Dear all,

A great deal had been written on these forums regarding the state of physics in these modern times, and the questions of Time and Relativity, of the universe's expansion and Big Bang, and on the nature of energy and mass, and Gravity. In one of our posts, "Is there a Theory of Everything", our friend Dave wrote (Feb. 25, 2003):

"So, in our new future philosophy, one is free to choose one's religious orientation as well as one's 'theory of everything'. For those who aren't keen on the authority of scriptures or who can't grasp college math... we can be 'philosophical' about it."

This is what I would like to dedicate this thread to, to become 'philosophical about it', since neither Scriptures or Modern Physics seems to have ALL the answers. In that same post there was also a worthwhile link, Astronomy Research at UCLA, which leads to another link: What is the Mass of a Photon. This latter shows that there is generally confusion between "mass", as one being similar to atomic weight, while the other being relativistic-mass, or energy of momentum, so that atomic weight as mass is not the same as the mass of a photon in motion, for example... though there may exist a relationship.

And this is what is exciting about this line of inquiry, that perhaps, if all mass is energy anyway, then there may exist a link between mass as atomic weight, and mass as momentum energy.

But the bigger picture is Time Dilation, since we have been steered into believing that time is a "space-time" dimension, same as length, or height and width, on the X-Y-Z axi. But this gives "time" a value it may not actually possess. There is no particle equivalent of Time, same as the graviton may not be a particle unit of Gravity. Another way to see this is that time is merely a convenience of observation, a way to measure change, but which has not more reality to it than Euclidean space has reality, other than a "model" of something we think is happening and so try to measure it. In the Time Dilation-Relativity link above, the "geometry of time" is rather well covered, but it also shows how this is merely a trick of observation. Relativistic Time is partly a function of the speed of light, so that geometrically it cannot exceed c=3e8 m/s, and partly the geometry demands that either light speed is greater... or time is slower... so light speed won and time lost out. This, in a minute way, is why Time became a dimension, which is most unsatisfactory that grown and intelligent men, and women, had accepted this as fact for the past one hundred plus years. Here there will be a need for very serious rethinking, and perhaps rewriting of existing algorithms, of all we had accepted as true. Was there a Big Bang? Is the universe expanding? What is the possible cause of Red-shift? These are all open to serious re-examination.

So it is time to rethink Modern Physics. On the posts in the Archived Forums under the "Is there a Theory of Everything" series of posts, some of these ideas had been broached, and then more formally under the (archived) "Atomus Summus" and (new forums) "Atomus Summus-2" threads. The result, in effect, is that it was not Time that was the variable, but instead it was Gravity, that this is not a universal constant, but rather a variable-constant. The thinking and observations taken forward may yet yield a new way of seeing physics, not in a Relativistic view, but a more Realistic view. What would the outcome of this be, if we find out what is the real physics? I suspect we will discover the pieces falling together very cleanly, like the tumblers in a lock, and that from this will become almost immediately apparent a whole new method of propulsion. And with this new kinetic power source quite possibly a whole new method of generating energy, which will make all of our current technology primitive and virtually absolete.

So any links, ideas, references, all will be most welcome. I believe we are on the threshold of something very big and exciting, and also believe that it will happen sooner rather than later. The future is now.

All the best,

Ivan

FOR THE RECORD: Was Einstein missing a constant?

This e-mail was sent to the addresses listed below, for the record:

"I am sending you the link below as info of general interest on Gravity, that in solving for the necessary EM lambda to satisfy Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, the result yields a startling discovery that the gravitational constant "g" (5.9x10-39) may in fact not be so constant after all. This little gravitational constant lends itself to surprising results in the mass/energy equation which, if rewritten as E/c^2=m-g (and substituting the E), yields results which help explain a lot of current anomalies in cosmic observation. It will becomes especially significant, I suspect, if we discover that gravity is not a universal constant, but a variable-constant instead, one dependent upon the energy environment within which it is measured, as this new algorithm would predict.

I refer the following link below, to show the math developed in "Atomus Summus": http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/97.html "

scienceworld@wolfram.com
fj@medg.lcs.mit.edu
wesson@astro.uwaterloo.ca
outreach@ipac.caltech.edu
kip@tapir.caltech.edu
features@newscientist.com
wright@astro.ucla.edu
S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk
sec@astro.ox.ac.uk
Alvaro.Gimenez@esa.int
contact@advancespace.com
eric@weisstein.com
rloldershaw@amherst.edu
HIA-WWW@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
astroweb@nrao.edu
saul@lbl.gov
jrees@starlight-pub.com
jcohn@astron.berkeley.edu
pubaffairs@cfa.harvard.edu
link@springer-ny.com
comments@hq.nasa.gov
ssm@cfa.harvard.edu
ads@cfa.harvard.edu
arueda@esulb.edu
tomvf@metaresearch.org
physics-research@ncar.ucar.edu
ajad@ift.uni.wroc.pl
experts@sciam.com

Additional notification of Axiomatic Equation sent to:

pwa@pupgg.princeton.edu
lark1@cassiopaea.com
solomon@QuantumRisk.com
mail@journaloftheoretics.com
fnmilgrm@wicc.weizmann.ac.il
editorial@discover.com
Christian.Marinoni@oamp.fr
herbert.walther@mpq.mpg.de
nsinger@sandia.gov
mmn@lanl.gov
marc.g.millis@GRC.nasa.gov
haisch@starspot.com
baez@math.ucr.edu

(Updated Unified Theory of Gravity and Energy sent to all above, 10/1/03)

SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH ARCHIVE

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/

There are many interesting papers, questions, and even "crackpot" ideas.

:)

THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES IN 4D?

General/Special Relativity is devilishly clever geometry in four dimensional space/time. Tangent/cotangent vectors set the stage for this geometry with its 4 D coordinate system. Why not 6 D, or 12 D, or 10e50 D, or fractal D coordinates, if the methodology works? But what would it explain? Most damning, worse, who would understand it? Besides a very small priestly class of true believers, who could?

Applied to physics, General Relativity explains something: how Gravity works in 4 D. The question: Must you have draconian geometry to understand Gravity? Can it be worked out more simply, per Thoreau's "Simplify, simplify", so it reduces from a geometry of priests to one of intelligible beings? We know gravity works in 3 D, so why not explain it in 3 D?

So don't be shy! Don't be frightened by onerous equations. You want to be a genius? Simply simplify 4 D geometry of Relativity Physics to 3 D. Hint: Light is not a cone but a P-wave, so t-time vector coordinates cancel out, so you get (x⁰, x¹, x², x³).

Here is a very fine RELATIVITY TUTORIAL. With 4 D glasses, you just might see the Emperor's new clothes. :-]

Or Did Einstein cheat?

MANIFOLD -10

If you like "toys" dig this: FUZZY GEOMETRY :-]

Say physics with pictures?

Here is a great APPLETS Gallery, some interactive, by Greg Egan, Australia:

http://www.netspace.net.au/~gregegan/APPLETS/Applets.html

I especially like the Lissajous diagram: http://www.netspace.net.au/~gregegan/APPLETS/15/15.html

Also see Subluminal, which shows how frequency can come together in phase. This may be relative to how light propagates in space, or how superhigh frequencies come together ((i.e., l=~2.2e-42 meters for our Sun): http://www.netspace.net.au/~gregegan/APPLETS/20/20.html

Dear A___,

RE my: "5.0e-39 (which is a gravity-electromagnetic energy relationship), a number
I lifted off of the page on Fundamental Forces at Hyperphysics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav."

--and Ur reply:

"This is the dimensionless value when two protons are chosen for
comparison. When proton and electrons are chosen, you get
4.4x10^-40

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/imgfor/alpg5.gif

When two electrons are chosen, the value will be still different.

So, which value will you take and why?

And also, even if you make g dimensionless by some reasoning, how
will you make m dimensionless?"

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

Thank you for asking a very important question, as to why I chose the "proton to proton" gravitational constant (5.9e-39) for h/cl + g = m, rather than the "proton to electron" constant (4.4e-40). This required some thought to explain reasonably, since it would appear on the surface that either could apply, as you no doubt suspected. In fact, only one choice is correct.

I think the best way to explain it is conceptually, what it is I am trying to describe:

In rewriting E=mc^2, I was trying to find an algorithm that would allow me to use dimensionless constants as the basic relationship, which then could be converted to whatever dimensional measures we wished. The mental image I had of the atom is an interplay of two basic forces, electromagnetic energy, let's call it photon energy, and some superforce of gravity, let's call it the strong force, which together interact in such a way that the photon is trapped by the strong force to become a standing wave, or an electron shell around the nucleus, which gives us what we know as mass. So all matter, being made up of this basic mass, combined either atomically into basic elements, or chemically as molecules, is made up of this resulting interplay of these two basic forces. What happens to the strong force of the nucleus is that it cancels very quickly, at about 10e-15 m diameter. The electromagnetic force results from a positive charged nucleus and negative charged electron shell, but which is not canceled out and in essence "leaks out" of the atom to infinity. What remains of the so-called strong force of the nucleus is mostly canceled out except for a very weak portion which remains, and it is this very weak remainder that is the gravity we know.

As an algorithm, these forces were expressed as E/c^2=(m-g), where the very weak remainder from the strong force is expressed as a dimensionless "g", which is subtracted from the value of mass=1, and thus the constant in question. I set mass at one because I envisioned the interplay of the two basic forces as inversely proportional, which if multiplied out become one. I also chose m=1 because the strong force equals one, and also because atomic mass A=1, which also represents atomic totality (more later on how to convert mass=1 into dimension measurable mass). I then converted the above equation into h/cl + g = m, so that I could solve for e.m. lambda. This led me to realize that it may be possible that depending upon the size of the lambda, the remainder gravity force of g may also be a variable, dependent upon the energy output of the local star, so that it may vary from nearer to zero, as we experience here in the vicinity of our sun, to a maximum value of one, as I suspect it is at the galaxy center. Now, why did I choose 5.9e-39 versus 4.4e-40?

Giving it much thought, and trying it out algorithmically, I think the proton to proton relationship is more true to what h/cl + g = m describes. After all, it is the weak remainder of the strong force leaking out of the atom that seeks out the same in another atom, so that we have a mass to mass relationship. I also calculated the relationship of these two possible values of g and realized that 5.9e-39 is approximately 11.7 times greater than 4.4e-40, which is interesting because the square root of 137 is approximately 11.7. I am assuming all these g numbers are correct, though they are nevertheless approximations as best we can measure. So it appears that the proton to electron gravitational constant has the 137 relationship built into it. Keep in mind that the electron is of very small mass and is more affected by the electromagnetic charge than the remainder gravity, so that this is less pure than a proton to proton relationship, so I disqualified 4.4e-40 as not meeting the needs for an algorithm describing the interplay of forces I was looking for. What fits best, therefore, is the 5.9e-39 value of g, as per http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/97.html .

