, since it is really quite strong. The standard understanding is that the vector force gets transferred to the precessional force. But that is only a plausible parallel to what is actually happening. Think of every atom in the wheel of the gyro as a unit of gravity/energy mass, so that as it is being forced from its linear kinetic motion into a vector motion, the gravity/energy ratios are being affected, in effect exciting the atoms into putting out another force, which is the precessional force we get. In this way, spin creates gravity, in a manner of speaking, though the gravity is always there but only modified by the spin into becoming a force.

So the trick, then, is to find a way to "float" within the gravity medium. On a planet, within a star system, or even within the galaxy, all the gravity forces are modified by energy into the constants of wherever you happen to be. On Earth, it will be experienced directly because of the close proximity to the planet, but it is still felt miles above the planet, even on the moon. But if you can lighten this gravity further, using some hypothetical spin/energy combination, then you have a force that is as great as that experienced in a gyro precession, and one that could be usable in future forms of propulsion. I think this is a doable and exciting future prospect for our physics. But physics as it stands now cannot even dream of this. It has to be totally rewritten as an "energy/gravity mass" physics. As I have demonstrated in my past posts, this is a very simple physics to understand, much more so than the mess the modern physicists had created. All we need is more evidence that this is so.

The search goes on!

Ivan

------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/20/02 11:28:21 PM, j___ writes:

<< That cannot be true for stretching of the wavelength would

alter the frequency of em (lower it) radiation accordingly,

which in fact would theoretically "lower' the value for g as

the wavelength increased. >>

Hi J___, it may be that I expressed it wrongly. What I was trying to say is that head on waves, when they come together, modulate each other in amplitude so they appear to lose their normal frequency, so that the crest and through of the wave cancel out, and thus lose their power to do whatever it is EM waves do to the vacuum cum gravity space.

You should understand that I am examining an idea from different angles, using reason and observation, deductive and inductive, to see if there is any validity to the following basic premises:

1. Vacuum in space is an absence of molecules but not empty. It is a gravity field filled with energy.
2. Rewriting Einstein's E=mc2 yields h/wc=m, in which g is missing, so the real formula is h/cw+g=m=1 (where 1 is the produce of infinite inverses).
3. G as a measurable constant is a function of w and c.
4. Space vacuum is full of light, so g is moderate. In the absence of w and c, g becomes maximum gravity.
5. Increased g equals increased spin.
6. All of the above are in evidence daily, but we have given them plausible parallel interpretations so that we are missing the obvious.
7. When the obvious is understood, all current theories of gravity and space will become null and void.

So this is the foundation upon which I am searching for evidence. I cannot yet present my case with any clarity or conviction because I still do not have the evidence needed. Hence, I am searching for clues. And in that search, I expect to find many dead ends, so through a process of elimination, I can get a better focus on what it is I am searching. So far, I have uncovered the following clues:

a. Universe and atom are structured on a principle of harmonics.
b. Evidence of some supergravity force that holds together galaxies, what I call a "gravity hole", and is most commonly called "black hole".
c. Gravity is a variable on planets, especially as it relates to the light/dark sides of planets. ( see Gravity Anomalies by Byers: http://pw1.netcom/~sbyers11/grav11d.htm )
d. Distant space probes are slowing down as they approach edge of solar system.
e. Gravity slows down light. The result is a redshifting over great distances, which has nothing to do with the expanding universe syndrome.
f. Gravity is everywhere.
g. My theories are consistent within their context, and I think this is very important.

Conclusions I have drawn from this deductive/inductive reasoning thus far:

Z. Gravity is the basic stuff of everything. It is what space is made of, what atoms are made of, and it is instantaneous throughout infinity.
Y. This basic force of gravity is modified by electromagnetic waves of energy so that it is weakened around star systems, moderate out in space, and strongest where energy fails, such as where it cancels out at the center of energy systems, most notably at the axis of galactic spirals.
X. Gravity may be cancelled out at the center of any hot body such as geologically active planets and stars, which means the "blind" seismic center of the Earth is a tiny gravity hole.
W. Because of the increased spin factor resulting from increased gravity, the center of hot planets and stars are more actively churned then their cooler exteriors, same as stars closest to the galactic center are more actively revolved around the central axis than out on the galaxy arms.
V. The Earth's mass is overestimated because of the central gravity core, and is in fact made up of silicates all the way down rather than having a metal core. There is no magentic dynamo either. Earth's magnetic field is a byproduct of its atomic mass.
Still needed:
U. ?? What other evidence can we find in the natural worlds of this energy vs. gravity interaction??
T. ?? Can we duplicate this process artificially??

All of these conclusions are contingent upon how I understand this gravity force, which I think is the primordial force of the universe, is modified by energy. What we know of our planet's geologically hot core is based on atomic decay and convection of molten interior. What may in fact be happening instead is that the molten interior is being activated by increase spin of supergravity at the planet's core, which then puts both the planet and its hot interior into a spin. Continental drift is then a mild effect of the violent spin experienced at the planet's center. This would also explain why they sun's equatorial region spins faster than at the poles. Of course, all this is contingent again on finding sufficient evidence that proves my theory right. If so, then we are on our way to a new physics.

I should note that I understand readily how spin is increased by gravity, but I fail to understand why you think spin causes gravity. This is an interesting puzzle for me, since I think you are right, and I don't know why. The solar system's planetary giants may offer a clue.

Well, my friend, there it is in simple terms, of what my "outside the box" thinking has yielded thus far. I am convinced that current understanding of gravity and physics is totally wrong. Relativity is pure fiction. I just wish I had the tools and experiments at hand with which to prove this to be so. However, I am under no illusion that such proof would be accepted readily, and like you, and Copernicus, I would prefer to publish my final proofs posthumously, or suffer the wrath of today's equivalent of the Church, the established world of Modern Physics.

Always fun to chat. Please feel free to always share your ideas, since mine are truly open ended without prejudice. I am only a student of what is.

Ivan
---------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/21/02 10:46:46 PM, j___ writes:

<< 6.. Gravity is everywhere.

To some extent that is true, but measurable gravity is

insignificant in the huge gas clouds in space, which again

tends to validate the fact that gravity is dependent on

density - >>

J___, this one is most true, that gravity is dependent on density. Masses of gas clouds in deep space will exhibit gravitational pull, as they should, though their massing together is so dilluted that the pull will be slight. However, in my theory, this pull will be greater far out and away from a light source, which is why the gases gather together in the first place. These same clouds would disperse upon reaching a more active energy region, so that they would not longer hold together.

You have to see what it is that I think I understand to make any sense of this: Gravity exists everywhere as a very strong force affecting whatever mass goes through it, so that though the mass remains the same, the gravitational pull is different, which becomes evidenced also as greater spin. If the gravity we experience on Earth is the left over g from the h/cw(+g)=m interaction, (remember we are very far from smashing atoms in these ideas!), then we are getting only a very small dose of the real thing. Gravity as an unmodified force is immense! Density as we know it is only the cumulative effect of all those little g's radiating out from the zillions of atoms that had come together. In theory, that coming together may be enhanced by the heat energy inside the planet which goes to zero wave at the central core, so that a very small mini-gravity hole is present there. But that is only to throwoff our computations on the mass of the planet. Why do you think physicists have to assume the Earth's core is iron-nickel? It is because if it were pure silicate it should have less mass than it does. The fact that seismic waves disappear at the core really throws them off on this, since they cannot imagine the gravity hole at the planet's center with their current physics. To make all this work together, it has to be seen the way my mind sees it. And that is a whole new physics!

Well, that's all I can think of for now, since I got a headache thinking of all this. Let me tell you, it is not easy thinking outside of the conventional box, and takes some very headstrong effort to do so. Still I appreciate all your questions or rebuttals to my ideas. It's okay. This is how we dig deeper.

I'll read your other email now.

Take care, Ivan

--------------------------------------------------------
October 22, 2002:

Hi Ivan,


I just found the paper attached. It proves an experiment 1979

in fact proved the Michelson-Morely experiments as valid!

Moreover, it also proved the Lorentz prediction (entrained

aether theory) of 17Hz frequency shift.


Link to the paper -

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/special-relativity-invalid2.htm


Home page of the author -

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/index.htm


I did not go through the entire site yet, but some of it looks

interesting.


J___.

-----------------------------------------------------
23 October, 2002: Differences:

Hi Ivan,


You wrote: "Take away the light, and you're back at the

beginning before this whole wonderful thing began."


That is the thrust of the entire project began so long ago I

really don't remember when accumulation of data began, and

when I began to correlate and classify it. My point is, the

universe and all things within it - do not have an origination

point. If the universe and all atoms in it have an

origination point, then I have wasted the better part of my

life chasing rainbows.


The first possible law is the law of conservation - the first

law of thermodynamics. If that law holds, and I honestly

believe it will and does, the universe always existed, just

because the first law of thermodynamics mandates that to be

true.


You wrote: "This does not negate that em forces exist

traveling through space in all directions, merely that when

they are stopped as a standing wave around a nucleus, they

become the atom. Once it is made, it continues indefinitely,

unless the energy source ceases, then..."


The statements made above will not withstand inquiry. An

atom - cannot be made or destroyed - Conservation of mass has

been so extensively verified, it is believed as is; moreover,

Conservation of mass has withstood more than ten million

observations as tested. If there is a holy grail of physics,

the first two laws of thermodynamics are the only candidates..


I understand spin characteristics implicitly, and fluid

dynamics perhaps even more so; I also understand calculus and

geometry, the later well enough to realize Riemann type is

terribly flawed and cannot be reconciled with specific proven

valid mechanical function, which is what we are working with

concerning spin.


You wrote: "Because the mass wants to collapse back into

itself once again, but it doesn't. In the center of the

galaxy, the spin is great enough to dissolve atoms back into

what they were before em got to them. So, everything goes

back to the beginning again, even light."


Questions: 1) How is light possible without atoms? 2) What was

the beginning?; 3) How is em possible without atoms? 4) Where

does everything go back to? 5) How can it even be

theoretically possible to dissolve an atom? 6) What were atoms

before they become atoms?


Do you see the contradictions?


I believed we were close to being able to merge our ideas, but

with your last email, that is not the case for we are much

further apart than I realized.


I don't think you are going to agree much with Ram's theory

since what I do know about it, much of it is very similar to

what I have discovered over the years, and only a couple of

differences that can probably be resolved with discourse, and

an exchange of info. I will let you know when I receive the

books, and yours is on its way.


J___.

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


The attachment in Microsoft Word is the same as the text of

this email that follows the ------- done so you can do

whatever easier.... J___.


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


Gravity is present in every particle, but absent from every

wave ... which is why I must have Ram's theory in hand before

I can (will) continue work on gravity. I am not sure that Ram

's theory and my conceptualization are near enough to merge,

but from what I have found so far they are near identical as

conceptualized. So far as light is concerned, I am trying to

locate someone that can help me solve the Planck's constant

problem, which is very troublesome in that, every time I try

to use it, calculations are not reliable enough for me to test

with Omegatron Dynamics. I do know one thing; Reimann's

geometry is seriously flawed.


You wrote: "in the above, you neglect to consider the inverse

law of infinity,

that all potentials of a macro nature are offset by their

micro nature. So that an infinite force is also a singularity

at the same time."


In the universe laws do not exist - the laws we are using are

abstracted not actual, which is the fallacy of abstracted

conceptual rationalization. Theory must fit actuality, for it

to become a law, and we have no guarantee whatsoever the laws

of physics will hold when applied to the universe. Numbers

cease functioning when any infinite entity is the issue of

concern; moreover, many number "laws" are arbitrarily

established. That is why that I spent almost 200 hours

compiling the proof concerning Reals (the numbers are still

being crunched). Inverse is not possible in reality - for

reality is unidirectional, and there is no escape from that

problem, even hypothetically. Which brings us to the problems

we face by attempting to challenge existing science,

especially cosmology. Existing cosmology attempts to "make"

reality fit the theory, which was Einstein's mistake. Nature

will not bend to our intellectual ability - instead, we must

try to think as Nature is, which is pure perfect analog.


What I mean by light - is precisely how we perceive light

here. In some places obviously there might not be an intense

light source such as our sun where we observe several hours of

duration of light each day. In many places in the universe

that is not possible, but what we can observe as night - will

be observable everywhere in the universe.


Of your four examples, I must first prove gravity can be

modified by energy, but I cannot see how that is potentially

possible, which leads me to make the following arguments. .


Spin of the universe has compressed the universe to infinite

density i.e., meaning, that if I am correct, Gravity cannot be

altered or messed with because it is already infinite, which

means Gravity itself is the only singularity possible.

