Ivan, Everyone,

I hope to have some new information soon that pertains to gravity. The present state of understanding gravitation, gravitational effects, and what causes gravity is terribly flawed from the perspective; most everyone is ignoring common sense. What this has done is to confuse the thought processes of physicists, and cosmologists now locked on one of two theories, and cannot put them aside to begin anew, using observations, which are readily available.

J____

The Universe is Gravity.

Hi J___,

I think there is a lot being taken on pure faith in BBT, and not good science. This same conclusion is echoed in MetaResearch's Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang , which point out the high unlikelihood of a finite universe formed within the allotted time of 15-20 billion years. I especially like item #8:

"Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe."

My answer to that is the so-called "dark matter" is nothing more than the potential field of deep space gravity, which is much greater than what we experience here on Earth, or in our solar system, as explained in Atomus Summus. In fact, the more I think of it, the more I am coming to the conclusion that the basic stuff of our universe is gravity. In its raw form, it is the super strong field experienced at the galactic center, or somewhat modified in neutron stars; in its very modified form, it is what mass exhibits within star systems, such as we experience here. The mass formed within these gravity fields then exhibit either very high gravitational pull or not, depending upon where they are in relation to the modifying energy of electromagnetic waves radiating there. Mass therefore only mirrors or echoes what is the gravitational field potential where it happens to be; in the absence of energy, the field reverts back to the basic stuff of the universe: Gravity. I also like what item #2 says:

"The microwave 'background' makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball."

Really, the whole fireball idea is beyond credibility. Stars and galaxies put out an incredible amount of light, which modifies deep space into what it is, and thus measurable as background radiation (of all wavelenghts of em).

Seeing the universe as no more than the interaction of gravity field potentiality and em energy is much more intuitive than the Big Bang, and I suspect much closer to the truth. Nevertheless, the idea that the universe's basic stuff is gravity is a real mind bender. If I were to express this mathematically, why... I might even invent space-time warp of space curvature to explain it!... (though this is false).

Looking forward to seeing more of your new ideas on gravity.

Ivan

Reversing the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

In John D. Barrow's book "Theories of Everything" (Clarendon-Oxford, 1991), in the subsection titled "The Way of the World" he writes:

"The great unanswered question is whether there exists some undiscovered organizing principle which complements the know laws of Nature and dictates the overall evolution of the Universe. To be a true addition to what we know of Nature's laws, this principle would need to differ from any laws of gravitation and particle physics that might emerge in final form from some Theory of Everything. It would not be specific to Universes but would govern the evolution of any complex system. True, its general notions ought to be tailored in some way to the notions which characterize the specific things that go on in an evolving Universe -- the clustering of matter into stars and galaxies, the conversion of matter into radiation -- but it would also need to govern the invisible ways in which the gravitational field of the Universe can change. Any such discovery would be profoundly interesting because the Universe appears to be far more orderly than we have any right to expect." -pg. 159

Well, dear Friends, we already have such a principle. It is called "interrelationship", as it is described in Habeas Mentem. This theory of interrelationship says that, of necessity, all interrelated things form a totality that becomes a reality set which then redefines every one of its parts in terms of the whole. That these reality sets then form stable systems is built into the nature of totalities, which they are such by definition, or if not then the totality is not yet achieved. But when it is achieved, then the "identity" of any one thing within it becomes determined by the interrelationship of all the other parts within the totality. This in a nutshell is how interrelationship reverses the second law of thermodynamics, because it stabilizes itself at the reality set totalities. Taken to an infinite set, we then have a Universe, which then redefines itself into the living reality we inhabit. Thus, Chaos ceases to rule. In its place are totality sets that redefine themselves in progressively greater complexities, which we call evolution.

So Barrow's "evolution of the Universe" is already predefined by this infinite interrelationship. The "principle would need to differ from any laws of gravitation and particle physics" is already redefined by Atomus Summus (see ARCHIVED Forums), where gravity is the basic medium of the universal reality. The "clustering of matter into stars and galaxies" is exactly what happens when reality sets reach stability equilibrium at their totalities. The "need to govern the invisible ways in which the gravitational field of the Universe can change" is best described by the instantaneous force fields of the basic matter of the universe, which is gravity. We think of things happening at light speed as fast, but for a universe, this is slow. Gravity, as an infinite force field spanning the cosmos means that distant galaxies respond to each other's presence instantaneously, in a kind of infinite awareness of one another. Gravity is, a variable-constant throughout the cosmos, which means that as a basic state of the universe, it is equally felt everywhere as a very strong instantaneous force, and only modified locally by star generated energy. And finally "the Universe appears to be far more orderly than we have any right to expect", this is only due to the fact that we do not have the capacity to see an infinite set as its own complete algorithm, though the universe already does all this for us. By this model, the Time line is always only one way, forward. With interrelationship, as the binding medium for an infinite gravity state of reality, all this becomes understandable, and expectable.

In the end, any Theory of Everything has to incorporate not only an instantaneous medium of interconnectivity, which both gravity and interrelationship sets offer, but also a means of binding these diverse systems into stable sets of reality, which the universe does. This is how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is reversed. After that, it is merely observation, and awe.

And all this is true because E=mc^2 had been rewritten as h/cl+g=m.

Ivan

BROWN HOLE VS BLACK HOLE
http://www.msnbc.com/news/861955.asp?0dm=C239T

For the record, the M15 "brown hole" is not a "black hole", but rather a collection of collapsed stars which glow faint and thus exhibit high gravity. As predicted by "Atomus Summus", gravity is greater in low energy star environments. Black holes occur only at galactic centers, where stellar light cancels out.

Eds.

"Brane-Storm" not so "hare-brained"?

The "membranes" of fifth dimensional universes occasionally collide and "touch" each other to create a new universe, like the one we're in, which is only four dimensional, or at least three plus time... Well, this is some of the ideas floating out in space in answer to the Big Bang, which is more hare-brained than the mem-braned universe picture. But there may be some truth to this way of thinking, that other universal dimensions touch ours in ways inexplicable. For example, why are atoms where they are? Can the atom at rest in this dimension be energy traveling at light speed in another, or some such image that is not easily visualized in the three dimensional space we inhabit, but may make perfect sense if the other dimensions are, say, perpendicular or at some odd angle to ours, and thus invisible. Or perhaps they are visible only at the manifestation of forces in this dimension... Or is it all but a frantic human attempt to make sense of the impossible, the unknowable, infinity?

Ivan

BLACK HOLES ARE UNIVERSAL

Is there a universal "co-evolution" of black holes and spiral galaxies? It is interesting that this is posited in Space.com's Robert Roy Britt's article "New light shed on black holes". He writes:

"The new history also shows that a black hole is almost surely a product of the galaxy in which it resides. Neither, it seems, does much without the other." (italics mine)

This is a revolutionary idea, and one which then leads to questions of how frequent are these black holes, and are they co-evolutionary with galactic systems, or a kind of "chicken-egg" question on a cosmic scale. The answer seems to be "yes", that black holes are everywhere.

Of course, this is a perspective taken up in Atomus Summus, where the evolution of black holes are simply the product of how light energy interacts with primordial space and cancels out the lambda wavelengths, so that the gravity modifying aspect of light is negated back into pure gravity, hence a gravity "black hole". This is elementary physics of the new physics posited here in the posts above, though it is revolutionary cosmology in terms of understanding how gravity is universal.

On "dark matter", this is likewise explained in the above due to deep space having less light density and more gravity density, so that it appears to be "heavier" when far from a light source. At least, this is how h/cl+g=m plays out, where the light lambda plays a pivotal role in determining the strength of the "remainder force" of gravity. In truth, I expect that within the next decade, all this gravity stuff will cease to mystify and instead become understood well enough to power our next generation of space craft, at speeds far greater than that predicted by the relatively dirty nuclear rockets projected for use in Mars human exploration.

That said, how is Kopeikin's thesis coming along, proving that G=C? I believe he has until Feb. 14th to give his results...

* * *

Hi J____,

Just a reminder that I am most interested in seeing new findings in this area of gravity, as you posted Jan. 14, 2003, "of the actual extended math". Truly looking forward to seeing it!

Ivan

QUESTION: Is the atomic Strong Force, which is set to "1", as per convention, the same as gravity within galactic black holes, so that these can also be equal to "1"?

This is not a fanciful question, if one considers that the way E=mc^2 plays out into h/cl=m, to solve for light l, then an answer can be computed. We know that this computes out to be approximately l=2.2087X10^-42 meters, which is star specific to our solar system. However, in order to factor in gravity, as per Atomus Summus, Einstein's famous equation is incomplete, and should read instead as: E/c^2=m-g, which then translates into h/cl+g=m (where h=Plank's constant, c=light speed in vacuum, l=lambda wavelength of e.m. energy, g=gravity remainder force constant, and m=mass). If so, then by setting m=1, as an expression of the unity of the atom, the resulting algorithmic expression as a function of light yields that if light is absent, or self-negated into zero, then the tendency will be for g=1 also. This is a natural result of there being no light lambda to modify raw gravity, which is a super gravity of black hole proportions, into atomic mass, where the remainder force is the gravity we know within the energy rich environment of our solar system, or any star system. The ancillary result is that for stars with lesser energy, such as cool brown stars, or neutron stars, the resulting gravity is much greater than experienced here, as h/cl+g=m would predict. What is left now is for us to discover this to be true, that gravity is not a constant throughout the cosmos, but is a variable-constant dependent upon the energy environment within which it is measured. If this is so, and I suspect it will be proven so, we have a basis for the Strong Force within the center of the atom to be equal to the gravity value at the center of each galaxy where the gravity black hole resides, since both are functions of the same interplay of forces. It yet remains to be proven, but if it is, then may we suspect we have a TOE?

Any thoughts? Anyone to help Ivan out on this one?

Eds.

Ivan,

An email with the S. Kopeikin extended math is now in your email box.

Important note: Dr. H. Asada, and Dr. C. M. Will two of the Kopeikin references both disagree with Kopeikin, his math, and his results … It is interesting to note that Kopeikin altered his findings after the fact, which is not quite kosher when doing experiments of this type.

Gravity propagation is at infinite speed. In other words as mass increases, gravity increases proportionately, simultaneously, instantly and congruent the accumulation of mass.

Gravity Probe B will end all debate about this issue, and conclusively prove - the speed of gravity is infinite.

J____

Hi J____,

RE << Your math still does not work.... You cannot alter E=MC2 and expect the functions not to change accordingly. And, you do not include the necessary "tensor" functions required for Relativity to function when dealing with gravity...>>

Thanks for the paper on Kopeikin's math. I'm looking at it now. Kopeikin ends the paper by saying that "Einstein was right!" Well, no doubt he was, but his math proves something, though not necessarily the speed of gravity.

My own translation of Einstein's E=mc2 is much more mundane, and really no more than a rough indication that gravity (as a constant "g" only) was missing from the energy-matter interaction as a remainder force. To make the rewriting (E/c2 + g = m, which then becomes h/cw + g = m = 1) to work mathematically, we would need to break down the "g" further into "tensor functions", as you say. The main purpose for rewriting Einstein's famous formula was motivated by the idea that "inverses multiply into one" (which is why it was rewritten as E/c2 = m =1), and that a remainder "g" exists depending upon "w" lambda of em energy, if the equation is to work. Nothing Earth shaking here, merely much simplified. So, either it is a stroke of luck (surely not genius!), or the universe is truly more simple than we had made it... or I am "lost in space", and all the Relativistic interpretations of Gravity are correct in their intensely-convoluted ways. I suppose what remains is for us to make the observations that gravity is either a constant throughout the cosmos, or not. And if it is not, then Einstein was wrong, as is Kopeikin... and there is a chance that the way I see it, for which I had now listed volumes of reasons why I think this is so, might just be a shade closer to the truth. "Will the real Mr. Gravity please stand up!"

Let's wait and see what Gravity Probe B reveals in its data.

Thanks so much for sending me that paper. Always appreciate your ideas and support in this great quest. Does Dr. Ram Sharma have any new developments on this? I'd love to see it, if he had posted it somewhere on the net.

Ivan

ENERGY VS ?

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat and work are conserved within a closed system. This concept leads one to think of energy as a kind of fluid entity which counteracts an otherwise inertial state, so that it takes energy to produce motion, or vice-versa, that motion is a product of energy. However, if we take this concept further to include Electromagnetic Radiation energy, then we can see that units of photon energy (which can be expressed using Plank's relation E=hf, where E=energy of photon, h=Plank's constant, and f=frequency of wave), work to modify the inertial state of any given entity. This concept can be taken further with a concept where energy, especially the high energies generated by star systems, is what modifies the "absence of energy" (i.e., a kind of "inertia") within a closed system. Conceptually, this mental model leads one to envision energy and the "absence of energy" as counterpoised within a closed system, from which results a something which leads to motion. This is not a "something from nothing" idea, but rather a something to something system. What is missing in this system, however, is a definition of what the "absence of energy inertia" would be. If we substitute "gravity" for this term, as the counter force to energy, the we can see how this concept can fit into the First Law of thermodynamics as a closed system.