I also tested it against the G^2=gc^2 algorithm (note: Gm1 x Gm2 = G^2, see referenced link above) to see which yields the best value for a conversion from the g constant to Newtonian G force of gravity, and again the 5.9e-39 works better (and best if c=2.76e8 m/s, which means space has a low refraction, and if G²/p²=gc², which implies G has a pi function built in; perhaps as Mp/r² part of the real equation?)*. So, if this reasoning is good, the resulting dimensionless value of g can then be translated into how we choose to measure gravity. Also, the mass value of m=1 then becomes translatable into any weight measure we wish, grams, kilos, pounds, stones, etc. (Remember that what we call "mass" weight is only how Earth's gravity affects atomic mass gravity.) The relationship of E/c^2 is essentially a dimensionless relationship, except that we describe it in various units of measure, same as we can describe Planck's constant and e.m. lambda is given units of measure. As long as these units are consistent with one another, the equation works, producing dimensionless, or analog relationships which can be converted to measured dimensions. And if that works, then we have something similar to the relationship value of pi (p), which itself is dimensionless but can be converted to any measurement desired. So that is the goal of how was rewritten Einstein's famous formula, with only missing a constant for gravity, so that the full interplay of strong force and e.m. energy can be equated into an atom, which also exhibits the very weak remainder, which we call gravity.

So what does this mean in terms of why an atom may display a very weak gravity here, but a very strong gravity in a neutron star, or total gravity in a galactic blackhole center? It means that G and c are in essence two sides of each other, they interact with electric charge, combine into the mass that is an atom, and then leak out both magnetic and gravitational energy (i.e., electromagnetic photon energy and a very diluted strong-force energy). I do not have an algorithm for the same process to measure magnetic leakage, but I am fairly certain that such can be worked out without too much difficulty. Next will come the test (if we look for it!), that we see how gravity is measured in energy poor environments, such as at great distances from energy rich stars and galaxies, which can be arrived at through astronomical observation. We already know neutron stars exhibit immense gravity, and that their light output is small in comparison to hot stars. I would expect that the cold regions of space, where there is an abundance of cosmic dust but very diluted light, would also be energy poor, hence gravity rich. And if so, then all molecules and atoms in those cold regions should exhibit a much greater g value, which means that there should be more gravity evident there. If you weigh, let's say, 80 kilos on Earth, you may perhaps find yourself weighing 8e10 kilos in deep space, which you would need to somehow compensate for in order not to be crushed by your own body mass.... possibly through immense spin, or great kinetic energy... but that is still in the distant future before we get there. In effect, we may be living in a relatively light gravity bubble within a universe of much greater natural gravity, so that for us, gravity appears constant, but universally it may not be so. And if that is true, it represents a paradigm shift in physics.

I hope this adds some light to the discussion as to why I chose 5.9e-39 as the gravity constant g. I should also add that I suspect Planck's h=6.626e-34 may also not be a universal constant, but may have a much higher value in regions of deep space. We will know when we can better measure gravity out there.

...

All the best, and thanks so much for your interesting questions.

Ivan

*(edited 6/12/03)

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/c^2=(m-g).

Upon deeper reflection (while hunting for pictoglyphs under the hot California desert sun), 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 thus far 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. This was an understandable error, given that gravity as a force is so weak in relation to the other three, 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 relatively 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 e.m. 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.

In 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.

Ivan

As posted on: PeoplesBook2000 Themes and Topics".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the origin of time and gravitation

By Duane Ertle South Haven, Mich.on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:05 pm:

In that the force of gravity performs work, an energy source is required. If there is not an energy source forming this force, then it is being created in all matter at all times. Either there is an energy source or there is a continual creation. It can't be both ways.

The gravitational energy requirement for our sun is 665 lbs. per sec. in order for it to keep the planets in place. The gravitational requirement for our planet is 0.00044 kg. per sec. in order for us and everything else to stay where it belongs.

The origin of this energy is the heat within a mass. No heat energy - no gravitational field. The math. concept for a gravitational field, which is also a field of "physical time" is seen as part of the physics trilogy: E=mc2 - m=E/c2 - c2=E/m.

Newton was mistaken when he said all matter attracts other matter equally. Mass becomes "polarized" in a time sense when internal heat energy is present. A way to prove his is by heating a mass and then squeezing it by great pressure. A lead sphere on a long beam will bedrawn to that mass due to an increase of heat/pressure, thus increasing the strength of the masses gravitational field.

The reason physical time exists, with there being no past or future involved, is that all matter is composed of electromagnetic energy. This means the value of "c" is retained in all matter and that state changes as one nears the speed of "c".

Duane,

RE: "The origin of this energy is the heat within a mass. No heat energy - no gravitational field. The math.concept for a gravitational field, which is also a field of "physical time" is seen as part of the physics trilogy: E=mc2 - m=E/c2 - c2=E/m."

Have you consideredd the possibility that gravity is an already pre-existing state of space, so that mass within that state exhibits a gravitational force dependent not upon its "heat" but rather upon its lack of energy. This could be understood as a function of space without energy being extremely gravity rich, and when energy locks in on a point within that space it creates a standing wave of energy which is the electron shell of the atom, to create mass, which cancels out most of the space borne gravity. So where there is energy, like around a star system, then the gravity is mostly canceled, since all the atoms formed there exhibit little gravity, but if away from such an energy source, or under special circumstances where the energy is cancelled out, the gravity potential for each atom in that region is very great. The same would be true for low heat stars, such as neutron stars or brown dwarfs, where the regional gravity exhibited is very great.

I realize this is not what you had in mind per your post above, but it too is an idea derived from E=mc^2, except in that it is rewritten as E/c^2=m-g, where "g" is a small gravitational constant (which goes from near zero, very weak, to one, where it is maximum, such as found in black holes at centers of galaxies). In this new reformulation, "c" is still light speed in a vacuum, except that kinetic energy then also has a v/c component, so that a very fast moving particle will have a value retained in the matter as it is accelerated through space. Some of these ideas were developed at "Atomus Summus-2".

More to think about!

Ivan

ON DISTANT GRAVITY
http://www.msnbc.com/news/919760.asp?0dm=C24BT

This article in MSNBC "Earth-sized planets confirmed" reveals very fast revolutions around the home star. This is another indication of gravity away from us revealed more intense than in the vicinity of our sun. The home star for these fast revolving planets within the inner orbits is a neutron star, with the outermoust planet going around every 98 days (vs Earth's 365 days), one more indication of gravity being greater in the region of a low energy neutron star, unlike our hot star.

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?

Ivan

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 what Einstein's equation as an energy to mass relationship, 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,

per E_m/B_m=c, see Electromagnetic Wave Equation,

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) (*see note below), 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 = (1-g)c² = E_energy ®

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.

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.


Ivan

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

AN AFTERTHOUGHT, on Interrelationship.

As an afterthought, it occurred to me that the Axiomatic Equations of the new physics represent a new triad, a new trilogy of forces, of how our universe interacts and structures itself. Initially there are two opposing forces, that of the superforce of maximum gravity and its opposite force represented by electro-magnetic photon energy, commonly called light. Together they result in mass, the third force, and its small remainder forces of what we call gravity and magnetism. While this gravity is felt universally, the magnetic potential is variable, depending upon how it is aligned in mass, so that it is great in a bar of magnetic iron, or virtually canceled in plastic or glass. From this basic triad we then witness a universal reality made up of mass and electro-magnetic energy and gravity. And these are ever present together throughout the cosmos in greater or lesser concentrations, all interacting into an infinite whole of energy and gravity, and life.

The reason this afterthought is significant, at least to me, is that this basic triad mirrors the elemental idea behind the philosophical framework of Habeas Mentem, which is built upon a structure of the basic interrelationship of three. And if this is so, then it is a poetic closure of a very large circle that for me spans decades and which, in effect, encompasses infinity. From within that circle, placed along its infinite circumference is then the world of our conscious beings, ourselves, and our place in our universe. We are conscious human beings alive in an infinity, because we have a mind, and from that, through the infinite interrelationships that define it, we have identity, the Who we are. And when we are conscious of this identity within ourselves, we join with the infinite, we have the Mind. "Thou art That."

So this is the great wheel of the universe, the great mandala, within which we live, from which we are born, and into which we die. To do this with awareness and knowledge is truly the miracle of our lives, from everything of a child's first faltering thoughts to the intricate mathematics of what may be our most advanced form of thought, such as Quantum Physics. But I will leave off this pursuit here, having reached the limits of my knowledge, and very likely ability, and instead will leave you a reference to another like mind, one who has sought to glimpse into that same reality. It is called the Quantum Future where, along with its related links, important questions are asked about reconciling physical reality and mind. It can only be done with Knowledge. However, though we may have touched on the same point in the circle, I will now travel the other way and explore this same Knowledge not in terms of physics, but rather in terms of our interhuman connections. Thus, I now once again return my attention to fiction, of which I am fond writing, in particular the present work in progress titled "Giammai". The purpose of this work is to show how human beings are truly interrelated, even if they are so dysfunctional as to brutally oppress one another, while they in fact love one another. We are all on the same great Wheel of Life, and how we present ourselves to ourselves, or how we treat others, only reveals how conscious we are in it. It is my hope that in the end, when we become truly aware of all this, we will indeed love one another. In the human realm, to Love is the ultimate expression of Life.

* * *

I wish to express my thanks to all who had been my readers, and to those who had contributed their ideas, both as my critics and supporters. In and of themselves, each idea presented by me or others is not significant, for they are only one more footnote to the great experience we call Life. If we find fault, often it is only because we find fault in ourselves. And if we praise, then it is mostly because the Universe is such a wonderful Creation. So I offer all what is in these pages free of ego and with true humility, as much as humanly possible. For like water, these ideas will find their way into the great River of Truth along the simplest path, and which like the Tao, it is the most direct and simplest. That I believe is how the universe does things within Itself. It is Who it Is.

I leave this forum open to all. At the HumanCafe, all ideas are welcome.

Very best wishes,

Ivan D. Alexander

MYTH VS SCIENCE

Science succeeds where there is a coherent scheme to explain the way things work in the world. When it becomes incoherent, understandable only as an article of faith, it falls back into mythology. I suspect much of modern physics will prove in the end to be mythology, and while it is now at an impasse, true science will take us forward. The universe is understandable.