Infinite density means = the density of the hydrogen atom is

the least dense of all matter (excepting the aether), to the

densest of all atoms as known and/or theoretically anticipated

as contained in the periodic table of the elements. Best

periodic table I have used,

http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/


Of all the supposed constants in use today, Gravity is unique

in that, I rely on it as being the one that is reflected in

reality as experienced. Remember, a wave is a perturbation of

the medium it is passing through - remove the medium, and a

wave cannot exist, neither can a wave be propagated in the

absence of a medium for it to pass through; therefore, it is

not conceivably possible that gravity is a wave function,

which explains the difference between em force, and gravity.

EM and magnetic force will have distinct field lines, but

gravity has no such lines. This is the one area that from

reading the little I have of Ram's theory of which, I am sure

we will have problems in ironing out differences - probably in

the same manner as we are trying to do now. As I sit here

trying to blend our thoughts in conceptualization, I continue

to hit the brick wall because of one fact - I think gravity is

already in an infinite state - but you do not. You think

somehow gravity can be changed or manipulated, while I do not.


So, this is where I stand on forces- after I gave up on strong

and weak forces-


Centripetal - the granddaddy force, it is the basic or

fundamental universal force


Electromagnetic - can be generated


Gravity - cannot be generated


Color - is the force that controls atomic activity within

atoms


I look at forces this way-


Centripetal force continues motion to all objects within the

universe-


Electromagnetic forces do all the work-


Color forces control subatomic particle orbital activity

within atoms-


Gravity controls orbital activity of objects in the universe-


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


Discussion of your last email-


Now, I think we can move a bit closer! Ok- I don't quite buy

into the single concept for aether, gravity, and space for too

many reasons to enumerate; however, the dispersion of matter

in space is not homogenous. I can prove without a doubt, that

Aether like stuff is real (stuff- for want of a better word),

it exists, and the universe will not exist without it.


I have studied the Magellanic Clouds for years, and in recent

studies have moved on to the Great Wall and other huge

structures in the universe that there seems to be more of than

ever anticipated. Those types of giant clouds do not suggest

or act as if gravity is much of a factor, which will not be

unlikely because the density is so small; hence, the studies

of Dayton Miller are acutely important from my perspective.

Aether-drift, is a necessity, and I do mean - an absolute pure

necessity; otherwise, "spin" would not be a possibility, which

is a pure necessity for large objects that are maintained in

an orbit. It therefore is imperative that something

"perpetuates," and maintains spin characteristics for every

objects that is dependent on sustained maintained orbits. The

something that perpetuates and maintains the orbital

characteristics of all celestial objects is the Aether.


Necessarily the Aether is a kinetic gas, but with a mean free

path (MFP) less than that of Hydrogen, the lightest of all

known (identified and or anticipated) elements. The MFP of

Hydrogen is 1.12x 10^5cm; thus, the MFP of the Aether is less

or ~10^5 cm, whereas ~ equals whatever the actual number

figures out to be (I am not smart enough to prove that sucker

either!). I know on the notion of what the Aether is Ram and

me do agree because he has already named it the "Sharmon

Medium."


So, our only difference now is - manipulation of gravity.


You opened the door to your thoughts when you wrote - "In my

system, gravity is space is the medium."


Every particle has mass - a given.


All mass exhibits gravity - a given


Gravity exhibits no field lines - a given


Gravity is without a pole - a given


Conclusion: With those four postulates as written - it is not

conceivable that gravity can be manipulated, for its

properties are integral with, and congruent to mass of every

type. Now me think, you can go about the huge problem of

Interstellar travel, and propulsion systems required. Yup,

you shall find the answers in em research, not gravity.

Think - ions . and the ionization potential of force fields

for they are not difficult to modify.


Ok- your turn to figure some method to alter the properties of

mass to coincide with the notion gravity can be manipulated.

Don't forget the Pauli Exclusion Principle..


Yes, we now have enough provable facts to write the TOE - and

do it without any damn formulas! I hate-em although they are

handy, they are not altogether necessary!!!!!!!


J___.
-----------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 10/22/02 11:53:08 PM, j___ writes:

<< Infinite density means = the density of the hydrogen atom is

the least dense of all matter (excepting the aether), >>

My, my J___, I agree with you that hydrogen is the least dense, but I think aether is more dense. But then I would not put aether into the "matter" category. For me, matter is a very specific thing, where Gravity (not the force we experience but the superforce in its unmodified form which is at the atom's central nucleus) and energy (light and all the em spectra) interact. A unit of matter exists there, and putting these units together makes up the periodic table of the elements, and aggregated into large mass gives us the stuff the physical realm is made of. This does not negate that em forces exist traveling through space in all directions, merely that when they are stopped as a standing wave around a nucleus, they become the atom. Once it is made, it continues indefinitely, unless the energy source ceases, then... well lots of things happen, neutron stars after going nova, matter and gases blown off into space, organic molecules which will be the future building blocks of life, metals, oxygen, water, etc. Then you have the material to start building life and consciousness. The universe is a wonderful living thing. It all started with the light and dark, energy and space aether, all interacting to create mass. Take away the light, and you're back at the beginning before this whole wonderful thing began.

About Planck's constant, I don't know how good it is. I am assuming it was derived from observation but cannot vouch for it. In reading Jerry E. Bayles' work, http://www.electrogravity.com , he somewhere mentions how it was derived, but I don't recall in which paper. Unfortunately, he has some good ideas but tries desperately to work them into modern physics and gets lost, I think. I suspect that the new physics will have to start pretty much from scratch and create a whole new mathematical language, where there will not be a confusion of joules, kgs, Hzs, farads, newtons, meters per second, etc. I think the whole business can be expressed in m/s, kgs, and lambda, with the positive negative charges of electromagnetic energy reduced to plus or minus lambda. However, we are still far from doing that. First we have to collect more observational data.

In thinking about spin, I realized that each atom in a spinning body revolves once with each revolution. Think of putting a happy face on the side of an atom and watch that face as the body revolves, and you'll realize the happy face makes a complete revolution with each revolution of spin. This means that whatever force is in that atom is activated somehow by that spin and released into the spinning body, so that it becomes a kinetic energy. I remember playing with spinning tops when a kid, the kind that have a rubber tip you rub against a surface to get the top spinning inside a plastic shell. These tops were equipped with a little stem on the axis you could stick into another top, so you can have two tops together back to back. When you spin these two tops so their spin is in the same direction, all the gyro forces are at work. But if you spin one one way, and the other in the opposite spin, and they are joined on the axis, all gyro motion disappears, so you could move it any way you wish without feeling any force. This means that the force of each gyro is transferred into the axis of spin and cancelled out. What a simple illustration, but what a significant one. Each little atom transfers its spinning energy to the spinning mass, and either gives the mass gyro properties or cancels out if the other mass is spinning in the opposite direction. Pretty cool.

Yes, gravity cannot be generated. It merely is. All that happens with energy is that gravity is modified into become very weak, such as in our solar system, or very strong again, such as the galaxy center, but it is not a force to be generated. In deep space it exists as a latent force which will affect matter in its region only because the energy there is less than here, and thus the residual gravity for each atom will be greater than here. There's nothing to it, since em does all the work, as you say, and gravity merely is the basic substance of the aether. The only way you would experience this basic substance is by how light goes through it, redshifting over great distances, or by increased spin in the environment absent energy. Why increased spin? Because the mass wants to collapse back into itself once again, but it doesn't. In the center of the galaxy, the spin is great enough to dissolve atoms back into what they were before em got to them. So, everything goes back to the beginning again, even light.

I'm not sure that I understand how the color forces work. So I leave them aside for now. Same thing for "momentum" related measures of mass for electrons, neutrinos, etc., since some of this may be only a result of how we measure these things. Momentum exists in the macro world, but may be a mental fabrication in the micro world. Don't quote me on this, since I really still do not understand it.

Let's see if Dr. Sharma, and his Sharmons can cast light on all this. I think we are in agreement that today's physics have so muddied the waters that it is difficult to work with. I suspect the universe is a very simple place, and only in its composition as an aggregate of all that is does the complexity become as large as it is infinite. And then it reduces once again to a great simplicity, Life. I like to think that we can eventually see it all in its incredible simplicity and express the whole business in some simple universal dimensionless constant. Anyway, that is my goal.

RE: "Every particle has mass - a given.


All mass exhibits gravity - a given


Gravity exhibits no field lines - a given


Gravity is without a pole - a given


"Conclusion: With those four postulates as written - it is not

conceivable that gravity can be manipulated, for its

properties are integral with, and congruent to mass of every

type."

Of course we cannot manipulate gravity in the same way we manipulate em forces. But we can manipulate whether gravity is strong or weak, meaning it is in its raw or modified form. When em energy gets captured by an atom, like the strong and weak force that cancel out, gravity is cancelled out and all that remains is the very slight residual amount that we experience as G. Put a lot of these atoms together, and the G will likewise increase in proportion to the mass. That is not the same as manipulating G, only that if the em energy is intensified or negated, G will become different within each atom. In the total mass, that G will show up as different also. Now, this is the important part: Light G floats in heavy G. This is the only way we will "sail" through the universe, on the light waves created by a light G within the gravity aether that is a heavier G. If you imagine the gyro force as being something like the force that this heavy and light G differential creates, then you can imagine how powerful this force will be when we are able to use it. Not manipulated, but sailed, is probably a better way to understand it. It just so happens that the differentials between the light and dark G is immense and extremely powerful, so that mass can be propelled by it at tremendous velocities, possibly as fast as light.

Well, I don't know what happened to my webmaster, must be off again. But he assured me that we will have Humancafe back up soon. And yes indeed, we have some material to add to it now! Always fun to chat. But remember, I really know that I don't know anything, until it is proven with factual observation.

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

-----------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/23/02 8:33:31 PM, j___ writes:

<< Questions: 1) How is light possible without atoms? 2) What was

the beginning?; 3) How is em possible without atoms? 4) Where

does everything go back to? 5) How can it even be

theoretically possible to dissolve an atom? 6) What were atoms

before they become atoms?>>

Hello again, I am most interested in seeing Ram's work, so look forward to getting his book. Yes, we are far apart, but that's okay. It is still too early to agree on these things. I see what I see, so persist in following my rainbow, same as you follow yours. Remember, there are parallels in the universe, so that ideas can make sense even if they don't agree. I call them "plausible parallels". This means that all the work done to date is not to be discarded, but only bracketed by newer ideas, once these are proven right. The old ideas will no doubt have something of value in them that we could use later, but for now, they are too muddled to be very useful. Sure, E=mc2 gave us the atom bomb, where matter is converted into energy. Okay, that's fine, but it fails in understanding gravity, for example. It also fails to show how energy makes mass. This is where my focus has come in, to show where energy makes mass. You bring up a valid point, that you cannot have energy without atoms. This is very true, as we now understand it, that the energy given off by a star is atomic energy. But where did this atomic energy come from originally? A question to which I do not have an answer. Only a guess, but the first energy came from plasma. At some point in the early universe (not BBT) the universe had an abundance of plasma which then began to coagulate into atoms, all the atoms we see today. Remember that my philosophical point of view sees each atom as the center of infinity, so that from an infinity of plasma were born patterns that gradually selected atomic units. If the infinite universe is an interrelated totality, then this makes sense, and interrelationship is an operative concept in all my thinking, that the whole defines every one of its parts in terms of the whole. (See Habeas Mentem... when it's back on line). Now, where did this plasma come from? Where did the infinite space medium come from? God? That's always an easy one. Or from a former universe? That smells like BBT. Or zillions of years ago, preceeded by zillions of years before that, the plasma had always been and always will be... maybe? I don't know. But I do know that the universe exists, that it is interrelated, that energy and gravity and atoms and spin and stars and galaxies and life and consciousness exist. So I must take it from there and see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. I do not think smashing atoms into 4 or 8 or 16 colors will yield the answers we desire, though in the same breath I do not think we should ignore these discoveries. Someday, they too will prove useful in the way the square root of negative numbers became imaginary numbers, not used for a long time, until it was realized that electricity can be explained with them. So, the search goes on. I read everything, consider and ponder, sometimes even the impoderable, and from it all try to structure something that will explain a lot, and maybe even be useful. I like Bayles's work because he is not afraid to venture where no one has gone before. Will we in the future use light energy for space travel? I suspect so.

In essence, there are so many holes in today's theories that there is room for opportunity to find what is the truth. If the truth were known, then I would be happy to go for my doctorate in physics and spend my days perfecting our knowledge, as a doctor of philosophy should do. However, if I mastered all our knowledge today, I would become a basket case, and instead perfecting my hourly sessions with a shrink. To master today's physics is similar to having mastered Ptolomeic astronomy, with the Earth at the center of the universe. It was done! But it was all wrong. I think Modern Physics is too Ptolomeic for my taste. So the thinking goes on. And it's still a wide open field, even if our ideas do not match. But they may be plausible parallels of what is the truth. At least, I hope so.