Though it was never thought of this way, I suspect that we already have this force interaction conceptually within how was rewritten E=mc2. By morphing it into E/c2 = m, and then subtracting gravity from mass (and moving it over to the other side), so that it becomes E/c2 + g = m , we now have the new relationship of h/cw + g = m, which is how Atomus Summus defines Einstein's famous equation (as per above, where "w" is lambda wavelength of e.m. energy). Thus the resulting equation gives us the "energy vs gravity" interaction, of which what we know of as gravity is but a remainder force from this. This then becomes the new definition of energy vs. gravity relationship, of which the gravity we experience is but a very weak remainder force of that interaction. The reason this is interesting, and potentially significant, is because it can be understood conceptually as what happens to energy on one hand, and to gravity on the other, so that between the two we have a closed system of energy interaction. In effect, we have what happens in reality in the universe. Seen this way, gravity is no longer odd-man out, but is rather integrated into this relationship, so that it is merely what remains after the interaction of these two counterpoised phenomena, energy and gravity. Of course, the result of this interaction is mass and motion, and that which keeps me pinned to my seat as I write these words. And if this is true, then Energy is a natural product within a closed system's interaction with the primordial stuff of our universe, which is gravity. The motion that energy then supplies is either in molecular vibration, hence heat, or in kinetic energy, which is spin and all the other motions we see in the universe. And if this is so, then this universe of ours begins to make sense.

The next question I would ask here, if I may be so bold, is what is Energy? Can it too be the function of another state of Gravity? In other words, philosophically speaking, is the absence of energy nothing more than gravity itself? Or, if I may digress, is there really nothing in the universe but Gravity, which in a modified form becomes Energy? Or am I really dreaming!.....

I think seeing it this way is actually very easy, easily conceptualized, and the math is merely off the shelf boilerplate.

Have fun with this one, Boys!

Ivan

Ivan,

Energy is matter.

J____

GRAVITY IS ?

Within the structure of the atom as defined by E=mc^2, (which became E/c^2 + g = m), g = 5.9X10^-39, as a gravitational constant. This was how gravitation was defined within Atomus Summus through the rewritten equation of "energy vs gravity" expressed as h/cw + g = m = 1, where "w" is lambda wavelength of e.m. energy. In solving this wave lambda for the gravitational state of our solar region, w=2.2087X10^-42 meters, yields the "g" above. But what does this mean? What is the Gravity function "G" as a constant "g"?

We know of Gravity on Earth, and in the measurable heavens, by the function:

G = 6.673 X 10^-11 m^3 s^-2 kg^-1 in terms of metric units and approximate gravitational constant, which is not the same as "g" above.

"G" is what gravity becomes in our immediate environment, whereas "g" is what remains as a gravitational constant of the function interacting energy and gravity within the atom. But "g" can now be understood as a function relative to energy "w", which is a variable throughout the cosmos, thought it may remain relatively fixed within a star system, because that is how that star emits its electromagnetic rays into its system. This is how the system then balances out, so that the remainder force of gravity, which is a very strong force, becomes negated into a very weak force, such as we experience here on our planet.

So there is a more meaningful way to write out the "energy vs gravity" equation as such:

h/cw = m - g, or better as: h/cw - m = - g, which formally becomes:

-g = h/cw - 1, remembering that m=1, so that "g" becomes a function of "w" lambda.

So that this is the formal equation of gravity, for it is the definitive expression of gravity for all possible lambdas of energy. This means that "g" in a high energy system, like ours, is very small and tending more towards zero, i.e., 5.9X10^-39, as it should. On the other hand, this value of "g" can grow into a very large force approaching "1", i.e., the Strong Force of the atom, in an energy poor environment, or expected to be the very strong gravity within the galactic center's so-called "black hole", where wave lambda is cancelled out to zero. Therefore, if this is so, then we now see once again how gravity is a function of energy, which within a closed system equates to work: Same as work and energy are related within the First Law of thermodynamics, so is gravity and work related, as they should be, since energy and gravity are related. All of these in turn are then related, as our friend J___ tells us, "Energy is matter", which again is mass. So we have come to a complete circle, that energy modifies gravity into mass, which then becomes the material vehicle for gravity G, which is a function of how plays e.m. energy "w" into "g" for our star, which determines the gravity "G", which we then experience on our physical material world, Earth. You may then recognize this as once again another example of the "law of inverses" multiplying into one, or "zero X infinity = 1", which has never been proven mathematically, but was here described physically as a basic construction of how works our universe.

Really, if this had been discovered by Snoopy, at this point he would be twirling on his toes. But that is not so simple, for there are still obstacles to realizing whether or not this new definition of gravity, as -g = h/cw -1, is really the final expression of how is derived G. This will not happen until we have a definitive proof that gravity is not a universal constant, but is only a variable-constant dependent upon the energy source within which G is measured. On Earth, this translates into G = 6.673 X 10^-11, but far into space there may lurk a kind of "dark matter"where this relation of G does not hold and is much more powerful instead, closer to the value of g = 1, so that it is very great. In a closed system of the First Law, we may yet discover that Gravity is also work, same as energy is work, and a force we will soon use to travel between the planets and stars.

* * *

And if we do this, then we will have bridged the gap between the infinities of Bruno and the gravity of Galileo, so both would be vindicated and forgiven, and in so doing will have bridged the vast gulf between the Church and Science and God.

Watch for that proof. When it comes, we will write out the formal thesis: "Energy Vs. Gravity".

Ivan

Hawking muses on ultimate theory of the universe.

---

Quote:

“Some people will be very [disappointed] if there is not an ultimate theory,” Hawking said. “I belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.” We will “always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we will stagnate. Long may the search continue.”

---

Dear CC, and all,

No, not there yet, but working on it. There is still the matter of "dark matter", and whether there is evidence of star specific gravity constants and deep space gravity anomalies. Of course, we can round up the usual suspects, such as relativity, space-time, curved space, Goedel's theorem, etc., though I suspect the answer will be more prosaic. The next challenge, should gravity prove to be a variable constant, would be to reconcile the quantum gravitational constant "g" with the macro Gravity "G" law of attraction between masses. The suspects there are subatomic interactions as products of harmonic ratios and 137 as conditions that lead from the micro to the macro gravity values.. but only suspicions at this point.

As Hawking says, we will always have the challenge of new discover. And when we become satisfied with one, even a major one like TOE, we will discover that it only opens doors to new challenges, ad infinitum.

Ivan

From the Physical Review Focus: Linked Molecules

Molecules in ultracold gasseous states can create supermolecules while still apart. This leads one to think of: Why do molecules respond to one another? For example, why is it that energy applied to molecules make them vibrate in response to each other, and thus give off heat? Is this due to electromagnetic attraction-repulsion mechanics? Does more e.m. energy, for example, increase this molecular vibration? Is it due to heads-tails-heads-tail-tail-heads-heads type of sequences? Why would molecules not simply expand when heated and stay fixed. But they vibrate! Why?

Just some off the wall heads up questions about molecular vibrations...

Ivan

DARK MATTER FOUND

In the above referenced MSNBC article "Missing intergalactic matter found", three x-ray telescopes were used to make the discovery. Dark matter is "hot" so is invisible within the normal light spectrum, yet it is believed to exist in giant great gaseous clouds between galaxies, and is thus known by its gravitational effect holding clusters of galaxies together. The chicken and the egg question is then is the heavy deep space gravity due to the great abundance of gaseous materials between galaxies, or is it heavy because it is the nature of deep space mass to be heavier? In effect, if we sent a space craft into the deep intergalactic regions of space, would it grow heavier, and would it glow "hot" with x-ray or higher frequencies? If so, then deep space dark matter and deep space gravity would be the same thing.

Hmm... let's see... Gaseous deep space dark matter, heavy gravity, light speed slower than C if in a medium... well, does it not appear that redshifted light is a natural phenomenon over great cosmic distances? And if so, does it not appear that the universe is not necessarily expanding as posited by BBT? Hmm...

Gravity vs. gravitons
As regards gravity, think of its "tensor force" akin to a stretched coiled-spring, that a tug on one end immediately registers on the other end. However, if one end is bumped, the bump will travel along the spring in a ripple effect. Now, think of this as analogous to what is Gravity: It is a "tensor force" which responds instantaneously, but at the same time it has the ability to ripple its energy, what is theoretically called gravitons, which travel at light speed. If so, then Gravity and gravitons are two different things.

Ivan

Ivan,

Eventually you will get there, where gravity is, as it is; however, before you will understand, you must comprehend gravity is gravity - nothing more, nothing less.

Gravity cannot be altered, for gravity is, as gravity is – gravity is universal, and the same here, on earth, as it is everywhere else in the universe. It is not comprised of anything, not energy, and not matter, for gravity is, gravity. You read it here, first: Gravity is a property, which should clear things up for you, and make your reasoning less complex.

The question is, “What is gravity the property of?” Gravity is a property of matter, and it is not a property of energy, nor is it energy….

Gravity is not a tensor force – but Relativity demands tensor function to explain gravity, which is why the entire world of physics is lost when it comes to understanding gravity. Move away from Relativity, forget it, and away from conventional physics, and you then might be able to understand gravity.

Newton almost got it perfect the first time – gravity can only function when two objects have mass…. Think - If you have an apple hanging in a tree, it is not gravity that causes the apple to fall when the stem is broken – it is the “breaking force” required to break the stem that causes the apple to fall. By that, gravity cannot function without another force beginning the “attractive reaction” to gravity. Remember, it “requires energy” to begin any action – which, in essence, proves my point explicitly. Gravity, alone, is not capable of producing a reaction….

Think, about an apple in the tree…. Hypothetically, put the tree in a perfect vacuum…. Cut the apple stem…. What happens to the apple?

J____

J___,

You say:

The question is, “What is gravity the property of?” Gravity is a property of matter, and it is not a property of energy, nor is it energy….

And I say:

"Matter is energy"... or is that what you said?

Then if so, there must be linkage, and gravity is not outside the realm of mass and energy, but of it, or in it. What E/c2 + g = m (h/cw + g = 1 = m) pertains to is a way to interrelate the three topics: Matter, energy, and gravity.

This is the kernel of our Quest. We will no know, however, if we are "hot or cold" until we go deep into space and measure gravity there, away from cosmic "hot spots" like galaxies and stars.


"What happens to the apple?"

Of course two objects have mass, for that is how gravity is manifest within matter. But here the energy of the falling apple is "energized" by its absence, what is the "energy" of the absence of energy, which likewise results in motion, towards the greater mass center.

I should note that the only way Gravity manifests itself is through matter, for it is impossible to measure it otherwise, since it is evident only when atoms have formed into mass.

Still thinkin'...

Ivan

Ivan,

You still do not grasp, for you did not answer the question.

"What happens to the apple?"

J____

Gravity wave detector all set.

In the excellent BBC article referenced above, the gravitation wave experiment will no doubt yield results. If energy and gravity are related quantities, then it should be no surprise that gravity and electromagnetic energy have some interrelationship. However, I suspect this falls more into the domain of "gravitons" than Gravity.

I would be most interested in seeing the results.

Dear J____,

As far as "what happens to the apple?" goes, I truly do not know. Why should it not act as any small mass in the vicinity of a greater mass, and be drawn to it? The small mass moves proportionally a much greater distance than the larger mass, though both move towards each other. But beyond this, I am mystified. How do you see this? What happens to the apple in the vacuum you posited above?

Take care, all best,
Ivan

Ivan,

Nothing will happen to the apple when severed from the tree when inside a pure vacuum, except the apple will no longer be attached to the tree.

For the LIGO or LISA experiments to work, demands that gravity is a waveform; however, what type of waveform is gravity?

This is the kicker - nobody can tell us what waveform gravity takes.... Reason being, gravity is not a wave.

J____

Hello J__ & Ivan,

The apple will float around the tree in closing concentric circles until it reconnects by resting somewhere on the tree's mass, that is, assuming there is no other mass around.

Sgr A* is a much bigger problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2769737.stm

Anonymous,

Pray tell, what initiates motion to the apple? Remember, there is no motive force....

The first hint of problems with the information in your link should come with the words,

"For the first time, researchers have been able to study in detail the light coming from a star that skirts close in to this exotic object at jaw-dropping speeds - 9,000 kilometres per second."

The story is nothing more than additional hyperfluff used to continue the madness of chasing bad physics, bad astronomy, and bad science.

J____

GRAVITY IS STRANGER THAN FICTION?

A funny thing came into my head while on my way to New York, that ENERGY = MATTER + GRAVITY, which made me look out the window on the white clouds below and azure blue sky above, and wonder... Where am I? Somewhere over the Texas Panhandle, I thought.

The way this showed up algorithmically was like this:

E = mc2, which we all know, but gravity was missing, so that it became E/C^2 = m-g, where "g" is a small gravity dimensionless constant of 10^-39, which is a gravity-electromagnetism relationship.
This formula then rewrites as:

E = (m-g) C^2, which further multiplies out to:
E = (mc^2) - (gc^2), so that we get:
-gc^2 = E - mc^2.

Now it take a leap to see the next relationship, but it looks like this:

G^2 = gc^2, so that the small gravity constant "g"translates into macro-gravity "G".