Ivan

Cross-Post from Superstringforum: http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/relboard/messages18/126.html
____________________________________________________________________
Posted by ztfthtay on June 22, 2003 at 08:47:52:
I have a simple question:

Could someone comment whether m in 'W=mg' refers to gravitational or inertial mass?
Someone hold strongly this view:

"...to bring in weight = mg requires Newton's law of universal gravitaional. Also, the m here STRICTLY (conceptually) refers to gravitational mass only..."
Any comment is greatly appreciated.

While I accept the above plus the following view:
"...I view it as the required force to accelerate the given body (of certain inertial mass) with an acceleration of magnitude g..."

This follows from a lengthy debate I had with him in another forum. This someone would not accept my view that whether m is inertial or gravitational mass in 'W=mg' depends on its context, but rather it is exclusively gravitational mass.

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)
Re: W=mg -- Coppernicus 6/22/03 (1)
g... -- James 6/22/03 (0)
____________________________________________________________________________
(Replies to above)

Posted by Coppernicus on June 22, 2003 at 14:29:24:
In Reply to: W=mg posted by ztfthtay on June 22, 2003 at 08:47:52:
ztftay,

If I understand your question correctly, in W=mg, the g is the same for both the Earth and the item being weighed (on Earth), whether an atom or an apple. So this is an interaction between the Earth's gravity with any body's gravity, both measured in the same gravity field. If so, then your argument is correct, and the weight of mass is merely a function of its atomic weight in the aggregate, which is also its inertia.

There is a theoretical possibility, however, that g is not the same everywhere, so that a comet close to the sun, for example, may experience a different g from when it is far out on the edge of the solar system. But this as yet remains unproven. If so, then the inertial mass of the comet would change with its position in relation to the sun. It may have a greater inertia when far off in space, and lower inertia near the sun. Just a possibility for now, but one which could be pivotal in our understanding of gravity.

I hope this clarifies rather than confuses, but gravity may still remain a force not totally understood, though all of our calculations in astronomy are based on g being equal everywhere, which may or may not be so.

Coppernicus
(below is a link to a paper explaining this further, though only speculative theory for now)
Axiomatic Equations

***

Posted by James on June 22, 2003 at 14:37:52:

In Reply to: Re: W=mg posted by Coppernicus on June 22, 2003 at 14:29:24:

is strictly a local value. G is the constant.

****

GRAVITY VS MASS

I think the above X-post is significant because it reminds us that mass, as expressed in grams or kilograms, is already a function of gravity: the gravity of the Earth vs the gravity of the mass being weighed. I had written on the Atomus Summus-2 post, in the Postcripts, how the math works, which I copied again below. However, what I did not say in the original is that "g" gravitational constant does not have to be dimensionless, as I assumed it to be. Since weight is already a function of gravity interaction, the dimensions for the gravitational constant can also be expressed in the same manner Newtonian gravity is expressed.

This is by example:

If G = m³kg^-1s^-2, and

G² = g c²

this translates into units of measure as:

m⁶kg^-2s^-4 = g * m² s^-2, so that:

g = m³kg^-1s^-2, which is the same as G.

What this means, in effect, is that "g" does not have to be "dimensionless", though it is a unit different from Newtonian G, and yet it can share the same units of measure.

Below is the math I had worked out in the original post:

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.)

Ivan,

What do you think of the following statements?

Two forces exist.

..........1) Electromagnetic
..............Radiates outward only

..........2) Gravity
..............Centripetal - radiates inward only

No other forces exist.

J____

Ivan,

We need a new word for the English language.

The word is to define - the opposite of the word - radiate -

I propose - inradiate - which follows from the words - finite - infinite -

Thank!

J____

J____,

You have a point, gravity is inward, while electromagnetic energy is outward. We have a similar principle between centripetal and centrifugal forces. Verbally, as you point out, finite and infinite, or perhaps implode versus explode, or inny - outy. I suppose there would be no harm in designing a new word to reflect this concept, since it will become more important in our future dealings with competing EM - gravity forces.

I like the "inradiate" idea, or perhaps "radiatex" for outward, and "radiatin" for inward, which would capture something of the concept expressed.

Good ideas.

Ivan

Separately, I am trying to have the math portion of the Axiomatic Equations posted on a moderated physics forum, without the text (which is deemed too speculative), so that others impartial may comment on it. Will keep you posted.

Ivan,

O>}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Logic says yes.

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}>O Logic says no.

Tripole … not dipole…?

Model needs much thought!

convere and convex

finite and infinite

radiate and inradiate

J____,

RE "O>}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Logic says yes.

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}>O Logic says no."


It does not seem odd to think of E=mc2 as radiating out, but rather strange that it is radiating in. So rather than mass accelerated to lightspeed squares expressed as energy radiating out, we have energy radiating in at lightspeed squared to create mass, with some little bits left over... that is a strange idea.

Logic would dictate that what we know is more comfortable than what we don't know. But it is what we do not know that needs the discovering:

Will gravity prove to be a variable? Is Planck's constant really constant? Does the galaxy center need mass to form a gravastar, or can it form from a vacuum? Is cosmic light redshifting over great distances because those voids are gravity rich? So many questions, which the Axiomatic Equation can address, or at least can show how it is possible.

So we "radiate" out our knowledge out there, and from observations out there will "inradiate" a truer understanding, one hopes, with a clearer theory of what it's all about.

Ivan

Ivan,

The inverse square law ... denies the state of - O - (nothing) or void as conceived, is logical.

If I am right -

O>}}}}}}}}} is + positive radiation … or - inradiation

If I am right -

O>{{{{{{{{{ is - negative radiation … or + inradiation

Inradiation - the force of gravity therefore is constant, but the relative strength increase or decrease is proportionate to the cumulative weight of mass, which is subject to the speed of mass involved.

Ok- put your thinking cap on.

Object – O – weighs 1000 pounds

Speed of – O – is 0mph when weighed

Gravitational pull of – O – is 1 ounce on a 100-pound object Y

Accelerate O to C

What is the gravitational pull of object at C … on 100-pound object Y?

J____

RELATIVE GRAVITY

J____,

Very nice question!

You must right off realize that mass is already traveling at v = c for somebody, anyone traveling away from here at c. Therefore, gravity is relative in relation to the observer, either what it is observed for us who are relatively stationary to the mass observed, or to the observer traveling at v = c. Therefore, all mass is always traveling at v = c.

If we use the Axiomatic Equation:

h/l/(e_om_o)^1/2 = m-g
(remember c=1/(e_om_o)^1/2, so that it is the same as:

h/lc = m-g, then if mass => v = c, we can say

hc/lc = (m-g)c , where the c cancels our on the left, we are left with:

h/l = (m-g)c, which is same as h/lc = m-g

and since at v = c, lc cycles once over itself per second, it becomes = 1, so that the equation, at v = c becomes:

h = m-g, so that now we can solve for g (which can then be convered into Newtonian G through G² = ~gc²), and the result is (remember m =1 always):

g = 1-(6.626e^-34), which is a very high value, close to max. gravity of g = 1, and which translates into G² = ~1 x (2.99e⁸)², which means that G = ~c.

Now, what can this mean? First, for the observer already traveling with mass at v = c, there is no difference, and the G will be whatever it is in that region where they are, which here happens to be g = 5.9e^-39. Second, for the observer traveling away from mass at v = c, G will appear to be near its very high value of ~3e⁸ (m³ kg s^-2), which is a very high value (though still only the square root of what G is at the galaxy center, where it is a gravastar-black-hole). However, what becomes most interesting is that the magnetic potential B_m which is a high value in our region, traveling with the mass observed, becomes very small, near zero, for the observer traveling away from mass at light speed. Think about it, gravity and magnetism are relative to the velocity of the observer! So there is here room to figure in light speed as a tool of observation, though only that, since for the observer already traveling at v = c, namely you and me, the values remain exactly as we observe them to be.

What else does this mean? It means that when we are able to propel ourselves to very high velocities, where we approach light speed, or surpass it, we will need to use relativistic math to figure out where we are because G and B_m will be variables.

Hope this is as enjoyable for you as it was for me. But, really, this is only one more example of how we must stop thinking in homocentric terms, as did our Terracentric Medieval ancestors, for we are but the fortunate observers in a universe that already is in its own right.

Ivan

Ivan,

You wrote: “However, what becomes most interesting is that the magnetic potential Bm which is a high value in our region, traveling with the mass observed, becomes very small, near zero, for the observer traveling away from mass at light speed. Think about it, gravity and magnetism are relative to the velocity of the observer! So there is here room to figure in light speed as a tool of observation, though only that, since for the observer already traveling at v = c, namely you and me, the values remain exactly as we observe them to be.”

Me think you missed the point with: “However, what becomes most interesting is that the magnetic potential Bm which is a high value in our region, traveling with the mass observed, becomes very small, near zero, for the observer traveling away from mass at light speed.”

Fact: We do not know the cumulative velocity of earth; by that, you have no grounds to intimate magnetic potential as being a high value in our region – what is your source?

You wrote: “Think about it, gravity and magnetism are relative to the velocity of the observer!”

That is a thought experiment with no basics in physics.

You wrote: “So there is here room to figure in light speed as a tool of observation, though only that, since for the observer already traveling at v = c, namely you and me, the values remain exactly as we observe them to be.”

The values cannot remain exactly as we observe them. Light speed is now a proven variable; hence, what is the method to calculate deviation from the norm…? There is no method to calculate that factor, for a variable has no norm. Light can go faster than what was thought to be C – and it can go slower than what was thought to be C.

We have concluded experimentation that proves only two forces exist. The strong and weak forces are fantasy.

J____

J____,

I think you are right on most points. We do not know for sure, so this is indeed only a "thought experiment", since all I did was use the math as it reads in the Axiomatic Equation. So think of my answer to yours only as "potentials" to be either proven or disproven with observation. On the other hand, my point that we are all traveling at v=c seems to be lost on you. Yet, this is a very important point, and one which in effect also says that us traveling at v=c is itself, for now, only a thought experiment. I hope you understand my point, but we are all traveling at c all the time, from "somebody's" point of view, though obviously not our own.

...I can hear the fireworks outside, and the dogs are freaking... Have a Happy Fourth!

Ivan

Ivan,

How can we be traveling at C ... in relation to what...?

There can only be one reference frame, which is now ... no other reference frame exists. The past does not exist, the future does not exist ... only now exists, which is perpetual, forever, never ending, infinite. We are forever trapped inside that one reference frame, which is static, one second, one hour, one day, one week, and one year, one lifetime ... none of those are variables, they are constants.