Talk later, Ivan

-----------------------------------------------
END

BREAKWATER AND THE BBT PARADOX

While I was walking the dogs in a little secluded cove (off Cliff St., Laguna Beach), I watched the waves hit a small concrete breakwater as the dogs swam in the small pool created behind it. The waves came in from the Pacific with some force, then hit a narrow channel which directed them into the breakwater where they hit almost dead on. I watched these waves coming in for a time when I realized that indeed waves do flatten when they bounce back upon themselves. There is a brief moment when all looks still and flat, and then the returning wave goes back out to sea. Interesting observation, because it physically confirms what I think happens when light hits a material object. When this is in a vacuum, without interference from an abundance of gaseous atomic mass particles, then the same happens, that on the surface of the object waves of light briefly cancel themselves out. According to the algorithm of my TOE, as in "Atomus Summus", this brief moment of cancelled waves creates a moment of max gravity force. This is where the deep supergravity of space once again reasserts itself, since at that moment of flat waves, the modifying effect of light lambda is cancelled. This of course is what happens inside a toy radiometer, where the white surface of the spinning blades are the breakwater, and the black surface absorbs the light much as does the sand on the beach. The micro-blackhole effect on the white surface causes a micro-gravity, which makes the blade spin in that direction. I saw it in action at the breakwater.

I should note that if the accepted physics theory that space background radiation has a frequency of 3.5e^10 Hz, then the lambda wavelength for this background radiation is only 8.5e^-3 meters (as opposed to 2.2e^-42m for our solar region), which means the energy is rather long waved at about 1/10th millimeter. When this number as lambda w is plugged into h/cw+g=mass=1, the resulting gravity g is something on the order of 1.2e^39, which is approximately the inverse of what we experience as gravity here in the solar region. If so, in the absence of any other light or EM energy, deep space has a gravity that approximates that of a black hole, except that space is full of light radiating from all the stars and galaxies spread throughout it. Add redshift to this deep space region, and you can readily see how gravity will be greater than experienced on Earth.


The BBT Paradox:

This made me think some more of the BBT Paradox, that of necessity, for the universe to be expanding away from us equally, we must be in the center of it. Of course, we cannot be in the center, since in an infinite environment, every point is its center, philosophically speaking. Now, if the Big Bang originated exactly where is our solar system, or close to it, then of necessity the universe would be expanding away from us in all directions equally. However, if it happened "over there" somewhere, millions or billions of light years away, then we are no longer in its center, and of necessity, some parts of the universe will be redshifted expanding away from us at much greater velocities than others. This, I may note, has not been observed. Conclusion? The Big Bang is an impossibility. Unless we again re-institute a Terracentric philosophy, as did the Church in Medieval times, Modern Physics is wrong on BBT.

I might also note in Hyperphysics, "Gravity and the Photon", at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/blahol.html , there is a reference to the photon escape energy in order to escape the gravity field: It is called a gravitational red shift, or the Einstein red shift. Here is a quote from that page: "When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency. Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift". So there is a very good likelihood here that if gravity is greater in deep space, what we see as "redshift" is no more than that. There is not expanding universe, anymore than there is an expanding ocean or expanding solar system, or even an expanding galaxy. All of these respond to internal and external forces to be what they are. The expanding universe is not one of them. And again, BBT, which is contingent on a redshifting expanding universe, is not true.

Always nice to walk the dogs! Those "wolves" were water shy today, so had to coax them in. They liked it fine once they got used to it.

Ivan

Ivan, Everyone,

According to Einstein's theory of gravitation (Relativity), Einstein faced an awkward problem since he decided that no signal could travel faster than light; however, in Newton's time-honored theory of the Universe, gravity is a force transmitted instantaneously over vast distances. Apparently Einstein thought something must be wrong with his theory, or that Newton was wrong, and after ten years in 1916 he produced in a new theory of gravity for inclusion in Relativity, interpreted not as a force, but as a "field" that distorted space and time. What that means is, planets in their courses seem to be moving in elliptical orbits around the Sun, but according to Einstein and his latest revised edition of Relativity, and his theory of gravity – the planets are moving in straight lines (geodesics) through gravity curved distorted space-time.

After much cogitation about the prospects of such a preponderantly magnificent notion that “gravity is not a force,” but a field instead, I have attempted to envision (dream) the geometric mechanics involved that could produce such a spectacular picture of this, our universe. Sorry to say, I cannot twist a mobius strip in enough contortions to arrive at the required – shape.

I ask any Einstein believer to draw the geometric equivalent of the Einsteinian idea out on paper – that is, someone please, draw us a picture so we can observe the Einsteinian space-time distortion in all its magnificent splendor.

J____

IN DEFENSE OF MODERN PHYSICS (sort of)

Dear J___,

In all fairness, there should be some good things said of Modern Physics. In further reading through Jerry E. Bayles's book "Electrogravitation as a Unified Field Theory", an E-Book at: http://www.electrogravity.com/gravbook/ , I found many relationships between kinetic classical physics and the newer electromagnetic force field physics. Jerry's first and second chapters show rather lucidly these relationships, where some of the algorithms for both physics match beautifully, which I think is very fine work on his part. In Ch. 1, pg. 24, he says: "This (vector velocity V^Lm and the quantum frequencies f^Lm and f^c) is shown in (59). V^Lm is the rotational vector velocity and the quantum magnetic field which is equal to 8.54245469 x 10^-2 m/s, f^c is the Compton frequency related to the electron rest mass, and f^Lm is the electrogravitational interaction frequency as well as the quantum magnetic frequency.

(59) A^em = (V^Sm) * [(f^c)*(f^Lm)]^1/2
or,
A^em = -3.005435617341997 x 10^9 * m * sec^-2 "

As you can see from the above, and there are many references like this, the vectorial energy is related to the electromagnetic energy. He also considers "spin", Ch. 2, pg. 49, "It is therefore herein suggested that gravitational forces are born of rotational motion and are thus able to impart that motion to other systems when acting on these systems at the quantum level. Thus the equations (80a) and (80b) are the electrogravitational equivalent of the mv^2/r rotational force."

And also background radiation is figured out on pg. 25 to be lambda = C/f =
h/m^e x V^Lm = 8.514995423 x 10^-3 meters, which is a rather long wavelength of about a tenth of a millimeter.

But most interesting to me was Ch. 2, pg. 37, "The above value E^q is conditional on the precept that the electrogravitational photon (or graviton) is like an ordinary photon..." Of course, this is my point. But then we diverge immensely on many other points.

Without having edited in detail all the math, and taking it for face value, I am impressed that so many equations from the kinetic vectorial physics can be made to equal electromagnetic field physics. However, is this due to how the math units had been created, so that they of necessity would equal out? This I cannot answer as of now without further study. I also think that it is speculative to assume that because kinetic equations can be made to equal electromagnetic equations in their final analysis will of necessity mean they are the same. In fact, though the mathematical results may be equal does not mean they are in fact equal, since we may be comparing two different types of forces with different properties. For example, Ch. 2, pg. 37, he equates particle magnetic vector to that of gravity, where the algorithms look like this:

" F^GMQtab = -1.977281388968537 x 10^-50 *m^1 *henry *newton^2

where, F^G = G*m^e * m^e/r^2 or,

F^G = 1.97729138896852 x 10^-50 *newtob "

(Note the negative (-) sign in the first equation above means it is attractive force)

But this does not mean they are the same force, though they appear to be on the surface. My appreciation for the physics is the wonderful way all these things merge together, but my objection is that gravity is treated here as a generative force, which I do not believe it is. Gravity is, period. Then it is a matter of becoming modified, but not generated in the way of particle physics. He says in Ch. 1, pg. 12:

"The following is the result of much study of the different aspects of quantum magnetic energy as it relates to mass and the topic will be explained and developed further in the remainder of the paper. In equation (23) the electrogravitational expression involving two charge-field systems of interaction states the case for gravitation through the aspect of quantum electric and magnetic separate system forces creating another force, gravity."

But this is only extrapolating what happens at the sub atomic level into the macro atomic level, which really has not justification. So on that point, Bayles and I part company. Then, in all his fine work, truly impressive how he brings it all together, he goes on to say, Ch. 1, pg. 28: "The fact that electric and magnetic fields can exhibit a force of attraction or repulsion is due to the fact that the delta force terms in (66) and (67) rely on the vector nature of the V^n1 terms which can relate either to an aiding or opposing field structure." But this is not gravity.

There is one line in Ch. 3, pg. 51, that I think is closer to the mark: "The suggested conclusion from the preceding pages is that gravity is the result of a rotational magnetic vector having a basic frequency f^Lm and a basic radius related to its quantum wavelength of lambda^Lm." This may be indirectly true for why the gravitational force G we experience here is what it is. However, this does not mean it generates that gravity, only how it modifies it. So in a roundabout sort of way, we come to a similar conclusion. Of course, what really caught my attention, as I know it will yours, is when Jerry writes, at the end of Ch. 2, pg. 42:

"We now move on to the electrogravitational concept presented in terms of the curvature of space being caused by gravity instead of gravity being caused by curved space."

Hear, hear! I can relate to that! (Einstein must be turning over in his grave.) The curved space concept is only a geometric expression, which I have in fact never seen illustrated to my satisfaction and, as you pointed out in your post above, there is not way to draw this realistically.

I did find some useful concepts in Ch. 4. However they are what I would call the "hinge" on which Bayles's whole theory turns, which can be found at the bottom of pg. 58, and top of pg. 59, where he equates F'^m1 = F^m1, to 8 decimal places (in newtons). This is cool, but it again tries to fit the centripetal force with the magnetic force equation. And again, this may be true at the atomic particle level, but not necessarily at the macro atomic level where mass is more than an atom.

What can we make of this work on electrogravitational force?

I think it is a brilliant example of bringing the two disciplines of mechanic physics and electromagnetic physics together. I suspect this is where a great deal of work in physics had gone over the past century, to bring these two disciplines into one. However, Gravity may not be so easily corralled into this merging of the two, and elusively remains outside of it. Why? Because it is already a prime force from which all these other disciplines result, from gravity's modification by electromagnetic energy into standing waves of matter and their corollary forces. In the aggregate, as a macro physics force, gravity becomes then what we know it to be as G. But in its pure form, it is something altogether different.

Throughout the book there are some good references to Plank's constant, and other constants, which makes the book enjoyable reading (if you like this sort of thing!). But I suspect there is still much work to be done to corner Gravity into a useful force. In skimming ahead, I got a pleasant chuckle out of how to build flying saucers. It may work... who knows!

All in all, "Electrogravitation" is an excellent resource for future reference. A job well done!

Let me know if you have a chance to read through some of it, and what you think.

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

Ivan,

I am not familiar with Bayles's work; however, there are too many equations that if mixed with another, negates potential. Frankly, I don't have the resources to validate every theory out there.

Bottom line is - any theory that is not based on a particulate aether, is not worth the effort to chase for they are bound in a contradiction to begin with. Same goes for QT at the atomic level since QM treats light as a duality, which is absurd because nothing can be two different things simultaneously.

J___

Dear J____,

RE in your above:

"According to Einstein's theory of gravitation (Relativity), Einstein faced an awkward problem since he decided that no signal could travel faster than light; however, in Newton's time-honored theory of the Universe, gravity is a force transmitted instantaneously over vast distances. Apparently Einstein thought something must be wrong with his theory, or that Newton was wrong, and after ten years in 1916 he produced in a new theory of gravity for inclusion in Relativity, interpreted not as a force, but as a "field" that distorted space and time."

This is a very insightful point. How do you fix the contradition of a "force field" acting at above the speed of light? Easy! You turn it into a geometrical distortion of space and time... Well, that is a bit of a stretch, but the world fell for it.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Ivan

Ivan,

Now you know why the Einsteinian Minkowski space time is a direct jerk of logic that denies factuality. By that, every calculation based on the concept is nothing but pure hyperbole.

J___

OLD STAR?

Here is an MSNBC article claiming there is an "old" star in our galaxy:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/828187.asp?0dm-N21AT

But does low metal production in a star mean it is of necessity old? It may be no more than that, a low metal production star. The article does have a neat picture composite of our galaxy side view, and note how it is fuzzy on the right side. Also, check out the link "Chandra's greatest hits" for great pix, esp Crab Nebula (#3). There is no doubt much evidence that things change, and that "old" has existed, but whether or not this is proof that this particular star is of the early universe is pure conjecture, another astrophysical fantasy, I suspect.

Ivan


Ps: Talking about a "gravitation machine", get a load of this in Crab Nebula:

"This means that a point on the equator of the neutron star travels at roughly 4 million miles per hour."