Now, G = 10^-11, approximately, and
g = 10^-39, approx. When putting these together, with c = 10^8, we get the following:

G^2 = gc^2, so that,
(10^11)^2 = (10^-39) x (10^8)^2,
G^2 = 10^-39 x 10^16 = 10^-23

Now take the square root and you get approximately 10^-11, which is G.

These numbers are approximate, but used to illustrate the idea that Energy = Matter + Gravity, and also the relationship between large G and small g, as they manifest in our solar system's energy environment.

Well, that's all for now, will look out the window over Texas again on my return flight.

Cheers! Ivan

2 More links on Universal Harmonics and CMB:

Astronomers hear 'music of creation'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1304666.stm

This BBC article lends further credence to a
universe built on a principle of harmonics, same
as discovered for the atomic shell ratios.

Map reveals strange cosmos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2814947.stm

Of course, this leads us to once again think of us
at the absolute center of the cosmos, which is
centric to the max, and likely wrong.

Ivan

Searching for Gravity amidst illusion.

In the Sept. 22, 2002, article in NewScientist.com titled "Earth's magnetic field 'boosts gravity'", the search for Newton's constant G remains illusive to modern testing techniques. Gravitational bodies exerting force on each other vary slightly depending on either the magnetic field within which it is measured, or the type of body. In the research done by Jean-Paul Mbelek and Marc Lachieze-Ray, the article says:

"The pair suggests that electromagnetism and gravity influence one another enough for gravity's pull to be noticeably affected by the Earth's magnetic field."

As Gravity is a remnant force, along with magnetism, of how is formed the atom, as per Atomus Summus, this finding is not so surprising, since gravity is a function of the energy level within which it is measured in relation how atoms form in that energy environment. Also, the solar mass, by this reasoning, should exhibit a lower gravitational value than that of deep interstellar space, where energy is less abundant. This is supported in party by:

"Studies of the Sun also support the theory. To make mathematical models of the star's interior tally with experimental data, physicists have to use a lower value of G than traditionally agreed."

Well, Sir Isaac, we have a challenge to your G, though it had come in most useful within the scope of what had been needed thus far. But far out into deep intergalactic space, we will need a different G, for algorithmically, "g" is a function of C and supergravity. All this is made to be easily understood by h/cw + g = m =1, where "w" is lambda of e.m energy, or also as E/C^2 + g = m, which is how forms Gravity, whereby G^2 = gc^2. Since G is an interactive force between bodies, any one side of that relationship is then expressed as a square root, which yield's Sir Isaac's G constant.

Still need more evidence that Gravity is a variable-constant, and more of this should become evident in the regions of deep intergalactic space.

Atomus Summus

Ivan

Gravity as a variable constant calculated with cosmic background radiation lambda.

If you think about it, if you are very far from any energy source in deep space and the only available energy is cosmic background radiation, then according to Atomus Summus, you should yield a fairly high "gravity" reading. Using Jerry E. Bayles's book "Electrogravitation as a Unified Field Theory", an E-Book at: http://www.electrogravity.com/gravbook/ , as a source, we get CMB lambda as = 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.

Now, if e.m. background energy is 10^-3 m lambda (w), then it stands to reason that using the formula: h/cw + g = m = 1, that the gravitational "g" of deep space, very far away from any energy source would work out to be:

6.67x10^-34 / (3x10^8) x (8.5x10^-3) + g = m , which equals:

(6.67x10^-34 / 2.555x10^6) + g = 1, which means the g is:

1 - (2.61x10^-40), which is very close to approaching 1.

Therfore, in very deep space, gravity far from any energy source, where energy is measured only a CMB, that environment as a gravitational constant "g" would give us a gravity almost approximating that of a black hole!

Taking this further, where G^2 = gc^2 (as per above post of 2/28/03), we get the Newton Gravity constant G as:

G^2 = (~1) x (3x10^8) ^2, which yields G^2 = 9x10^16 , which taking the square root then give us: G = 3x10^8 , which is a very great number... !!!

If this is so, then Black Hole gravity G (max) = 3X10^8. And that is one motha' of a gravity! Yeeeehaaaa! Ride 'em cowboy into that thar Black Hole!!!

It also happens that G = C in a Black Hole... they cancel out.

Now, let's check actual measurements of Black Hole gravity to see if this is so.

Ivan

Ivan,

Your math still does not work....

J____

Addendum to Gravity post above:

I've been thinking (while walking the dogs again at Fairview Mesa this starry evening) that we are faced with a dilema: How can we possibly surive the crushing gravity of deep space, if we ever manage to get there? The answer that came to me is that we would have to "outrun" it, in effect find a way to hitchike off the very great gravity already present there. This would necessitate immense speed for our space vessel, if we are to maintain our corpular gravity level at Earth's, which is g = 5.9x10^-39 level, or G = 6.67x10^-11 m^3 s^-2 kg^-1 as a Newton gravity constant. This could be accomplished by increasing the vessel's speed, so that it would be energized, in effect accelerated, to where the g constant is the same as here on Earth. This means the algorithm would yield the following:

h/cw + g = m = 1 , with "v" substituting "c" to equal vessel velocity, we get , if (w = 8.5x10^-3) of deep space:

[6.67x10^-34 / v x (8.5x10^-3)]+ (5.9x10^-39) = 1 , which yields: 6.67x10^-34 / [(v) x (8.5x10^-3)] = 1 - (5.9x10^-39) , and if we approximate the result as "0.999999999...", in effect "1", we get:

6.67x10^-34 / (8.5x10^-3) x (7.85x10^32) = 1, which is approximately the velocity needed, so that:

v = 7.85x10^32 m/sec , which is one humongous velocity! ...and certainly much faster than light, like v = C^4 . This is how fast we would need to travel to "outrun" the deep space gravity force there.

My guess? We'll get there, out there in "hyperspace", same as "they" get here. Of course, it may take awhile...

* * *

Ps: Thanks for looking in J___! I don't have all the answers, just having fun with some of the questions. If nothing else, it is elegant.

Ivan

Ps: I did fix the math on the "Gravity as a variable constant" post above, Mar. 11, 2003. Don't know where I got g=2.67x10^-8 from, in all honesty, I must have dreamt it! The real value, for g at w=10^-3 meters, is actually g=1-(2.61x10^-40), which is essentially approaching 1, or the g value of max gravity. Sorry for snafu.

Ivan,

The problem with your effort is, where is your deep space...?

The HST has taken two wide field pictures that cover 30% of the southern hemisphere, and 24% of the northwestern hemisphere … the pictures reveal little or no difference at all in the stellar interstices between the two photographs. As photo resolution improves, each new photo tends to prove there are no huge voids in space, and what seems to be a void in space to us here on earth is not a void at all, but a place where we do not receive any light from the objects there because of the vast distances involved.

To help you with this, you should visit,

COBE

and run the simulation programs that are available from that website.

What you will learn is, the Background Radiation is totally misunderstood by people that do not know exactly what it is – you will also learn the Background Radiation does not at all suggest it is a remnant of the BB, and can be caused by innumerable sources.

It is not difficult to “outrun gravity” … you can do it easily by jumping off the floor.

J____

J___!

I tried jumping off the floor, and it works! Hoorah for empirical evidence! That G=6.6x10^-11 is a piece of cake.

The vast distances between stars and galaxies, as you point out, are not empty but full of gases, dust, energy, etc. However, these are relatively "dark" areas, so that they do not generate energy in the manner of stars, and thus the G factor there is different from that of solar systems. In taking E lambda as its background wavelength of approx. 10^-3, the formula results in G being much greater than here, because the energy level, in that dark region, is low. However, whether or not the measurement of cosmic microwave background is correct is still up in the air, though we know that G is very great in low energy stars, like brown or neutron stars, and we know it is at its max in the so called black holes at galaxy centers. Now that there is also suspicion that the G value of our sun is lower than that of on Earth, this is another piece of evidence in solving this who dun it. Imagine, try jumping off the floor on a neutron star!

As John Milton put so succinctly in his "Aeropagitica"-1644:

"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making."

So, my friend, I welcome all your thoughts, and challenges, because being good men, this is how we edge closer to the truth.

Take care, cheers, Ivan

Ivan,

In measured gravity tests, it does not make any difference the size of an object - the only factor that changes with size is density; hence, the gravitational effect of 1 helium atom is the same here on earth as it is everywhere in the universe. The valid reason gravity is a constant is; gravity was proven long ago to be uniform among the known elements; that factor alone denies your notion has any potential whatsoever. The gravitational effect of one pound of U-235 here on earth = gravitational effect of one pound of U-235 anywhere else in the universe. It cannot be any other way. If you take one pound of U-235, smash it very thin say .0625” – take another pound of U-235 and make it 1” thick – the effect of gravity shifts according to the center of mass, but the cumulative total effect of gravity is not subject to, or susceptible to change.

Critical density is the factor that causes neutron stars to exhibit very strong gravitational effects; however, the overall weight of a neutron star is no greater than any other mass with equal weight despite size.

We do not know gravity is maxed in black holes – that is pure speculation because it has not been validated black holes truly exist. We do not have the necessary instrumentation to validate the concept of black holes is anything more than number theory, and numbers break down whenever a singularity is involved of which, a black hole would necessarily be a singularity. The same argument can be used against black holes that can be used against the BBT – and that argument cannot be defeated.

Gravity being only an attractor – cannot exist in a waveform, which tends to prove that we (all of physics, all of science) do not know or understand the mechanism that causes gravitational function. I can now prove gravity has nothing to do with radiated electro-magnetic energy, and I can prove gravity has nothing to do whatsoever with the strong, EM, and so-called weak forces. So, for the moment, I am content to say, gravity is the force that binds the universe together; therefore, a medium exists that is not detectible by any known method excepting one – and Dayton Miller proved that medium exists. And, Gravity Probe B will in fact verify Dayton Miller was correct, and the in crowd and the establishment of the BBT is dead….

J____

Dear J____,

How did you check for Gravity away from our Solar system? How do you know that a helium atom has the same gravitational constant midway to Alpha Centaury as it does here? How do you expect the same gravity for a helium atom in the region of a neutron star? Why should a helium atom have the same gravitational constant as it is falling into a Black Hole? Really, how can you be sure that gravity is equal throughout the cosmos, since you are Earthbound and can only measure it here?

Just some questions that came to mind from your above post...

Ivan

Ivan,

At the moment I will only answer one question since the data accumulated is complete as possible.

You wrote: "How did you check for Gravity away from our Solar system?"

The data collected from Voyager 1, and Voyager II provides a representational model based on exponential polynomial algorithmic functions that can duplicate interstellar space. What the model proves is interstellar space is not different from space inside the solar system.

Space is space – and space consists of matter without voids; therefore, the concept that singularities can occur is, frankly, absurd. The problem is in the numbers of which, were used to establish the premise that singularities are possible. For a singularity to occur – no matter can be present. This leads us to the concept of a black hole….

A black hole – supposedly – consumes everything within its grasp. The question is, into where does that consumed – go?

I have repeatedly said, “Ivan – your math does not work.”

By using your math – to give credibility to your Theory – you must explain using the same method – What happens to the matter consumed by a black hole?

No math has accomplished that fact – yet; moreover, when you ask most physicists or cosmologists the loaded question – they throw up their hands and say, “who knows?”

Something cannot come of nothing – conversely – something cannot be put into nothing.

J____

Ivan,

The math simply does not work - I don't understand how you got lost in the maze you are trapped within, but it appears you are trapped within numbers that do not provide correct answers. Energy = matter – true, but energy cannot disappear either…? Can it? Tell me how … please?

Have you tried to follow just one of your equations to its stop point, to know what those numbers represent?

The point I am making is this- every premise that you have presented is based on but one single factor – E=MC^2, and the aftermath of poor physics and unrealistic math that have developed over the near 100 years since.

You wrote: “G (max) = C, when g = 1. That's my new gig!

“Think of it this way: We cannot know if the gravity relationships are the same or different far off in the dark regions of space, in between the stars and galaxies, because on a relative basis, if the gravity is more intense then here, the behavior of the bodies present, all being in the same gravitational constant "g" region, would exhibit the same properties we observe here. The only way you would know the difference is that if you went there, spin would increase, your ability to withstand G diminish, and very likely your trajectory through the region be accelerated dramatically. Only conjecture, but that's my best guess, given the math above.”

Two questions:

1. By what mechanism would spin increase?
2. What would the amount of spin increase be?

If your math is correct, you should be able to provide both answers.

J____

Dear J_____,

To answer the Two questions above, please refer to "GRAVITY VARIANCE TEST" posted August 25, 2002, in the ARCHIVED Forums, TOE/Theory of Everything -3, for the methodology showing why spin increases in a greater gravitational environment.

The math used was: F(centripetal) = mv^2/r, with the equation reworked for "v" as rotational velocity:

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

The results of increased F = G (as gravitational state of mass) shows increased spin.

Thanks again for asking good questions, hope this answers. Of course, this formula gives us theoretical values of spin, and we will not know for certain until we can measure such in a greater G environment.

Ivan

Random Notes on Spin, as it applies to a neutron star.