I am standing on the moon.

You are standing on earth.

A meteorite passes between earth and moon – both of us can see the meteorite as it passes between earth and moon, but our two vantage points are within the same reference frame, one and the same, for if they are not the same, we could not observe the “motion” of the meteorite. The relationship of the meteorite in the mutual reference frame is constant – in other words, we do not see earth or moon where they were during our observation of the meteorite, we see the meteorite in its relationship to our locations within a single frame of reference, of which, are two differing “points of view,” not different reference frames.

Now encompasses all of everything, and there is nothing outside of now.

Where I am going with this is, a direct refutation of Relativity, and Special Relativity in the sense, Light speed because it has been validated as a variable, there must be but one constant, which is gravity. The two forces, EM and Gravity are diametric opposites and this is necessarily true … for if it were not, there would be two positive forces of which, would cause all objects to fly-away from one another.

O>}}}}}}}}}} radiation = positive force

}}}}}}}}}}>O inradiation = negative force

Ok- are you ready for this?

There is one force, and one anti-force. Gravity is the anti-force, which is the result of the accumulation of mass assimilated via EM interactive composite compaction, and nullifies EM after mass begins to accumulate. Gravitational strength is wholly dependent on what materials an object consists of e.g. specific density and atomic weight of the matter types. Once matter accumulates, it is incapable of radiating EM without either fusion, or fission processes of specific types activated. Fission and fusion are processes that are capable of releasing huge magnitudes of radiated energy, of which, to my knowledge, are all EM in type and propagate as waves.

What is the opposite of waves? Whatever it is, that is the method of local motion caused and/or induced by gravity. No problem, the opposite of propagated waves as we usually refer to them is – inverse waves. Gravity propagates as an inverse wave, but so far I have not been able to determine just exactly the methods of function, and to my knowledge no one else has either.

You want a challenge – study the following paper.

Inverse Waves

J____

J____,


RE "How can we be traveling at C ... in relation to what...?"

That's an easy one. We are traveling at C in relation to someone else traveling at C.

RE "There can only be one reference frame, which is now..."

Of course, there is only now. All else is either history, or not yet.

RE "we see the meteorite in its relationship to our locations within a single frame of reference, of which, are two differing “points of view,” not different reference frames."

This is always so, even if you and I are traveling at C away from each other, except that from observational "points of view" we cease to exist for each other, since we can't see each another anymore. Light just doesn't go fast enough to let us see each other.

RE "Now encompasses all of everything, and there is nothing outside of now."

You are most right, since it is we who create time as we know it. The universe has its own "time" but it is relative to change within itself, not to how we measure it.

RE "Gravitational strength is wholly dependent on what materials an object consists of e.g. specific density and atomic weight of the matter types."

Yes, of course, that is how we see it here. Mass as atomic weight never changes, only how it attracts other mass in a particular Gravity Density field is affected, what I call "g", which is not the Newtonian G we all know from school physics.

Also, you are most right to say that EM energy and Gravity cannot both be positive forces. One radiates out, and the other inradiates, as you say. It is for this reason why they tend to be counterforces, in effect, working against each other, or inversely proportional.

RE "Gravity propagates as an inverse wave, but so far I have not been able to determine just exactly the methods of function, and to my knowledge no one else has either."

You are right again, but I too can only stab a guess, that Gravity already exists a priori, which is the natural state of our universe when there is no EM energy around. Of course, there always is, but not in the same intensity... hence Gravity is not in the same density.

This is not a play on words. I believe Gravity is equally distributed throughout the cosmos, same as is space, but that it is much more intense than Newtonian G as measured here. We happen to live in a very very diluted version of what is universal Gravity. At least, that's how the Axiomatic Equation plays out. (You may notice I have figured out universal dimensional units for it, but have not yet plugged in numbers, so it remains unfinished. I think I may really need help on the next leg of it, since I am really ignorant of how some of the electric-magnetic constants work.) But there is no place in the universe where Gravity does not exist, and unless there is mass there to measure its density, you would never know the difference! Clue? ...Neutron stars, or any low energy generating stars, all have great gravitational-mass-density, e.g. high "g".

I will have to wait to review the paper linked, since just got back from long July 4th trip and it is now past midnight... Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Later, Ivan

RE "Parallel Inverse Wave Propagation" ...and Neutrinos.

J____,

The paper on the math for Inverse Waves could be used for collapsing structures, stars, implosions, finding Typhoid Mary, or just to undo the math of ex-radiating propagations. Very interesting paper, though a bit too deep for my simple mind.

Thinking of collapsing stars, it occurs to me that the so-called White Dwarfs, which are believed to be the remnants of more normal stars, like our Sun, but which have very dense mass and gradually dying luminosity, may in fact be another clue for how gravity is variable.

If a star goes through its normal life as a hot body in equilibrium between the energy generated and its gravity, but then the luminosity increases, what should happen? Well, if Axiomatic Equation is right, then its gravity should decrease with increased luminosity, which means less gravity holding it together, which means is expands. We know this from observations that there are so-called red giants, which may be just that, an expanding star. If at some point the gravity fails to hold it together, because of very high energy, then it breaks apart, which becomes a halo around the original star mass, or blows off into space. This is believed how all the heavier elements in the universe were formed, from these blown apart stars at the end of their life cycle. The remaining White Dwarf is now superdense with gravity, which we know because they occasionally steal hydrogen from nearby stars. But this too falls into place with the inverse EM energy-Gravity relationship, and as the star cools further, its gravity will increase. If it reignites, then the process is reversed. Pretty and simple.

So these are additional clues to why Gravity is not the same everywhere, but is energy contingent. It may also show why Stephen Hawking's idea that the Sun has a mini-black hole center makes sense too. Think about it: Neutrinos generated by the solar mass are fewer than theoretically computed. Well, this could be because some of them are reabsorbed back into the mini-black hole conditions at the Sun's center, so they never get to escape. This would explain their absence, which is a result of their "inversion propagation" back into the center. What happens to them at the center? They get recycled, so the Sun's life may be actually a lot longer than we currently theorize.


If this were so, then the so-called Therma-Nuclear Reaction, now believed to be at the Sun's center, is powered by the mini-black hole effect at the star's center. And this is very easily demonstrated by all EM energy cancelling there, at the center, into giving us a zero value, which then boosts the Gravity energy to its maximum. Of course, a supergravity at the center of all that hydrogen ignites it into nuclear fusion. Why does this not happen on Earth, or Jupiter? It is because the hydrogen had already been converted to heavier elements, so the chance of combustion has been negated. But if Jupiter were all hydrogen, for example, we would suddenly find a companion star we wouldn't be too happy with!

Cheers, hope you had a great 4th. Lots of "inverse implosions"!

Ivan

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

Editors, Humancafe.com

INRADIATION SQUARE LAW?

j___,

Your "Inverse Waves" referenced paper above made me think of something:

If Radiating Force answers to an "inverse square law", such that per F/r² it decreases in intensity in relation to radius, then would it not make equal sense that an In-Radiating Force would answer to its inverse? And if so, then can this be expressed as Fr²?

What this means, Fr², is that with radius expanding, the inradiating force, to achieve the same force as radiating out from that distance at F/r², would have to become Fr². And if so, can we call this "inradiating" force, the "inradiating square law"?

Why would this be interesting? I have not seen it used, but theoretically, it would mean that any relationship of ex-radiating force has its inverse proportional in-radiating force that can be expressed as either F/r² for "radiating out", and as Fr² for "radiating in". This would then mean that if, per the Axiomatic Equation,

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

that magnetism potential (B_m) and gravitational potential (g) are forces inversely proportional, then either can be expressed through this "inradiation square law", so that while radiating Force is F/r², it is also automatically its "inradiating" Force of Fr². Kinda cool, isn't it?

So now, there should be an easy way to express this, which we might call the "inradiation square law". Translating this into g and B_m, it would mean that if g = (1-g)r², the resulting inradiating force would be B_m = B_mr², so that no matter what the distance of "r", both can be known simultaneously. And, now this gets really interesting, if we make r = c, then we are back to (B_m)c² and (1-g)c² all over again!

Here is how this inradiating square law works:

As a force reaches its maximum level, for example, g => 1, then B_m => 0, where it ceases to exist. And vice versa, where g => 0, then B_m => 1, all because of the "inradiation square law", with r = c ^. s. Why would r = c? Because that is the distance needed for light to travel (in one second) to have EM lambda cancel itself out over its cycle (per second), so that Energy is either total, where E => 1 x c² = c², or non-existent, where E = zero x c² => zero.

Therefore, at the limit, where g = zero (which may never actually happen, except in massless photons), you have pure energy, E = c². At the other limit, where B_m = 0 (which may never be achieved, because there is always some energy) energy is totally negated, so E = 0. The exception would be a blackhole gravastar, where gravity is maximum and energy is almost totally negated, with only electron pions escaping through the gravastar's axis.... Hmm... I'm beginning to like this universe. Thanks for giving this "inradiating force" a name, J___, which now we can also give it a math name: "Fr²".

Imagine kids learning this in school someday, might even make sense to them, unlike the physics I learned, which made no sense to a rebellious kid like me at all!

Cheers, Ivan

Ivan,

Only one thing wrong - photons have mass.

The inradiating force already has a name - Gravity.

J____

J___,

It's possible photons have mass, albeit extremely small. See New Limits on Photon Mass as an example. On the other hand, most physicist seem to think it does not have mass, since it is never at a "rest" position to measure its mass. Also, light bends through a gravity field, so it is assumed there must be some mass to photons. However, if gravity redshifts light, then it acts as a refraction on it, so that where it goes in would not be in a straight line where it goes out, which would bend it, same as if it went through some other transparent medium. In all, photon mass is up in the air for now. I think it has some mass, but very little, and that would depend upon how we wish to define "mass", which may be compared to momentum or pressure, which is not the same as atomic mass, for example.

And yes, Gravity is what I had in mind too, for inradiating.

Ivan

SUPERNOVAE EXPLAINED

In the article titled Supernovae that Don't Explode, there is surprise that computer modeling of the known modern physics does not produce an explosion. Well, if the Axiomatic Equation is correct, this is easily fixed. As the energy of the star increases, the gravitational field is inversely affected so that it drops off, the star expands, and ultimately there is not enough gravity to hold it. And then it explodes.

Ivan

Ivan,

CBS Evening News tonight - a 13 billion year old planet...?

How strange..................not strange at all since there are probably planets out there more than 100 billion years old.

J____

Oldest World?