That's fast! You can find info on the Chandra site: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/0052/

Also nice pix of Crab at: http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/illustrations/composites/crabcomp.html

All the wavelengths are rather long, as compared to the necessary w=10x^42m for G as we know it, which is a wavelength so short it actually goes through everything, including any instruments we could devise. So lower wavelength EM is more visible than extremely high EM wavelengths. Think about it! We cannot detect the necessary wavelength that accounts for G, impossible, so may have to call it Wavelength X?

PURE ENERGY INTO MASS (try to visualize it)

I think there is a way to understand Einstein's famous formula E=mc^2 as a conversion from energy to mass. We know from the atom bomb that mass can be converted to energy, but we have had minimal success in the reverse order, mostly through very short lived particle creation in high energy cyclotron collisions. But when one considers that the extension of E=mc^2 is also as stated in the rewritten version h/cw+g=m (See "Atomus Summus" in the ARCHIVED posts), then it becomes immediately clear that energy into mass is a natural phenomenon.

Think of photons as being the wave edge of energy, what is a kind of shock wave through the space medium (of universal supergravity), which on impact with the atom converts into an internal energy of the atom, hence the electron is raised a shell. Try to visualize this, it's easy! By the same process, the photon which had been absorbed into the atom, to become a force within the standing wave of the atom (a standing wave example is a string vibrating), can then get released from the atom into space when the electron drops a shell. (Again, try to visualize this... it's easy!) This is not to say that a photon creates an atom, merely that it feeds it with its high energy (short) wavelength (approx. 2.2x10^-42 meters, or 10x^50 Hz frequency, which is much higher than gamma rays!), modifying the primal gravity that is the nucleus, into a unit of mass. What is left over as a byproduct is the G force we know from experience (of falling apples).

This is what happens within the energy environment of our star, the Sun, that energy is converted into mass resulting in atoms with a very weak remainder force of G. Cumulatively, lots of atoms together into elements of mass, this gravity then takes on the constant G we know (since the superG had been cancelled by the atoms and energy present here). However, if the energy level is different, say like in a neutron star where gravity is very intense, then by this theory (h/cw+g=m) the wavelength modifying the atom there is of a greater length and lower frequency than it is in our solar system. This is important. And I am only offering an alternative way of understanding how light and the atom interact turning energy into mass (as opposed to current ideas in modern physics), and from this interaction results a gravitational force after light has modified the whatever superforce is in the nucleus. I am guessing, of course, that the superforce within the nucleus, what binds the whole mass of the atom together, is a supergravity primal force, the kind you find in a gravity hole at the center of the galaxy (see "Atomus Summus" re Black Hole stars), which by the way holds the whole galaxy together from flying apart. Therefore, this is why gravity is a "left over" force from within the atom, since the light/mass interaction is not a total cancellation of the supergravity within the nucleus, but has a remainder G. In some parts of the universe we should at some point in the future find this to be so, that not all gravity G is created equal.

It may be that the current expressions of physics accurately identify what happens inside the atom, but they fall short when it comes to bringing G into the picture. Why? Because it is only a remainder force and not a generative force. The universe already is G, a superforce force in its raw form, and light only modifies it to become mass + gravity (like falling apples).

Try to visualize it!

Ivan

EUREKA! All existence can be reduced to only 'two plus one' = Three!

It is always best to work with the known and observable. However, I should point out that my solution in Atomus Summus to Einstein's equation E=mc^2, once it was rewritten as h/cw+g=m, yields an unobservable light lambda, 2.2x10^-42m, of 10^50 Hz, which is unobservable since they are too small and go through absolutely everything, except the atom. It would mean that the lower wavelengths of photons affecting the electron shells are of a very different nature than this extremely high frequency lambda, so there is some element of taking it on faith. I am loathe to do this, but am only following the results of Einstein's E=mc^2, so I am taking his equation on faith too (though it was demonstrated how mass turns into energy with atomic blasts). I agree with all this, but relegate what happens inside the atom to the atom, and what happens outside the atom, like kinetic energy, outside the atom, with the exception of Gravity, which is an altogether different kettle of fish since it is both inside and outside the atom (to infinity on the outside, and to zero on the inside). By making a clear distinction between what is inside the atom vs what is outside, I do not fall into the ingenuous trap of believing that particle physics can translate into macro mass kinetic physics. Again, the exception is Gravity, since it is germane to both, inside the atom (where it is modified by photons), and outside (where it influences mass and energy ad infinitum). So when it comes to friction, air resistance, coiled springs, gravity at a distance, all this is outside the atom. Particle physics, quarks, leptons, cosminos, etc., to me are all inside the atom (even atomic clocks). But the two "out" and "in" do not easily talk to each other, except through Gravity, and at a short distance through magnetic fields. That is in a nutshell how my physics philosophy stacks up. Gravity cannot combine with EM or Magnetic forces, which is as it should be. Once the atom is formed within the region of EM radiation, it is a unique and self contained entity which now has its own G relationship to all the other atoms in its vicinity. The atom is a self enclosed, nay, self contained, entity, so it does not care to interact with other forces except chemically with the electrons of other atoms, and Gravity. This is the beauty of the atom, that it is so independent of its outside once it is formed, and it survives as an atom in perpetuity until there is a destruction of it (i.e., atom bomb). So, what does all this mean?

Modern physics has done a credible job of identifying forces within the atom. But it fails miserably with the forces outside the atom, namely with Gravity. So what do they do? They invent something like the geometric properties of curved space-time, and then (of all things!) they say this invented theoretic geometry is real space. How absurd! To make a mental creation like geometry into reality is totally backwards. Yes, you can use math and geometry to express models that approximate reality, but not the other way around. Space and time are independent of the observer, and they exist in their own right without curves or slowing down or any other mathematical acrobatics modern physicist have given it. This I think is the opportunity for an outsider to enter into physics and fix it, where they had become detached from reality. Not their work inside the atom, but most definitely on the outside of the atom. And now this is the moment of truth: What exactly is the universe made of?

Really, the universe is unbelievably simple: three things make up the whole of it.

1. Gravity (both as a raw superforce and modified into G constant)
2. Light (in all its e.m. wavelengths and frequencies, both visible and invisible)
3. Atoms (in all the elements that constitute all mass in existence)

Everything else is incidental, and is complicated only because we have made it so. All the laws that flow from this two force, and third product, interaction are no more than how these three interact, ad infinitum. Remember, we live in a tiny bubble of the universe, so have little experience outside of where we are (Plato's cave allegory again?), but the universe is lazy in its absolute economy. The only thing that is really a puzzle to me is "why harmonics?", which I cannot understand. Maybe God likes to hum to himself?

So all this comes down to only two forces in my theory: Gravity and EM waveforms. (Neutrinos are something else again! Most likely related to e.m. waves.) From that becomes atoms, electromagnetic forces, electron forces/electricity, heat, friction, transfer of kinetic energy, chemical combinations, exchange of molecular energy, and finally, the left over residual force we call gravity. All that happens inside the atom physics has identified with some degree of accuracy, I think. But the understanding of what they have identified outside the atom is severely flawed. And like I said, where there is error, there is opportunity. Who will be bold enough to grasp it? We are made of light and gravity!

I am convinced that we live inside a giant Dream, and the dreamers are us. Now if we can only learn to live in 'harmony' with one another, this will finally become the wonderful light filled world it was always meant to be.

Ivan

GRAVITY KNOWS

In his excellent book "Electrogravitation as a Unified Field Theory", Jerry E. Bayles writes (Ch. 11, pg. 183): "The concept of 'active information' is also brought forth wherein this active information tells the particle not only how to move, but where it is in relation to all the other particles in the universe."

This is a very telling statement, and I suspect may be the first real step in understanding the "interrelationship" of all things in the universe, ad infinitum (which is also the lynch pin of the philosophy of Habeas Mentem). All the stars in the heavens, and all the galaxies, already "talk" to one another, they are all connected, by how their particles 'know' where they are in relation to all the other particles. By extension, all the atoms know, and all the patterns of energy that define these particles and atoms also know. We live in an infinitely interconnected universe, one where the concepts we conjure already exist in real form in how these units of energy and mass communicate with one another in a kind of giant algorithm made real.

Bayles wisely uses math (with the help of Mathcad's program, I suspect) to show how these things all are interactive, and how this then translates into the forces of our cosmos. Whether or not he is correct in his final analysis will remain to be seen when the theories are put to the test, and a workable machine is demonstrated. I suspect it will not be as easy as theorized, for the Gravity we know is something other than a force generated by gravitons in relation to how e.m. forces interact, as I had stated above. However, the principle that Gravity is universal, and that it connects instantly with all at a distance, is one that proves that all in the universe is connected instantly over infinitely great distances. It may prove that this system breaks down at some very great zillion light years away, but if that is so, then it merely isolates the system into one set, which then connects with all the other sets of the universe, again ad infinitum. In effect, Gravity knows where everything is in relation to everything else. And that is one powerful motha' of a force!

Ivan

Postcript on Gravity:

If anyone has an interest in seeing what other
work had been done on "Gravitational Machines"
here is a link:

http://www.electrogravity.com/EGTESTS.htm

Let your vision soar!

GRAVITY KNOWS, continued:

1. Of necessity, an interrelationship means that the whole determines the position (because of how all the other things are positioned) of each atom. This in effect defines it in terms of the whole.

2. Atoms exist. The whole defines each one of its parts. Therefore, atoms are definitions from the whole, which in this case means the universe.

3. The interrelationship of the whole universe determines each atom in terms of all the other atoms in existence.

4. Why does the atom exist? One way to view this, given the above, is that the whole universe defined itself as an atom there, at that time, in terms of everything else.

Conclusion: This is an infinity process, where the whole defines every one of its parts. It is also another illustration of [0 X infinity = 1]. Most of all, however, if gravity is the messenger to all the atoms in existence, then the universe defines as a whole where and what every atom is. And if this is so, it is awesome.

Ivan

VACUUM GRAVITY: Kiss 'n tell?

"Kissin' Cousins" is the way to think of "Nothing Gravity", or gravity in a vacuum.

The theories of vacuum gravity physics are being tested by Purdue University and Wabash College (contact Dennis Krause at kraused@wabash.edu ), where the Casimir force is thought to "push" together the metal plates separated by a very thin vacuum, about the space of e.m. wavelengths. This is how modern physics understands the "pull" on the closely spaced metal plates in a vacuum, that the energy outside the plates is "pushing" the plates closer, since the energy wavelengths cannot make it in between the plates to repel them. However, is this not a physics theory clearly in need of review?

I get giddy at the way this metal plate attraction in a vacuum fits so beautifully into the "Atomus Summus" theory (see ARCHIVED posts at Humancafe.com Forum), as expressed by h/cw+g=m (where w is lambda e.m. wavelength, and g is a dimensionless gravity constant). To me these theories are "kissin' cousins", why the metal plates "lip lock". Modern physicists say it is the energy outside pushing in. Atomus says it is the unmodified gravity natural to vacuum that is pulling them together. However, once the space is large enough to allow lambda wavelengths in between the plates, the bets are off, since now it's "kiss 'n tell", by how the unmodified gravity inside the plates is equalized by e.m. energy. The modern physicist will say that once the plates separate, the pressure from energy outside the plates is equalized by the pressure between the plates. Plausible parallels? Perhaps... But I would rather stick with the "kiss 'n tell" theory, that while the plates are close together, the vacuum gravity keeps them locked together. That is until they are found out by the telling energy outside, at which point they separate. The gravity inside the plates is then modified to equal that which is energy rich on the outside.

Here is the link to "Physics News Update", where the article "Testing New Physics with Nothing" appears (with a telling quote below): http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/611-2.html

"But in between a pair of narrowly spaced plates, the vacuum does not pack energy as densely as it does outside the plates. Just as an underground tunnel blocks AM radio signals with wavelengths that are bigger than the opening of the tunnel, the metal plates keep out electromagnetic fluctuations with wavelengths greater than the distance between the plates."

"Push" or "pull"? Interesting cousins, I would think! However, in thinking it through, the so-called "dark matter" begins to look more and more like the natural gravity in a vacuum far from e.m. wave energy. One more clue that those of us who see gravity, as we know it, to be merely a remainder force of the atom. And (one cannot but wonder) where is all the "space-time space distortion" theory of gravity in all this?

Ivan

WANDERING BLACK HOLES?

Admittedly, a "black hole" flying around the galaxy like some malevolent death-star was not what I had in mind, but apparently, here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2490075.stm

This does not fit into my Atomus Summus Theory of how black holes are formed at the center of galaxies. Nor do I have a clue how it came into being, since the negation of light should not happen in a vacuum away from other stars.. Either that, or something else is not right with this observation.