Dear J___,

Here are some ideas on how to figure the spin of something like a neutron star. I would use the Crab Nebula as an example. There is information on this pulsar cum neutron star at:

Chandra X-ray Observatory

Cosmiverse Reference Library

I figure that if we can calculate (guesstimate) the "g" factor, as per "Atomus Summus-2" as a gravitational constant, using G to calculate this, we may be able to guesstimate the value of the neutron star's Mass, though this would be, of necessity by this system, only as a function of m=1, which is mass figured as a fraction of absolute mass. The results are interesting, however.

Taking as a basis G^2=gc^2, and using G as 6.67x10^-11 as Earth's gravity, taking further the generally accepted idea that the solar mass of the Crab Nebula neutron star is approximately 100 billion (10^11) times the gravity as measured of our Sun's (so that G of the neutron star is approx. = 6.67x10^-11 times 10^11 = 6.67x10^0), we can then calculate Mass as follows:

(6.67x10^0)^2 = g (3x10^8)^2 which then becomes

g=4.94x10^-14

(This "g" is therefore much more powerful as a gravitational constant than the g=10^-39, which is the constant for our region of solar energy.)

I will use the Spin algorithm for this, keeping in mind that according to the Chandra link above, the Crab Nebula neutron star spins about 30 times per second, which using this to calculate spin V, we get:

V=(30)(2pr), which is the spin times the circumference of the star with "r" (estimated as about 10K km) as:

if r= 10^7 meters,

then, V=1.88x10^9 m/s as spin velocity of star.

Using the algorithm for spin, and substituting F with "g", for example, we get:

F (centripetal) = (MV^2)/r, which then converts (if F=g) into this:

g = MV^2/r which to solve for M becomes:

M = gr/v^2, which then figures out to be:

M = [(10^-14)(10^7)]/(10^9)^2 , which yields:'

M = 10^-25, except that this is an inverse number (as per above, that this is a fraction 1/M), since it is a function of maximum mass = 1, so that seeing this as 1/10^-25 is really 10^25, as its inverse.

Therefore, the mass is:

M(neutron star)= 10^25 solar masses, based on our original assumption.

I have not done more on this, but I suspect that by playing around with these numbers, we can come up with a way to check to see if our ideas of the neutron stars radius is correct. Remember we cannot actually see this star, and only infer from other measurements and theories as to how big this star is. In fact, it may not be 10K km radius at all, but have not done any work on this.

Will work on this some more when have time. Just some random thoughts, which actually came about because I could not figure out how to use the solar mass of 1.99x10^30 kg as a way to figure out how much mass was in the pulsar, which is believed to be only 1/5th the size of the sun, but at minimum 20 times as massive... really! all very confusing! As you can see, my number is much much greater than that.

Any ideas on any of this? I know, you think my math stinks, and so do I, but think of this as mere doodles. But this is one way to illustrate, using the pulsar neutron star as an example, of how the energy environment of that star is so different from the energy level of our Sun. The result is immense gravity there. The other calculation that would be interesting is to see what is the l for the Crab Nebula pulsar, as compared with ours which is l = 2.2076x10^-42 meters. But it's very late...


Take care, let's hope the military operation in Iraq, which is just started as I write this, comes to a speedy and beneficial conclusion, to the benefit of a more peaceful future for all of us, without too much loss of life.

Talk soon, Ivan

Ps: ERRATUM: Please note in my original, I failed to figure G as it translate into "g", which needed G^2 instead, and have fixed it. The results for M are slightly changed, so that it is M=10^25 solar masses (rather than 10^26). What can I say... it was very late!

Ivan,

Your math is failing because of your use of the inverse function - in other words, you are crossing between finite and inifite domains, which simply will not work to give "realistic results."

Remember - numbers break down when infinity enters an equation ... watch out for all numbers that produce a - 0.0 - before and after a decimal point.

J____

Random thoughts with "failing" math:

I doodled some more this evening, and I think the l value generated by a neutron star, like the Crab mentioned above, can be worked out as follows:

Taking h/cl + g = m = 1, we then can work out the following:

if g = 4.94x10^-14 , as per above post, and we have c = 3x10^8, h = 6.626x10^-34, mass is m = 1, then we can figure as follows:

(Please note because the g is so much larger than h, it dominates the nominator, so that the denominator must be larger by that amount, if it is all equal to m = 1.)

The approximate numbers are therefore:

[(4.9x10^-14)/(3x10^8)(1.65x10^-6)] + (4.94x10^-14) = 1, which means that:

l = ~1.65x10^-6 , which is a very long wavelength of light, more in the infrared zone, about 10^14 Hz. See: The Electromagnetic Spectrum for illustration.

Therefore, if this lambda is 10^-6, what it illustrates is essentially a star that is merely radiating heat and little light, and not much more. The result is a relatively "cool" star, cooler than I would expect of a brown star, and thus radiating insufficient energy to keep the gravity at bay, which results in a very high gravitational constant "g" region of space, which then translates into a very high gravity region of space, and as expected, one where spin is extremely high.

As to whether or not my Mass numbers for Crab are correct depends upon whether or not both the radius and the gravitational force of the pulsar cum neutron star are correct. With further observation, we may come in with better readings, but the algorithm would accommodate that easily to adjust the numbers as we discover more.

Again, what we will need to do now, as a confirmation of this Atomus Summus algorithm, is to find actual variations of gravity in regions of deep space. If we find that, we have a TOE!

Take care, thanks for listening to my silly ramblings.

Ivan

ZPF, or Zero Point Field/force:

" This raises the tantalizing question of whether spacetime is actually physically non-Euclidean or whether our measurements of curvature merely reflect light propagation through a polarizable medium (the vacuum itself)."

This quote is from a paper titled "The Origin of Inertia", and is tantalizing in that it raises the possibility that space itself has a 'zero point force' which may someday be tapped into as a source of kinetic energy. See paper at: http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html

Just a note to show that Atomus Summus is not so far removed from other works being done. In this case, space vacuum may have a polarizing effect? Maybe, as a function of the extra gravity there...

This is more on ZPF:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

This quote at the end of the paper dovetails nicely into our TOE ideas:

"The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel."

Watch for that Gravity, the answer is way-out-there!

Ivan

The Universe (God) is a Musician?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackhole_music_020409-1.html
The Music of Black Holes

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/space_symphony_000323.html Earth hums


Not exactly Yanni, but maybe the whales can hear it?

HOW THE MATH (h/cl + g = m) WORKS:

In one of the above posts, "J___" had said my "math doesn't work". Though I have not been given specifics as to why this is so, I suspect the difficulty is in understanding an equation where things are multiplied and divided, with a value added, made to equal one. Indeed, this is not the usual secondary level algebra we all know, but it is a valid equation. It can be illustrated very simply as follows:

if X(n) is "h", X(n+g) is "cl", so that: [X(n)/ X(n+g)] + g = m = 1, then:

if X(n) = 1, and X(n+g) = 1.001, and "g" = 0.001, and mass "m" = 1, it calculates thus:

(1/1.001) + 0.001 = 1, which becomes: 0.999 + 0.001 = 1.000

(or as a check to make sure both sides of equation agree, then 0.999 = 1 - 0.001, which is 0.999 = 0.999)

This shows the equivalence on both sides, with the final result being always "m = 1", remembering that mass always equals one, and what is left over from mass being less than one is a gravitational constant, which is "g". The results from these equations, as shown above, under different conditions of "l" then yield different values of "g". If this is proven so, that gravity is only a variable-constant, then the math is not only vindicated, but elegant in its simplicity.

(Also, as a note, by this reasoning, it is very likely that Plank's constant will also be different than here in a lower energy environment of deep space than near a star's, or for a neutron star compared with the Sun's, though this is only speculation and subject to empirical verification.)

I hope this helps clarify something that, to me at least, really needed not clarification in the first place, but I'm guessing that this is where the "math doesn't work" problem originates. Am I right in this?

Well, check it out. I don't make the rules, the universe does! I just use reason to figure it out.

Tootles, Ivan

Ivan,

Take any one of your equations - run the caluclations per the equation, and post the actual resulting numbers in the exact sequence of the equation.

Equations are worthless unless the physical numbers match the anticipated hypothetical result.

J____

Ivan,

I suggest you post some of your formulas on the String Theory Website forums. At least you would get more input than you will here.

String Theory Forum

Specific –

Cosmology

J____

ADDENDUM to How Math Works:

The formal solution to TOE equation is always: h/cl = (1 - g)

where you can alternately figure out "g" or "l, and I suspect very likely "h", for anywhere in the universe; "m" is always the atom set at "1". From this basic equation then break out all the other equations of physics: kinetic motion, magnestism, electricity, radiation, G force accelerations, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ps:

Thanks J____ for the reference links to the Superstrings boards. I will check them out and see what's happening there. As Mr. Woods used to say, my math teacher at Brooklyn Tech High School, NYC -1966, when he taught us geometry proofs: "There's an easy way, and then there's the 'Germanic' way. Both work, but one is much more elegant than the other." Modern physics is fascinating, but I suspect much of it is the 'Germanic' way, which is a longer way around than the easy way.

Ivan J

Everyone,

So much for Planck Theory, Planck Time, and Planck Limit... !

Planck

J____

J____,

Thanks for the link above.

"Planck Time" is a figment of our imagination, to make equations work in a rather "time" contorted cosmology. Planck Constant "h" may not be so constant either, as you point out. There is reason to think Planck's constant may be variable away from star systems, which would change from 10^-34 (on Earth) to some larger value, i.e. 10^-14 for the Crab neutron star.

In the "Atomus Summus" approach to TOE, what we have done in essence is create an equation of "constants", starting with E=mc^2, and translated into: h/cl+g=m, with m=1 (hydrogen atom). We do not know for certain that "h" is in fact a constant the same everywhere, same as "g" may not be constant. Even "c" is suspect to not be a constant everywhere in space. [For example, how do we know for sure that light does not "accelerate" (blue-shift) as it enters the supergravity of deep space (since we're not there to see it), but then "red-shifts" (slows down) as it leaves the deep space gravity, with the end result that this repeated (fast-slow) process shows as a red-shift over great distances, by the time it reaches us? --it's possible.] I think the use of Time as a variable is a clear error on the part of modern physics, and that it should be discarded in favor of having gravity as a variable instead. G is not the same everwhere in the cosmos. Everything else then falls into place and works much better, for not only is it more elegant, but it actually makes intuitive sense, which makes me happy.

Ivan

Another link of interest, from Space.com: Dark Matter: Hidden Mass Confounds Science, Inspires Revolutionary Theories.

Ps: Not necessary to bring back cosmic "ether", but it does help with some theories. I did enter some basic TOE stuff on Superstrings forum, since they had some curiosity, but it's a difficult forum to work with, to find stuff, etc It shows under posts by "Coppernicus", on Mathematics thread. Don't know if anyone had meaningful response yet, since it is now Archived, read only... can't get into it again.

Blackhole travelers,

Here is an article MSNBC on surviving the blackhole: http://www.msnbc.com/news/895584.asp

A little Burko sause for your spaghetti?

Partial sample of 'Coppernicus' posts and others on Superstrings forum, for reference only, with active links:

Posted by 'Coppernicus' on April 03, 2003 at 20:30:54:

In Reply to: Re: Low density freedom. posted by sol on April 02, 2003 at 18:25:36:

Sol,

See if this helps (taken from New Forums at Humancafe.com, Atomus Summus-2):
"Gravity "G" as a function of the gravitational constant "g":

Starting with our basic E = mc2, which is a given, with but gravity missing, so that it becomes as per above: E/C^2 = m-g, where "g" is a small gravity dimensionless constant of 10^-39 (which is a gravity-electromagnetic energy relationship).

Taking this reasoning further, that "g" is a function of mass "m" as E/c^2, we get:
E = (m-g) C^2, which further multiplies out to:
E = (mc^2) - (gc^2), so that we get:
-gc^2 = ~E -(~mc^2).

In effect, gravitational constant times light squared equals energy minus its resulting mass, which is the gravity potential of the mass. This is another way of saying what the gravity potential of a mass, given an energy environment, will manifest as "G", which is the Newtonian value of gravity, which is not the same as "g", which denotes a "gravitational state" of the atom related to its energy state."

I bring this up because I think at its most elemental the universe a product of inverse forces, a kind of "zero x infinity = one" system, though not entirely, for there are always remainder forces, which is what makes up a lot of the forces we experience: magnetism, electricity, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, etc. This is why E=mc^2 was rewritten as E/c^2 = m-g, so that the remainder force of what creates an atom, which is an interplay of light energy and the strong force (supergravity) within the atomic shell, then yields the left over (strong force modified) which is gravity as we know it here on Earth. The same formula then yields different "g" gravitational constants dependent upon the amount of energy received in a specific locale, so that around the Sun, where there is great energy, "g" is very small (estimated here as 5.9x10^-39), which is why gravity on Earth is very light by comparrison to other cosmic phenomena.