J___, that is incredible, isn't it! There is also a good write up on MSNBC Oldest known World, which really makes you pause and think about it.

Some observations that caught my attention. For example, that there is only 20% heavier elements in M4 Globular Star Cluster. Does this really mean that the star cluster is much older than our galaxy, or does it mean that this particular region of space has less heavier elements, which may account for why it is structured the way it is rather than a full blown galaxy like ours? In efffect, because physicists see everything through a prism of "Big Bang", they immediately go to the conclusion that less elements means older. But does it have to be this way? I suspect age has little to do with it. As you say, it could be 100 billion years old, or older...

Also, since current theory has no accomodations for gravity density variations in space, they have to come up with "alternative" reasons why the resident neutron star for that Jovian planet has accelerated spin. It is much simpler if very high spin is understood as a function of intense gravity rather than accumulated hot gases from a red giant... Their explanation really stretches credibility, which I find amusing, but unfortunately it misleads. When we prove that gravity is variable, then all the other stuff will fall into place much more easily. Even without proof, it already does, as the Axiomatic Equation would predict, that there is an inverse relationship between energy and gravity in any given star region. For now, I guess we must remain amused.

Still, it is an incredible find.

Ivan

WHAT IS PLUTO'S MASS?

Pluto and Charon are described in this short writeup. Note how Pluto's mass is deemed to be 2/3 rock and 1/3 water ice. Also, that Pluto has an extremely wide elliptic orbit, both of which may be early indications of Pluto's gravity variances being so far from the sun. If the gravity density out in that distant orbit is higher than here, then Pluto may in fact be a totally water ice planet, or one with very little rock in it. Something to watch for when the space probes get close.

Ivan

Solar Sailing 'breaking laws of physics' article in NewScientist.com, July 4, 2003, brings up some valid points, that this technology is still badly misunderstood.

I wonder if such a 'solar sail' space craft would actually work? My hunch is that once launched, it would settle into some comfortable solar orbit where gravity and solar wind equalized and stay there, more space junk. Anyone have different point of view on this?

Ivan

Cross-post from Space-Talk: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=1240&pagenumber=4

July 18, 2003

RE "I usually stay out of conversations discussing topics that are so ethereal that they're almost theological. But, I can't stand when somebody badly misrepresents known physics."

You are most right to challenge where there is error, especially erroneous thinking. I presented a new idea, one not yet substantiated nor proven, and was careful with my disclaimer that this is only "speculative" at this time. So I had no reason nor desire to deceive. That said, if the "known physics" has reached the status of "dogma", then there is nothing to be argued, and I would not wish to enter into caustic discussion over this. It is not for me to challenge accepted dogma, anymore than it is for me to challenge any religious true believers. My apologies if I had offended with errors, but there was no intent to mock.

I do not know if today's modern physics is correct or not, and rather suspect that there is still great room to challenge conventional thinking, or what had been handed down to us for the past 100 years. If it were not so, then there would not be so many challenges to it today. But it offends the mind to think that physics, as it is taught in either Relativity or Quantum, is beyond normal understanding. The last time this happened was with Ptolemeic astronomy where cycles within cycles proved why the Earth is at the center of the solar system. So there is always room to question, to offer, to think, and to not be cowed by anyone's rigid ideas of what physics is about. That others had found fault with today's understanding should not be taken as an affront, but rather examined in the light within which it is offered, that there may be things we still do not know. And if so, then what we have come to understand thus far may need to be expanded further, or discarded. The truth will eventually emerge, for that is what good science is about.
....
The real question: Is the math as posited any good? And if it is, shouldn't we be looking for something we had never found, or even thought of finding? Is Gravity truly a universal force, or is it a locale-specific-variable force?

That is the question.

C2

'Mass map' probes dark matter

Dha what? I love this stuff! They're really in the 'dark' about this, aren't they?

It all makes so much more sense with the new physics.

Ivan

Ivan,

I just love the BBC - they dig out stuff 3 years old regularly and repost it.

J____

J___,

They'll be in the dark 3 years from now!

:)

FINAL VERDICT on Axiomatic Equation.

The final verdict from Sci.Physics is in:

"I cannot make any sense out of this. The various equations don't seem
to follow from one another though any reasonably manipulations.
Moreover, many of them are flat out wrong from the start."

So for now, multidimensional Super Strings, space-time geometry of General and Special Relativity, and a Big Bang that expanded space-time into a universe tens of billions of light years across in less than a second stands, along with scores of unanswered questions from dark matter to blackhole gravastars to neutron stars that can spin a hundred times a second. These make more sense in current physics than the energy-gravity interaction of the Axiomatic Equation. Perhaps it is not perfect, but it can be improved upon when we realize that gravity is not the universal constant force we now believe it to be. That stars generate their own atomic-gravity density environment is a theory yet to be defined. We live in a light gravity bubble surrounded by the greater density of deep space gravity beyond our solar system.

In the New Physics, there are no fairy tales. There was no Big Bang, there is no expanding space-time fabric, no curved-space gravity wells, for cosmic light redshifts due to the intense gravity of deep space it must pass through, and background microwave radiation is just that, a background echo of all the redshifted energy of our universe.

It may take another hundred years. With this equation, I only took the first small step towards that discovery.

Ivan D. Alexander

California, USA

Ivan,

The point I have been making to you was confirmed by a second party; your equations ... are equations without rational or logical sequence, which is essential for anyone but you to comprehend them, let alone understand what they infer.

An equation when worked to conclusion must represent a "logical or sequential" result, which is very difficult and most trying with your methodology as written; otherwise, the equation is actually – meaningless.

In other words, nobody but you can understand what you have produced.

Follows is a quote from my friend, who has finally successfully eliminated all but two forces in his final theory. His theory works, represents reality as we observe it, but most of all, the theory can be understood by nearly anyone with a basic knowledge of physics. The formulations are standard without deviation, and his theory can be tested without any undue difficulty by anyone capable of performing the tests required.

“The crucial test: To test whether the universe is actually expanding, redshifts of individual galaxies need to be monitored. In the theories of expanding universe the redshift Z=V/c and Hubble’s law HD=V = dD/dt, giving Z/Zo = exp(Ht), Zo being starting value. So the redshift Z increases exponentially with time. But for a non-expanding universe Z= KD, D being constant, redshift Z does not change with time. Published observations do not show exponential increase with time and hence support UPT.”

J____

J___,

Per the "crucial test" above, I agree that it should be exponential, if it were actually expanding. But the redshift of cosmic light is not due to motion, rather it is due to light having to pass through denser gravity regions over great distances, so it redshifts. So the universe is not expanding, it is only a terra-centric observational illusion.

RE the much contested Axiomatic Equation above, I also realized later that there is another relationship which may help explain it, or perhaps cast some light on it. It is regarding the:

E_m / B _m = c , an equation which can also be expressed as:

E_m = B_m * c = h / l,

so that here is a direct link between Electric force to be equal to Planck's constant divided by photon lambda. If you look at the original equation, you will see how this works out, since E_m * c = hc / l.

This also means that B_m = h /l /c = h /lc = ~1, as it does in the original.

One more thing to consider in relation to this Equation is light. If you take light speed as v = c, then here are the other expressions for the same:

c = E_m/B_m = 1/(e_om_o)^1/2 = (E/m)^1/2 = El/h = 2.998e⁸ m.s^-1 = ???

Is this equation not all electromagnetic energy as it propagates through space? So if this works as an expression of light =c, why not the same for energy =E? What is different, however, is that the atom is now defined as being a product of unity with a remainder, the remainder being gravity and magnetic potential...


Don't know if this helps none, but really cannot think of any more ways to explain it. And since no one is able to tell me exactly why it is wrong, I will leave it the way it is. Either it's there or it's not. Only evidence of gravity variability in space will prove the fact.

Ivan

ON NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORY

(As posted on Magnetism vs. Gravity-5 on Space-Talk forums, General Discussion. --Ivan)

Radrook,

You bring up valid points. Philosophy is at the root of all questions, since scientific inquiry is inherently a philosophical question: Why are things the way they are? We tend to forget this when scientific conclusions are so compelling that we assume them for fact, when in fact they are mere theories we had learned to justify incontestably. It is nevertheless always contestable, for such is the open door of science.

Our senses and mental faculties developed within a reference framework of existence, so that through our efforts at survival we were prompted into becoming such as we are. If we live in an interactive universe, where from external stimuli we develop through a process of evolution or DNA adjustments, or ideas, into how we respond to these external forces, then of necessity what we are inside has to at some level match up with what is outside. This includes our ideas as well as our nervous system's make up. Beyond evolving for the procurement of the basic necessities of survival we had grown conscious enough to reflect on our existence philosophically. Needless to say, we do not need philosophy for survival any more than we need music, or art. And yet the universe has built this into us, same as harmonic ratios exist right down to how electron shells form, so that it is no real surprise that we should like music. So the development of our higher rational, and sometimes irrational, faculties are nevertheless a product of our interaction with our universe, and consequently by extension, how our universe interacts with us. If we are correct in our efforts, the universe rewards us with some basic truths, even survival. If we are wrong, we are unrewarded with failure, or even death. In effect, we are who we are in our minds, and all the mind's extensions such as nervous system, sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing, as our minds evolved in response to our universe, which are all philosophically sense and ideas.

Getting back to your point "we are inextricably bound by our own nervous system to interpret our sense impressions in a predetermined fashion" makes total sense. We might imagine other worlds where this does not happen, but the world within which we must exist and survive demands this of us, or else we go mad. The conditions are not of our own making, though we may perceive reality as no more than illusion. That we take our beliefs, our ideas, out into the world and test them for efficacy is exactly what the universe wants of us, that we learn the truth from its infinite composition. So if we are up against theories that do not match up with reality, whether it be physics or bioengineering or psychology or economics, eventually something fails. So philosophy is then put to the test, either our metaphysics is good and we have scientific dsiciplines, such as physics, or our ideas are bad, and we have gobbly-gook. I do not know that I had not created a lot of gobbly-gook in my Axiomatic Equation, and there are some who are convinced this is all it is. Certainly it is not more gobbly-gooky than modern physics is today! But I am patient and am willing to subject my beliefs and ideas to a higher court, one that determines for us our reality. If I am right, then we will not be too surprised to find that gravity is not everywhere equal. That said, it may turn out that though true, my idea is still illusion. As Hume or Descartes or Zeno all pointed out, what we have in our minds is only that. Reality has its own existence, and no matter how hard we think about it, we cannot change that. Reality is what it is.

