AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS OF THE NEW PHYSICS:

E_m • c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = f(E)(1-g)c² = E_energy ©

(Please see Axiomatic Equation - revised for updated, as of January 23, 2004, and November 19, 2004.)

Dear Friends,

Below is the 'work in progress' draft of the work done over the past year resulting from all the discussions and ideas on a Theory of Everything, dating back to Feb. 23, 2002, to "Atomus Summus" in the Archived Forums, to the New Forums, to now. It is a sincere hope, for me, that the ideas expressed here are genuine and bear some semblance of the truth.

All the best, Ivan
__________________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS STILL WORK IN PROGRESS, LEFT HERE FOR ANYONE CURIOUS OF HOW THIS IDEA CAME TOGETHER, NOT FINAL THEORY. WE ARE STILL AWAITING OBSERVTIONAL DATA FOR FURTHER STUDY, WHICH IN TIME WILL LEAD TO A FINAL PAPER ON THE ENERGY TO GRAVITY INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW PHYSICS. -IDA

Inquiry into the Relations between Energy and Gravity, relative to E=mc², with Axiomatic Equations, as a Foundation for a Theory of Everything and the New Physics.

By Ivan D. Alexander ©

Abstract: The search in physics for an algorithmic method of incorporating electromagnetism, the weak and strong force, and gravity into a comprehensive theory of everything has been an illusive holy grail since the days of Albert Einstein, with limited success. This paper will show how it is possible to envision energy and gravity as interactive forces relative to each other, starting with a foundation of E=mc², and ending with why black holes at galactic centers negate all light. This is achieved through solving Einstein's famous mass-energy formula's necessary electromagnetic lambda wavelength. This solution was achieved by rewriting the formula as h/c l + g = m, whereby h=Plank's constant, c=light velocity, l=lambda of e.m. wavelength, g=dimensionless gravitational constant (5.9x10^-39), m=1 (which represents the unity of interacting forces); so that m= 1= one hydrogen atom. The result of this inquiry will show that Gravity, such as we know here as G=6.67x10^-11, is a variable-constant dependent upon the solar energy environment within which it is measured, whereby G will be a lower value inside a star, but of greater value out in deep inter-stellar space. In final analysis, it all reduces to the Axiomatic Equation:

The Weak Force: While the Strong Force, Electromagnetism, and Gravity had been well addressed in the new physics of Atomus Summus, the Weak Force had been rather neglected. In part, this was due to the fact that it had been so well explored in Quantum Mechanics and its nomenclature largely understood. However, it should be addressed here as an integral component of how is formed the atom, as per the reinterpretation of E/c²=(m-g).

Upon deeper reflection, there is something here that needs explaining, at least conceptually. The above algorithm does not actually merge the weak force into its theory of the atom, since the weak force seems to have more to do with neutron decay, in all its complexity of spin and colors, as per the Feynman diagram showing interaction of Z and W vector bosons. The focus in the above had been on explaining how the two primary forces of the strong force and electromagnetic photon energy play out to create an atom, with a very small remainder force which we know as gravity. However, there may be a way to conceptualize this weak force into the other three without disturbing the original algorithm, since there is no real contradiction between Atomus Summus and Quantum Physics, nor the Standard Model, nor with Relativity, except that Einstein was missing a constant, an understandable error, given that gravity as is so weak in relation to the other three forces, that its omission was not deemed important.

Therefore, as presented here, the resulting atom is a rather stable totality, with predictable and measurable characteristics. We have built a whole science of chemistry and engineering physics around this. However, when it comes to particle physics, we get a very different picture, since within the atom there seems to be a very violent and chaotic interior, a kind of ongoing particle storm brewing beneath the electron shells. By contrast, the gravity and magnetic field seem to be rather stable. What I suspect happens inside the atom is that the strong force gravity and photon energy relationship are not internally stable, so that the superstrong gravity seeks to reassert itself. When this happens, energy vortices appear which, according to the uncertainty principle, can appear nearly randomly, though within the laws of energy conservation. Thus it becomes, at least to us, chaotic in nature. From this chaos then photon energy, along with its leptons, both spring into action and immediately seek out these vortices of errant strong gravity to cancel it out. This would explain why the weak force self cancels in such a small diameter, somewhere in the order of 10^-18 meters, or approximately 0.01% the size of the nucleus. As these errant supergravity vortices keep popping up within the atom, they destabilize the stable relationship and thus must be immediately neutralized by the EM photon energy. The result is either neutron or beta decay, which itself splits off into rather complex particle mechanics. The desirable end result is a rather stable atom.

So in effect, the weak force results from there being a continuous rebalancing taking place within the atom to stabilize an otherwise unstable interior, to maintain a stable relationship between the strong force and EM photon energy. Why do I think this is a likely reason for the weak force? It is because gravity creates spin, and all these multi-flavored boson-quark vertex-vortices come with spin. This is as it should be expected.

Further, per this model, there is no need to either raise temperature to Big Bang levels, nor to postulate such an event ever taking place. Instead, cosmic redshift (which largely validates such a Big Bang theory), may be due to the gravity variable of deep space, which is a greater gravity there than here as per the new physics. This would explain redshift without having to postulate an ever expanding (or collapsing) universe, since it is known that light passing through gravity will redshift. The new physics also has no disagreement with Special or General Relativity, but merely sees them as exotic geometry. I suspect such four dimensional geometry, or their multi-dimensional String derivatives, may not be as critical to future theory as they are now, though they may become someday handy when we learn to travel at near light speeds, or possibly beyond. The new physics would indicate that continuous acceleration may be achieved with little energy, merely by tapping into the already existing immense energy locked in space gravity. In effect, this new Theory of Everything, easily combining the four basic forces, may prove in the end to be much simpler than we had imagined. And if this is so, then it further validates what an incredibly beautiful and elegant universe we live in.

Magnetism: Does E=mc² have a Magnetic Constant?

We were able to rewrite Einstein's famous E=mc² into a gravity component equation of E/c²=m-g, further rewritten as h/cl+g=m, where g is a small dimensionless gravitational constant (which translates in Newtonian G thru G²/p²=gc², and m=1, per Atomus Summus-2).

Can we do the same for a dimensionless magnetic constant? The goal is to translate this famous equation into an analog version of its constants equivalent, so that it can then be used to translate into any dimension measurements chosen, as done with its gravity equivalent, for any computation desired.

If light "c" is an electromagnetic wave phenomenon, where the Electric field variation interacts perpendicularly with its Magnetic field variation, meaning that a photon of light is both these components combined, then it should be possible, in theory, to rewrite E=mc² as a function of these electromagnetic components. Using the Electromagnetic Wave Equation we get:

E_electric=E_msin (kx-vt) and

B_magnetic=B_msin (kx-vt) then they are related as:

E_m/B_m=c per Electromagnetic Wave Equation

So this is the basic equation with which we will try to solve E=mc² as a magnetic function.

Now, taking c=2.9979e⁸ m/s as light speed, itself a function of E & B traveling through space at v=c, we can also write c=1/(e_om_o)^1/2, where e=electric permittivity, and m=magnetic permeability. (see Electric and Magnetic Constants)

Using the above E_m/B_m=c, and c=1/(e_om_o)^1/2 (one over the square root of e_om_o), we can then rewrite this equation as:

B_m=E_m(e_om_o)^1/2

So this is the "remainder" magnetic force B_m that will "leak out of" the atom as defined by E/c²=m-g, except that the negative "g" dimensionless constant is now replaced by the positive B_m magnetic constant as an expression of E_m electric field times electric permittivity e and magnetic permeability m (in relation to "E/c²"), so that the equation can be rewritten as:

E/c²=m+B_m

However, unlike for the gravity force remainder "g", where m=1, here for the electromagnetic B_m, I would set m=0, because in essence, the positive and negative forces of EM energy cancel out in mass except for a small positive remainder, so that:

E/c²=0+E_m(e_om_o)^1/2 becomes:

E/c²=E_m(e_om_o)^1/2.

So this is our starting point for identifying the electro-magnetic expression for the atom as an interrelationship of E=total energy, c²= photon energy (standing wave of light?), m=mass, and B_m=E_m(e_om_o)^1/2 is the electromagnetic remainder function of the interaction of these forces into mass.

What this means, in plain language, is that electromagnetic energy of light, in all its spectra, and the supergravity Strong force of the nucleus, interact in such a way that they create a mass which cancels out all these positive-negative forces except for the remainder force, which is a magnetic force B_m leaking out of the atom, and felt to infinity.

So this is the first step of converting Einstein's famous formula into one that addresses itself to the magnetic constant B.

I still do not know what this means, however, nor if it bears any resemblance to existing theory, so I will leave it here for others to examine, should they wish.

My next question at this point is that if gravitational g=5.9e^-39, what is its equivalent in magnetic B?


Please see Magnetic Domain for illustrations.

(Ps: Please note that the Magnetic constant of the Axiomatic Equation is not the same as Magnetic force. The relationship between the two is that B_magnetic= A/m = m^-1.kg.s^-2 must be multiplied by (m.s) EM lambda, to become B_m = kg.s^-1 value of the Magnetic constant.)


AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS FOR THE NEW PHYSICS

If E=mc² is true for Einstein's equation relating mass as energy, and

if E/c²=h/cl=m-g is true as expression of its gravitational constant, and

if E/c²=E_m(e_om_o)^1/2 is true for its magnetic constant B_m,

with c=1/(e_om_o)^1/2, (see Electric and Magnetic Constants)

then of necessity, since E/c²=(m-g)=h/cl, and also if c²=1/(e_om_o), then we can say:


c²(m-g)=c²(h/cl)=E, and with substituting c² we get:

(m-g)/e_om_o=h/cl/e_om_o=E, which is also as per above:

E=c²[E_m(e_om_o)]^1/2 which becomes:

E=E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2,

which with E=(m-g)/(e_om_o), together they become:

E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2=(m-g)/(e_om_o) which, because (m-g)=h/cl, we end up with:

E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2=h/cl/(e_om_o) which is simplified into:

E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2=h/cl(e_om_o)*, and thus, by multiplying it out:

E_mcl = h(e_om_o)^1/2/(e_om_o), which equals:

E_mc = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (m-g)c² = E_energy ...if m=1

(where l= electromagnetic wavelength, h=Planck's constant 6.626e^-34, and g=gravitational constant, for m=1)

or E_mc = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (m+B_m)c² = E_energy ... if m=0

(where B_m= magnetic potential, for m=0)

Or to put it all together:

\ E_m • c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = f(E)(1-g)c² = E_energy ®

(Please see Axiomatic Equation - revised for updated, as of January 23, 2004.)

which is an equation incorporating electric energy, lightspeed, Planck's constant, photon wave lambda, electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, magnetic potential, dimensionless gravity constant, and lightspeed squared... which is all º E=mc².