In dark regions of space, where the light energy is much diffused, say in the region between galaxies where it approaches the plasma energy levels of cosmic background radiation (CMB), by using the "h/cw+g=m" (see link below) formula mentioned earlier, when I plug in "w" energy lambda of w=8.5x10^-3, I come up with a "g' value which is approximately g=1-(2.61x10^-40), which is very close to being "1", which is the G value (using G^2=gc^2 to calculate) of very high proportions, nearly that of black hole gravity, where G=C (as per my earlier post). What this means is that when we have the ability to reach very deep space, far from any stars or galaxies, we will discover an incredible "raw" gravity out there, which is very powerful. And what is that? It is why we have "dark matter" holding these galaxies together. It may also be why hydrogen molecules in deep space do not fly apart, rather they tend to clump together, which will be the matter of future stars.

Why do I bring this up? It is largely in response to your post:

"Mooreglades position, of the extremes of the Sun and the Blackhole as opposites, in regards to fission and fusion. Pair production and annihlation(a photon)"..

In that the interplay of opposites seems to be a universal phenomenon. The Sun is, in a manner of speaking, the opposite of Blackhole gravitational galactic centers, for one is extremely energy rich, and the other totally energy poor. (I should note that given my formula above, the blackhole happens only in galactic centers, though neutron or brown stars may become black holes if they draw enough stars into orbit around them.) One easy way to illustrate this is with a "kitchen experiment": take a bowl filled with water, and then apply any vibrating device (like a back massager) against the rim and watch the rings of energy. What do they do? Then all radiate from the rim into the center and then? They "disappear" there. I use this as an example of wave lambda canceling out at the center, though this is only partially true, since there is a "nipple" of energy that rises in the middle. I suspect this would be equivalent to the electron jets observed shooting out of the blackholes along the spiral axis.

I've rambled on too much. The point I wanted to make is that there are two basic opposing forces in cosmology: supergravity and light. These two interact in such a way that they form unities of atoms. These atoms are not perfect, so they leak radiation, electromagnetic fields, and gravity (the weakest). However, if the light energy is weak, then the whole thing reverts back towards heavy gravity (what is made of in the first place), and when light is totally absent, it is a black hole (like where light lambda cancels out in the middle of the galaxy). This is not common understanding of such things in today's cosmology, but that is how this mathematical philosophical thinking plays out. The proof, of course, will come with future observation.

By the way, the wave lambda for Crab Nebula's neutron star is approx. w=10^-6 meters (per my calculations with formula above), which is about 10^14 Hz frequency, about the borderline frequency of light and infrared energy. Hence, Crab's neutron star is a very cool star, with a spin of 30 revolutions per second, as my numbers would bear out. {Note: Spin can be calculate using F(gravity) = (MV^2)/r ]. Hence, the "g" there is very great, approx. g=10^-14 as a gravitational (locale specific to that star) constant, which then translates (using G^2=gc^2) into a Newtonian value of G=6.7x10^0, which is very-very great.

Cheerio! Talk later,

C.

* h/cw+g=m

Posted by rtharbaugh on April 07, 2003 at 08:22:59:

In Reply to: WHAT! posted by Kami on April 07, 2003 at 04:25:38:

Hi Kami.

Be patient and rest easy. It will come.

My own feeling is that something huge has just opened up. I don't know what it is, but it does not seem to be unfreindly. Sorry about my absense from the boards recently. I am trying to get a sense for what has happened, but not having much luck yet.

Zero infinities makes some sense as a definition of one. What is one but a curled up dimensional shell, which shuts infinity off in every direction?

RTH

Posted by Kami on April 07, 2003 at 13:26:10:

In Reply to: Re: God's Mathematica? posted by DocN on April 07, 2003 at 08:54:47:

Hello DocN,

It is rather funny how I learned of this...from my grand father who is well versed in God's ways. But enough about that and I mean not to bring up more religious bull and trying to add more junk but my grandfather has come to the conclusion of God's considering everything is one. More or less this perhaps may lead to an idea of energy? If you look at it enrgy can not be created nor can it be destroyed, and what is the universe made of...? Energy. Therefore perhaps the universe exists as one.

I am unsure of this idea, just thought it would be nice to see some ractions to this and some other ideas...

in gratitude,

Kami

Posted by DocN on April 08, 2003 at 08:56:48:

In Reply to: Learning... posted by Kami on April 07, 2003 at 13:26:10:

You could consider E=mc^2, too. Einstein does a nice job of explaining how the universe works.

Doc

Posted by moorglade on April 08, 2003 at 02:26:52:

In Reply to: Re: Low density freedom. posted by Coppernicus on April 07, 2003 at 17:36:22:

You mean ..like this?..and there are many other posts from quite some time ago..how long have you been theorizing?

It seems you are not presenting anything that has not allready been stated?

* http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/bhboard/messages11/25.html

Posted by Coppernicus on April 08, 2003 at 10:10:18:

In Reply to: Re: Low density freedom. posted by moorglade on April 08, 2003 at 02:26:52:

Moorglade,

Yes!
I suspect that BBT is BBB (bust), and new thinking is very much needed to show why this is so. I'm new to this forum, though I had posted these ideas elsewhere at Humancafe.com forums, summarized in "Atomus Summus-2", the result of somewhat over a year's work.
See: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/97.html

RE "Think of Vacuum Void = Blackhole area, The appearence of a Galaxy = Whitehole area"

I think you are right on! that we are on the same 'lambda"? I only gave it a different "spin" with an equation that show why this is so (see link below), summarized in: G^2=gc^2. The end product is that the Blackhole Gravity is an Energy Void, whereas Whitehole stars are energy generators. The resulting gravitational constant is "locale-specific" depending upon where we are in space in relation to the energy available. I think the next big breakthrough will come when Gravity is shown to be other than universally constant (as now believed), which may come about from how our distant space probes behave, or other astronomical observations.

The reason we had not noticed gravity-differentials to date is because from our observational point of view everything "out there" looks normal, in that gravitational forces appear to be working in far off cosmos same as they are here. But that is an illusion due to the fact that gravitational laws will behave the same (i.e., inverse square law), regardless of the regional gravity density, which may be very different from here. We have "hints" with neutron and brown stars, which are cooler and exhibit immense spin factors indicative of immense gravity, but we had no way to understand how this could be, and even think it nearly impossible for a massive star to spin several hundred times a second... it's mind boggling! But this is the strange universe we live in.

It may also come to be that each warm bodied planet, and each star, has a mini-black hole at its center, being a function of how lambda cancels out in the center... which may also be responsible for the magnetism field generated there... not due to "iron core" dynamo effect, as now believed. (See Postscripts at Atommus Summus-2, regarding planetary spin and magnetic fields.)

Still Theorizing, C.

* G^2=gc^2

Expanding universe, but...

This is suspicious: Why galaxies bound in clusters do not exhibit space expansion?

Space.com: Dark Energy

"Our universe has always been expanding, with practically all galaxies receding from each other, except for those bound in clusters."

???

DARK MATTER EXPOSED

The NewScientist.com article 'Naked' galaxies found points to the so-called dark matter halo around all galaxies is not always there. It says:

"The further away from the centre of the galaxy the object lies, the more susceptible it is to surrounding dark matter, and the faster it moves." (italics mine)

Of course, per Atomus Summus, this is no mystery, since the greater gravity density of deep space outside the galaxy would result in greater spin and greater kinetic energy. What is puzzling is that not all galaxies seem to have this. The only conclusion I could draw from it is that the galaxies where this is not happening are radiating high levels of EM energy beyond their region, so that the deep space gravity is somehow negated there by this energy. However, it might also be a function of poor observation, where this faster motion had not yet been detected. In any case, it should not be such a mystery, for it all fits rather neatly into how the universe is described by h/cl+g=m.

Ivan

Hi All,

Quantum Gravity

Here is a link for neophytes (like me) who want to learn more about Strings and Quantum Gravity. Pretty elemental, but has nice pictures. Of course, my gravitational constant "g" function (h/cw+g=m=1, "Alexandrian" algorithm where h=Planck's constant, c=light speed, w=EM lambda, g=dimensionless gravitational constant [5.9x10^-39], m=mass) makes it much more simple, but it does not work if gravity "G" is truly constant throughout the universe, only if it is a variable-constant (expressed as G^2=gc^2), which we may find out from astronomical observation. Maximum gravity is g=1, and G=C... Time will tell...

Blackholes in my theory are very orderly and tidy, with the byproduct of electrons and positrons. Neutron stars, by the same reasoning, do not become blackoles, since they still possess mass (matter), unlike the blackhole which is pure gravity, which means a neutron star would never become a blackhole unless it created a galaxy of billions of stars around it, at which point it would cancel itself out and become pure gravity. Note how different this thinking is from Quantum Gravity! What can I say? I must be "lost in space", but it makes sense to me. Of course if it were truly true, then think how simple it all becomes. The difficulty will be in convincing "astrologers" that astronomy is something else, not in predicting the birth of kings, but in how the universe works. As I am sure the first astronomers discovered, it was to be a thankless job (no pay), and it probably took a very long time... until we realized the Earth is not the center of the universe.

Finally, I will off here with this quote from the page linked:

"Quantising gravity

Quantising matter fields on a black hole background teaches us a lot about black holes. However, we need a quantum theory of gravity to understand the fundamental principles underlying black hole thermodynamics. We also need a quantum theory to tell us what happens near the singularity. However, quantising gravity is extremely difficult. One theory which offers some hope, particularly for understanding black holes, is string theory."

This is the cue for all of us to think different! It makes more sense that radiation from the blackhole is not a loss of mass, since it does not exist there, but rather a reconfiguration to what happens to the photon energy absorbed there: that it radiates out as electrons along the axis, and as positrons of supergravity (strong force). On one of the posts I mentioned the "kitchen experiment" where energy waves from the rim of a water bowl cancel in the center, with a resulting nipple (electron jet) in the center. This is a rough illustration of what happens to photon energy as it radiates into the galactic center. Matter, on the other hand, atomic mass, that comes close to the blackhole center are put into an immense spin, hence great kinetic energy, which on the event horizon will convert to photon energy before being spit out the axis electron jet. And if this is so, then it is ever so elegant a way to run a universe.

TTFN,

Coppernicus/Ivan

(as posted on Superstring Forums at: http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/philboard/messages19/120.html )

(Re)Exploring basics: What would it mean--what do we mean when we say--that 'Gravity is constant' versus not? Don't Spin [& kinetic energy] tend to relate to g, formulaically, in terms of ratio? When we speak of g, don't we typically refer to mass & velocity? Hence, ultimately, in cosmologic terms, isn't G perhaps a force somehow tied to 'black holes'? In which case, is G, as a cosmic force, heavier [more influential] or lighter according to proximity [distance]? Does G = a velocity? (Just meandering here:)G-man

G-man,

Very good meanderings! As I see it, in my mind's eye, G does equal velocity acceleration, in that it sets kinetic energy in motion. Distance is affected by the inverse square law, so the further one body is from another, the weaker is G. But this G is also a function of the atom's g, which is contingent on how much energy is available in any given locale, such as near a hot star versus very far from it; and also a function of EM wavelength lambda, so the higher the frequency, the less resulting remainder force of g, and the lower the frequency, such as in cool stars or blackholes, the greater the g. At blackholes, the g is maximum, which, according to the formula h/cl+g=m, yields a max g=1, which taking G^2=gc^2 yields G=C, so all light is cancelled there. Hence it is theorized a "blackhole" since we can't see any ligh from it. It is not clear yet if g is "mass and velocity", though mass as measured here in grams is affected (weight relative to Earth's gravity), which means m=1 is universal but will show up as having different "weight" depending upon where it is; same also how gravity affects mass's kinetic energy acceleration, though it may be that high kinetic energy, such as spin, may be the result of high g. In effect, as I see it, g is what determines how much of the interior Strong Force in the atom's nucleus will be left over as Gravity, what is left over from the makeover this Strong force gets from the EM energy it encounters. At the margin of a blackhole, the event horizon, the spin and kinetic energy are so high as to turn mass back into energy, which breaks up light photons (per Feynman) into electrons and positrons. The electrons shoot out the galactic blackhole axis off into space out of both poles and scatter, perhaps to become the material for the next generation of matter; it is also why blackholes generate great magnetic fields, due to this electron jet. The positrons rejoin the positive charged Strong Force, which is raw space, supergravity, hence the blackholes immense max Gravity.

Is Gravity a constant? This is the big unknown for now, but the formula would point to the answer being "yes", so that G in the vicinity of an energy poor star, such as a brown star or neutron star, would be very great, as opposed to being rather low in the vicinity of our Sun, which is a hot star. Why do stars glow bright or dim? Don't know...yet. But when we find out Gravity is constant in relation to where it is, i.e., a variable-constant, then a lot of this theory will fall into place naturally. If not, it's fate, amidst much laughter and ridicule, will be eaten up by a blackhole!