GRAVITY AND INERTIAL MASS
I did come across something written by Fran De Aquino regarding gravity and mass. In his paper titled: "Correlation Between Gravitational and Inertial Mass: Theory and Experimental Test", he says on the first page:

"This means that a particle's gravitational mass decreases with the increasing temperature and that only in absolute zero (T=0K) are gravitational mass and inertial mass equivalent."

http://members.aol.com/jnaudin509/systemg/html/syshexp.htm

I found this interesting because 'increasing temperature' is another way of saying 'greater energy', which is short of hinting that gravity and energy are interrelated, though I still maintain that particle physics cannot be translated into macro-physics. Just an interesting note, that's all.

Ivan

Ps: A paradox: If increased gravity increases spin, then why does not increased spin increase gravity? In fact, increased spin increases centrifugal force, but not gravity, though its inverse is centripetal force. So they are related, but not simply as increased spin equates with increased gravity. So this, to me, remains a paradox... or is it?

Hi Ivan,

I read the Tesla paper - some of it makes sense, but the necessary
information is missing so it is most difficult to assess the validity. No
doubt that Tesla was brilliant, and the US owes tribute to him for our
highly mechanized success e.g., harnessing Niagara Falls for electrical
power.

As I continue to work on gravity trying to develop a more comprehensive
understanding, several factors are evident; 1) gravity is a very weak force;
2) gravity is not polarized; 3) gravity itself is not capable of motion (it
is a static force); 4) gravity cannot be generated. All of those factors
lead me to think that gravity is a non-polarized force, that for lack of a
more concise definition is magnetic (attractor only) force, which
necessitates that only the neutron is capable of producing. Protons and
electrons are both polarized e.g., either positive or negative proving them
capable of producing electrical and magnetic forces as they interact
accordingly; however, neutrons do not interact unless disturbed, when they
can shed or gain electrons to become something else - also, free neutrons
(neutrons that are outside of a nucleus) have very short half lives of about
15 minutes after which, they shed (emit) an electron and become a proton.

What I have proved thus far is, gravity simply accumulates in a mass
according to the cumulative total of neutrons available in any given mass or
object. As mass increases, gravity potential of the mass also increases
accordingly. The gravitational fields of the mass or object also increase
proportionately, and they do so omni-directionally, which means gravity,
does not propagate thus remains static. Gravitational field strength can
change as some neutrons become protons or are destroyed by some other
perturbation.

If what I suspect is true, gravity cannot be quantized for it is not
propagated, and it is not therefore, subject to exponential function. That
means, gravity cannot be a progenitor of force, but is a pure negative-force
to begin with. Negative, in that it counters all other of the forces, which
are trying to tear every object into pieces as they travel throughout the
universe. This is something that I had never considered before getting
deeply involved in what causes orbiting objects to "stick together."
Gravity - holds everything together, and I do mean that in the literal
sense.

I am not alone in thinking this way, for plain and simple facts tell us that
existing models of how stars are formed are illogical - so, I stepped out of
the box and explored potential of swirling hydrogen clouds - I got the
perfect result from Omegatron Dynamics, for the results translate = 137, the
perfect number. So, instead of my attempting to explain this, one website
should do the trick.


http://www.alternativescience.com/is_the_sun_hot.htm

Swirling Hydrogen Clouds

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1995/pr-13-95.html


J___.

Ps: Recently I have been reading through information available at

http://www.holoscience.com

So far what I have read there makes sense, and it is easy to read. When you get to the
website, simply click on the page and it will take you to the index - there, for starters, I
would like for you to click on the "Views" link - and select - Gravity vs Plasma by Mel
Acheson.

Great Scott, J___, by Jove, I think you've got it!

Black holes be damned, and plasma is everywhere! I especially liked the Gravity vs. Plasma article by Mel Acheson, in the Holoscience link in your post above. I think I can make this work into my theory as well, where the galaxy center has flattened light so that gravity reigns supreme, but the surrounding deep space gravity is rich in plasma, which itself radiates a kind of ionized energy, so space does not experience the raw gravity at the galactic center, but merely a deeper version of what we experience here in the energy rich region of our star. This, however, would all still be only a speculation based on how was rewritten E=mc^2, and not to be confirmed until evidence of such deep space gravity effect is observed. Below, I give some examples of what would happen to mass in that deep space gravity medium, which may also be the sharmans we talked about, as well as plasma. I think we may zero in on this unified physics monster yet. The particle physics we understand, however, is still only germane to the atom; macro-physics is a whole different animal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some related links of curious events in our galaxy:

Black holes on 'collision course':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2493331.stm

Black hole brightens at galactic core:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1526724.stm

And for a truly Alice in Wonderland explanation, see this!

Everything you need to know about BLACK HOLES:
http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/blackholes/index3.html

Below is an explanation of what may happen to comets in the deep space gravity scenario, as theorized by the theory generated in Atomus Summus:
____________________________________________________
GRAVITY IN DEEP SPACE: Hypothetical Macro-physics.

We should think of Gravity, such as we experience here, as only a remainder force leaking from the atom, which itself is the product of the interaction between supergravity and electromagnetic wave energy into atomic mass. Therefore, based on this model, which is described in "Atomus Summus" (see ARCHIVED Humancafe Forums), the gravity in deep space far from stellar energy sources should exhibit a denser version of what we feel as gravity here. Hypothetically, what does this mean?

Firstly, it means that the same mass, say a comet made up of ice and rock debris, for example, would become more dense and compact as it swings into the far reaches of the solar system, its highly elliptic path taking it far out into deep space; but on the return back into the more energetic environment around the sun, this density would then expand into the normal mass we experience, which would also account for the comet releasing ice and sand in the bargain, which combined with the heating energy of the sun is then cast away into space where it hovers like so many ice and sand particles, the comet's tail glowing in its train, and which subsequently can become a rich source of meteors entering our atmosphere. The crushing and uncrushing of the comet mass is thus an ongoing event, but we have no way of seeing it in its most compact form, since by the time it reenters the warmer solar zone it is already expanding again.

Secondly, the spin associated with any mass going out into deep space would experience a greater gravity force from within, which would cause it to spin faster; but on reentering the solar rich energy zone, this gravity effect would reverse and become weaker again, so that the spin would slow down. So unless one sees the same comet out in the far recesses of deep space, there would be no evidence of this greater spin effect. This is a pretty cagey force to capture, deep space gravity, but though it had eluded us thus far, it should be evident somehow. At present, it is still lurking out there unsuspected by modern physicists.

Thirdly, and this may be the clue we need to solve this case: The weak gravity a comet experiences here would strengthen and increase as it leaves the solar region, thus the chemical composition within the comet may undergo changes due to greater internal pressure from increased gravity; but this chemical change should not reverse upon reentry into the solar region, so it should remain chemically fixed. It is this last hypothetical effect of deep space gravity that would be most revealing in what changes of gravitational intensity occur beyond the high energy zone of our solar region, since such chemical changes would remain as fixed signatures of what the comet mass of ice and rock had undergone while far out in space. What chemical fusion took place while there? Of course, once the comet reenters the warmer and more energetic regions of the inner solar system, the properties it had experienced out in deep space are erased, except perhaps the chemical changes, if any.

So the deep space gravity, or what may in fact be the so-called dark matter, is a phenomenon we will need to be on the lookout for, and one way may be to analyze comet chemistry to see if any of it was a result of intense deep space pressure. This may seem a paradox, but deep space away from high energy may not be more rarefied, but in fact approximate the dense gravity of neutron stars, though not likely as dense as the so-called black holes at the center of spiral galaxies. But if so, then the traveling 'black hole' referenced in the post above may not be that at all, but rather a variation on some very dark neutron star with very dense gravity. This would be more in keeping with the premise of h/cw+g=m thesis of Atomus Summus. It would also mean that if enough energy is absorbed from surrounding stars, this very dark neutron star could re-ignite again, which would be quite a spectacle to see!

Question: Might comets exhibit evidence of above by having crystals? If there were carbon present, perhaps micro-diamonds? That would be something to take note of, I would think.

Ivan

GRAVITATIONAL MACHINE, continued:

I have a vision that insists I write it down, so here it is.

Imagine a vacuum sphere, or oval vessel made of two inverted saucer shapes, which has a ring of powerful light around the circumference. These lights are aligned such that they shine exactly into the center of the vacuum vessel. When the light is on, the lambda wavelengths converging on the center all cancel out (like the water bowl experiment mentioned earlier, where all the vibration induced waves on the rim disappear into the center, where they cancel out), so that there is a mimicking of all the light from the rim of the galaxy converging on its center. What is there, at the center? A very powerful gravity. So this light filled vacuum vessel should experience the same force created in its center. Why a vacuum? If there was a gas present, it would diffuse the light waves so that they would fail to cancel sufficiently to recreate the gravity effect of a galactic "black hole". Now comes the part that bothers me:

What would happen if the focus of all this lambda cancelling in the center be moved off center?

This is what my brain has been wrestling with, what would happen if the gravity effect was not central to the vessel, but off center instead. If I think of the vessel itself, then it only means that the forces acting on the outer shell are uneven. But... and this is important... if the gravity effect is not inside the vessel, but actually in space itself, then the vessel becomes something that is now connected to all of space and its forces. What would this mean? If the vessel is superseded by the gravity created as a function of space, then the vessel would now try to accommodate the forces of space. And what does that mean? It means that one side of the vessel is closer to the gravity than the other, hence there is less mass near the off center gravity focus, and more mass around the vessel further from the center. Now, if the gravity focus is in fact not inside the vessel, but inside all of space, then the vessel will try to accommodate the imbalance by readjusting itself within space. And that... if I may be so crazy as to suggest it... means that the vessel will move in the direction of the gravity focus created by the light cancelled there. Move the focus forward, and the vessel follows. Move it back to the center, where all the mass is once again balanced, and it stops. Move the focus aft, and the vessel moves backwards. It will do this indefinitely as long as the gravity focus is off center! Motion! Motion created from within itself.

As a practical matter, I would have one such light vessel above the craft, in the bulkhead, and one beneath the craft under the deck. By maneuvering how the gravity focus is in both light vessels, then gives us pitch, motion, and gravity. Now think about it: If this principle works, then all aboard the craft experience the same gravity imbalance felt inside the light vessel, and thus all mass associated within the craft moves in like manner. If you are sitting or standing inside the craft, you would not likely feel the motion, since the whole craft is moving in free space together in relation to the off balanced gravity. Your feet would still be firmly planted on the deck, and your head would not be pulled up to the bulkhead, anymore than the whole craft moves as one. And hence, there is not sensation of motion, though you may be accelerating at an immense rate of speed. What would happen to the outer shell of the craft in this kind of propulsion? It would probably ionize the molecules around it as it moved, and glow in radiant light of all colors. It would be quite a sight to see!

Well, like I said, this had been on my mind without relief, so I hope in writing it down here in this forum, my mind can now be released of this demand, and I turn it over to smarter heads than mine to work out the engineering details.

Cheers! I have no more to say.

Ivan

Readings on Gravity, Gravitational, Gravitons, etc., as referenced by search at American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/search98cgi/s97_cgi

Gravity's Gravity:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/split/pnu454-1.htm

Quantum Gravitational States:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/573-1.html


GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1992/split/pnu089-1.htm
RE: " Indeed, the cold dark matter model prediction for the size of the quadrupole, based only on density fluctuations, comes out too low anyway, so, Krauss asserts, it is plausible that some of the quadrupole anisotropy should be due to the gravitational wave background" -- Here we are almost getting it right, that "anisotropy is often associated with fluctuations in the density of primordial matter," that there is a "density" to a primordial universe. However, that universe didn't go anywhwere, and it is still here. (There was not Big-Bang, only zillions of little mini-bangs that go on all the time.

The Gravitational Constant Measured:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pnu482-1.htm
(Please note that this is a constant only for our region of space, so getting it right here is important for our local space travel, though may prove irrelevant for distant deep space travel, as it may be different there.)

"All the laws that flow from this two force, and third product, interaction are no more than how these three interact, ad infinitum."

Hmmm, transcendental unity of apperception?

So, can this in some way explain meiosis? Since my scientific interest was always Biology, I was wondering where life emerges here, and then something so remarkable as the adoption (by life) of such a process as meiosis.

Could it be that meiosis is simply a harnessing of electromagnetic potential difference or something like that?

This is important to me since, once this explanation is clear, then I can move on to a whole new explication of Kantian ethics. The noumenon takes on an electro-magnetic metaphor no? Although I'm not sure how we can explain how vertebrates got their backbone for this.

If yes, then this also allows Buddha's views of dependent co-arising to meld with feminist ethics of care and a break from two-party politics. Also a fine learning tool for young Arab boys between prayer sittings, and a healthy alternative to what their respective spiritual teachers are passing off as the categorical imperative (i.e. jihad).