So all these equations for "Energy_mass = E" above constitute the basic equations of the axiom of analog relationships of variable-constants h, g, B_m, E_m, and e_om_o (since theses constants can be affected by the conditions of each other), with the variables l and relative c, which means all physical-energy relationships are hinged on the electromagnetic wavelength of photon energy as it interacts with the strong supergravity of space, or the atom nucleus, where the resulting gravitational "g" may range from near zero to one.

This set of algorithms gives us the interaction equations of electromagnetic photon energy, the strong force as supergravity within the atom (or galactic center), and the remainder forces of both gravity and magnetism as their byproducts.

What about the Weak Force? It is the result of disturbed atoms, which leads to their gamma and beta decay. This condition exists in nature mainly through cosmic particle interactions, and is most active within the dynamics of a star, or in man made atom smashing experiments.

To solve for Gravity: G²/p²=gc² *, as Newton Gravity G (implies G has p function, with result of g vs. G closest for c=2.76e⁸ m/s).

To solve for Electric permittivity: E_electric=B_magnetic(e_om_o)^-1/2
To solve for Magnetic potential: B_magnetic=E_electric(e_om_o)^1/2.

The Axiomatic Equation of the New Physics with universal dimensional units and their numeric values (approximate) is now complete.

PS: IS THERE A "GRAVITY-MAGNETIC" RELATIONSHIP?

From the Axiomatic Equations posted above, it would appear that there is some sort of inverse relationship between the gravitational constant "g" and magnetic potential "B", which if true is a pleasant surprise, since it reveals a "predictability factor" to these equations.

If (as per above) we set the two results for g and B as: (m-g)c² = (0+B)c², then with m=1 for g, and m=0 for B, canceling out the c², we get:

(1-g) = (0+B), which means that if g is at its max =1, then B=0, and if g is at its lowest, then B approaches=~1.

(These are not pure values, but only relative values which then need to be translated into actual measurements.)

Why this is interesting is because it is believed blackholes give off little if any magnetism, whereas solar regions, like in the vicinity of our Sun where g is small, there is great magnetic field activity. This makes sense if the atom's structure is indeed a function of EM lambda energy levels, where both g and B are remainder forces from how is formed the atom. It may also makes sense that somewhere in the "middle" of these two values there will be a "cross-over" from greater magnetic energy to greater gravitational energy... perhaps in a neutron star?.. only thinking aloud. However, this may be one more possible validation that these new Axiomatic Equations for the new physics have meaningful and measurable results, if this is so.

It is for the reason above that there is such difficulty with "electromagnetic-gravity" theories, since they are not complimentary, but rather are inversely proportional, hence are opposite forces. For gravity to be manipulated, to become a greater force, we need not more EM energy, but instead less energy. To gain maximum gravity, we need zero energy, or have it canceled out completely... which I believe is synthetically doable!

For more on this "casimir" effect see: Zero Point Energy article. However, I should note that the Casimir effect is not due to EM wave pressure, but rather due to their absence in between the tightly positioned plates.

Meanwhile back at the ranch... CERN "Particle physicists go underground", it's biz as usual, Big Bang and all.

*(Edited 6/15/03 -IDA)

POSTSCRIPTS: Below are some interesting postscripts that have some relevance to the above:

THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS, NOT FINAL THEORY!

Ps: 22 Dec. 2002: SUMMARY of TOE/Atomus Summus:

This is by way of adding up what TOE, vis-ŕ-vis Atomus Summus, looks like thus far:

1). E = mc² is rewritten as a function of light lambda l and Plank's constant to become:

h/cl + g = m = (unity) 1.

This is significant because it incorporates a world that is at once relativistic (c), quantum mechanical (h), gravitational (g), and de Broglie wavelike (l); all of which combine into an expression of TOE based on the interaction of energy and gravity to equal mass, with an atomic residual gravity which we know as a Gravitational constant (variable constant) in relation to c and l.

2). GR, General Relativity vis-ŕ-vis Gravity Relativity, is an expression of the energy intensity in proportion to the distance from a given star, or Sun in our solar system, so that mass within specific (possibly harmonic) orbits will exhibit location specific gravity-density for the bodies there. Gravitons, should they prove to exist, are merely wavelets of gravity, but are not gravity itself.

This is exemplified by calculating the following Gravity-Densities for the planets: DELTA GRAVITY (Planet's vs. Earth's)/PLANETARY MASS (in Kgs.) = GRAVITY DENSITY RATIO (in relation to surrounding energy-gravity region): See Nine Planets for data:

The Small Rocky Planets:

Earth: (1)/5.94e²⁴ kg = 0.168
Mercury: (1/2.6)/33e²⁴ kg = 0.01166 (very low ratio)
Venus: (1/1.105)/4.87e²⁴ kg = 0.18583
Mars: (1/2.6)/0.69e²⁴ kg = 0.5989

Gas Giants: See Below.

Pluto: (1/15)/0.0013e²⁴ kg = 51.28 (a very high ratio!)

The Gas Giants:

Jupiter: (2.53)/1900e²⁴ kg = 0.00133
Saturn: (1.066)/568e²⁴ kg = 0.0112
Uranus: (0.904)/86.8e²⁴ kg = 0.01042
Neptune: (1.129)/102e²⁴ kg = 0.0107

Please note that the inverse of these ratios yields a more intuitive reading, i.e., Earth=5.9, Merc=85.7, Venu=4.4 (?), Mars=1.67, Plut=0.19. This shows the contrast between Mercury, very high energy-density ratio, and Pluto, with a very low energy-density.
The Gas Giants have inverse ratios: Jupit=752, Satur=526, Uran=95, Neptu=93.5.

GALILEO PROBE

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

3). Planetary spin becomes a function of h/cl + g = m and gravity-density, so that the spin should be contingent upon these in relation to where they are in relation to the dominant planetary star. The planetary spin ratios may also be influenced by a mini-black-hole found at the center of planets resulting from the wave lambda energy of the planet's interior heat canceling at the center, which is also responsible for the planet's gravity-density factor. The greater this mini-hole, the greater the spin; so that Mercury's, which is very small, has a very slow spin, whereas Jupiter, which is very great, has a very fast spin. (The Earth's moon, which has no mini-hole, being a cold body, spins only in relation to its position to the Earth's gravitational force.) A planet's interior heat is thus relative to its outside energy-density, so that the greater the differential (between hot interior and cold exterior), the greater would be expected the planetary spin.

4). Universal Gravity is now Swiss-cheese: Far beyond the star system, space reverts back to what it is in terms of gravity-density, more dense than within the solar system and more rich in plasma energy, which permeates the whole universe more or less evenly. The solar systems and galaxies within this plasma-gravity medium then are of lesser density than deep space and can be perceived as bubbles of light gravity within a dense universe. It may be possible that there is a general positive charge to deep space dense gravity, and a negative overall charge to star systems light gravity, which tends to keep these star systems more or less evenly spaced apart from one another; the same would hold true for galaxies, though this does not negate the possibility of galaxy and star collisions. Where all light lambda cancels, such as at the center of spiral galaxies, space gravity-density reverts back to its pure form, which is the black hole from which nothing may escape, not even light.

In Summary, these conclusions are based on how Einstein's famous formula was rewritten to solve the wave lambda l for the energy and supergravity (like inside the black hole) interaction resulting in mass, which is the foundation of Atomus Summus. Further collaboration and empirical evidence will be needed to finalize the mathematical algorithms that describe these processes in detail. When done, I believe we will find that all these interrelated ideas come together as One, which will be the foundation for a new Theory of Everything.

Further computations and proofs (or disproofs) to be announced. Stay tuned...

(continued:)

PPS: By Ivan A. on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 02:08 pm:

PLANETARY SPIN, continued:

I think we have Spin!

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

Rocky planets:

Earth: 0.16 =>> Spin Ratio = 5.9
Mercury: 0.0116 =>> SR = 85.7
Venus: 0.18583 =>> SR = 5.4 (?)
Mars: 0.5989 =>> SR = 1.67
Pluto: 51.28 =>> SR = 0.19


Gas Giants:

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

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

Earth: Spin Ratio = 5.9 =>>Revolution = 1
Mercury: SR = 85.7 =>> Rev = 58.6 Earth days
Venus: SR = 5.4 =>> Rev = ? approx 243 Earth days (retro, possibly slowing down to reverse)?
Mars: SR = 1.67 =>> Rev = 1.03 Earth days

Pluto: SR = 0.19 =>> Rev = 6.3 Earth days

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

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

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

Question: Can these SR numbers (if our planetary mass measures are correct, which may not be so) be used to estimate interior heat of planets as a function of their relative spin?

* * *

By Ivan A. on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 11:11 am:

PLANETARY MAGNETISM, random thoughts:

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

Rocky planets:

Earth: Spin Ratio = 5.9 =>> Dipole M = 7.8e¹⁵ (Tm³)
Mercury: SR = 85.7 =>> DM = 3e¹²
Venus: SR = 5.4(?) =>> DM = 8e¹⁰
Mars: SR = 1.67 =>> DM = 1e¹¹
Pluto: SR = 0.19 =>> DM = ??