Ivan

(CROSS POST FROM SUPERSTRINGS FORUMS)

What do we Understand of Entanglement?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Philosphy of Physics XIX ] [ FAQ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by sol on April 19, 2003 at 10:19:21:
In Reply to: Re: Structure of Proton and the Tree Reference posted by Coppernicus on April 18, 2003 at 23:29:40:

C,

When we introduce the subject of dualism, how is it out of first principals we could have understood how such oscillations set into motion, could have ever describe this developmental tree and the evoltuion of all matters into expression?
We see the ground work many good minds have set before us, and this basis of existance( the soup of the primordial) and all things were so easily explained?:)

Here in strings there is assumption that is held, that all energy exists and has always existed. We recognize, that no such thing, could have have had its zero point, where such oscillations can come to rest, yet we have ascertained, that the grvaity in situations, have a energy relationship?
This takes us back to the question of how this universe began. If energy always existed, then so did, the gravity:)

In the case fo the photon and entanglement, it was necessary for me to see how this principle could have ever worked in terms of simultaneity, and to this the question is raised, issues of distance, and what can happen on one point, would have found relevance in what can happen in another.
Imagine indeed that distance this universe gave us, that in the photons measure, we could have understood our position here on earth, and the events that happens in our past?
If we look at the issue here of Penrose and the issue of simultaneity, what is revealed of the inside of the proton, and the tree structure, is a dymanical movement within the inside of the proton.
That is also described in the nature of the photon and entanglement?:)

We have understood where the energy lmits have stifled us, in terms of particle ascertation, and the energy required?
Making the move to string, and perceptional changes now understood, the flow of information within that proton is a complex world of happenings in relation to spin, and it is all tied together inside the proton's nature?
The events, inside that proton, have described the energy flow and it is a complex issue, that such energies would have reveal the particle interaction at the same time. We see this energy movement with the eyes, of a harmonic oscillator, and each energy level, ascribe to each particle identification.
Strings has allowed this in our determinations of the particle understndings. It has as well, allowed us to understand the movement?
This is why the issue of heisenberg's uncertainty has been removed.
We know that such congregations of the energy, will have described for a us a topological movement, that to this point we only saw as discrete.
When you study the diagram of Penroses and his call for a new language it was vital that we understand where to begin? All else follows in the understanding of what so many woman and men have done for us, in our moved to understand the world we live in. A way in which to describe it and the interactions.

The only opposition to this point of view(strings), is Loop Quantum gravity(its people). If I had found Lauglin was a proponent of this, then it would further evidence that he has focused on the discrete nature, and not the continuity such flows might have been revealled to us. This a investiagtive approach, I might have assumed, from working to understand his distaste for first principles.( I expect to have to answer to this soon, as I cannot keep saying this and not answer to how I made this statement) It arose out of Smolins report:)

Smolin even in his position, and the information he gave from Periemeter Institute, does not undermine the call for the logic that is needed in moving the question of reality from a most appropriate basis. This logic requires the understanding of First Principles.
How you make your way after this, is the study of what roads have been travelled in the histoircal, that we might see what is a different point of view of men/women who have trail blazed for us.
Now in order to move ahead here, what have we understood of what has already been understood of the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum mechanics? That we might move into the understandings of the world, that has become a complex diagram of pattern formations?
Each change in pespective, has allowed you now to consider what has been the road of all those before us, that we might look to the future in a different way?
This different way( logic and the math choosen[topological movement]) has the basis of a foundation recognized, and in strings we have found this place?
We talk about the position of Alice, and that we may know the position Bob has assumed. Over distance, a simultanneous action is now understood. So has movement and shape too. It is fluid, once we change how we see things. A string is energy, and a string curves?;)

I don't argue, there are not discrete things. For such dimensions have been reduced( energy determinations required of mass accumulation) and the energy values have been ascertained?

Sol
http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/philboard/messages19/156.html
----------------------------------------------------
Posted by Coppernicus on April 19, 2003 at 11:53:54:
In Reply to: What do we Understand of Entanglement? posted by sol on April 19, 2003 at 10:19:21:

Sol,

Thank you for the excellent links on 'entanglements/quanglements' and your excellent points, so many to consider. I will focus on only for the moment, where you point out:

"Here in strings there is assumption that is held, that all energy exists and has always existed. We recognize, that no such thing, could have have had its zero point, where such oscillations can come to rest, yet we have ascertained, that the grvaity in situations, have a energy relationship?
This takes us back to the question of how this universe began. If energy always existed, then so did, the gravity."

In a way, it is the old 'chicken/egg' question: which came first, gravity or energy? Another question that follows naturally is if these two opposing forces are what is behind the formation of atoms, why are atoms where they are? Very difficult questions to answer, since we were not present (at least that we know of) at the formation of the universe (if this ever actually happened), and thus can only guess. Our ideas behind BBT may be flawed and revised soon, but for now that is how the world believes. However, if there are zillions of little mini-bangs instead, so that atoms form in deep space in relation to the deep space dense gravity there and free electrons in some ionized plasma, then why energy should anchor itself into any particular strong-force nucleus is something we may not know. One way to get around this, however, is to say that since all things are 'interrelated' through both entanglement at the micro level and in relation to how matter 'bump' into each other at the macro level, then we can reverse engineer this to come to a point where an atom must form. This would require a configuration of forces in such a pattern that the energy of necessity has to anchor itself into the atomic nucleus at the point of its existence. If so, then the near infinite pattern of forces that span the universe, as they are interrelated, is what causes matter and energy to interact in the way it does. Of course, this is all based on the conceptual model that energy and gravity (supergravity) interact in such a way as to form mass. But if so, then it sort of begings to make sense, or at least that we are somewhere at the roots of the great tree of life.

About gravity: Yes, it always existed. I suspect it came first, that the primordial universe was gravity, in its total intensity, same as it still exists inside the blackhole where it is kept caged by the billions of stars radiating light around it, and using it to form themselves into a spiral galaxy. A sinister thought, that stars use gravity, but this is how it appears, that light came second, and in its coming together with gravity, it created mass, which then coagulated into stars and planets, which spawned (at least on Earth!) life. So the old Biblical mega-myth of the Word becoming Light, whether those ancient scholars knew it or not, was probably right on.

Will think of yours some more...

C.
http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/philboard/messages19/158.html

What's the Big Deal of Big Bang?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Cosmology XVII ] [ FAQ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Coppernicus on April 21, 2003 at 22:00:32:

Hi All,

I had a thought the other day, that the Big Bang, which is such a big deal in our current thinking, is really totally contingent on one theory. That theory is that the Doppler redshift of light over great cosmic distances is due to the distant brilliant bodies moving away from us at progressively greater velocity depending upon their distance from us. This is nearly universally accepted nowadays, even to the point where anyone disagreeing with the Big Bang may come to blows with the true believers, as almost happened with an ornary friend of mine at a cocktail party... too many drinks.

But think of it. Here is the sequence of what created Big Bang:

Doppler redshift = receding distant light source = expanding universe. =>> Universe had to have an origin = Big Bang.

But! What if the redshift is due to something else? What if it is a naturally occurring event over great cosmic distances, so that it would appear to redshift (in the way a double star redshifts as it moves away from the other star) but not actually be due to kinetic motion? What if, as Einstein pointed out, that light going through gravity redshifts? And if so, what if the universe is filled with (dark matter) heavy gravity so that light has to traverse this gravity over cosmic distances, causing it to redshift? Would this not throw doubt into the Big Bang?
I bring this up not to incite anyone to come to blows, but as a serious question that perhaps the universe is much bigger than 10 billion light years (as had been formerly calculated) and still bigger than 15 billions light years (as Hubble pictures would indicated) and still bigger than 20 billion lihgt years (if expanding universe is to be incorporated into Hubble pictures), and that instead it is "zillions" of light years across. Our only limitation will be that at some point, the redshift will be so great that the dimensions beyond a certain point will vanish with the light stretched out too thin to see... so out there it will look dark to us. We may in fact live in an infinite universe, to which we gave it a dimension because of our finite existence, same as Creationists gave God only six days in which to create all of known existence. The Big Bang may be no big deal at all, but an effort of our finite mind's attempt to mark a beginning in time. Perhaps it really all started only six days ago, and we imagined it to be more!

Not unfriendly, but sincerely,

C.

* Hot Big Bang

(To see the forum's responses to above, please clik on link at top)

Also:

Posted by Coppernicus on April 22, 2003 at 15:19:05:

In Reply to: Re: What's the Big Deal of Big Bang? posted by davidmac on April 22, 2003 at 04:35:14:

David, and all,

There is an unspoken big question regarding Big Bang that I think should be asked: Can we ever see the actual Big Bang take place if we look far enough back?

We know from Hubble images that we can see light coming from about 13 billion years ago. Now, can we look back 15 billion years (which should be just past the 13 billion mark), or more, and see the "explosion" of the Big Bang? Not the background microwave (which may be suspect), but the brilliant glow of the actual event itself? This would not be a "hard rowe to hoe" but should be instead a rather easy observation... maybe with the next generation of space telescopes?

Of couse, if we see this unfolding of light expanding in a Big Bang, then the unspoken question is resolved. But if we do not...?

C.

A BOW WAVE VS SINE WAVE

I've been thinking about waves in nature, and how we typically interpret the wave pattern with a two dimensional geometric representation as a sine wave. However, this may be part of the error in understand EM waves over great cosmic distances.

If we imagine waves, like those on the ocean, we think of these three dimensional waves, since they also travel under water, as a cross section at the surface that is visible to us. However, in reality, waves are bow waves emanating from the wave generating source. Whether sound or light or displacement of matter, such as water or earth, these waves travel in bow fashion. Now if we think of light coming from any source, it of necessity starts out as a small bow that is curved back on itself, in effect, it starts out as a circle. This circle grows proportionately to its distance from the source, the inverse square law which is merely a geometric phenomenon, until such time that it has traveled such great distance that the bow is very little curved, but nearly flat. Imagine light that had traveled 13 billion years to get to us. How much curvature is there to the bow wave that is only now reaching us? Practically no curvature, for what is arriving here and now is a flat sheet of light energy. That we can detect this light and even identify its source is the nature of light, that it is holographic in that any one photon within itself carries the whole message of the full wave. How big is the full wave that is only now arriving after billions of years? It is as big as the light years it represents. In effect, the bow wave arriving to us 13 billion years later is 13 billion light years across.

Why is this significant? Because along that now nearly flat bow wave is the message imprinted, holographic like, of the original moment it was released. But what if this image is becoming blurred? What if it is not as sharp and crisp as when it first left its source those billions of years ago? What if, in being a flat wave, its message now migrates within the wave so that some of its intensity is lost. Could this be an additional source of why light redshifts over great cosmic distances? It is not a sine wave that is coming to us, but rather a bow wave which is now nearly flat, and which in essence has the diameter of the whole known universe. That is one big piece of wave!

The point is that in representing waves as sine waves, we are neglecting to focus on a very important piece of information, that the bow wave reaching us after great cosmic distances and time has flattened out to where it is nearly a flat sheet of energy passing through here, each one followed by its successor, so that we then interpret this as wavelengths of a certain lambda. But what if this lambda of necessity shifts towards the red, not because each wave is further apart, but because the information carried along it is already so diffuse that it essentially is losing its signal. I know the "tired light" effect of cosmic light had been disproven. But here is a reason to think why it might not be so far off after all, proven or not.

Just a random thought while cutting the grass...

Ivan

A BOW WAVE, OF NECESSITY...

I did not realize what I had just said in the post above, about the Bow Wave. But it occurred to me only after I was out running with the dogs. Here is what my dull witted brain came up with, once I thought about the bow wave traversing 13 billion light years to reach us:

If light is a bow wave, and it was launched 13 billions years ago to reach the Hubble telescope lens, so that we see it now, then what happened to the other side of the radius of the bow wave? Did the other side of the wave simply disappear into some spacetime continuum, or some other dimension? Very likely not, for it did the same as this side of the bow wave radius did, it propagated. So if some telescope on the other side of the wave looking our way was picking it up, using gravitational lensing to clearly see its 13 billion year old origin, would they then too conclude that the universe must be 13 billion years old, or thereabouts in a Big Bang as calculated by redshift of light? Or would they jump to the conclusion that in fact the universe is automatically, of necessity, at least 26 billion lights years across. And if that is so, then what's wrong with this picture? Well... it is then about twice as large, and therefore twice as old, as the Big Bang believers would have us believe...

But this is a dangerous thought. And I had better leave it off here, for further thinking along these lines would prove me a true heretic, worthy of being skewered like a shishkebab over a cosmic fire pit. So I leave it here for others to ponder.

"Coppernicus"

Ivan,

A bow wave is not an example that you can use for representation of waveforms since it refers to a specific phenomenon – that being the bow of a ship cutting through water as it passes, or of an airplane passing through air. A bow wave tails off > to either side at two oblique angles from the point of origin. It is not curved, and is not representative of an S-wave type, which is transverse (EM), nor of a P-wave type, which is longitudinal (Sound or Pressure). What you are representing with your analogy is the Doppler Effect, which is why you ended up with your final thoughts while running your dogs. The Doppler can work mysterious anomalies without any inference (ability to detect) they occur, but if the affects you were thinking of were true, the <<<<refraction>>>> of light would be at right angles, (((not curved))). There are two files you can look at. One is a .JPG showing an F-18 breaking the sound barrier – the other is an MPEG movie of the same aircraft, but it reveals the true – oblique angles – that would represent the actual direction of angles as occurred. You might need to play the movie a couple of times to be able to see the true straight-line angles. These represent P-waves, but S-waves respond in identical manner. You will need an MPEG viewer such as Microsoft Media Player, which comes with I.E., and you can view the picture with your web browser just fine. The MPEG file size 1.28 megabytes – that translates to about six minutes download for a 56kbs modem, but once it is downloaded you can replay it. Feel free to download both files and keep them for reference. To save “right-click” on either link, then click on “save target as,” and then save to disk

F-18 Still Capture

F-18 MPEG

Doppler Effect-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>

The problem that stymies everyone concerning gravity is, nobody can tell us if gravity is propagated as a transverse or longitudinal wave. The answer is gravity is neither, for it is not propagated as a waveform; therefore, LIGO and LISA are bound within the failure of modern cosmology based on Einsteinian physics.