In conclusion, if the Standard Model, or the geometric contortions of four dimensional space-time Relativity, or the uncertainty of Quantum Physics turn out to be much simpler than we thought, it will be okay to change what we had come to believe as true. And if not, then we are back to where we started from, and a grand adventure into a new way of seeing things brings us naught but failure. By asking these questions, and leaving the door open for further inquiry, when we are not hemmed in by nay-saying sclerotic scientific dogma, or funding, then we may be on our way to a whole new world of science, and if so, we in fact may be living in very exciting times. Time will tell.

Thanks for your engaging thoughts.

C2

Does all the Earth spin at the same rate?

This was question 51 on MSNBC's 101 amazing facts about the earth that caught my attention. The answer is surprising, as are so many of the other questions and answers about our home planet.

The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon is an interesting "plausible parallel" to today's physics, though it is something of a mind bender to understand. I think it works as an "as if" theory which takes a basic geometric idea and expands it into a theory of gravity, and all things. Though it makes sense as a self contained idea, it is nevertheless superfluous in its final analysis, since it takes a Keplerian concept of orbital geometry and converts it into Newton's Orbital Equation, and then proceeds to use Newton's ideas on gravity to show why he was wrong, in circular reasoning concluding why using his own theory disproves him. In fact, the author's theory has a serious flaw in it, in that by claiming Newton's theory of gravity violates the Energy Conservation Law, he likewise presents a theory that, missing a Prime Mover, also violates the same law. Nevertheless, like any well thought out theory, which this is, though it may upon final analysis leave us not better informed, except in an allegorical "as if" sort of way, there are things in it that are useful.

I found especially useful his conversion from v²R = K into v²R = GM as a support for the Axiomatic Equation, E_m * c = hc/l = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy , in that it validates that for a variable G (gravity), the mass of the orbital body would likewise vary. This means that in currently believing that G is constant, we ascribe M values to planets and moons based upon their orbital velocity and radii. But this is a pure guess based upon constant gravity. If in fact G should be an energy derived variable, as per the Equation, then mass will be variable too, which is as expected. So that mass for Pluto, in a more gravity rich environment, would be less than for Mercury, in a gravity weak environment, where the mass would have to be greater. It could in fact mean that Mercury may be of all metallic density, while Pluto is of lower mass density, perhaps nearly all water ice. We'll have to wait until we get there to confirm this.

Overall, I enjoyed the book, more as an allegorical curiosity than real physics, since the main expansive idea could be canceled out with the math still working, but it does give one expansively ample food for thought. A must read for truly curious minds. I enjoyed it!

Ivan

RE the Axiomatic Equation:

I think I can see where the problem rests with this equation, and why people have trouble with it. It's in the:

E * c = E portion of the equation.

We know Em/Bm = c, so that Em/c = Bm, and if both sides are multiplied by c^2, we get:

Em * c = (Bm)c^2, as the Axiomatic Equation says.

However, why should this be equal to E? How do we know that Electric force times speed of light equals Energy? Does it work out to Joules per second, as is measured Energy?

If we can show this, then I think we had better start to measure gravity on Pluto, because it will be "heavier" mass than here on Earth.

Ivan

Figuring out the B field:

Magnetic Forces on Moving Charges

Still can't find linkage between E_m and Energy, how E_m * c = (B_m)c² = E, but looking. The cartoon in the link below on Kepler kinda expresses how I feel sometimes when talking about the Axiomatic Equation.

http://www.csulb.edu/~rtoossi/engr370i/7.htm

Ivan

RE above, RE Axiomatic Equation:

I think the problem with this equation is its conclusion, not its structure, so that all who oppose it do so on a principle that it does not coincide with the known physics, which it should not.

If E_m/B_m = c is a good function, then it follows that B_m * c = E_m, which has been at the root of the problem where:

E_m * c = E_energy

But there is no mystery here, since it only means that an electron accelerated to light speed becomes energy, very simple. And vice versa, energy is broken down into mass and gravity and magnetic force. Truly elegant and simple, so that (B_m)c^2 = E is no more a mystery than all the rest of the equation, since in the original, B_m * c = E_m, is only a reflection of this accelerated to lightspeed c, to meet the conditions of what the equations says: It says, in simple terms, that in accelerating an electron to light speed, it turns into pure energy, which is then broken out according to the equation in how interrelate Planck's constant, photon lambda, light speed, which result in mass minus gravity and plus magnetic potential force. Simply that and no more. Of course, these further then break down into other useful component equations, per the known physics. The only difference is that the Axiomatic Equation now explains the gravity to electromagnetic relationship for a star system or deep space. Otherwise, it rolls back into the known physics from which it came.

So if there is opposition to how the equation was written, let it be expressed not in terms of what the equation says, or generalities, but where the structure is faulty. To date, other than criticize it in whole, no one has shown where the error is.

For reference, I list these Magnetic and Electric Power links:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genwir3.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ev.html
-compliments of Hyperphysics.

In final analysis, the only difference between the Axiomatic Equation and the known physics is that Gravity is NOT a universal constant, but inversely proportional to the level of Energy in the environment where it is measured. Period.

Ivan

Below is my post at Google Groups: sci.physics.electromag, titled "Is this 'Axiomatic Equation' Energy?":

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.physics.electromag&selm=30067f9b.0308100956.495d52df%40posting.google.com

Looking forward to any comments on the above.

Also interesting link: http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/index.htm
"Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory -- the Theory of Everything" by Dr. Chaim H. Tejman

Ivan

As cross-posted on Space-Talk/Humans in Space/Faster than light travel: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=18523#post18523
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jove, I think we've got it!

Wintermute11, when you said: "To find the energy contained in an electromagnetic field, try finding the energy density."

Of course, that's the next step, energy density. I even looked for it in Power, where E = P = F*v = etc. (see: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Power.html ) which converts power into a P-wave, which enriches the E equation with another relationship, but had not developed it. Not sure I know enough to do so...

Instead, I had kept my work very lean by using E = mc^2 as my model, but any other model for Energy could have been used as a root core. In fact, I do not believe the Axiomatic Equation is anywhere near complete (which is why I only gave myself a 3, for which you gave me a "0"), and there is much that will be added to it in the future. Then, each component of the equation can be developed further, so the final edition can become immensely complex... but it will hold. It will come through in the end as one complete unifying equation, and I only wrote the first few steps in it. I wish I knew more to write the rest, but I cannot do so until our space probes measure gravity in the outer solar system. Then we will know whether or not gravity is a constant (as now believed) or a variable (as the equation predicts), so that we will know what to look for. So this is only theory, still too early to call.

So Theory, not Gospel, and what it says is that we had been focussed on the Energy portion of the known physics because electromagnetic energy dominates our local system, and thus turned a blind eye to what this energy interacts with. The result is that our Quantum theories and Standard Model are all based on energy, almost to the exclusion of gravity. Now, if we happened to live in an energy poor environment, say Crab neutron star, we might have developed the same theories, but instead using gravity as the medium rather than electromagnetic energy. This is how I see it in my mind's eye, that we are bedazzled by energy, not realizing that the flip side of this is gravity. According to the Axiomatic Equation in question, gravity is all encompassing when electromagnetic energy is missing, where G^2 = c^2, so that the two are mirror images of each other. But our known physics doesn't see that, so instead we are entirely focussed on the energy side, not the gravity side, and so all our work had been there. Call it a Terracentric bias, but should we do the same studies from Pluto, we would not be quite so focussed on what the Sun puts out for us. The fact that our local star is so powerful literally blinds us from seeing beyond it.

When the Axiomatic Equation is completed someday, it will stretch into a very large equation of Energy, with an equally large equation for Gravity, its flip side. This is how I predict it will come out. But it cannot do so if we do not recognize gravity being a variable, and this will not be known until we send space probes to Pluto. Of course, the flip side of all this, is that the Theory goes bust, zero, nada, if gravity is truly a universal constant as we had believed since the days of Newton, and later Einstein. But if they are proven wrong, and it is not a constant, then let's start working on this equation, of which I only seeded the first steps. Perhaps I made a mistake on Em*c = E, and E is not =(Bm)c^2, but don't know for sure, only theory. Perhaps Bm is not magnetic force, is magnetic monopoles instead (values of 0 to 1), or magnetizability, don't know.... but it does add up into how the equation reads out (with Bm = ~1), in Power, Joules per second, Watts: E = ~8.99x10^16 m^2.kg.s^-3.

So this Axiomatic Equation is not a conclusive work, but rather an early exploratory work, one which I am happy to share with others (frustrating that this may be) so that if it is shown to work in deep space, let's get on with it, go for it, and really write this thing out. Is B = v/c x E at light speed a relativistic equation, as you said above? It can be, but we may not need to turn to Relativity to figure this out. It may in the end be much simpler than we had imagined, because Gravity will turn out to be a variable, and that will simplify everything.

Don't throw out the physics books! We will need all we know, but we should be aware that theoretically we had been focussed on only one side of what the universe is made, energy, and we ignored the other side, which is gravity. When I read the proliferation of "Theory of Everything" models out there (and some are really out there!), they all focus on the same thing, either Quantum energy or electromagnetic ways to explain gravity. Forget gravitons. The difference in the approach I am suggesting is that gravity is by default, and needs not be explained theoretically with electromagnetic energy. Gravity already is. And what we get here, thanks to our Sun, is only a very diluted version of the real thing.

Now, what if Pluto space probes report back that gravity is the same there as here? Put my equation into the •••• can, and call me a stupid, insane, a ridiculous Zero! I'm not proud, and I'll take that gamble. But if not, there is a lot of work to be done, for this equation when written in its full will be a Ten. To all, very best of luck, don't give up. If Pluto comes back with a positive report, this whole thing potentially becomes very exciting! All participants will be welcome.

At your service,

Coppernicus2

IS RELATIVITY REALLY RELEVANT? Are we chasing our Quantum tail?

(As posted on Space-Talk: Humans in Space/Faster than Light Travel: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=18919#post18919 ) -Ivan --8/22/03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JoeC,

RE "Are we traveling at near light speed in relation to some part of the universe... or is some part of the universe traveling at near light speed in relation to us? Which one is moving?..."

This is unresolved, but the hump (as you suggested we get over) rests squarely on Relativity's shoulders. The question doesn't go away. Why should we think because WE are here, the rest of the universe should care? BTW, the answer to the paradox above is that we NEVER are at velocity zero.

RE "As for how useful relativity is: Physicists need to use relativity when working with particle accelerators, to account for the increased mass of the particles they are slamming together at high speed. GPS satellites need to account for tenets of relativity since their clocks tick slower than clocks on earth. These are two examples of relativity coming into play in real life."