Gas Giants:

Jupiter: SR = 752 =>> DM = 1.56e²⁰ (very high!)
Saturn: SR = 526 =>> DM = 4.72e¹⁸
Uranus: SR = 95 =>> DM = 3.83e¹⁷
Neptune: SR = 93.5 =>> DM = 2.16e¹⁷

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

What this shows at a glance is that there is a relationship between relative spin and magnetism, which may be the main reason why the "dynamo theory" of planetary magnetism has such appeal. Also obvious is that the ratios of spin to magnetism are more in tune with the gas giants, less so with rocky planets, which may be explained by the gas giants being in a cooler "gravity density" field away from the Sun, whereas the smaller planets are closer in within a "hot" field; the two fields may in fact have different energy dynamics. However, there may be another reason, given the new concept of "gravity density" within an "energy density", that the magnetic fields are products of the mini black hole present within any body radiating internal heat or radioactive decay energy, since these in canceling out the wave lambda at their centers create conditions for such a super massive center. The more heat vs. gravity density differential, the greater the mini-black-hole, hence spin. Can it be that this mini-black-hole effect generates a magnetic field? For example, why else would there be a magnetic field emanating from the (weak) galactic center, since the "dynamo" effect could not operate there? Certainly not a nickel iron core! So instead this leaves open an opportunity to see planetary, and solar and galactic, magnetic fields, as a function of super gravity, which would also open the door for seeing it this way inside an atom.

The studies on cosmic magnetism are many and often fraught with controversial and fancy ideas, which lead to a kind of intellectual "noise", but it is all very interesting, if not totally puzzling. Any ideas on what causes this kind of magnetism? Could the electrons ejected from black hole centers along their axis be responsible in some way? Or is magnetism a sum-total of individual atoms comprising the planet's mass, which may at times self cancel, while at other times be very strong and directed, while again at other times reverse? Of course, all the "hot" planets have interiors that above the Curie temperature, which means for all practical purposes magnetism cannot exist there. This is why I suggest the "mini-black hole" theory instead. Beyond this, I still have no clue!

Opening the doors for new thoughts...

Ivan

* * *

ELECTRON "HARMONICS" FOR HYDROGEN ©
by Ivan Alexander

Gentlemen, I think I got it. I did the calculations for relative electromagnetic energy wavelengths "l" for the quantum shells of a Hydrogen atom. The ratios, derived from dividing the wavelength of the higher shell by the shell immediately below it, approximate Pythagorean harmonics, in reverse order, so that the largest number is for when the electron jumps from shell 5 to 4, which approximates the harmonic ratio of 2, "do"; (for lower shells, 3, 2, 1, the ratio results exceed 2); and the lowest approximates 1.33, "4/3", which is "fa" as it jumps from 12 to 11. I did not find it coming all the way down to 1, though it tends that way. Below are the calculations as derived from "Hydrogen energies and spectrum" on the Hyperphysics page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c4 , which has a calculator built in.


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


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

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


n2-n1 = (12-11) = 69034 nm (i.e., 6.9034 x 10^-5 m), or 4.35 x 10¹³ Hz.
* = (11-10) = 52506 (5.2506 x 10^-5 m)
* = 10-9 = 38848 (3.8848 x 10^-5 m)
* = 9-8 = 27788
* = 8-7 = 19051
* = 7-6 = 12365 (1.2365 x 10^-5 m)
* = 6-5 = 7456 (7.456 x 10^-6 m) Note the waves are getting smaller.
* = 5-4 = 4050 (4.050 x 10^-6 m)
* = 4-3 = 1875
* = 3-2 = 656 (6.56 x 10^-7 m) The energy waves get smaller still, as we approach nucleus.
* = 2-1 = 122 (1.22 x 10^-7 m) Very high frequency here, 2.459 x 10¹⁵ Hz!!
(I suspect that if we were to calculate the 1-0 shell's energy, it would be much higher still.)

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

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

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

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

So what does this mean? Is the universe, or God, a musician? Does God sing, and we spring into being? Interesting, but this above now dove tails nicely into the other algorithm of our TOE, as an expression of light energy, in all of its frequencies, thus is an interactive force within the atom. So this means that (h/cl) + g = m, plays out inside the atom in such a way that the electron shells follow some pattern of harmonic relationships. This means that the value of mass, "m", is relative to the energy received, though for it to be equal to "1", it needs a much smaller wavelength than expressed above, with a much higher frequency, which we calculated as 10⁵⁰ Hz, or as approximately: l = 2.2087x10^-42 m.

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

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

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

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

And again rationalized further with the discovery that the electromagnetic constant, 1/137, also has a harmonic relationship, posted September 11, 2002 (ibid):


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

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

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

See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

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

But why is the product of the harmonic ratios "double" the constant? Don't know... but it is intriguing. Perhaps it is that atoms like to travel in pairs?


So now we had evidence that the electromagnetic photon energy has a harmonic relationship based on the constant value of 137.

* * *

Checking the math. In our Forum debates, there were doubts as to whether or not the math actually works in these algorithms, so it was checked. The first was to review if we were comparing like with like in the equation for TOE, h/cl + g = m =1. This was posted August 29, 2002 (ibid):


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

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

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

h (in units)= m²*kg*s^-2 ...Planck's constant
c = m/s ...light speed, as meters per second
l = m s ...lambda wavelength, as meters (also per light distance in one second)
m = kg ...mass, as kilograms
g = ? (dimensionless constant)

So you get, as per equation above:

[(m²*kg*s^-2)/(m*s^-1)*(m*s^-1)] + g = kg

Multiplying and cancelling out we get:

[m²*kg*s^-2]/m²*s^-2] + g = kg

Now, m² cancel out, leaving:

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

Now, s^-2 cancel out, leaving:

kg (+g) = kg

So this is how the units used cancel out and become equal to mass as kg.

(Please note "g" is a dimensionless constant.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
What is G for a neutron star, like the Crab?

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 G²=gc², 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 (10¹¹) times the gravity as measured of our Sun's (so that G of the neutron star is approx. = 6.67x10^-11 times 10¹¹ = 6.67x10⁰), we can then calculate Mass as follows:

(6.67x10⁰)² = g (3x10⁸)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= 10⁷ meters,

then, V=1.88x10⁹ m/s as spin velocity of star.

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

F (centripetal) = (MV²)/r, which then converts (if F=g) into this:

g = MV²/r which to solve for M becomes:

M = gr/v², which then figures out to be:

M = [(10^-14)(10⁷)]/(10⁹)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 10²⁵, as its inverse.

Therefore, the mass is:

M(neutron star)= 10²⁵ 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.

As posted Mar. 20, 2003 on "Towards a New TOE-2":
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/79.html

--------------------- and also -----------------------------
Mar. 12, 2003

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 m³ 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 (7.85x10³²) = 1, which is approximately the velocity needed, so that:

v = 7.85x10³² m/sec , which is one humongous velocity! ...and certainly much faster than light, like v = C⁴ . 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...


END.

* * * *

A special thanks to Carl 'Rod' Nave at Georgia State University for putting together the very fine Hyperphysics reference at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html#ahph .
Your pages had proven most useful and instructive when lost in space and time in need.

Ivan D. Alexander

March 15, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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=mc² can be rewritten as E/c²=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 G²=gc², 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.

Therefore, at the galactic center, E = G² = c², which means that E is in fact maximum gravity (g=1) there. Energy and Gravity, at their maximum, are the same: Pure Energy (E=c²) = Pure Gravity (E=G² max).


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.

* * *

This above completes the inquiry into Relations between Energy and Gravity, which of necessity leads to a Foundation for a Theory of Everything, here called the New Physics. The above SR/GR links provide excellent cross-references for further investigation and study, since the actual values as computed here may need to be adjusted for more correct results. My special thanks to Scienceworld and Hyperphysics, for their excellent resources, which even a layman as myself can use to understand what is.


Ivan D. Alexander

Editor, Humancafe.com

Ivan,

In the beginning, there was no beginning, for a beginning demands something preexists that which is begun; that binds any argument, which preempts existence within a logical failure. Logic is a singular progressive computation, and totally analog in function if the logic involved occurs naturally e.g., not synthetic i.e., specific – digital computerization. Logic processes data as fed to the processor mechanism – that is true for both computer and natural logic; however, computer logic demands analog programming before it can function whereas natural logic requires no programming before function occurs. This is the way it is in the universe as it functions according to natural logic in analog fashion so no programming is required; hence, we can establish a premise based on these factors.

The universe has always existed.

Structure requires components – without components no structure will occur; therefore, something is always present everywhere in the universe. The universe consists of energy and matter in various forms, but there are no voids in the universe for the universe is one, and one = whole; thus, the universe is all there is. There is no outside to the universe for it continues infinitely in every direction.

There are no straight vectors in the universe; therefore, all motion in the universe moves in circular fashion. If all motion in the universe is circular, logic is also circular because logic ends when it meets itself, and corruptions of logic occurs. When logic meets itself (the point of its origin) logic ends because of one reason – no new data exists for logic to continue upon an exponential circular path, which is a necessity for logic to expand in a never-ending analogous outward spiral. That also defines the shape of the universe; it is a never-ending analogous outward spiral that continues in every direction infinitely and is wholly spherical. This means that at any point in the universe, you are located precisely at the very center of it.

The universe is dynamic, and everything in the universe is dynamic – the reason I can say this with certainty is, nothing in the universe is static. For the theory of the universe that came out of nothing e.g., the Big Bang Theory can be proven as a logical fallacy in every respect. Dynamic in this case is defined as: marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change.

The reason numbers fail us is, at a specific point numbers will always revert to an infinite regress. That is also the fallacy of digital versus analog function. Nothing in the universe functions in digital fashion; therefore, digital answers will not provide realistic answers to analog logical problems.

For gravity to be different elsewhere in the universe demands that two differing gravities of different strength ratios based on a single equation exists, which is absurd, and flies in the face of logic. Your equations fail to prove anything testable or verifiable for they are based on changing Newton Gravity to a “tensor potential,” which is not logical, and is not within the scope of honest math principles. Your attempt is much the same as was done by Einstein when trying to make Relativity consistent with gravity, and of which Einstein did write – “The gravitational aspect of Relativity is like a bag of sand….”

You become lost when you wrote-

“Now it takes a leap to see the next relationship, seeing Newton's gravity G not as a separate force but as a "tensor potential", a product of two interacting forces, which are the forces of the two mass values of G, the product of which is G^2.”

To understand your dilemma Begin Here.

I suggest you select the .PDF format – it takes a while to load, and then you can save it to disk … hope it helps….