Planet --attracted towards-- Sun
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>O

For LIGO and LISA to be viable experiments, it must be validated that a waveform can do an impossible feat – that is, it must radiate (propagate> into -towards> its own source. That last should be a proof that the mysterious “graviton” is a non-existent fantasy.

There is but one possible explanation of gravity. Gravity cannot be propagated for it is a static entity. Being a static entity, Gravity is motionless – in the sense – Gravity does not propagate – Instead, Gravity accumulates congruent matter as matter joins other matter so an object grows or expands in both size and/or weight. Gravitational strength potential is based solely on the weights of the objects involved, and is affected by the Inverse Square Law proportionate to an objects weight. This also dictates several factors that are locked in concrete concerning the universe. Will not put those factors here for obvious reasons. I have studied your information concerning facts whether Gravity is a Constant – At this stage there is potentially one lone factor that might be of enough significance to alter a constant by .000000000001%, which is not adequate to explain the observed anomalies of spacecraft over very long durations of travel; however, to consider that such an effect is sufficient to say, Gravity is not a constant, would be at least stretching our imagination to extreme limits of reasoning. I think the anomalies observed of the various spacecraft involved are due to errors in calculations specific to the actual distances as interpolated.

Distance to the sun is 92,957,130.358705 miles, and equals 490813648293.9624 feet or 5889763779527.5488 inches. If the Gravity constant was off by .000000000001 – that would equal 5.8897637795275488 inches. I say: Gravity is a constant.

J____

BOW WAVE, PART 2

Okay, so I only told half the story. Here is the other half: What we see in one direction, 13 billion light years away, we can also see in the other direction. Now, if by this reasoning, that seeing a light source 13 billion light years away, and ago, we are actually looking at the implicit distance of 26 billion light years, then in looking in the opposite direction, we are also looking at an implicitly 26 billion light years. What does that leave us, a 52 billion lights years of universe? It sure looks that way. Where does that put the Big Bang? I think it goes right down the toilet, not to mention the expanding universe, which gave birth to the Big Bang. If I may recall an earlier post with reference to: Ten Problems with the Big Bang

Sorry for drumming on this trivial point, but it would not let me go while I was out climbing a mountain in the southern California desert on a beautiful Sunday, cool breeze, and the desert floor in bloom after the winter rains. Somewhere out there in that overhead bright blue was a universe much bigger than we had been led to believe. I think it is time we drop Big Bang with a big thud.

"Coppernicus"

J____,

I appreciate the bow wave of a ship, but the image I am trying to convey is that the wave traveling from a light source is an expanding circle, more correctly an expanding sphere, which is "bowed" as it reaches us, though the curvature of a 13 billion year old wave is nearly flat, from any angle viewed, whether above, below, or from either side. I have now calculated the unviverse is at least 52 billion light years across, though this may be a conservative figure. So redshift has to be caused by something else, not expanding universe, and not Big Bang.

About Gravity being a constant, I am sure all thinking today says it is. Nevertheless, that it may not be makes more sense to me, since Gravity is not an energy form, but a state of being, which itself is contingent on its interaction with the available energy. If no energy, it is max; if little energy, it is very strong; if great energy, a hot region like our sun, then it is very weak. How does your universally constant Gravity explain neutron stars, not to mention blackholes? How does a galaxy hold together without immense, and therefore currently unexplainable, gravity at its center? How does one explain the immense spin of neutron stars? With todays theories we don't. All we are given in some weird math to explain multidemensional spacetime... which is a rather laughable explanation, I would think.

But I think the jury is still out on that one, and will have to await the evidence to come to prove it one way or the other. For those of us who are not believers in the accepted wisdom? Time will tell... :)

As always, truly appreciate your thoughts!

Ivan

Ivan,

You wrote: “Gravity is not an energy form, but a state of being, which itself is contingent on its interaction with the available energy.”

Do you fully understand the repercussions of what you wrote explicitly…? Matter is energy; energy is matter – What interaction is ongoing in a bar of purified U-235? Yes, ionization and decay. Ok- but U-235 does not exist in a purified state, which means what so far as earth is concerned? The earth contains tons of U-235 in its “raw form,” but it does not decay – so what happens to it…? Nothing, because no interaction occurs; therefore, a neutron star is nothing but a very condensed mass of matter. So far as black holes I still have no validated evidence they exist; moreover, the concept of black holes came about because of errors in Relativity.

A neutron star is highly condensed so most are believed to be about 10 miles in diameter. If our sun were to become a neutron star, it would rotate at approximately once per every 1.43 seconds instead of the 27 days it now takes. The sun is far too miniscule to become a neutron star since it is believed that only supergiant stars in size between 8 and 20 times larger than the sun can become neutrons. So, the fast spin of neutron stars is no mystery because of their immense size before shedding their outer shells.

J____

J____,

I'm glad you asked about uranium, or any of the heavy elements, especially those heavier than iron. If you check the Periodic Table of the Elements, you will see many atomic weights, of denser mass than iron and nickel, for example, with their individual properties of either atomic stability or half life radiation.

Think of these atomic weights as if they were a drop of water. If that drop of water is measured in terms of its density at the surface of the ocean, it is relatively light. That same drop of water measured in terms of density at the ocean bottom, it is very heavy. This is analogous to what happens to atoms if they are in a light gravity density region, like our solar region (surface of the ocean), and great gravity density (deep space, or vicinity of neutron star), so that they are the same atoms (same drop of water), but register differing densities in terms of the gravity density they possess. Now, does this matter if it is a hydrogen or helium atom? Only in that what is a gas in our solar region may be a more solidified element in deep space, not only because it is cold (less energy), but because the gravity density makes them bind. What happens to nickel, iron, gold, uranium, in those cold dense regions of space? They are the same as here, except that their gravity density is much greater. If you were to orbit a hypothetical planet made of the same size and same elements as our own, your orbital velocity for that planet would need to be much greater than here, because the planet would have a greater gravitational density, though it is in every other way identical to our planet here. I say "hypothetical planet" because a planet would not be there, since it needs a star to orbit, so it is always in a high energy environment, even Pluto. Another difference might also be a greater magnetic field, same as neutron stars exhibit great magnetic fields.

I bring up the magnetic field in this post because your bringing up heavy elements reminded me that the Earth is supposed to have a heavy nickel-iron core. This iron core is then believed to be the reason the planet's dynamo effect exhibits magnetic radiation, with an alignment roughly approximately with that of the planet's axis, north and south poles. It is currently theorized (believed) the lighter elements are floating in a kind of hot liquid mantle around the solid iron core at the Earth's center, causing this dynamo effect. However, why is there not a core of gold, or silver, or uranium, or even Francium, all of which have atomic weights greater than nickel and iron, if these are supposed to be the heavies sinking to the center of gravity? Also, isn't it odd the alignment is not exactly north-south as one would expect if it were truly a dynamo effect, but instead is off kilter?

I bring this point up only as another example of myth vs. reality. In fact, I don't think we understand why large heavenly bodies have magnetic fields. I suspect magnetic resonance may have something to do with this, but have not studied in depth the Magnetic Resonance Periodic Table.

Going back to matter is energy, and that neutron stars, like raw uranium, are natural products of how things are: Yes, you are right, but not for the right reasons. Our current understanding has put together a universe that is inconsistent with itself. I offer one which is better consistent, because it all comes together from an interaction of a state of being (gravity) and energy (EM of all spectra), which together result in mass (energy) and the remaining measurable gravity (gravity). The fact that neutron stars exist has something to do with the collapse of stars, but I suspect this too is misunderstood, in that the reason the gravity is so great after the star's collapse is that it lost its energy and has reverted back a step towards it true state of being, gravity.

Ivan

Postscript on neutron stars:

If the sun were to lose its energy, it could become a neutron star, though present computations discount that, saying it does not have enough mass. My theory, really nothing more than rewriting Einstein's famous formula E=mc^2 into E/C^2=(m-g), would of necessity create a neutron star from any collapsed hot body not in the presence of another hot body. So if the sun blasts away all its surface energy, and it is not near another star, then it will reduce into a very dense gravity star, hence a neutron star. Ever consider why this should happen, why should a star lose all its electrons to become a body made up of only neutrons? Think about it! How unreal is that?

Ivan

Ivan,

It is not unreal if you understand chemistry.

J____

J___!

Sure, I understand chemistry. But why should it happen to any star, that all the electrons are stripped off? I think this is about as reasonable as Big Bang, which is totally unreasonable. Of course the electrons will disappear if the energy that put them there in the first place is gone. I'd expect nothing less.

Ivan

Ivan,

It does not happen to "just any star." We have recent observations from where the relative size of a star plus its composition gives them a distinct signature of what will happen to them. Such stars are also very short lived so far as longevity goes.

J____

WIMPs?

Brits on WIMPy wild goose chase? Why don't they make it simple, that so-called Black Matter is nothing other than cold deep space intense density Gravity? Dark Energy is charge repulsive force of galaxies. But the Big $$$ are in this particle research, so that's where the effort goes, alas. Trying to tie all in the universe to particle physics is like looking for a lost key under the lamplight, only because that's where the light is?

The Truth is out there, if you know where to look... it's in the dark.

Ivan

LIGO

Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory,

Link for anyone's interest.

Also see CalTech's Kip Thorne's Gravitational Radiation.

BLACK BODY RADIATION SAME AS ATOM?

Just for fun, I tried to see if the lambda wavelength of l=~2.2x10^-42 meters, as was calculated to solve for lambda in h/cl+g=m (where m=A=1), as it was rewritten from E=mc^2, would also satisfy the equation for Black Body Radiation, which in both classical and quantum is: (8pf^2)/c^3.

Using approximate values of pi=3.14 and c=3x10^8 m/s, the equation was rewritten with frequency "f" as c/l, so that the equation would be equal to A=1=m. This in effect calls into principle the application of multiplied inverse numbers as equal one, which represents one atomic mass.

Therefore, A=1=[(8)(3.14)(c^2/l^2)]/27x10^24, which becomes:
[(8)(3.14)(9x10^16/l^2)]/27x10^24, so we needed to solve for lambda squared, of which taking a square root would give us l,

which multiplies out as: [(25.15)(9x10^16/l^2)]/27x10^24, which further becomes:

(226x10^16/l^2)/27x10^24, so that if it is equal to one, the nominator and denominator must be equal,

which becomes:
(2.26x10^18/l^2)/2.7x10^25, or: (2.26x10^18/0.83x10^-43)/2.7x10^25,

which solves for l^2=8.37x10^-42, of which the square root would be l=2.89x10^-21 meters.

This is not quite what was figured for lambda of E=mc^2, where l=~2.2x10^-42 meters, though the squared value, 8.37x10^-42, is closer. I do not have any conclusions about this, but just wanted to experiment with this idea, that using Black Body Radiation might show how energy within a single atomic mass might look. At least as a squared value of l, it would appear there is some sort of resemblance.

A tentative conclusion is that there is a relationship between Black Body Radiation and how is formed a basic one-mass atom, where the square of lambda in the blackbody formula is similar to the lambda of the equivalent atom.

Ivan

Ivan,

Why Numbers Don’t Work

J____

Ahh, Godel's Theorem... it will take me a little while to read it again. Thanks for the link J___!

My Blackradiation thing above is just a coincidence, an intersting mind game, but have not really given it any real meaning, except what goes in must come out, and thus by contrast an atom is better constructed than any black radiant body, or so it seems.

Cheers!

Ivan

J___,

Godel's Theorem reminds us of what mathematics CANNOT do. Math and numbers cannot be THE reality, though they may be useful as a way to model what IS reality. Have you ever used a cell phone, or travel by jet, or use a computer? If you had, then you were experiencing the power of numbers and mathematics. But this does not mean that REALITY IS mathematics, anymore than the math used to decipher the Big Bang singularity, or muldimensional curved spacetime, is reality. Reality IS reality, and mathematics using numbers is only one more language to express what that reality may be, but it is not THE reality itself.

Here's an easier read: http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/godel.html

Just so there is no misunderstanding, for those who would demand of mathematcis what it cannot deliver: Like any language, there are always philosophical and semantic limitations. I'll remember that next time I pull out my credit card, "Numbers don't work", so maybe I won't have to pay my bill!