Okay, I dig that. But two things come into mind:

1. What have particle accelerators achieved of usefulness in real life, other than creating more reasons for research? Mind you, not critical of this research, but sense that given limitations on our energy parameters, we may be reaching a research dead end.

2. GPS clocks tick slower in orbit than on Earth... So? If my clocks at home run slow, do I conclude time is slowing down, or do I conclude the clocks are slow? Why not instead that there are as yet misunderstood reasons why atomic oscillations slow down while traveling through gravity fields, in the same way light redshifts in gravity fields? Is Relativity, though it does explain this, the ONLY answer? Not saying this is wrong, mind you, only that we have come to this conclusion via a circular type of reasoning, where our math predicts slowing atomic clocks (not mechanical clocks), so that in finding indeed they do slow down, we then assume that TIME is slowing down. Any critical mind would call "foul!", though physics seems to be okay with this and accepts it as fact.

RE "I think you're looking for a way to figure out what your "real" velocity is (with respect to the universe?). This concept does not exist in Special Relativity. There is no "universal reference frame" by which you can determine velocity."

Aha! This is a kinda "because" answer, which disappoints more than satisfies. Nevertheless, the question remains as a fundamental inquiry into the nature of universal relativity. Is a Terracentric reference, we on Earth, truly valid? For most physicists, the answer is "yes", without further questions. Again, because we do not have an answer for this, it does not preclude more questions. In effect, here we are asking the basic question of what is "rest mass", and what is "velocity"? This is not a chicken or egg question, rather it is asking what is the universe using as a reference frame, a very valid question. The answer to this determines whether the universe is already relativistic in how it is constructed, which means we are then recreating this needlessly; and if so, the "rest mass" may have no meaning. We invent terms and want to give them a reality which they may not have.

So, if the answer is that velocity is never zero, and rest mass doesn't exist, does this not throw the whole idea of SR/GR into doubt? Now you see why this is such a curiosity, why I am asking these questions. They are fundamental to our understanding of how the physics of the universe work.

Lastly, does science ever reach the point where such questions are not allowed? Of course not, since if it does, then science becomes religion, and once it is written open inquiry becomes forbidden, which is a contradiction. No need to put down anyone doubting and asking, for it is only natural. As thinkers and scientists, this is what we are supposed to do.

What does all this mean to me? Think about it: If rest mass is in doubt, and mass velocity is in doubt, and the physical application of a time dimension is in doubt (only atomic oscillations slow down, not time), what is Relativity left with? It may be that the universe is already Relativistically manifest into the reality we see, for which we are "hardwired" to understand three dimensionally. We do not need to re-invent another Relativity, since it already is at work. The result is a universe that is more Newtonian, though not perfectly, than it is Einsteinian. Einstein, Minkowski, and others, for all their brilliant ideas, may have sent us on a merry chase. There may be a much simpler explanation to how it all works. Possibility: Gravity is NOT a universal constant. Dark matter, light redshift, neutron stars spin, black holes, the atom, as products of how Energy and Gravity interact, all these fall into place. If so, this is worth pursuing. Why? Because it would release a whole new understanding how works the universe, and how to tap into the inexhaustible energy source that runs it intrinsically, gravity. Quantum electromagnetic energy, on which all our research is based, is perhaps only its modifier.

Truly appreciate all your thoughts on this, as always.

C2

Is it possible to use magnets and photons to create energy.
i beleave it is but i dont have the money or materials to test it.
one thing i have noticeds while play with magnets is that if you get to magnets with the same magnetic poles facing each othe close enough together they give off some energy

Dear Anon,

Welcome! And thanks for your thoughts.

Could you elaborate a little more, references, examples of experiments, what kind of energy given off? We know holding same magnetic poles together will create kinetic energy, as they repulse, though we do not know why. Any other energy you have in mind? It's okay, novel ideas sometimes seem kooky at first, but it's the end result that counts.

Ivan

SUPERNOVAS HAPPEN when...

Why would supernova stars explode? If the Axiomatic Equation is correct, there is a rather simple answer. If energy and gravity interact to form an atom with a leftover gravitational force, then this remainder gravity is greater or lesser throughout the universe depending upon the level of energy there, since they are inversely proportional.

Now, what happens if the level of energy is too great? A possibility is that the remainder gravity becomes too weak to hold the mass together, and thus the energy of the mass explodes it violently. This could be the fate of why stars go supernova, that their energy had grown to such intensity that the gravity fails, and the mass separates in an explosion. From this explosion we get high cosmic radiation, but more importantly, we get the seeds of heavier elements which are now free to combine into future planets. Over billions of years, these planets may even evolve life.

So supernovas are very important, but they may be no more mysterious than how the universe works. Lucky for us, most of the time, there is always some leftover gravity to hold things together in a happy balance.

Ivan

TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT? Was Einstein right, or wrong?

Physics measures light speed as v = c =~ 2.998e8 m/s. Since the days of Einstein, this had been assumed to be a constant velocity in a vacuum for both light itself and the observer. Light passing through a transparent mass will have a refraction number giving it a lower velocity, though it is not clear if this is due to light slowing down or due to its interaction with the atoms of mass slowing down only the "net" velocity rather than v = c.

It stands to reason that from the point of observation of a light source, light travels always at v =c, meaning that once the photons are released, they will remain at c velocity. Any observer anywhere will also see these photons traveling at this constant velocity. The variable here is not light velocity but rather its frequency, so that an observer traveling towards the photon's P-wave released from its original source will see the wavelengths of light shorten, hence blue-shift. If traveling away from the light source, the wavelengths will lengthen, red shift. Nothing new here, and the same effect would register if the observer is riding the light emitting source, so that from his point of view, as his (glowing) ship is traveling space, light in one direction will appear blue shifted, while in the opposite direction, it will appear red shifted. (Blue shifting light is observed for binary stars where one red shifts as it spins away, and the other blue shifts as if spin towards, so we know this to be true.) Barring any other visible reference points, this would be the only real measure for the space ship to know which way it was going (in relation to light released by the ship). So if Einstein was right, that light speed is always at v = c, then the changing frequency offers future space travelers, when they can achieve such very high velocities in space, a way of knowing which way they are going, and how fast, without having to resort to measuring distances in relation to other cosmic bodies.

The problem that arises is if we manage to "travel faster than light", as this is titled, what happens? The observer aboard ship can see light only in one direction, in the direction the ship came from, with possibly some peripheral light showing in a cone towards the rear, but nothing ahead. This could cause a problem, since now velocity can be measured only in relation to the visible light cone behind the ship, and head-lights become useless. The other problem is that for a "stationary" observer, say on planet Earth, the space ship would red shift and ultimately disappear from sight.

So given these possibilities, was Einstein right that light speed is always v = c? Or can light speed, for a ship that has jumped the "light speed barrier", be in a new cosmic environment where v >> c, as well as v = c? This would mean that the constant v = c is now not in relation to space, but only in relation to the ship itself, so the head-lights work again! Of course, for any other observer the ship would disappear. And if the latter, then the ship would not know it jumped the light barrier, unless a relatively stationary observer told them, if a such signal can reach them (maybe using sub-space Quantum ghost-energy?).

I think this is an interesting puzzle because it shows that Einstein may have been both right and wrong at the same time! All this harks back to the underlying question: Are we already traveling at light speed, but don't know it? We know light is redshifted in all directions of observation equally, but we do not see any blueshift counterpart. Barring an expanding universe fantasy currenty believed, we may already be traveling at light speed in the way the universe is put together. In other words, can the speed of light be suspect as a constant, where it can be faster than itself? Einstein, J "Help!" J

Ivan

E = mc² makes sense, even with atomic mass already at v = c.

The Axiomatic Equations says:

E_m * c = hc/l = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (b_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy º E = mc²

This means, therefore, that electric force, which like light is always at v = c, if taken to the next level of c brings it up to the level of E, and with it atomic mass traveling at c. Mass, either zero magnetic mass or one value of atomic mass, needs to be brought up to c again to become c squared, which is E. This may further be interpreted as: atomic mass traveling at c does not gain infinite mass, as currently believed, but maintains its atomic integrity, and becomes an electric force, whereby mc = E_m. By the same reason, atomic mass would dissolve into pure energy at c², such as happens in a galactic black hole, where G² = c² = E.

Another consideration is the electron jets shooting out the axis of galactic black holes. If per Feynman, photon light absorbed there does so at c² velocity (equal to E), then the separation of positive and negative values of light get both absorbed by black hole gravity, the negative value, and spit out the axis, the positive value. It could be, a guess, that black holes create atomic mass in the form of ionized hydrogen atoms, positive value, which shoot out at near light speed, v=mc, which is electric force, and which may account for the magnetic energy surrounding those black hole jets. This may be how the universe seeds itself with atomic mass, which then combines with energy to form hydrogen atoms with an electron shell. This may be the first step in how stars in their life cycle form matter, which becomes dispersed as the known elements when they die.

Can't explain more than this for now, but that's how it "feels" right. Once we find gravity is not a universal constant, we can engage engineering work to solve how we can cancel all e.m. lambda to recreate the great gravity force of deep space inside a vessel, and travel at speeds now unimagined. Will have to walk the dogs at Williams Canyon some more to get clearer picture. K

Ivan

GRAVITY IS THE MOST MYSTERIOUS POWER

Discover Magazine's Oct. 2003 issue's feature article Nailing Down Gravity shows how Pioneer 10 & 11 are behaving upon leaving our solar system as if they were becoming "heavier" and pulled back towards the sun. This is sending ripples throughout the astrophysics community, since it is pointing to the possibility that gravity away from Earth is not uniformly the same, but may be denser, as had been discussed in these pages of the forum. But even Milgrom's MOND, which is closer to the mark, is only showing us that cosmic redshift coincides with the gravity variable, which is one more indication there was no Big Bang, but redshift is a function of deep space denser gravity instead.

For more on the Pioneer space probes, see Mission Status.

Gravity Probe B may yield other variables of gravity, though it had been designed to validate Einstein's theory of dragged space frames around Earth's gravity. The scientific community should be on the lookout for all gravity anomalies showing how gravity is not a universal constant, but a variable constant as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation. This could be the great breakthrough of the century.

Ivan

PROOF LOCAL OF AXIOMATIC AT WORK? --Crook's radiometer and Casimir force.

The Axiomatic Equation says that gravity is inversely proportional to the energy density where it is measured. Around the Sun, where energy is abundant, gravity is exceptionally weak; out in deep space far beyond the Oort Cloud, it is expected to be much stronger than here. But these are as yet unconfirmed observations, so we do not know that it is so. When our space probe gets to Pluto, in another decade, we will have a better reading as to whether gravity per mass is greater there than here, or at Mercury.