J____

Dear J___,

Thanks for the link, will review it when have some time. Am I "lost in space"? Probably, but so is much of modern physics and astrophysics, as you point out. I had been told today by a friend that the current issue of "Scientific American -Special Edition: The Edge of Physics -Spring 2003" covers many of the topics we had been discussing on these boards, with the conclusion that much of what they currently think they understand has come into serious doubt, now that new evidence has been garnered from our more advanced equipment studying deep space. I have not yet seen the issue, as it was sold out at my local B&N/Borders book stores, so will try to see if library has a copy. I'll be very interested in reading it.

Take care, talk soon, Ivan


Ps: I am fixing small typos in the "Inquiry into the Relations.." above, as they crop up.

THE EDGE OF PHYSICS; Special Edition of "Scientific American", Spring 2003:

In "A Unified Physics by 2050" by Steven Weinberg, Univ. of Texas at Austin, on page 6, there is an engaging schematic of how physics would be unified, which shows components of Electricity, Magnetism, Light, Beta Decay... down to Terrestrial Gravity and Celestial Gravity, all these then reduced to Electromagnetism... Universal Gravitation, further reduced to Standard Model and General Relativity, ending with boxes with "??". I would "reverse engineer" these so that the arrows flow the other way, starting with Light and Maximum Gravity, and then flow backwards toward the other components. At a glance I could see where the problem lay, that Light was in the wrong place, as was Gravity, and the two branches of the schematic tree should immediately break out from the trunk of "Max Grav and Light" into the first two limbs of Atom Mass and Variable "g", and then into branches of sub components of Strong and Weak interactions, Pions, Protons, Neutrinos, Beta decay, Electromagnetism, etc. So the Theory of Everything resulting would more closely approximate how is structured the Universe. I would also put General Relativity and Standard Model at the end, so that they are terminal branches of the tree instead, something of our imagination... I guess that puts the whole schematic illustration pretty much on its head, huh? But this is how it makes more sense to me!

Otherwise, the article is most interesting, as are the others I skimmed through, to be read in greater depth later. I do think that on pg. 20 of Leonard Suskind's article titled "Black Holes and the Information Paradox", which is very interesting in that it teases, the small upper left illustration is missing something very important, which also skews the results of what happens near a black hole. What is missing is the "spin" effect on approaching a black hole, so that rather than "falling" into it, any matter approaching would be put into a wild spin around it, quite possibly with kinetic energy approaching V =~C, so that it gains tremendous energy as it is about to be reabsorbed into the intense max gravity of the black hole.

Well, these immediately jumped out at me, but will read the other articles with great interest when have a moment free.

Ivan

A LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEW PHYSICS - Atomus Summus 2.

By Ivan D. Alexander©

In ordinary language, what does it all mean, this development of a new physics where there is an interrelationship between energy and gravity as an expression of how is formed the atom, and how is formed a locale specific region of space as to gravity density there? In words, without using math to explain why this is so, there is now a new way to understand a kind of Theory of Everything, where the illusive connection between gravity, electromagnetic-energy which is light in all its spectra, and the so-called Strong Force and Weak Force, all come together into a new cosmology. This new cosmology not only validates Newtonian Gravity as it is measured here, but also explains that gravity is a variable throughout the cosmos, dependent upon how much energy there is in that region, and thus points to an explanation of the so-called Dark Matter that may account for the other eighty percent of the universe that we cannot see. This new physics also makes understandable why there are things such as neutron stars, or their most intense cousins, the galactic Black Hole.

(it's okay, breathe)

Working it backwards, think of a universe that did not start with a Big Bang, but rather came together in a kind of zillions of mini-bangs together, where the primordial space of some ancient ancestral universe was dark and light spread out pretty much evenly. This primordial universe, long existent even before time forgot, was an energy soup of unfocussed plasma in a very dense field, of great gravity density, that spread out evenly throughout whatever it is that is infinity. For reasons time forgot, and perhaps may never be known, some of this plasma came together and intensified at points which began to radiate light unevenly, and thus disturbed the otherwise even distribution of gravity into pockets of light and dark. The light pockets, again for reasons we cannot guess, fixed themselves into a kind of plus and minus relationship, where the plus value of gravity at some point was offset by the minus charge of plasma energy to be focussed into that point to begin to interact. As they interacted, what resulted was an electromagnetic wave of light which, in interacting with a specific point of this primordial gravity, resulted in getting captured there, and reverberating in that spot where captured. That reverberation became the first atom, itself complete with an electron shell, so that suddenly it had mass, or substance. The mass was still very primitive, since the energy used to create this mass was still very weak, which meant it had a lot of gravity leaking from it, but it formed the basis for the beginning of a universe of matter. Because of the high gravity leakage from each atom, they tended to come together more easily. The early universe's atoms clung to each other like little islands of light in a great sea of darkness.

So this early matter would have been very dense, much denser than what we know of as matter today. But, like desperate survivors, they would have clung together into what would have been the beginning of a new evolution of matter and energy. Energy and gravity together would come into interplay so that as time progressed, perhaps many trillions of years or more, the energy level became more and more focussed so that eventually it combined into such large mass that it essentially exploded into what we now know as a star. Remembering that the universe was, and still is, very dense with gravity, that all the matter there tended to clump together because of its great density, which over great periods of time, tended to create more and more stars, which then clumped together into galaxies.

(take a breath)

Today's universe is full of stars and galaxies. The universe we live in today is very different from the what it was in the beginning, and what we observe now is a wonderful dance between energy and gravity such as it had evolved into, which is the universe into which we were born and thus live. Within the region of our star, the Sun, on our planet, the Earth, we live in an energy rich, very low gravity, environment far removed from the crushing gravity of primordial space, both in space and time, so that the energy of the Sun moderates this gravity into what we know now as Newton's Gravity constant called G. The atoms that comprise our existence are very energetic with the Sun's light, have a strong mass, and thus radiate, or leak, only a very small gravity constant, which is called "g". The two have an interrelationship which is based on light, which is called "c". And it is this interrelationship of "g" and "c" that makes up the region of space in which we live, which is different from regions of space where "c" is less intense. There, with less light intensity, far from stars and galaxies, the universe still has that primordial plasma as energy, where the gravity is still very great.

So we live on an island, one that is rich in light and poor in gravity, and within which the planets formed, and on which at least one of them has enough liquid water, a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, to support life. The atoms of our world, and our solar region, are what they are because of how the Sun's energy made them to be. When one of this planet's creatures evolved high enough to consciously understand this and give it an expression, Dr. Albert Einstein gave it a name: E=mc2. And it was using this expression that another creature then gave it another name: h/cl+g=m. This new "Alexandrian" creature then went on to explain how the wavelength lambda "l" affects how much gravity will be experienced in any region of space, with the result being "g" as a locale specific gravitational constant. So we now have gravity as a variable constant in relation to energy: the more energy there is, the less gravity density experienced; the less energy, the greater the gravity. In some stars, such as those which had extinguished themselves over the trillinnia, where the lambda is now low by comparison to our Sun, the gravity effect there becomes very great again. This is experienced in neutron stars, or in brown stars, which are cooler. In the extreme case, however, this gravity may once again become total, just like it was in the primordial universe, and then it is once again maximum, as is experienced in the Black Hole of a galactic center.

(more breathing)

So there are two ways for gravity to become higher than it is here on Earth: one is for the energy lambda to drop off, so gravity is greater; the other is to cancel out the wavelengths of energy so that they have no lambda, in which case the gravity becomes maximum again. This is what happens at the galaxy center, where all the wavelengths of energy from all the stars on the spiral galactic plane converge together in the center and cancel each other out, so there in the galactic center it is totally dark of energy. What happens then is that the immense gravity of the primordial universe once again surfaces and takes over, which thus creates a huge engine of a spiral made up of billions of stars held together by this gravity center, and from which center radiates electromagnetic energy along the perpendicular axis of the spiral. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a huge energy and gravity engine, which at the center has billions of stars all revolving around the Black Hole with immense speed. The reason they are there with such great kinetic energy of revolutions around the galaxy center is because that is how great gravity manifests itself when it encounters mass: it spins. Think of water going down a drain, how it does not just fall in, but rather spins around the center as it descends. This is the same for the stars around the galaxy center, that they do not fall in, but rather spin around that center with great speed, and thus great kinetic energy. Eventually, they do fall in, or are disassembled there to have their mass once again revert back to pure energy, which is then canceled out to merge with the Black Hole. What results is a duality of no-wavelength energy at one end, so that this is black hole material, and with an ejection of very high-energy at the other end, which is the electron jet which shoots out along the axis back into the dark regions of space. In effect, this is a kind of re-incarnation of matter, so that those electrons ejected will once again reform the dark deep gravity of space into mass to create new atoms, which will ultimately rain down on the galaxy. Our galaxy, like probably every other galaxy, is a self regenerating machine of light and dark working together. This is the universe we live in.

(pause and think about it)

This is a new way to understand how is built our universe. Sir Isaac Newton gave it an expression, that G is a specific force that is constant. But in the postscripts below, for those who wish to see the math, this constant G is different for a neutron star, where it may be 100 billion times as strong as it is here. And in a Black Hole center of a spiral galaxy, it is at its maximum, so that G equals the speed of light, which is why they cancel out. Between stars and galaxies are the dark regions of space where this G is much greater than here, but less than at the Black Holes, so that these regions are strong with gravity, which astrophysicists call Dark Matter. But to counter this Dark Matter is also the light rich environment of galaxies which tend to push apart as if they were repelled by the same polar charge, so that these may be thought of as being Dark Energy. The whole system is thus balanced, so that galaxies are more or less evenly distributed throughout space. However, the Dark regions of space have the effect of gravity on light, which is to slow it down into a redshift. From our observational point of view, it gives us the illusion that the universe is moving away from us in all directions equally, but this is not so. It is merely a function of how light travels through the great distances of space. We are not living inside a constantly expanding universe which will eventually collapse. Rather, we live in a growing universe, that is constantly growing internally with a greater abundance of energy. In this way, our universe is alive.