This may sound as if I'm having some kind of joke, but it WAS Kant who finished his thinking off by pondering/wondering about the starry heavens above and the moral law (habeus mentem) within.

Dave.

Hi Dave, J___, and all,

Could it be that electromagnetic potentials are the root cause of how the universe expresses itself, the 0,1,0,1...mechanism of bipolar potentials? As you may know from posts above (also Habeas Mentem), I subscribe to a philosophical theory of everything that all actions within existence are interrelated to infinity, and thus are infinitely complex, only reduced to simplicity after such complexity cancels itself out into the now. Why did I just say this? Because this is how I wanted to answer the question of "meiosis", how cells divide; also how the most complex is reduced rhetorically to the simplest. In the case of cells, or any life actions stemming from reproduction or growth or locomotion, even feelings and thoughts, to me are functions of an infinite interrelationship of forces, bipolar potentials, that compute out in an infinite algorithm to be what it is, that. And "that" is life, reproduction, consciousness, locomotion, predation, love... all the things that makes us alive. That is the most complex reduced to the simplest, which in itself becomes a bipolar potential, e.m. energy frequency, light, the great modifier of an infinite pulling sucking force of gravity, which combines into mass... and the process cycles all over again... into life.

If this is so, what a great universe we live in!

Ivan

EXACTLY, WHAT ARE "PARTICLES"?

See article in Physics News, "A Bi-Photon de Broglie Wavelength" at: http://www.aip.org/news/physnews/2002/split/613-1.html

Good links within to explore further, especially this one, "What about dark matter?" at:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/217943.asp

What about it? Is it perchance no more than "deep space gravity"?

Ivan

Ivan,

Follows is that link I had trouble sending to you. Perhaps it will take here.

de Broglie wave

J____

Thanks J___,

Interesting note on de Broglie matter waves, from
the paper linked above:

"Specifically, de Broglie postulated that an
integer number of wavelengths of the electron are
required...; non-integeer multiples of the
wavelengths would lead instead to destructive
interference and so a vanishing of the
electronic amplitude." (underline mine)

This is interesting because it is a parallel to my
vanishing energy when light interferes with itself
to form flat wavelengths frequency, and thus fail
as a modifier of deep gravity, which results in
the supergravity we witness at galactic centers,
neutron stars, deepspace gases, etc...

This also
is what happens inside the atom as e.m.
wavelengths modify the atomic superheavy nucleus
gravity center into atomic mass. Might have to
pay more attention to the "integer" aspect of e.m.
wavelengths. Thanks!

Ivan

GRAVITY BUBBLES?

I've been reading "Theories of Everything" (John D. Barrow) with limited enthusiasm, since it is a rehash of all written prior to it (1991) and hinges on BBT, which makes it immediately a candidate for the "Reject!" bin. However, while plodding through it, my mind did have some interesting diversions into what may be happening far out in space. Here is what it looks like...

Imagine that all of space is made up of a positively charged gravity which is superdense, super heavy, like the kind you find in neutron stars or black holes. Now imagine that within this infinite sea of superdensepositivegravity are islands of energy, stars and galaxies, that radiate electromagnetic waves (which are both plus and minus by definition), and that these waves modify the affected space around them to some point of mutual cancellation (where it becomes deep space again), and that inside these light islands the superdensegravity is modified into a much lighter version of itself, which is negatively charged. Now imagine that these islands of light gravity within the dense gravity of space move about (not BBT and redshift defined expanding universe, which is bull), so that they are more or less evenly spaced away from each other though clumped in areas as well. In effect, it is a near random distribution of light islands of gravity within a sea of dense gravity. Because the light islands have a negative charge, they tend to repel each other, so this appears almost to be a push gravity. However, it is not push gravity, unless one considers that light gravity bubbles within a dense gravity medium of space might have these bubbles repel each other; but this is bubble gravity with a charge. So this would be why galaxies and stars do not collide on a regular basis, though they can, especially if their black hole centers attract each other enough to do so, as they pass each other within the superdenseplusgravity medium.

Just mental reflections while lost in space while reading another BBT nonsense book.

Ivan

See "Atomus Summus" for theory on how e.m. energy modifies superdensegravity: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/65.html

GRAVITY ain't what it used to be!

See BBC News "Jupiter moon 'full of holes'"

Amalthea

Ivan

Ivan,

Paper on its way as an email attachment.

J____

DARK PARTICLES? Or are we being kept in the "dark"?

In the perennial search for "dark matter", physicists keep inventing new particles to fill in the missing matter of the cosmos. In Physics Review issue of 5 Aug.2002, titled "Galaxies Help Weigh Neutrinos", it says:

"The colder the matter, the more gravity can gather it into stars, galaxies, and grander agglomerations."
Galaxies Help Weigh Neutrinos

Of course, per "Atomus Summus" posted earlier, this idea fits very neatly into "dark matter = deep space gravity". This denser region of space is far from light sources, such as the e.m. energy rich regions around stars and galaxies, so that space becomes a kind of cosmic "swiss cheese" of light pockets within a predominantly heavy space, most heavy at galaxy centers, where then it is supreme.

The trouble with physics today is that it has tied itself up into unnecessarily complicated knots in pursuit of the elementary "particle", either via atom smashing or via astro-cosmic-space observations. They are missing the point because they got it backwards: It is not the particle mass that accounts for what is missing, but the missing mass itself, which is much heavier gravitationally than where the e.m. energy makes mass around star systems. This error is further illustrated in the 18 Nov. 2002, article titled "Detecting Dark Dimensions", which says:

"Researchers think that 30% of the Universe's mass is made up of unknown particles that are invisible to telescopes but have gravitational effects on galaxies. Potential culprits called weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs) come from proposed extensions to the standard model of particle physics, such as supersymmetry and extra-dimensional theories. "
Detecting Dark Dimension

How about if 30% of the Universe's mass is made up of unknown gravity instead of unknown particles? According to Atomus Summus, it all fits so much more easily together than this missing-particle mania of neutrinos, antineutrinos, etc. Of course, the colder the regions of space, the greater gravity mass will be there.

Cheers and tootles,

Ivan

GRAVITATIONAL WAVES by Daniel Sigg

Thanks J___! This is a great paper on Gravitational Waves.

In reading it, I must keep in mind that there is always possibility of invoking the "plausible parallels" principle, so that what may be obvious could also be only another possible explanation but not the real thing. For example, are "gravitational waves" real, or are they but a manifestation of Gravity, so that they do exist but are not Gravity itself?

See Ripples in Spacetime for an example of where this principle of Gravity Waves may only be a mathematical phenomenon:

"Many physicists thought the waves predicted by the theory were simply a mathematical artifact."

So, Gravity Waves may indeed exist, measurably so, but they may not be Gravity, only an artifact, or perhaps only a mathematical event.

Will study the paper some more.

Cheerio! Ivan

COSMIC DANCE

Galaxies crashing into each other is counterintuitive for an expanding universe, and yet there is evidence this is happening, as per link above.

Researchers say the crash (between four galaxies) is taking place in less space than our own Milky Way galaxy, occupying about 100,000 light years.


SS 433: Chandra reveals Pileup on Cosmic Speedway

"SS 433 is similar to the XTE J1550-564 binary system, in that they both involve black holes that are producing high speed jets of gas. However, there are significant differences. The X-ray emitting lobes in XTE J1550 are observed to be much further from the black hole than those in SS 433, and the X-rays from the XTE J1550 lobes appear to be produced by a magnetized cloud of highly energetic electrons, not clouds of hot gas as in SS 433." (italics mine)

Note that the material ejected from the center of a black hole disk is magnetized negatively as electrons. This fits into "Atomus Summus" rather well, since the raw space of supergravity is positive and, like in the "Black Hole Kitchen Experiment", the cancelled e.m. energy waves at the galactic center either revert back into positive supergravity or negatively thrown out of the disk via the axis as electrons, which then turn into a gas of molecules when they hit raw space again. This would imply that these new molecules will then "rain" down on the galactic disk over time and join with the billions of stars there. Or perhaps they will consolidate in space, because of the very heavy gravity there, into new stars.

See "Deep Secrets of Star Birth revealed" for new stars formations.

Ivan

DARK MATTER, revisited.

In this Nov. 26, 1998, article titled "The Darkest Mystery of them All", Alan Boyle says:

"If gravity works the way it's supposed to, then most of the universe's mass is invisible, existing as what's come to be known as 'dark matter'... Even accounting for interstellar gas and dust, there's a huge gap to fill. All the signs point to extra matter that we can't detect directly, surrounding galaxies like a huge halo, perhaps filling in the space between galaxies and exerting an extra gravitational effect on the motions of whole galaxy clusters." (italics mine)

Boyle then goes on to talk of "MACHOs", and neutrinos, and other theoretical dark particles, none of which really explain the phenomenon of why galaxies interact the way the do, as if there existed some deep gravity in space between them. But if we think about it in the way of Atomus Summus, then it makes sense, since the denser gravity of deep space makes whatever matter or gas is there more dense gravitywise, so that it acts as a gravitationally attractive force between galaxies. This deep space heavy gravity is the so-called dark matter astronomers are looking for.

Ivan

MERCURY ENIGMA?

I've always been fascinated by the fact that Mercury and Earth have the greatest estimated planetary density of all the planets of our solar system. Why is this so? It seems to be counter-theoretical to what is proposed in Atomus Summus, since a physical body closest to the star should actually display the least mass and gravity, though this is not the case. Again, how can we understand this without imputing of necessity a molten "iron core" into Mercury and Earth, as our scientists have done to date. My calculations show that though Mercury is 1/18th the size of Earth, it has only 1/2.6th the gravity, mostly due to its great mass. Are we missing something here? Is perhaps the mass estimate wrong and the greater gravity is due to some other factors, or is our gravity estimate way off too?

Here are links to the Nine Planets

I am also calculating the gravity for Pluto (about 1/15th Earth Grav) and Mars (1/2.6th, same as Mercury!) and Earth's Moon (about 1/6th). Will report later if have any brainstorm on these... still calculating but not yet checked it twice.

Ivan

EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT!

Hi J___, Dave, G-man, and all,

"Okay, okay," I says to myself (I do that sometimes), "we've been beating on Einstein's GR here and there, scoffing at the space-time curvature of space. But was he so far off really?" I asked. Perhaps not, for his way of expressing what happens to space in the vicinity of a massive body was not more than a mathematical geometry of how the space interrelates with itself through time. Be that as it may, I says to myself, there may be a way to understand this gravity anomaly of planets, namely Mercury's gravity "density" vis a vis the other planets of our solar system.

The Mercury Enigma (see above) may be explainable with a kind of "relativity", proving in the end that Einstein was right, though not exactly in the same way. The mathematical geometry of curved space-time may be one way to understand gravity, as an illustration of what takes place between the gravity of cosmic objects, which in itself may prove useful as an expression of how functions the interaction of gravity within an energy rich environment as opposed to one that is energy poor. So this new kind of Gravity Relativity would show how the variant energy regions of space, be it plasma or solar energy, relates to relative gravity in those regions.

One way to understand Mercury's extra dense gravity relationship to its size and mass, as per above, is that the planet "floats" in an energy rich environment due to its close proximity to the energy generating solar mass, so that its relative gravity-density is high in proportion to the "light-gravity" environment of space within which it travels in its orbit around the Sun. This gives the appearance (only an appearance) of a relatively high gravity-density proportional to the other planets of our solar system so that the measurements of Mercury's gravity-mass would appear to be more dense than, let's say, Pluto's mass. On the outer edges of the solar system's energy environment, the relative gravity-density would be less extreme than close to the solar source. This would indicate that Pluto's density would be less than that of Mercury, relatively speaking, but not because of the heavy iron core to silicate relative proportions, rather due to the gravity environment within which these planets exist. This is further supported, at least in part, by the fact that spectroscopic studies of Mercury reveal no, I mean really no, iron on the planet, which is most odd. From the Mercury link below, it says:

"Mercury is the second densest major body in the solar system, after Earth.
Actually Earth's density is due in part to gravitational compression; if not for this, Mercury would be denser than Earth. This indicates that Mercury's dense iron core is relatively larger than Earth's, probably comprising the majority of the planet. Mercury therefore has only a relatively thin silicate mantle and crust." (italics mine)

So this above is how Mercury's gravity-density is understood at present, that it has a molten iron core, very heavy and dense, which makes it a very massive, almost all iron, planet. However, this may not be true, that Mercury will prove to have no more or less of the heavy metals than other planets, and if so, then the dense-gravity becomes an enigma. In fact, the gravity-density may be no greater than Earth's (or that of other planets) but appear as such because of the lightness of the gravity-space around the immediate regions of the Sun. It may be but a measurable illusion due to gravity relativity in that region of space.