Ivan

Posted by Coppernicus on May 06, 2003 at 13:42:05:

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/philboard/messages20/57.html

In Reply to: Re: Understanding Redshift posted by sol on May 05, 2003 at 20:34:56:


Dear kx21, James, Dick, Sol, Emory, and all,

There is no question Redshift is real. Same could be said for Einstein's equations of GR and SR are real, in that they yield predictable results and thus must be accepted as approximately real. Where there is a diversion of theories, as had been explored here, is whether or not Time is a function of space in the spacetime continuum as defined by Relativity, or whether redshift happens from natural causes, such as due to the gravitational field's effect on light and EM energy. Obviously, the correct answer to this question yields two very diverse models of what is Reality, which I would think in final analysis is what we are trying to understand. So there are two very distinct real possibilities of what redshift means.

If we accept that space is real, gravity is real, and light redshift is real, then collectively they give us axioms from which to understand cosmic reality. Also if space-time is real, then it too fits into this equation. However if time is merely a human construct derived from our awareness of its passage, then it may not fit into a model where time is a function of space same as distance or height or width. This then means that we cannot use time as a measure of space-time, for only space is real and time is merely a human invention, which does not negate the use of time in the Relativity equations, since this is still a valid way of describing the geometry of space with predictable results. Why change what works?

Now, if redshift is interpreted as a function of an expanding universe, with time as one of its dimensions, then we have one view, where the Big Bang becomes a computational necessity. But if we see redshift as a natural product of gravity (per rewriting E=mc^2 into E/c^2=m-g, where g=5.9e-39), that the redshift is not indicative of an expanding universe, then we have another view, where the expanding universe becomes a function of human error, and not necessarily real. If so, our understanding of reality gets shifted away from the cosmic expansion idea. In fact, the universe then becomes "undefinable" in terms of redshift, except to observe that redshift exists. And what does that mean for cosmology, if redshift is a natural event? It means that Gravity is the real variable in Einstein's equation, and not Time. If this is so, then of necessity the universe is made up of a gravity which is variable throughout the cosmos (at present a radical idea), which makes Relativity a questionable interpretation of cosmic Reality.

Therefore, a clear understanding of what is cosmic redshift becomes paramount in our understanding of how works the cosmos, what is real. If redshift is due to expansion, then all in General and Special Relativity stands, though it fails to explain a great deal of what is happening out in space, such as the super gravity effects of neutron stars and blackholes. If redshift is due to gravitational field influence on cosmic light, then Einstein's equations are still useful, including atomic clocks, but for the wrong reasons: Time is not a function of space; instead the gravitational fields out in space are the variable that makes those equations work. It also explains more easily the great gravity differences (dark matter?) experienced in parts of the cosmos. We can still use the geometry of space-time, but understand it only as a useful approximation, and not Reality.

I would think this is a most important theoretical distinction, looking at the same thing from two very different points of view, and yet subtle enough to fool us into thinking something is real when it is not. And if so, then we may be on the threshold of a true revolution in cosmology physics, that Einstein's Relativity theory really works, but for the wrong reason.
Would the real Mr. Redshift please stand up!

C.

Ps: Below is a link to a paper titled "Janus-Faced Cosmology", in which the author says:
"One can envision a time when a broader and deeper theory marries gravity to other 'forces' and Einstein's theory is subsumed as a more limited approximation."
Well, that time may be fast approaching, and the ball of a 'deeper theory of gravity' is rolling into our court, for those who want to play.

Janu-Faced Cosmo

SR/GR RESOURCE LINKS

SPECIAL RELATIVITY

GENERAL RELATIVITY

Gravitational Redshift

"Special relativity also explains the behavior of fast-traveling particle, including the fact that fast-traveling unstable particles appear decay more slowly than identical particles traveling more slowly."

This quote from the above link on Special Relativity may hold the key to the whole universe. It is because of this redshift that Dr. Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 can be rewritten as E/c^2=m-g, where g=gravitational constant 5.9e-39, c=light speed 2.999e8, m=mass; which can further be rewritten (by substituting E with hc/l), into h/cl+g=m, where m=A=1. By rewriting it this way, we can compute that to satisfy Einstein's (mass = energy) equation the value of l=~2.2e-42 meters; and where classical gravitational G can be derived from G^2=gc^2, for all lambda of electromagnetic energy, so that the great gravity of neutron stars becomes a function of g, and total gravity of galactic blackholes, where g=1 converts into G=c, so no light can escape.

This, in a word, is the New Physics (per Atomus Summus as developed on the Humancafe Forum), which yields a new way of seeing cosmic radiation redshifting, so that light reaching us from great distance is redshifted by the great gravity it must transverse in the cold lambda of deep space, which also accounts for why atomic clocks tick more slowly through gravity, or at high velocities, and why the universe is not expanding as currently believed. Time at high velocities, or through gravitational fields, is not slowed, but the clock measuring time is slowed; and if this is so, then the Big Bang never happened. The universe is not defined by space-time dimensions, but rather is defined by space-gravity dimensions, though their mathematical expressions approximate each other, so that it is not Time that is the variable dimension, but it is Gravity instead. The atom is the unified expression of super-gravity interacting with energy to create mass, with a remainder force g, which translates into the gravity G we experience.

* * *

I would welcome all contributions of ideas either supporting or challenging this above concept which of necessity leads to a Theory of Everything.

Ivan

Added to Atomus Summus-2, revised May 9, 2003:

"It also happens that G = C in a Black Hole, where they cancel out, as they should. It may even mean that at the galactic center E = G^2 = c^2, which means that E is in fact maximum gravity there. Energy and Gravity, at their maximum, are the same.

What does this mean? It means we do not need a Big Bang Singularity to bring the Four Forces together; they already are together at the galactic center Black Hole."

WHY NUMBERS DON'T WORK

J___,

I think I better appreciate your "Numbers don't work" after a conversation I had with my cousin from France, Serge, who is a bio-scientist and likes mathematics. For example, infinities may not be equal if you take an infinity of cardinal numbers versus an infinity of all numbers, they will yield different results. Also, chaos theory resulting from a simple algorithm after very large replications will generate chaotic behavior. This may be due to the fact that digital numbers are never truly "pure", unlike analog relationships, so that eventually chaos creeps in, no matter how many decimal points you go. Think of pi as an analog relationshio vs. its decimal equivalent, which never quite match up. So you are right, that digital numbers must eventually be off from their analog equivalents, since digital can never truly replicate without breaking down into chaos at some point. Very interesting!

Take care ol' buddy, Ivan

Ivan,

1 to 11

1)2+3+4+5 +6 +7+8+9+10 = 54
2) 9 digits are in the string
3) the center digit is – 6
4) 6 x 9 = 54
5) add the numerals 5+4 = 9

6) 1+2+3+4+5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10+11 = 66
7) 11 digits are in the string
8) the center digit is – 6
9) 6 x 11 = 66
10) add the numerals 6+6 = 12

11) the difference between 54 and 66 = 12
12) add #5 + #10 = 21
13) invert #12 = 12
14) invert #11 = 21
15) in this block we have 4 numbers – 2 number 21 & 2 number 12

21+21 + 12+12 = 66 now add 6+6 = 12 and invert = 21 subtract 12 from 21 = 9

Only 9 digits are valid = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9 = 45 and 4+5 = 9

This proof proves the only prime number is 1, and all other numbers are irrational in the sense, the placeholder –0– is not rational for it represents nothing, and nothing is but the figment of human imagination. All number strings are subsets of 1, and all numbers that transcend 1 are subsets of 1.
--------

I have run this proof by some math nuts, and all of them tell me-

“Yes, you are correct, but numbers are the only method we have of calculating ‘reality.’”

We cannot calculate reality for a very simple reason. Nothing = O – the big goose egg, but we must ‘objectify’ that big goose egg O before we can rationalize it. No thing can begin as O thing. A thing can only manifest of – out of – or from – something else. So, there is always some thing – and that some thing -o- has always existed, and from it, all other things have emerged, manifested, or came into existence. This expresses the fact that numbers cannot explain, existence is, always was, and will be forever. The process that gives rise to existence is analog, and an analog process cannot be duplicated by the use of digital functionality.

J____

Ivan, All,

Gravity Probe B has been delayed again. Rescheduled for November 6, 2003 at 9:44AM PST.

J____

Ah, bad luck, J____.

I was really looking forward to seeing Gravity Probe B's results. There is so much to discover.

Thanks, Ivan

Ivan, All,

A new sthick ... at least it is more sensible than the hypothetical non-existing black holes.

Gravastars

J____

J____,

Yeah, this "gravastar" idea makes more sense than an illusive "black hole". The last sentence in your referenced article above really blows my mind because it jives with what I had been theorizing:

"Mottola and Mazur have taken their extreme idea to a mentally dizzying new level: The(y) say our entire universe may be the interior of a giant gravastar."

Since it stands to reason that you need mass to experience gravity, and that the gravity potential of the galaxy axis is greatly increased by canceled EM lambda, the gravastar should be equal to maximum mass. This same gravity potential exists in deep space to a lesser degree, but because of the paucity of mass there, it does not manifest on a grand scale. But this does not elliminate its gravity potential, hence you have a universe that is a kind of giant "casimir effect" space of very great gravity potential with "gravity oasis" stars and galaxies scattered throughout. If so, then Mottola and Mazur are right on.

The question still remains: Now that we suspect it, how do we show, or prove, gravity to be more dense in dark space regions? And if we do prove this, then are we onto something totally new in physics?

Ivan

ANY REGRETS?

My only regret would be that if the galactic center is a Gravastar rather than blackhole, supermassive rather than empty, is that we could not use it to travel through "wormholes" into other univereses. This dashes one of my fond sci-fi imaginings! On the other hand, if deep space zero-point energy can be expressed as c^2 (per Atomus Summus2), then to reach v = c is only the square root of this energy potential, which could be achieved with constant acceleration if "pulled" gravitationally towards this zero-point vector. If so, then we could dispense with the wormhole altogether, since we would then be creating our own inside our space craft's "engine"; and at v = c, we would be in a parallel universe with the new v = zero, to start the process all over again. No reason why we could not travel at velocities of v = c^n , where n is the number of dimensions traveled. Now, that "wormhole" is really cool!

Ivan

Ivan,

Go back ... think. How did I describe the universe to you?

Forget dimensions - forget black holes - forget "super dense" gravity - forget spacetime - forget dark matter - forget non-realistic determinate calculus - forget digital algorithms - and think outside the box in analog fashion – and then life will become simpler without so much drain of brainpower used in hypothetical calculations. Moreover, people will have a much better chance of understanding what you are trying to prove.

J____

Ivan,

Follows is my theory of everything, which deals with existence, infinite, and finite.

J____’s Theory of Everything © Copyright J____ - 2001

Existence is either finite or infinite.

A finite entity cannot exist except within an infinite space or place.

A finite entity cannot exist within another finite entity.

An infinite entity cannot exist within a finite place or space.

An infinite entity can only exist within an infinite space or place.

There is only one infinite place.

The universe is that infinite place.

The universe consists of infinite space.

Everything that is exists within the infinite space of the universe.

There is no empty space in the universe.

J____

J___,

Thank you for sharing with us your totally comprehensive TOE.

If I may add something to the above, it would be this:


"There is never a something from nothing.

All things have energy and gravity in them."


Ivan

Alternative space-time TOE?

I've been reading through some of the works by Dewey B. Larson posted on the net at:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/index.htm

His ideas had been developed over a longer period of time than mine, though it is structured on a new idea of space-time as the basic unit of reality. Don't know if I'm getting much from it, but fun reading. I especially liked "The Universe in Motion", which is Vol 3 of "The Structure of the Physica Universe: Vol. 1, Nothing But Motion". Very well reasoned, showing how space and time are simply reciprocal aspects of the universe in motion.

Of course, to me "time" is no more than a marking on a stick, same as the first caveman marked when he counted off the days until his next meal. Those notches of time no more explain the stick than the stick explains the moon, but it was something to do.

Ivan

SOME MEMORABLE CONCEPTS FROM TOE OF THE NEW PHYSICS

-Gravity is not a universal constant, but it is a variable-constant

-Gravity is inversely proportional to energy output of local star, or galaxy

-Electro-gravity is an oxymoron, they are mutually exclusive

-"Time" is a notch on a stick (it has no physical dimension)

-Inverse proportions multiplied together always equal "one"

-The atom is the essential building block of the universe

-Harmonic relationships are endemic to how the universe is built

-The four basic forces of physics, TOE, are only two: Energy and Gravity

-The "Axiomatic Equation" is open ended, Energy always resulting in Watts (Power)

-Gravitons do not exist

-Energy is always broken out into positive and negative charges, which cancel when possible, or repel when not (we do not know why)

-There are only two constants, "c" and "m", all else is variable

-Pluto's gravity per mass is greater than Mercury's (we still do not know this)

-Canceling all light lambda gives us total gravity (a future energy source)

-Gravity is a continuous force, never exhaustible

-Light redshifts through denser gravity of deep space

-Light and gravity are universally present throughout all of space

-Energy always travels in a P-wave (S-wave is a Cartesian coordinate invention)

-All mass has lightspeed velocity in space (in relation to light traveling away from it) and is never infinite


These above are the new concepts of the New Physics. Some are yet to be discovered, so speculative, others are already known. The universe is built of a most simple interaction, in that it interacts with its opposites. The end result is an atom from which leak the remainder forces of gravity and magnetism, in inverse proportions.


Well... "Abhda abbhda... That's all folks!"... for now. J