We can know whether or not we are in an energy rich area of space, or one that is energy poor, by the amount of spin matter experience there, so that the greater the gravity, the greater the spin. In energy poor neutron stars, for example, where gravity is very great, the spin may be hundreds of revolutions per second; In our star the Sun, it is approximately one revolution per 25 days, because our star is very energy rich. The planets of our Sun then have their own revolutions dependent upon where they are within this solar energy environment, and dependent upon the energy they produce from within themselves. For example, a hot planet like Jupiter, which is in a colder region of the Sun's energy, will spin faster than a cool planet like Mercury, which is in a very hot region of the Sun. Same as the canceled wavelength lambda at the galactic center will recreate primordial gravity, the Black Hole, so will each spherical body, planet or star, recreate a mini version of the same at its center. In effect, every warm planet has a mini-black hole at its center, which creates an extra measure of gravity there. Stars do too. Spin is thus a function of a heavenly body's level of interior energy. As long as the Earth is hot inside, it will spin continuously, have tectonic activity, and not stop rotating. It is for this reason why planets spin, and why they will continue spinning for a very long time.

(breathe - a sigh of relief)

In conclusion, we now have a very different way of understanding cosmology and our place in it. I know I have condensed a great deal of thinking into a very short space, more than a year's worth, but I wanted to explain it in simple terms so that anyone can understand it, because it is not so difficult to understand. The cosmology of modern physics is extremely complex, perhaps even creatively so, but it is counterintuitive and not representative of how things are. The ideas of space-time, space curvature, time as a function of space, etc., are all ideas brilliant which may yet find application in some future time when we need to travel through the great gravity regions of space, but they do not enlighten us as it pertains to how is constructed the universe. Rather, these esoteric notions of space-time confuse, in part derived from very complex quantum physics inside the atom, and in part mathematically constructed designs to accommodate what had been hitherto misunderstood, that gravity as we know it is a function of energy, and that the universe in its primordial form is actually pure gravity. What happens at the quantum level inside the atom is not what happens at the macro level of cosmology; the two are different and must not be confused together. Where the two come together is in the harmonic ratios which are found at the atomic electron shell levels, where the energy that affects the atom does so in a harmonic way. The universe is musical right down to its electrons, which is no wonder as to why music is pleasing to us. The electromagnetism that then radiates from the atom is like the gravity that comes from it, both either strong or weak depending upon the energy that had gone into it. The Strong Force, which is actually primordial gravity, cancels immediately inside the small diameter of the atom; the Weak Force also does so as abruptly within the atoms. The electric energy resulting, what lights up the screen on which I write this, is also a function of how this electromagnetism leaks out from the atom and is carried by free electrons. The remainder force is what is left over, what is the gravity that keeps me in my chair. That gravity is so weak here, where we live and from which point we observe it, is nothing more than the fact that we inhabit a very energy rich environment. If the Sun suddenly went out, we would be cast into a very great gravity hole which would first spin us out of control, and then ultimately crush us back into pure energy. That this does not happen only illustrates how well built is the universe we inhabit. As a Theory of Everything, it is also why there is hope that the reason for our existence is greater than we can yet imagine, and that when we do, we will be very glad to know it. In each and every one of us is the energy of the stars.

(pause - and be thankful you are here)

So, in final analysis, this is our New Physics, that all there is in existence is the interplay of two major forces, that of gravity and that of light energy. What happens inside the atom, the Strong and Weak forces, is one side of this equation of being; what happens outside the atom, from here to infinity, is the other side of the equation of Being. Between these two we then have a reality within which we exist, and within which life has evolved us high enough to be able to look back upon it all, and wonder. Yet this is only the physical existence, for there is still another existence which is more akin to the spiritual. All of everything in the universe is interrelated into a complete whole, from which radiates its energy and intelligence in such ways that it gives life to each of its component parts. That Life is a spiritual life, an energy of which we only intuitively know, but which we still cannot understand with the reason of our rational minds. But it does exist, and it is perhaps far more powerful than we realize, that all of us are intimately connected to it infinitesimally, and that it is already pre-built in our body and mind. We carry in us the soul of a universe that had been building itself for eternity, and one that hugs us as closely as every atom in our body. We are part of a very big whole, and from that whole is a Life energy that had been very long in the making. That we can participate in this Life is a blessing beyond measure, though we very likely all know it deep in our hearts, for it is what makes up our soul. I suspect that we even act within it without even knowing we do, for it is who we are as individuals, same as it is who we are in our joyous dreams. Something in our minds knows Who we are. And this is something that we can never forget, even if at times we do not remember it: We know Who we are.

(close your eyes - remember - and be thankful)

Above, June 12, 2003, are some Postscripts on other works to do with planetary spin and electron shell harmonics. For anyone interested in seeing more of the math that went into this equation, see the top entry on Atomus Summus-2. There will also be links to the Axiomatic Equation, where all this new physics is brought to an equality of Energy.

This math is rather simple, since the universe is built along surprisingly simple principles. Just remember that there are only two forces from which everything else emanates: Gravity and Light. Life is just that. Enjoy!


Truly a Joy to share this with you,

Ivan D. Alexander J

(now breathe! with joy!)

Copyright: Please note, to all I grant in advance the right to reproduce this paper, in its full form with credits, who wish to do so, in gratitude for the many fine minds who had contributed to this new physics, and to thank God we are alive. Remember that all this then dove tails nicely into "Habeas Mentem".
_________________________________________________________

Photon Energies for EM Spectrum (Hyperphysics):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html#c3

"The Edge of Physics- Scientific American" (Spring 2003) article titled "The Theory Formerly Known as Strings" (pg. 16) says:

"In supersymmetric theories, one finds that the strengths of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces all converge at the energy E of 10^16 giga-electron volts."

I find that 10^16 is what comes up at l = 1.2x10^-22 m (10^30 Hz), per calculator linked above. In G^2=gc^2, which is where G=c, maximum gravity, I get 10^16 m/s, the speed of light squared. The article also says that the dimensionless GE^2 is not quite equal to the interaction strengths of the other three. Don't know what to make of it, since GE^2 is not a familiar term to me. I don't think the four forces have to equal each other, only interact in a way to create a mass unit of one. Then everything falls into place, including what happens when g=1, which is the maximum Strong Force, and the gravity inside the galactic black hole. At that point, mass equals max Gravity, so it ceases to exist as a substance and instead gets reabsorbed into the universe as pure gravity, back to the beginning. It's really simple, and fits beautifully into E=mc^2. All that was missing was "g".

I must say that modern physics, trying to fit what happens at the quantum level into what happens at the astrophysical levels comes up with some very creative, if not fantastic, theories. What a mess! And people study this stuff to get their Phd. ! Unbelievable...

Ivan

Cross-post from Superstrings, by 'Coppernicus':

Re: Low density freedom.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Extra Dimensions XI ] [ FAQ ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Coppernicus on April 09, 2003 at 13:54:45:

In Reply to: Re: Low density freedom. posted by sol on April 09, 2003 at 07:11:19:

Sol,

Don't have any special insight into symmetries, whether of snowflakes or magnetism, but I would think it all balances out somewhere in some unifying theory. Symmetry may be a natural result from the "inverse square law" applied to any radiating force; i.e., think of force not in linear waves, but rather in concentric shock waves, so that what happens on one side must also happen on the opposite side. Well... it sort of starts to make sense...

Einstein tried to unify four forces into one, but with gravity and electromagnetism being infinite in range (while Weak and Strong Forces almost immediately cancelling themselves out), we were left with a cosmo-geometry employing "space-time" as the variable to make everything fit. Still, it doesn't work. If you think of these forces as radiating "shock-wave" fashion, then what happens to the Weak and Strong Forces gets trapped within a very small radius to cancel out there. On the other hand, electromagnetism and gravity radiate, again in waves of concentric circles (hence the inverse square law) indefinitely. If so, then the two categories are incompatible almost by definition. As to why we thought they should be reconcilable is not clear, except that we liked the mathematical elegance, if it were so. They are all related, however, but not in the way we had thought of. Rather they are compatible as either side of the atomic shell, either inside or outside... a kind of symmetry again. Remember the inverse law says that any value multiplied by its inverse equals one; therefore, the Strong and Weak forces are what happens inside the atom (one down to zero), whereas what happens to gravity and electromagnetism is outside the atom (one all the way up to infinity). If so, then a kind of inverse "symmetry" is preserved.

Rounding up the usual suspects of gluons, quarks, mesons, bosons, pions, muons (with all their shadowy virtual short-lived partners?), we keep coming back to the emerging pattern that light photons and electrons interact. These appear to be the basic components that span both inside and outside the atom. Electrons stripped of their electric charge become neutrinos, photons trapped by the atom raise electron shells, beta decay is the neutron's release of electrons, etc., so that the real suspect is once again "electromagnetic energy" of light. Somehow, light is behind this whole operation, though we are not yet clear as to why this is so. Also, light travels infinite distance, though it tends to redshift over great cosmic distances (NOT expanding universe!), again for reasons not yet clear. The pattern that emerges is one of raw supergravity being somehow modified by photon energy into what constitutes all the component parts of the atom. If we are to find a unification of the four forces, I suspect it will be in a better understanding of how the two infinite forces interact, that of light and gravity. Getting back to the idea of symmetry (philosophically speaking), we can imagine that the two are components of each other... but how? For example, does light leave in its wake gravity waves? Or, are electrons no more than light "quanta" trapped by the supergravity of the nucleus? Or, is light's electromagnetic energy merely a ripple within supergravity? Is the high lambda pressure of light from our star keeping denser gravity out? Lots of interesting questions, but still no real answers. Any ideas on this from your work? Anyone?

I like the illustrations in the diagrams (linked below), but don't have a clear idea about it all... yet. Looking at it this way, Newton's F=ma is mere child's play!

Sorry for ramblin' on, but this fun detective work... kind of like Colombo?

C.

* Feynman's diagram for the Weak Force

Quantum Gravity posts on Superstrings Forums, by 'Coppernicus':

Quantum Gravity at http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/philboard/messages19/120.html , and see follow ups listed.

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

Posted by Coppernicus on April 14, 2003 at 20:16:55:

Hi All,

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

* Quantum Gravity/Cambridge

***************************************************
(follow up on 'Time')

Re: Quantum Gravity/Time

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

Posted by Coppernicus on April 16, 2003 at 12:53:28:
In Reply to: Re: Quantum Gravity posted by sol on April 16, 2003 at 04:31:45:

Sol,

RE "Two clocks one in space and one on earth there is a sight difference."