By the same reasoning, the outer planets of our solar system, which includes the gas giants, may also exhibit this heavy-light gravity density in proportion to where they are placed in orbit in relation to the energy source. Looking at planets furthest from the Sun, there seems to be a density decrease in relation to their distance from the Sun. In a paper by Ray Tomes, "Quantisation in the Solar System", http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt113.htm , there seem to be harmonic ratios to how the planets are spaced in their orbits, which may have a relationship with how light interacts with space and the atoms there. I have calculated below "relative gravity density" by taking the gravity delta between the planet and Earth ( which for Earth = 1) and dividing it into the planet's mass to come up with a ratio, the smaller the ratio the greater the gravity to mass relationship in that region of space, and the greater the ratio number, the weaker the gravity-density to planetary mass relationship. Note how Mercury and Pluto are at opposite ends of the spectrum of ratios, while Earth and Jupiter are not so far apart, in spite of their great dimensional difference. And this is where Einstein and I again part company, for if Jupiter was to displace space-time with its massive size, Earth and Jupiter should be very different. In fact, the greatest difference is between the two smallest planets, Mercury and Pluto.

DELTA GRAVITY (Planet's vs. Earth's)/PLANETARY MASS (in Kgs.) = GRAVITY DENSITY RATIO (in relation to surrounding energy-gravity region):

[**]ERRATA, please note in brackets** was later recomputed.

Earth: (1)/5.94e24 kg = 0.168
Mercury: (1/2.6)/33e24 kg = 0.01166 (very low ratio)
Mars: (1/2.6)/0.69e24kg = 0.5989
Jupiter: [(283)/1900e24 kg = 0.149 (similar to Earth's)]**
Pluto: (1/15)/0.0013e24 kg = 51.28 (a very high ratio!)

This is only a partial, with more computations to follow. Please note that the inverse of these ratios yields a more intuitive reading, i.e., Earth=5.9, Merc=85.7, Mars=1.67, [Jup=6.7]**, Plut=0.19. This shows the contrast between Mercury, very high energy-density ratio, and Pluto, with a very low energy-density.}

So this shows how Mercury and Pluto are diametrically opposed as measured their gravity-density ratios, [whereas Earth and Jupiter are fairly close]**. And this means that Mercury veritably "floats" within the light gravity around the immediate vicinity of the Sun, same as do all the small rocky planets, which gives them the illusion of greater density. Pluto, and the other distant planets, the gaseous giants, float less well in relation to the gravity around them, since there the gravity is relatively heavier, so there is not as much difference between the interior of the planet and exterior orbital environment. (This is a difficult concept, since it is so foreign to how we presently understand space and gravity. But think of it this way: Gravity of progressively distant planets, from the Sun, have decreasing density of necessity vs their gravity. This is why the index gets progressively larger, as an inverse of this density.) If so, then we would expect that furthest out into space, say multiple distances of Pluto from the Sun, we would encounter regions where the external space gravity is equal to that of the gravity of the mass of object there, including gases and lone molecules. And if this is so, then it makes it a very interesting region of space, perhaps rich in its own energy, such as plasma energy, which will be the subject of the next space probe called CHIPS to be launched January 2003.

So which GR is it? General Relativity as posited by Einstein, or is it Gravity Relativity that accounts for how the gravity-density of planets interact with the space-time curvature of space around cosmic mass? It is something to think about!


SUN

MERCURY

Cheers!

Ivan

GAS GIANTS AND GRAVITY-DENSITY RATIOS

Upon further computation, I realized my error in computing the relative gravity of Jupiter to that of Earth, so that instead of Jupiter's gravity being a ratio of 281 to Earth's, in fact it is closer to 2.53 to 1. This is on account of Jupiter not being a rocky solid planet, like the Solar system's smaller planets, but falls into the category of Gas Giants. The earlier error assumed a solid core for the planet beneath the very thick gravity, which now has come into doubt this is so. It may be that Jupiter has no physical solid core in the way of rocky planets, as reported by the GALILEO PROBE entering Jupiter's atmosphere, December 7, 1995. The Gas Giants may be just that, gas.

Below are the Gravity-Density ratios for the Gas Giants, which was figured:

Mass of gas planet divided by Earth's mass, divided by the square ratio of Earth's radius over the gas planet's radius, to yield the relative ratio of the gas planet's gravity in relation to Earth's gravity. This relative ratio was then again divided by the gas planet's mass to get a relative gravity-density ratio.

The results below show gas planet's relative gravity to Earth's gravity divided by gas giant's mass:

Jupiter: (2.53)/1900e^24 kg = 0.00133
Saturn: (1.066)/568e^24 kg = 0.0112
Uranus: (0.904)/86.8e^24 kg = 0.01042
Neptune: (1.129)/102e^24 kg = 0.0107

(The inverse to these ratios (to make them more intuitively readable) are: Jup=752, Sat=526, Uran=95, Nept=93.5.)

Please note that these ratios for the giant gas planets differ greatly from those of the smaller rocky planets, with the exception of Mercury's, which approximates that of the great gas giants. One way to understand this is to think of the gas giants as floating in a "gravity soup", where the outer gravity environment, because of its great distance from the Sun, is not as energy rich as in the immediate vicinity of the star source. This results in the odd ratios where the planets's Gravity-Density ratios act as if they were closer to the Sun, though they are not, because the relative energy in the orbit environment where they are is of a lower level, vis-a-vis the gravity energy of the gas planet. Of course, Pluto is a clear exception to this rule, since it is likely a water ice and rock planet. On the other hand, the Gas Giants may in fact have no rocky core at all, since the high rates of planetary spin would indicate a hot interior (gaseous) which in turn generates a mini-black hole which powers the planet. (See #3 in Summary above)

Ivan

PLANETARY SPIN, continued:

I think we have Spin!

Below are listed the relationships between Gravity-Density ratios (as a factor of relative planetary mass, vs. Earth's, to the energy density of the planet's orbit fields, as calculated above) and interior planetary heat, which becomes a Spin-Ratio. This spin-ratio (SR) is calculated by dividing relative gravity (to Earth's) by planetary mass (then converted into their inverse for easier reading):

Rocky planets:

Earth: 0.16 =>> Spin Ratio = 5.9
Mercury: 0.0116 =>> SR = 85.7
Venus: 0.2269 =>> SR = 4.4
Mars: 0.5989 =>> SR = 1.67
Pluto: 51.28 =>> SR = 0.19

Gas Giants:

Jupiter: 0.00133 =>> SR = 752
Saturn: 0.0112 =>> SR = 526
Uranus: 0.01042 =>> SR = 95
Neptune: 0.0107 =>> SR = 93.5

Sun: 0.000014 =>> SR = 71,428
----------------------------------------------------
Now, what these computations of SR seem to represent is a relationship between the planet's interior heat and the energy level of the space within which the planet has its orbit around the Sun. This relationship is more pronounced for hot planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, medium hot planets such as Earth or Venus, and cool planets, such as Mars, and most of all Pluto. The hotter the planet in relation to its space medium energy (as generated by our Sun) the greater the spin. The relative rotation in relation to SR are:

Earth: Spin Ratio = 5.9 =>>Revolution = 1
Mercury: SR = 85.7 =>> Rev = 58.6 Earth days
Venus: SR = 4.4 =>> Rev = ? approx. 243 days???
Mars: SR = 1.67 =>> Rev = 2 Earth days
Pluto: SR = 0.19 =>> Rev = 6.3 Earth days

These rotation ratios are different for the gas giants, which tend to be hot, and fast:

Jupiter: SR = 752 =>> Rev = 0.41 Earth days
Saturn: SR = 526 =>> Rev = 0.45 ""
Uranus: SR = 95 =>> Rev = 0.72 ""
Neptune: SR = 93.5 =>> Rev = 0.67 ""

So it becomes apparent that the "hot" gas giants rotate faster than the rocky planets. This could be understood as the interior heat is great in relation to the energy density of the space around them, which (according to h/cl+g=m) would indicate a greater energy differential resulting in a greater spin. The rocky planets are not as uniform, since Mercury with a very high SR floats in a very high energy environment close to the Sun, whereas Pluto, with a small SR, floats in an energy poor environment far from the Sun. Earth, (Venus?), Mars, are in a medium energy environment with their relative interior heat, so their spins are relatively close to each other. Our Moon has a very low spin, being a cold body. Bu contrast, the Sun has spin that is off the charts, since it is its own generator of energy, though its outer heliosphere may be compared to a planet's surface with a spin of 24.5 days. Therefore, by this reasoning, the further a planet is from the Sun's energy, the greater its interior heat differential, the greater the spin; the closer in to the Sun, it would take a greater heat differential to increase spin, so that Mercury results in a slower spin though it has high heat. Earth is in the middle.

Question: Can these SR numbers (if our planetary mass measures are correct) be used to estimate interior heat of planets as a function of their relative spin?

Ivan

PLANETARY MAGNETISM, random thoughts:

In the above, I listed some calculations of what I call Spin Ratios (SR) for the planets. What became apparent in readings on planetary magnetism is that there seems to be some correlation between SR and Magnetic intensity, as measure by the Dipole Moment. Here is how these look:

Rocky planets:

Earth: Spin Ratio = 5.9 =>> Dipole M = 7.8e^15 (Tm^3)
Mercury: SR = 85.7 =>> DM = 3e^12
Venus: SR = 4.4(?) =>> DM = 8e^10
Mars: SR = 1.67 =>> DM = 1e^11
Pluto: SR = 0.19 =>> DM = ??

Gas Giants:

Jupiter: SR = 752 =>> DM = 1.56e^20 (very high!)
Saturn: SR = 526 =>> DM = 4.72e^18
Uranus: SR = 95 =>> DM = 3.83e^17
Neptune: SR = 93.5 =>> DM = 2.16e^17

Sun: SR = 71,428 =>> DM = ???

What this shows at a glance is that there is a relationship between relative spin and magnetism, which may be the main reason why the "dynamo theory" of planetary magnetism has such appeal. However, there may be another reason, given the new concept of "gravity density" within an "energy density", that the magnetic fields are products of the mini black hole present within any body radiating internal heat or radioactive decay energy, since these in cancelling out the wave lambda at their centers create conditions for such a super massive center. The more heat vs gravity density differential, the geater the min-black-hole, hence spin. Can it be that this mini-black-hole effect generates a magnetic field? For example, why else would there be a magnetic field emanating from the galactic center, since the "dynamo" effect could not operate there? Certainly not a nickel iron core! So instead this leaves open an opportunity to see planetary, and solar and galactic, magnetic fields, as a function of super gravity, which would also open the door for seeing it this way inside an atom.

The studies on cosmic magnetism are many and often fraught with controversial and fancy ideas, which lead to a kind of intellectual "noise", but it is all very interesting, if not totally puzzling. Any ideas on what causes this kind of magnetism? Could the electrons ejected from black hole centers along their axis be responsible in some way? Opening the doors for new thoughts...

Ivan

Some Magnetic pages:
http://www.aip.de/~cfendt/jet_t.html
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-trimble.pdf
http://www.earthsci.ucl.ac.uk/research/planetaryweb/student/work/magrev/summary.htm
http://www.earthsci.ucl.ac.uk/research/planetaryweb/student/work/magrev/magtoc.htm

Why the Universe cannot be 15 billion years old.

Think of it, if we can see with Hubble 15 billion light years away, then in the opposite direction we should be able to see the same distance. If so, then from our vantage point, the universe is 30 billion light years wide. But if the universe is 15 billions years old, then this is an impossibility, since light would have to travel at double C in order to have spanned the universe from one end to the other within its 15 billion year existence.

Another way to view this impossibility is to consider, in BBT fashion, that the universe is expanding equally everywhere so that no one point is advantaged as being its original center over another. But that is an impossibility, since now the light from a point 15 billion light years away would have to have traveled 30 billion light years to reach the other end of the universe. What's wrong with this picture?

***

What is the speed of gravity? Has anyone seen the results of VLBA tests?

Scientists have attempted to measure the speed of gravitons, which should travel at C as per Einstein's general theory of relativity, when last September 8th there was a fortuitous alignment of Jupiter and several distant quasars. Using Jupiter's large gravity as a gravitational lens, the quasar's position should shift its position in the sky by a distance dependent on the speed of gravity. By measuring this shift is expected that the speed of gravity will be confirmed to be at C, as predicted. However, though the results were expected by year's end, I have not been able to find them written anywhere. Of course, if the results are inconclusive, or negative, that gravity is instantaneous, for example, they may not be revealed quite yet. Anyone seen these results?

See University of Missouri news release on measuring gravity speed:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0209/04gravity/

***

2003 may prove a pivotal year in space physics and astronomy. At stake are black holes, dark energy, Earth rocks on our moon, water on Mars, extraterrestrial life, gas giant planet formation, age of the universe, etc.