This is a question about Time. Common belief is that a fast traveling clock will slow down versus the stationary clock on Earth, so there is a deviation of time. Since this has been measured to be so, it would appear correct. The difficulty arises from the fact that there is no way to prove this by testing it against an equivalent mechanical clock put through the same test, since such a clock cannot be made. There is no more accurate clock than the Cesium atomic clock (see link below), so that it stands alone. This leaves the test to a mental one only, that perhaps the Cesium frequencies may be affected by the high velocity of the traveling clock. I do not know if this had ever been tested, but there may be a possibility that the very high velocity, i.e., high kinetic energy at thousands of miles per second, may have an effect on the atomic performance of the clock. Reason it this way, very high kinetic energy may blueshift light on one end while redshift light on the other end of the atoms. If so, then this kinetic energy, if high enough, would alter the atom in some way so that the inherent stability of the 55 electron shells making up the Cesium atom may be affected enough to alter the frequency of the vibration recorded. If this were so, suppose only, then the stationary clock would yield a different Hz from that of the traveling clock. The faster it goes, the greater the kinetic energy, the more disturbance to the Cesium atomic structure, the more disturbed the readings. What is wrong with this picture (for me) is that accelerated Cesium atomic clocks should actually vibrate faster rather than slower, since more energy is being added to them. But my thinking may be off on this, and I do not know any more to go with it, so leave it a mystery for now.

RE "...the question of levitation (anti-gravity)... negative energy", I think what we will discover is a way to increase gravity, not decrease it, but to do this in a containment vessel so that the increased gravity (greater strong force within the vessel) can be oriented so that it counteracts normal Earth (or any astronomical body) gravity, and thus yield motion, which will give the appearance of anti-gravity, but is actually a function of super-gravity. Don't think I am pulling your leg here, but I really have no idea if this has any resemblance to the truth... it's just a thought. But cool if it were so!

C.

* Cesium atomic clocks

SUMMATION TO SUPERSTRINGS FORUM

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/cosmoboard/messages17/171.html

Sol,

Think of it this way (as I do) if you wish, that Gravity is one thing, while Energy is another. Together they play against each other. What happens to Space, is it flat or curved? This depends upon what it is you wish to measure. If you are measuring how light arrives here from 13 billion years ago, it is approximately flat. If you measure how gravity will affect that light from 13 billion light years away, then it is probably curved. So both answers are right, but they are contingent upon what it is we are seeking. This is a kind of paradox, same as light being both a particle or wave is a paradox.

Branes require dimensions, as I understand it, but dimensions may be a mathematical invention, same as Euclidian geometry is a mathematical invention, so use mathematical models when they explain something, but do not be lured by them into thinking they are reality if they do not. That is my modus operandi, to observe and see what observation yields, and then put together a model to explain it. Can mathematics ever totally capture reality? I believe it can, when it is at its simplest, when it explains interactions of forces. When it becomes so esoteric as to need constant twiggling to make it work, in my opinion, it becomes suspect. I think we are there now with spacetimedimensions, which require too much twiggling to be useful. If it isn't clean, then perhaps it is not the best way to go. Are there other dimensions? Probably, but they are not accessible from this one, and may have more to do with spiritual things than with physical reality.


Einstein was a great mind who understood something unbelievably true, that mass is energy. That is the foundation, I believe, of all modern physics. The works of Planck, de Broglie, Gauss, Maxwell, Bohr, Heisenberg, Reinman, Faynman, and all their colleagues, really either complimented Einstein, or preceded him. But his work stands as an incredible model of how works the universe. E=mc2 was pure genius, though I suspect it was flawed genius, in that it failed to understand the universe is made up of two forces: Energy and Gravity. And since G was not part of E=mc2, a fine crack developed, one which we of posterity had been trying to fill in ever since. What resulted was a rather strange cosmology of Big Bangs, eleven dimensions of spacetime, and the erroneous (I suspect) belief that Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe. Evidence, as I had posted on numerous occasions, seems to point towards this not being so, that Gravity is constant only in relation to locations of Energy. When all energy is removed, it becomes maximum. To get back to the beginning and remove the flaw I think will be paramount if physics is to reach its goal. I had asked on one of the posts whether or not space engineers use spacetime to plot tragectories of space craft, or simple old classical Euclidean/Newtonian space. No one answered, but I suspect the answer is the latter. We need to get back to the beginning and fix the flaw. I think E/c2=(m-g) with "g" as the small gravitational constant of energy (~5.9E-39) is closer to where we should start from, and take it all from there. It all falls together so well, and makes so much more intuitive sense. I also suspect gravitons are part of that flaw, in that we are trying to fit particle physics (energy physics) in with gravity (not energy physics). It will not work, for gravity and energy are separate things, and they combine only at the level of how they come together to form an atom.

What will change how we see the cosmology of the universe? I think the revolution will happen when we actually realize (and measure) that Gravity is different here from anywhere else. And for that to happen, first we need to look for it, to even contemplate such a thing is possible, and second we need to get out there and find out.

Hope all these peak consciousness ideas are of some value to you, and any who read this post. However, I remain a skeptic in all things until I see the proof. So take whatever I said here with a grain of salt, for the real proof is out there in the universe. I am only one more voice in the void.

All the best, and good luck!

Coppernicus (Ivan)

LINK TO KIP S. THORNE'S PAPER: "GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION" (PDF file)

http://xxx.sissa.it/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9704/9704042.pdf

I think this search for Gravity Waves, LIGO, could be a very important future development, to compare both GR against classical gravity theory, and whether there is Redshift to gravity waves, should they prove to exist.

Ivan

GRAVITY SPEED ANOMALIES: If gravity travels at the speed of light, these cannot be.

"Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align? How do binary pulsars anticipate each other's future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow? How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?" --per article by Tom Van Flandern ""The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say"

I especially like the last one. If light cannot escape the black hole, why should gravity? Thus, if gravity travels at the speed of light, these abherations cannot be.

I think gravity is an instantaneous force which, as per Atomus Summus, exists a priori to its interaction with energy. So energy em waves travel at light speed, but gravity already is.

(Please note: If gravity is instantaneous, why do we need "space-time"? Isn't space already defined? And if so, then is "time" not merely time, which is a measure of "change" in instantaneous space, and not space-time?)

Ivan

l = 2.2087x10^-42 is S⁹ _i=3 i, so that the very high frequency of the e.m. lambda needed to satisfy h/cl+g=m is actually no more than a summation of light wavelength from just below infrared to near gamma rays! If you sum l = e-3 to e-9 (which means you are multiplying those wavelengths powers of e-3 to e-9), you get e-42. This ranges from approximately 10^11 Hz to 10^17 Hz.

See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html#c1 for illustration.

Of course, this is well within the range of what our Sun can generate, which would mean it does not have to spit out extremely high frequency e.m. lambda to achieve e-42 meters.

I found this by accident while playing around with numbers to see if there was some "golden ratio" in the above equation for mass... but none found, yet...

Ivan

CASIMIR FORCE LONG-RANGE?

In reading the article on Zero Point Energy by Dr. H. E. Puthoff, titled "Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations: A New Rosetta Stone of Physics?", there are a couple of items that seem to validate the theory proposed above in Atomus Summus. Dr. Puthoff says, regarding work by Andrei Sakharov: "Specifically, Sakharov suggested that gravity might be an induced effect brought about by changes in the zero-point energy of the vacuum, due to the presence of matter. If correct, gravity would then be understood as a variation on the Casimir theme, in which background zero-point-energy pressures were again responsible." This is not exactly what I propose, but it is close enough to warrant another look. If gravity is an inherent quality of the space vacuum, in effect its zero-point-energy effect, then the Casimir force would also be a result of this inherent quality of space. In my thinking, this inherent energy of the space vacuum is re-released when the modifying light energy is canceled, so that the natural gravity is once again in full force, but not because of because of electromagnetic wave pressure, rather because of their absence. He later also says: "Gravity can be understood as a kind of long-range Casimir force. Because of its electromagnetic underpinning, gravitational theory in this form constitutes what is known in the literature as an 'already unified' theory." This is very much on track with what the Axiomatic Equations of Atomus Summus suggest, that there already is a unified theory of gravity, and that it is an 'a priori' force of the cosmos, which is merely modified into its very weak form, that which we experience within the vicinity of a hot star. Matter, in any form of mass, then exhibits this gravity 'zero-point-energy', in how the atom is formed there, and thus manifests the gravitational constant where it is found, which would mean it is very weak in energy rich regions, and very strong in deep space. If this is so, then there is hope.

Ivan

RE: HOW ELECTROGRAVITY WORKS

Below is a letter I sent off to Jerry E. Bayles, who has put in quite a bit of work into Elecgrogravity, including some great math. I think he's on the right track, but the frustration is that the effect is not sustainable, since gravity and electromagnetism appear to be mutually exclusive. --Ivan

<sub>Dear Jerry,

I'm not that familiar with your work, though I glanced at it and think your are on the right track towards something new. I had been working separately on unifying electromagnetism and gravitational forces, but my work leads me to the discovery that they are mutually exclusive, so this is a problem. You may find my work at:
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/97.html where I develop how to rewrite E=mc2 to incorporate both gravitational and magnetic forces. I would encourage you to look at Axiomatic Equations (about half way through the paper) to see why I say gravitational and magnetic forces are mutually exclusive. I kept the math to a barebones minimum, since most people are not comfortable with it, but I think it works well enough to pursue further. See if any of it will help you in what you are trying to achieve, and let me know.

From my perspective, I suspect that many electrogravity results are limited in that they are not sustainable over any period of time. This is what I would expect, since the energy necessary to raise "g" to a light enough level gets quickly re-normalized in our solar energy environment. In effect, the Sun keeps us at g=5.9e-39 level (proton to proton constant), so all efforts to overcome that get negated. The only way out, as I can see it, is to focus on the other direction, rather than decreasing g, increase it instead. Per my equations in the link referenced above, this can be done by eliminating photon energy lambda, rather than increasing it. Think of what happens when a wave comes against a wall, how it momentarily cancels out, and then rolls back the other way. I think this can be duplicated. Another example would be to apply any vibrator to the rim of a bowl of water. Watch how all the waves converge on the center and cancel out. This may be a clue towards creating a vessel that does this with light photons (in a vacuum), where all the light is on the circumference converging in the center, and cancels the lambda there. If my equations are right, then what should happen is that at that point, the natural gravity energy of space (a kind of Casimir effect) should show up, and it would become a gravity focus point. You know you have it when the vessels starts to spin. If you move the point off center, you should see spin become replaced with kinetic motion, which would be continuous acceleration. It's silent and very fast, so tremendous speeds could be accomplished within a very short time.

Anyway, I really have no contribution to make to your work, but to offer another point of view, since gravity and electromagnetism seem to work at cross purposes, which means the more EM we apply, the less gravity will cooperate with us, thanks to our local star. And it is ALWAYS an attractive force, so there is no way to overcome it accept to go with it... to the max. :-)

Good luck in all your great works, and may your dreams come true.

Ivan D. Alexander
Costa Mesa, CA</sub>

A GRAVITON?

What if a Graviton, that which modern physics is searching to identify with LIGO and other gravity probes, is no more than a "shadow" of electromagnetic propagation through space?

In Kip S. Thorne's paper: "Gravitational Radiation - A New Window Onto the Universe", in sect. 2.2, he says "The strengths of the waves from a gravitational-wave source can be estimated using the 'Newtonian/quadrupole' approximation to the Einstein field equations". This works out as; h~ 1/c² [4G(E_kin^ns/c²)]/r; where "ns" is "non-spherical" (and the equation is made dimensionless by dividing by c², per his paper), so that h works out to be approximately h~ 10^-21 to 10^-22. This is the range looked for in the new LIGO/VIRGO gravitational wave network.

It occurs to me that if light "c" is E_m/B_m=c, and if c=E_msin(kx-vt)/B_msin(kx-vt), then because the magnetic potential B and the gravitational small constant g may be inversely proportional (per Axiomatic Equations in Atomus Summus-2), why not these relationships likewise be inversely proportional? What this means, in effect, is that the graviton is a very weak 'shadow' of light as it propagates through space gravity. How would I write this?

I think the most likely candidate, without having verified this, is that the Graviton relationship should be a cosine factor of "sin(kx-vt)", and being inverse proportional (cosine is inversely proportional to sine), I would set it as:

g^c_graviton = E_msin(kx-vt)/B_mcos(kx-vt), where the value of sine goes from zero to one, and cosine goes from one to infinity. This puts the value for the graviton as so weak to be virtually unmeasurable by our instruments, though still a real factor in how electromagnetic energy interacts with the inherent gravity force of the space vacuum. The graviton would be measurable, however, if g approaches =>1 (where sin=>1).

This is a "thought in process", so still needs to be tested further, but it might represent the 'shadow' graviton vs. light waves, both of which of necessity travel at v=c.

Ivan

MORE ON COMETS AND VARIABLE GRAVITY

Posted by Coppernicus on June 24, 2003 at 15:20:18:
In Reply to: W=mg posted by ztfthtay on June 22, 2003 at 22:08:51:

Dear Tayth, and all,

I have read through your dialogue, and it seems to hinge on the argument whether or not our conceptual understanding of the inertial moving mass (I) is equal to gravitational rest mass (G), or their converse.

As I had written on my other post http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/relboard/messages18/127.html, the only way they would not be constant was if "g" were different within their fields of measurement, meaning that gravity here may not be gravity everywhere, though it always had been assumed that it was.

The point I want to make is that your dialogue brings up the possibility that if W= inertial mass(I), while at the same time gravitational mass(G) is also =W, then how the gravitational/inertial field within which these are encountered may have an affect on how they behave in their relative velocity "v".

Now, think about this a moment: Velocity is not constant in elliptical orbits, since it is faster at its perihelion (closest to the body orbited), and slower at the aphelion (on the solar system periphery). This is a clue, that something changes in the W=Inertia of the body as it travels along its elliptical orbit. If we take your equation, W=mg, then what is changing, possibly, is that the W is lighter near the perihelion, and greater near the periphery. This would account for why comets, for example, have such large elliptical orbits, where they come in close to the sun and then fly way back out again towards the Oorte cloud beyond the edge of our solar system. What appears to be happening, therefore, is that the "g" varies from very low near the sun to very great beyond the solar system, which translates into mass being lower "W" near the sun than out in the Oorte cloud. Translating this back into W=Inertial mass(I), we therefore have a clue that the inertial mass of a comet, because of its very elliptical orbit, varies with where it is in that orbit. If this is so, that's way cool! It also means that orbital "v" is a function of inertial mass (I), which on the surface is counter-intuitive. (For example: Wouldn't it slow down if weight decreases? No, inertia is lessened, but its mass has no effect on its velocity in vacuum.) Yet, this is how W=mg works out if our observation of elliptic orbits it true.

I bring up this possibility, in relation to your dialogue, because if this is so, then it would explain why comets, or any heavenly body, do not simply crash to their fiery death into the sun, or any star. If the inertial mass=W were constant, then they would simply fall into some orbit near the sun, and eventually spiral into it. The fact that this not happen, and rather the opposite that it flies back out to the edge of the solar system, indicates that "g" intensity varies inversely to its proximity to the star. And if this is so, then we have to rethink a lot of what we know about gravity. It is a very real possibility that gravity is contingent upon where it is in relation to the energy generating star where its field is being measured.

So, what does this mean? It means that all values for "W", or inertial mass(I), changes as any body flies away from its star system. And this may be what is happening to the distant spacecrafts Pioneer 10 and 11 as they exit the solar system, that they are taking on more "g", and therefore more "W", which means eventually they will start to fall back towards the sun, just like distant comets do.

I hope this adds something of value to your discussion.

The (axiomatic) equation I would use for this variable g, both as W and m(I), is:

E_m • c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy

(per Atomus Summus above)

where "g" is inverse proportional to electro-magnetic energy, such as generated by any star. But you must still treat this as "speculative" until we know for sure this is so.

Coppernicus :)

------------------------------------------------------
Comets link, Oort cloud: http://whyfiles.org/011comets/live.html

Please note mass stays constant, same atomic "weight", only "g" changes, which per W=mg means that "W" changes.

Also the F=ma forces are still the same, no matter where along the comet's orbits, since these are always relative to each other within the same gravitational field environment. We would never guess that gravity could be different because of this... and we still really do not know that it is. This is all still very theoretical.

Ivan

NEW PLANETS, distant cousins?

In the BBC article Star study reveals new planets by Dr. David Whitehouse (BBC Science Editor, dated 10 July, 2003), there is an expectation that the discovery of a planet in a globular star system may mean that our galaxy is chock full of planets. I suspect this is likely so, that we are not alone, and instead have many undiscovered distant cousins. And that would be a very pleasant surprise indeed.

It then goes on to say 10 billion years ago, when the first generation of stars emerged after the Big Bang, a planet formed around the young star. Well, that may be, but the binary star explanation that follows begins to sound more fantastic. It says a gravitational tussle between a neutron star and white dwarf binary system and the planet's parent star had the white dwarf ejected and replaced by the normal star, so that the planet now found itself orbiting the remaining binary star system of neutron star and normal star. Could live with that okay. The article then says:

"Over the next few billion years, the normal star grew old and swelled to become a red giant star, and then a fading white dwarf itself." That's cool so far. Then: "But in its expanding phase, the companion neutron star's gravity pulled material from the aging star's atmosphere on to itself. This caused the neutron star to spin more rapidly." ... Hmmm...

It's the last sentence that got me. How did absorbing the red giant's atmosphere make the neutron star spin faster? Was this an editorial error? According to the Axiomatic Equation, in fact, absorbing the energy from the red giant would slow down the neutron star, and possibly even re-ignite it, if enough hydrogen was taken over. The fact that it spins faster is a function of intense gravity, which is a function of less electromagnetic energy, so that it spins a hundred times a second, hence a pulsar. Also it is not clear from the way the article is written if the astronomers have actually found the planet, or only that they found the remaining white dwarf star, from which they reconstructed a fantastic journey. Is there a planet, or this only a speculative theory that there is?

Here's a good illustration of what they're talking about:
Jovian Planet in Globular Cluster M4

Looking up at the sky with wonder, as always,

Ivan

Ivan,

It is all hyperbole.

J____

J___,

Most human ideas are hyperbole until they are
either proven or disproven. That is the nature of
things.

Ivan :-)

When you wish upon a star...

Astronomers count the stars says there are 7x10²² stars visible to the most powerful telescopes, which probably means there are to the factors of ten times that before the light fades out from cosmic redshift. That's a lot of stars, a lot of planets, and maybe even some human inhabitants! I guess this idea makes mince meat of Ober's paradox?

Olber's Paradox

We must be out of our minds to think this universe had a finite beginning, not to mention it has outer limits. The universe is infinite...

Ivan

Ivan,

No argument from me...!

J____

CHECKING MATH TWICE, with a simplified explanation of Axiomatic Equation.

Since I got such controversial responses from my earlier post of the Axiomatic Equation, everything from "this makes no sense" to "insane", I went over the math again. Not wishing to be the only one in the world who understands this equation, I thought to show it as simply as possible, this time leaving out the dimensional values. So this is the pure math. The lines below are numbered, so any criticism can be directed to the lines in question, and I also included links from where I lifted the functions used. Not in question here the physics, but the math. Granted a new idea cannot come about without challenging the old, so I list below where I introduce new concepts, and why. It is all made to equal E = Energy.

1. E = mc^2, a very famous equation.

2. E = hc / l,

where h=Planck's constant, l=photon lambda, c=photon velocity. This is an expression of the natural interaction of radiation and matter, derived from
E_photon x l_photon = hc, as per: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

3. E = E_m /(e_om_o)^1/2 ...really!

where in taking E_m /B_m = c, from the Electromagnetic Wave equation at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html , and taking c = 1/(e_om_o)^1/2, as per http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c1 , we can rewrite it into E_m/c = B_m , which further converts into E_m (e_om_o)^1/2 = B_m. However, this is not yet complete, and here some will cry "foul!"