Here are the year's 10 top space mysteries:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/851919.asp?0dm=N23AT

***

Keep looking up, the answers are out there.

Ivan

RE "What speed gravity" post above, we have results.

Headline news is:
"First speed of gravity measurement revealed"
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993232
"Speed of gravity and light equal"
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030106/030106-8.html

It seems that the results for the speed of gravity test of Sept 8, 2002, using the gravitational lens of Jupiter, are finally in. And... ta ta!... as the math predicted, the speed of G is C! Of course, there is no surprise since the values being measured are in relation to the propagation of quasar energy in space, and not necessarily the graviton waves... However, be that as it may, the astrophysics community seems generally happy with the results, except for a disgruntled few, as per Space.com's http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030107.html

""We now know that the speed of gravity is probably equal to the speed of light," Fomalont said. "And we can confidently exclude any speed for gravity that is over twice that of light."
That gravity works instantaneously is almost impossible, according to the study.
The results have been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the publication has been held up because of criticisms of the work leveled by some researchers. Today, Kopeikin dismissed the criticisms as unfounded."

So it sounds almost unanimous, that G is C... or is it? How do we know that what the astronomical observation is measuring is not another version of the speed of light? Not totally convinced this is good science, since gravitation fields exist and do not travel. I suspect what this experiment has actually measured is another version of C, and not G.

For the record, I remain a skeptic.

Ivan

Hi Ivan,

This forum is certainly not my specialty, and I am probably being a bit of a goose here but there was a passage you wrote about the width of the universe being 30 billion light years, which disproves the theory that the universe is 15 billion light years old.

Your passage was written on Jan 5 and the bit I am interested in went as follows:
[quote]
Think of it, if we can see with Hubble 15 billion light years away, then in the opposite direction we should be able to see the same distance. If so, then from our vantage point, the universe is 30 billion light years wide. But if the universe is 15 billions years old, then this is an impossibility, since light would have to travel at double C in order to have spanned the universe from one end to the other within its 15 billion year existence.
[unquote]

It made me think of say a football field where the coach gets two players to run in opposite directions for a distance of 50 metres. This might be an analogy for initial particles in the early universe which head off in different directions. If the coach blows his whistle after 6 seconds and the two players are found indeed to have travelled 50 metres a piece, we could say that the radius of the circle that is traced around them is 50 metres. However the diameter is 100 metres, but nobody has actually travelled 100 metres.

Likewise, couldn't we say that no particle in the universe has travelled more than 15 billion light years, even though the diameter of the universe is indeed 30 billion light years?

Have I got something askew here?

Regards,

Dave.

Hi Dave,

No, your questions is not at all "lost in space", but rather inspiring, since it addresses the very same issue I wrestled with regarding the size of the universe. How can the universe be equal in all distances away from us without making us the center?

You said: ".. couldn't we say that no particle in the universe has traveled more than 15 billion light years, even though the diameter of the universe is indeed 30 billion light years?"

Yes, this is the enigma, if the Big Bang actually happened, that it could have expanded 15 billion light years since that eventful millimoment of birth, from its point of origin to now, in all directions. Now, if we happened to be somewhere on the periphery of this formation, say 2 billion light years from the edge, then we could easily see 13 billion light years towards the other edge. But this is not what appears to be happening, instead that we could see 15 billion in all direction, which puts us at the absolute center. Is this not an odd place to be? I am no Earth centrist in the Ptolomeic, Medieval sense, so do not place myself at the center of the solar system, nor galaxy, nor universe. I am somewhere in it, but not the center, though to me the universe is infinite, without boundaries, so any point in space will serve as a valid center regardless of where I am. This is why I said "no one point is advantaged as being its original center over another" as regards our position within the BBT. This then of necessity means that if I can see 15 billion light years in any direction, then the universe is at least 30 billion light years across; and if any particle had traveled the whole length of it, then it must have gone at the speed of 2 X C, which is not cricket in today's physics. So this is my dilemma, and why I wrote that the universe being 15 billion years old is an impossibility. It may possibly be 30 billion years old... but if so, then why not 300 billion years old, or not 3x10^300 billion years old? Really, how can we put a size on it, or an age? Or, to put it in terms of being lost in space, "where in Infinity am I"?

I hope this enlightens, or at least lightens the burden of being in the universe, or the very least amuses us in the here and now. I am lost in space by asking the question, but physicists are lost in their own fictions by believing that the universe is only 15 billion years old. Can we really be asked to believe the universe started with a Big Bang, just to satisfy their desire to prove their mathematical formulas correct in a multi-dimensional curved space-time reality that originated in a point of nothingness? Really, how absurd! What incredibly self-centered arrogance, and how small. What fiction!

So I say "Cheers!" Let us raise a glass to the stars, for they shine down on us from infinity!

Ivan

Thanks old chum. Your ideas are certainly 'out there'.

Even today the very idea of an idea embracing the cosmos seems as elusive as it was in Kant's day, which is why he came up with the antinomies I guess.

The first one of those I believe, was the one as to whether the universe is infinite or finite. With our limited perspective the answer always comes back at one moment as binary '1', and the next moment as binary '0'. God indeed plays hide and seek, and so not only has omniscience, and omnipotence, but also omnihumor.

Maybe that is all God expects of us...that, as ingenious as we (that is they, from my perspective) are, we come back to our poor forked nature, and thus some small insight that 'lightens the burden of being in the universe, or the very least amuses us in the here and now'. Seems our destiny is an amusing one all round...there is nothing left for us except to have a good laugh (I always like to slot that one in somewhere!!).

Kant was pretty wise to have worked out that there are indeed limits of thought and possible experience. I find that quite reassuring, but I guess the high intelligences still have the need, as well as the inclination and the ability to tweek the boundaries...who would expect it any other way?

Again, I'm getting off topic, which seems to be my only contribution to this thread; that is off topic observations.

Cheers,

Dave.

Ivan,

Remember, only in an infinite universe will everything be centered within it. I presented a paper to Stanford ... they have not rejected it yet ... so approval or rejection just might come soon. It will be interesting to see if they buy into the concept.

What I am learning is, the institutions dependent on Government funding for managing of our so-called - SuperLabs - do not appreciate viewpoints contrary to those as established by Einsteinian dictums.

We are challenging the math used by Dr. Sergei Kopeikin of the University of Missouri head to head (he is only 150 miles from me). It seems there is something dreadfully not kosher with Einstein’s “Tensor” notions, and we can prove our case easily if only we can hit the people involved with a 2 x 4 to get their attention.

We are stilly trying to infiltrate Stanford so we are included in the loop of Gravity Probe B. Thus far, I have managed to get on the major-domo news email list, and I learned the experiment has been moved back again, this time to July 20, 2003. I am betting on pure strikes to be thrown to existing gravitational theories – no warped spacetime, no needed tensor extrapolations, no expanding universe, and for dang sure no BBT! We have run all the calculated data on the Guide Star, and we should be able to prove the “drift” that many of us believe in; moreover, the actual drift measurements will match those as done by Dayton Miller, and should vary less than .001%. The original quote of Miller’s work comes next-

“Miller's work, which ran from 1906 through the mid-1930s, most strongly supports the idea of an ether-drift, of the Earth moving through a cosmological medium, with calculations made of the actual direction and magnitude of drift. By 1933, Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec. towards an apex in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, towards Dorado, the swordfish, right ascension 4 hrs 54 min., declination of -70° 33', in the middle of the Great Magellanic Cloud and 7° from the southern pole of the ecliptic. (Miller 1933, p.234) This is based upon a measured displacement of around 10 km/sec. at the interferometer, and assuming the Earth was pushing through a stationary, but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec. at the Earth's surface. Today, however, Miller's work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments, which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having "proved the ether did not exist". “

Updated link for Gravity Probe B follows

Gravity Probe B

J___

Hi Dave, J___, and all,

Thanks for your inputs. Good luck with the Gravity Probe B project. I look forward to seeing their results, after they launch in late '03. Both "outside" inputs in thinking and in observation are very much needed to form a more correct model of what it is that makes our universe tick. "Ether drift" may yet prove to be the reality; and of the binary "1" or "0", both may be the eternal "moment," without PNC.

We know that the BBT is a figment of a very intelligent but misguided intellect, so we need to be vigilant for a more real model of what is happening. Note, I say "is" happening, since this is all that the universe really has to work with, the eternal "now". It is us, impatient humans, who need a future, or remember a past. The universe is the eternal present, to infinity and back again. A more definitive TOE will become possible with better observation of the macro-physical world of interstellar gravity, which hopefully Probe B and others will reveal.

All the best,

Ivan

Speed of Gravity, revisited:

(Ps to post above January 8, 2002, "What speed gravity".)

This is how Tom Van Flandern characterizes the recent September 8, 2002, Jupiter measurement of gravity experiment:

"Although gravitation and relativity are technical subjects, the mistake made by Kopeikin is not unlike measuring the speed of a falling apple and claiming that is the speed of gravity."

This is how I intuitively saw the whole business of measuring gravity using distant quasars signals around Jupiter, that in fact we were measuring something else, namely the speed of light. Van Flandern goes on to say in his paper titled "Kopeikin and the Speed of Gravity" that measuring "gravitational waves" has nothing to do with measuring gravity, as I also had said, why I remain a skeptic.

On page 5 of the above paper, Van says: "To clarify, it is well known to physicists that electromagnetic signals (whether light passing the Sun or quasar radio signals passing Jupiter) are not bent or slowed by the force of gravity, but by passage through a gravitational potential field. A potential field slows the rates at which clocks tick, produce gravitational redshift, bend light, and retards radar and radio signals. Gravitational force, by contrast, has no such effects even if fields as strong as 10^19g, where g=acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface." (italics mine)

Finally, it also is about Time: "Kopeikin's new paper has modified the equations to be used in determining the speed of gravity in a fundamental way. His own formalism now rules out the possibility of cg=infinity or cg >> c in his results even before the experiment is performed. He is why. Kopeikin now defines a new time tau=(c/cg) t to replace the coordinate time t in the Einstein equation. However, because (c/cg) is obviously forced to become very small or zero for large or infinite cg, the role of the time coordinate is diminished or suppressed altogether by this substitution, which effectively eliminates many relativistic effects already verified in other experiments." -ibid.

Therefore, the loud and jubilant announcement that the Sept. 8 experiment was a success proving that G = C is perhaps no more than one more attempt by the established, relativistic neo-Einsteinian world of astrophysics to force into place a pet theory, while in fact neither the math nor observation supports such claims. Rather, it is but another way of measuring the speed of light, which is cool, but not gravity.

If gravitational fields are fixed in space and time, much as two ends of a stick are fixed in space and time, then the force felt at one end of the field is simultaneously felt at the other end of the field. There is no travel time. Though "gravitons" may exist and be measurable as traveling, they then become surrogate light energy in another form. In summary, Van Flandern mentions work done by Asada, "The Light Cone Effect", as supporting this notion, "that Kopeikin was simply measuring a quantity that propagated at the speed of light, and was definitely not measuring the speed of gravity." -ibid

I mention these points above only to illustrate how eagerly the popular media is to support Einstein's relativity theories, almost without a footnote that there are dissenting ideas on this, and without fully validating the fact that Einstein's own work did not validate gravity traveling at light speed in some of his equations: "Einstein's GR. while not addressing the speed of gravity directly, always adopts infinite speed for it when deriving equations of motion, even in Einstein's own work, but dropping any retardation for the gradient of the gravitational potential field." -ibid.

A field is a field, and a propagation is propagation, and comparing the two is like the proverbial apples and oranges.

I suspect modern physics is lost in space, and needs some dose of reality to return back to the real world. Of course, the physics as described by Atomus Summus is greatly simplified and easily incorporates these observations, since gravity is only a left over residual force from how is structured the atom, and deep space is not more than intensified gravity fields within which both light and matter must travel. Light downshifts into the red zone, and matter accelerates into greater spin. Pretty simple, and pretty cool, especially when this is witnessed in blue dwarfs, brown dwarfs, neutron stars, and the ultimate big daddy of the them all, the Black Hole.

Ciao for now,

Ivan


The above items where referenced in MSNBC's Cosmic Log at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/750150.asp?0dm=C22HT

Ivan,

Just hang on for a while, and as soon as we have evidence in hand in the form of the actual extended math, we will blow the experiment away.

Kopeikin has until February 14, 2003 to back up his findings with substantial facts,,,,,,, which we are predicting will not be accomplished.

J____

Ivan,

I think this thread should be archived. It is getting to be quite long, and beginning to load slowly. By that, I am starting a new thread titled, "Towards a New TOE - #2"

J____