Using the original E = mc^2, and introducing a new value for mass = m, we have a new way to express Energy = E. The new concept is that the atom is a product of outside energy and a superstrong gravity in its nucleus which results in a balance of these two forces that are the basic atom. However, the balance is not total, and hence there is a remainder force. For the magnetic force, the positive and negative inside the atom cancel to zero, but there is a remainder which is the atom's magnetic potential. Therefore, by this reasoning (not in current usage in physics, where the atom is a product of a positive nucleus and negative electron shell) the mass of E = mc^2 can be defined as a magnetic component of m = (zero mass) + Bm. The result (whether or not anyone agrees with this, math only!) is that E/c^2 = m can be rewritten as E/c^2 = 0+ B_m , which is equal to E = (B_m)c^2 = (B_m) x 1/(e_om_o),

which by substituting B_m (as per above) leads to E= E_m (e_om_o)^1/2 x 1/(e_om_o), which by canceling is equal to E = E_m /(e_om_o)^1/2 (as listed in #3), which is also:

E = E_m * c ...so Energy equals Electric force times photon velocity... this really is new!

So now we have three equations all set to equal Energy = E. To bring them together:

4. E = E_m * c = hc/l (by substituting c = 1/(e_om_o)^1/2 ) = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = mc^2, all equal as Energy.

By the same reasoning as above, that the atom is a product of energy and a super force gravity nucleus, the other remainder force of this balance of forces is gravity. What this means is the interactions between these two forces do not exactly balance out, but there is a remainder from the nucleus which becomes the very weak gravity we experience.

Therefore, by substituting "m", it can be written as mass = m-g ( where "g" is a negative force) for each atom. In the aggregate, this small g is a component of the gravity field created by all mass. Again, it is the math I am after, not the physics concept, which I am sure will be controversial. So in setting mass as m = 1, which is kg/kg, or one hydrogen atom, and with the gravitational component as m = (1-g) and with the magnetic m = 0+B_m , we can write, math only:

5. E_energy = E_m * c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (1-g)c^2 = B_m * c^2 .

So in these five easy steps, the math is developed into an equation for Energy. The physics involved may be controversial, speculative, or plain wrong. But that is not the issue here. What is in question is: Does the math work?

And if it does not, then which of these five steps is wrong?

* * * * *

As a comment, I should note that the result of this equation is that the gravity and magnetic potential atoms feel in our solar region are the product of the output of energy generated by our sun, that they are somehow inversely proportional, and that if we were to take these measurements far away from our solar energy, they would be different. That is how this Axiomatic Equation plays out, that gravity is a variable constant, and it will be a different constant for either different stars and galaxies, or out in deep space. We will not know this, however, until we go out there and find out.

Ivan

(same as posted on http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/108.html, Axiomatic Equation )

Ivan,

The problem with your math is = substitutions.

The problem with your thesis is = "We will not know this, however, until we go out there and find out."

You cannot base a theory upon speculation without having at least 2 Constants. Variables can be unlimited.

J____

J____,

The two constants are m & c.

Which line has the error in it, as per substitution?

Thanks, Ivan

Ivan,

You said it yourself-

"where in taking Em /Bm = c, from the Electromagnetic Wave equation at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html , and taking c = 1/(eomo)^1/2, as per http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c1 , we can rewrite it into Em/c = Bm , which further converts into Em (eomo)^1/2 = Bm. However, this is not yet complete, and here some will cry "foul!"

The rewriting of:

Ivan: "we can rewrite it into Em/c = Bm , which further converts into Em (eomo)^1/2 = Bm."

is invalid.

J____

J___,

Pardon for my being thick, but I don't follow.

Why is it invalid? How would you convert Em/Bm = c, with c = 1/(eomo)^1/2 (which is one over the square root of the product of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability)? If Em/c = Bm, then is this not the same as Em x 1/1/(eomo)^1/2, which is Em (eomo)^1/2?

Let me help you out: if you take 1/1/2, is this not equal 2?

????
Ivan

ps: you have the right to delete the above, just tell me if you wish to do so L

Ivan,

Why delete anything...?

You seemingly do not understand the substitutions you made corrupt the original equations.

Ivan: "Using the original E = mc^2, and introducing a new value for mass = m, we have a new way to express Energy = E."

J____

J___,

If you go to Space-Talk/Magnetism vs Gravity posts, July 24-25,2003, you'll see where some of your above is addressed by "C2":

http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=18046

I understand your objection, but cannot answer it better. As you'll see, your obejctions are in good company!

Ivan

Ivan,

I concur with wintermute11. Frankly I do not understand where any of your formulations leads because when attempting to work the formulations I tried = nonsense ... which I think is the position of wintermute11.

You give no supporting references to a single basic equation, which is a necessity; otherwise, what you wrote is gibberish that only you understand ... and I am further baffled by your remark-

Ivan: "I understand your objection, but cannot answer it better."

If you wrote it, you should be able to explain it, but no explanations are given that tells anyone - let alone a physicist, how to use your stuff.

Item 5 of your post July 23, 2003 - 10:07 pm:

Eenergy = Em * c = h/l(eomo)^1/2 = (1-g)c^2 = Bm * c^2

Equates to...? Moreover, it will not compute.

Trying hard but failing to understand any of your work...?

J____

J____,

I thought you might concur!

As to what it computes into? Here is how it worked out:

E_m x 2.998e⁸ m^.s^-1 = 6.626e^-34 m^2.kg^.s^-1 x 2.998e⁸ m^.s^-1 / 2.2087e^-42 m^.s = (B_m) 8.99e¹⁶ m^2.s^-2 = (1 - 5.9e^-39 kg^.s^-1) x 8.99e¹⁶ m^2.s^-2 = ~8.99e¹⁶ m^2.kg^.s^-3 = Energy, in Joules per second, or Watts.

(Please bear in mind that kilograms are a function of gravity, an abreviation of "m^3.kg^-1.s^-2" into "kg".)

So all that is missing:

Electric force = E_m = ~2.998e⁸ m^.kg^.s^-2, which is Joules per meter, or the Newton force, and:

Magnetic potential = B_m = ~1 x kg^.s^-1, which is Newtons per meter per second, or Joules per meter squared per second, to complete the dimensional values for the equation.

E_m^. c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy ©

... which is all º E = mc².

Ivan,

You wrote: Em. c = h/l(eomo)1/2 = (Bm)c2 = (1-g)c2 = Eenergy ©

You cannot © a formulation without a formal written statement to accompany it.

The conclusion cannot be derived from precedents.

J____

MERCURY VS PLUTO

We are not yet at the point of rewriting physics books with the new Axiomatic Equation, but rather are still at the stage of asking questions. But with this new theory of physics, where energy determines gravity density in relation to a star, leads us to reexamine much of what we have come to believe about planetary density.

It is presently believed that Mercury has a very dense core, about 80% iron. However with this new way to seeing things, it may be that this is merely an adjustment by astro-physics for the fact that Mercury is much closer to the sun than Earth. We tend to be a terra-centric human species, so see the rest of the universe in terms of how things are on Earth. But this may be an error, as the new equation suggests. Rather, the adjustments for planetary mass occur because we think gravity is level throughout the solar system, which it may not be. By the same token, Pluto being much further from the sun than Earth, its planetary density may be much lighter than currently believed, because it is in a much denser gravity region than here. Therefore, where Pluto is now believed to be about 30% water ice and the rest a rocky core, in fact it may be closer to being all water ice, more like a comet than a planet, since by being in a heavier gravity density, it behaves as if it had a heavier rocky core.

We do not know what formed the planets and why they have the interior composition they have. If all formed from the same primordial material soup, then they should all tend to be more or less the same, though we know the gaseous giants are very different from the small rocky planets. Yet, we may still have it wrong, since we measure everything through the belief gravity is a universal constant. That Earth has a very dense iron core, which is believed to generate its magnetic field, may not be that at all, and other factors may account for the strength of the magnetic field here. According to the Axiomatic Equation, the more energy present, the lower the gravity density and inversely the greater the magnetic potential. So Mercury may have a greater magnetic field than its rocky composition would normally allow, while Pluto may have a much lower magnetic field, if the gravity density there is greater. These are being presented here not as statements of fact, but rather as questions, because we still do not know whether or not the equation is true or false. But at least it is a basis from which we can begin to ask those questions in a way non-terra-centric, and look for the evidence.

So this should be one of our first clues of gravity density variations in relation to closeness or distance from the sun, that astronomers have to either add mass or subtract it to compensate for gravity which had been hitherto believed to be level throughout. In fact, as a possibility, a question only, gravity may be variable in relation to its location from the star.

Ivan

Ps: As my friend J___ points out above, all this is still very much in the air, since there is much debate over whether or not the equation makes sense. So this is still being presented as a theoretical possibility, though I am not shy of having the equation registered for copyright, as is my right.

Ivan,

You need to update self on Copyright rules - especially the registration part. Significant changes were made when the US adopted the new International Agreement Clinton signed into law.

J____

Not to worry J___, others have the right to use the Axiomatic Equation within certain limits under the Fair Use provision of US Copyright. See:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/fairuse.html , where it says:

"The catch-all provision, which is the provision generally being referred to when the term "fair use" is used, is section 107. This catch-all fair use provision specifically provides a safe harbor for what would otherwise be infringing activities if such activities are engaged in for the purpose of teaching, scholarship and research."

What the US Copyright Office has on file is the first section of Atomus Summus-2, same as what is posted.

So it is okay to use the Axiomatic Equation as I developed it on these forums for further scholarship, for example, or for teaching and research. The protection is primarily for the record, that should the equation work as expected, then future means of energy propulsion, or any other commercial developments based on this Axiomatic Equation, would be contested by my attorney if my copyright was violated.

Ivan

Is it possible that strings vibrate and create frequency?

Thomas,

You might like to check into the SuperStrings forums with this question. See them at:

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/forums_i.html

Thanks for posting, and let's see what you find out.

Ivan

Even 2005 hybrid cars Save only 1/2 of the braking energy. Enough? No as we waste 3/4ths of the energy when accel or when decel. Why not let Gravity via an activated counterweight block the Reaction? Please see www.intersurf.com/~propul Or else www.geocities.com/fosterenergy A motor 1/4th the size can have the same performance. A motor comes up to speed in 1/2 the time.Please implement these methods to extend our energy reserves and reduce Global Warming which produces hurricanes caused by too warm ocean waters. Please see the energy patents (3) on my URLs as shown in their entirety. Please help get the word out before it is really too late. Thanks Richard Foster Engineer/Inventor