However, there may already be an early indication that the Axiomatic theory of the new physics of gravity is at work locally. Two such possibilities are Crook's radiometer and the Casimir force effect, or zero-point energy.

As currently understood, both these effects are due to pressure on the plates from outside. What differs in how the Axiomatic Equation reads is that where energy is missing, gravity resumes. In the case of the radiometer, the blades are thought to spin when activated by light because a few remaining atoms in the near vacuum hit the black surface more aggressively than the white surface. However, seeing it the new way, what is happening is that there is more energy "absorbed" by the black sides of the blades than on the white sides, thus making gravity "weaker" on the black relative to the white. If so, then the white should have a gravitational advantage over the black, and the few remaining molecules around the white side of the plate will exert a lightly stronger pull than those around the black sided plate. The result would be motion, a very weak motion because the differential between energy levels of the black and white plates are so small, but motion nevertheless. This theory could be tested further using other blade configurations, or using light emitting sides versus light reflecting sides.

The Casimir force effect is, per new physics, no more than the natural gravity of space when devoid of energy. For this force to work the plates, which are in a vacuum, must be close enough together so that the space between them is smaller than lambda of energy around them. If the energy cannot penetrate between the plates, then the natural gravity of space devoid of energy takes over, and thus the two plates's atoms feel each other's attraction. This is not the same as having opposite electric charges which would act to attract them magnetically. Current theory has it that the "pressure" of electromagnetic waves from outside the plates causes them to come together. Rather, this attraction is simply of natural gravity of space not weakened by energy. This phenomenon is also called a "zero-point" energy, but this does not clearly explain what is meant by this term, it being more related to Quantum mechanics and multi-dimensional space-time. The idea of the new physics is that it is markedly simplified into an interaction of gravity and energy, and these two examples given are a locally verifiable phenomenon of this interaction. There should be more, but the real test will be Pluto.

If anyone has any other possible examples, let us know. Thanks.

Ivan

WHY NEUTRON STARS SPIN SLOWS?

In thinking about perspective of distant objects, why do they appear small to us, possibly related to the inverse square law of energy, but not really convinced of it, I kind of drifted off towards neutron stars. They have a very rapid spin which decays over time. Some physicists think this is because of radiating gravitons, so that as these gravitons radiate out the gravity weakens, and spin slows. If the Axiomatic Equation is correct, it is more likely that electromagnetic energy from distant stars in space all around the neutron star is being absorbed, so that the overall energy level is rising, which weakens gravity, which then weakens spin, so it slows. A netron star is not a black hole, where the inradiating star energy gets canceled, so not affecting it. Neutron stars are an intermediary, where the energy from the former star had blown away and left behind a very dense atomic structure which, devoid of energy, is very gravity rich.

Now, back to "perspective"... why do things look small at a distance? Hmm... there must be some light inverse square law relationship in there...

:-)

DISTANT PROOF OF AXIOMATIC

In the latest http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/news_display.cfm?code=news_intro&itemID=110, "Kuiper Belt Moons a Puzzle" at Near Earth Objects, dated 11/09/02, it says astronomers have identified seven possible "moons" around Kuiper Belt bodies, which are believed to be much larger than similar objects revolving around asteroids in our solar region. Because the Kuiper Belt is beyond Pluto and on the edge of deep space, according to the Axiomatic Equation, these bodies should exhibit a greater gravity per mass than closer to the Sun. These distant large binary moons are a puzzle because of their size. However, the size may be misleading, and instead imputed by observation using the gravitational constant of the Newton Orbit equation, which skews the mass to be larger if the revolving motion is faster. Now, if their gravity per mass is greater than the gravitational constant on Earth, it would make sense that these distant binary moons would appear to be more massive and faster, even if their mass is in fact smaller, but only their gravity per mass is greater. I suspect that when the Pluto and Kuiper Belt space probes get there, around 2016, they will discover that mass is not the issue, but gravity per mass is greater than here.

Also of interest is that asteroids do not spin randomly, but seem to be aligned in how they spin in relation to the Sun. This may be a function of how gravity affects spin, the more gravity, the faster the spin. That these should be more aligned than random may be also a function of how spin aligns within a gravity environment, same as the planets are more or less aligned in their orbits and spins. However, this is only a guess without explanation, and will need further work. For more on this, please see: http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/news_display.cfm?code=news_intro&itemID=203


WHAT I EXPECT FROM THE NEW HORIZONS DISTANT PROBES TO PLUTO:

I suspect that we will discover the following:

Gravity is relatively constant from Mercury to Mars, at g = 5.9e-39, shifts hiher past the asteroid belt when we get to the gaseous planets until the Kuiper Belt, then it becomes stronger again past Pluto into the Oort cloud of comets on the edge of our solar system. That deep space gravity will now equal more or less the general gravity constant for our galaxy, so that it should be stronger than here but not much different from the rest of the galaxy until we get beyond the galactic halo, at which point gravity will reach very high proportions in relation to Earth's energy environment, approximately the gravity readings in proximity of so-called neutron stars. The maximum gravity will be where all energy cancels, which is the galactic black hole, where g = 1.

Ivan

X-post on Space-talk by Coppernicus2, c'est moi:

Longhorn,

In your: [QUOTE]When matter is in outer space, it has no weight. However matter still has inertia.[/QUOTE]

One should remember that matter in outer space still has "weight" relative to other bodies near it, or distant, though this weight is neutralized by having them go into some orbit around each other, so that their effective weight relative to each other is zero. Gravity in mass seeks like gravity in other mass, this is always. That they fall into each other and end up in some binary orbit is what cancels this falling effect. Depending upon their relative mass, these binary orbits will have some velocity in relation to each other, relative to their distance as per Newton's Orbital Equation: G=mv^2/r. What remains is inertia, the amount of force needed to remove such bodies from their gravity neutral orbits.

If seen this way, then inertia has a place in gravity, and the two are related. Thus, the same force that removes a body from its gravity neutral orbit is relative to the mass gravity of the body, which means it would continue to be gravity neutral until a force disturbs it, which give it the inertia we measure. So gravity and inertia are two sides of the same force, when seen this way. In practical terms, how we see this on Earth, is that the disturbing of any mass which has found its resting place, like the ice tea jug held down by Earth's gravity on the floor of your car, is caused whenever a force is applied to it. So when your foot hits the accelerator, or brake, the inertia of the jug is disturbed, and it falls over. This would imply, by this reasoning, that the gravity within any mass is neutral under most conditions until it is disturbed by an outside force, which then gives it inertia. If so, then the controlling factor here is the mass gravity.

Very interesting questions in your first. Yes indeed, matter is just another form of energy, which per my thinking is how electromagnetic energy and a supergravity nucleus interact, which is the basis for the Axiomatic Equation. Thanks for asking.

Axiomatic Equation: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/108.html

C2

Ivan,

There is only one force ... not two.

Gravity is merely another name for EM.

J____

J___,

I think of one force too, but I call it E, for Energy, of which gravity is one component and the other is EM. EM then breaks down into positive and negative charges, magnetism and electric force, light at c, and their various interrelationships. Gravity stays put and is either strong or weak, dependent upon the EM action on it. This is the basis of the new physics.

Still, so much to figure out, to observer, verify, calculate, and in the end understand. Needless to say, modern physics only clouds the issue with convoluted results that fail in space, like postulated dark matter and the Big Bang. It all reduces down to a kind of zero to infinity interaction becoming one, but I'm only at the baby steps beginning. Yet, if I'm right, the future is very big with tremendous possibilities of harnessing Energy not only at its EM component, but also at its G component.

So, if gravity proves to be a variable-constant as predicted, let's get to work with Nasa!

Ivan

Ivan,

Force - is the result of expended energy.

Where we differ is -

Gravity cannot be a variable since it is wholly dependent upon accumulation of mass.

Without an accumulation of mass - gravity cannot and does not exist. No accumulation of mass = no expended energy.

J____

Ivan,

The problem is - at the present rate of human ability to research ... it will take another 800 billion years before anyone could validate your concept.

Sorry - but your calculations do not work, and I have tried very hard to make sense of them, but each time I end up boxed in with gibberish as the result.

Time to move on to other things.

Good luck,

J____

J___,

Thanks for your input, as always. However, it is short on specifics, so leaves me no wiser. Alas, that has been the pattern all along on this formula of the new physics, so not surprised that criticisms don't have much to offer. Only a few like it, and most don't. Not surprising, when you consider what it means to current physics theory.

I suppose we'll know in about 10 years when our probe to Pluto and beyond will report from there, if we look for gravity anomalies. In the meantime, we'll hang with the state of modern physics, such as it is.

Your ideas are always welcome.

All the best, Ivan

SEMANTICS: Force, power, energy, electromagnetic influence, gravity.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for Force is:

---

Quote:

1 a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power.
4 a : an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects b : any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between particles and determine the structure of the universe

---

Ivan,

To point out specifics in your equations would be a monumental task preponderant since very few of the equations logically follow previous musings.

I am not sure that anyone can follow your logic behind substitions, which in essence cannot be logically contrived without specific formulations that explain justification for making them. That is especially true when a substitution is made for a calculation that has been previously verified via testing and observation.

Gravity Probe B has been rescheduled for December 6, 2003 -

J____

CHECK LIST OF KNOWN VS UNKNOWNS ON AXIOMATIC EQUATION

X are the knowns
0 are the unknowns

The following are knowns:

1. E = mc^2 -X

though there may be a missing constant in this equation, so that the gravity value of g=5.9x10^-39, proton to proton relationship -X, may be missing from mass. Therefore, the equation was rewritten as, with m=1, the unity of one hydrogen atom, as: E = (m-g)c^2, or more specifically: E = (1-g)c^2. -0

2. l = ~2.2x10^42 meters -X

This was verified for me independently by physicists, a way to solve for lambda in E=mc^2, so that the equation to solve this value of l, E = h/cl, is good. -X

3. Em/Bm = c -X

This is the known Maxwell equation for electricity (Em) and magnetism (Bm) and light (c).

4. Em * c = (Bm)c^2 -0

This is an unknown, though there were two paths to come to this equation, one was to raise the known Maxwell equation by light speed, the other was to figure the magnetic remainder equivalent of E = (m-g)c^2. So here we are on thin ice, since until the proof comes in from observation of the variable nature of distant gravity, we do not know this is for sure. In fact, this is the key link to the whole Axiomatic Equation, in that if this proves true, then the rest of the unknowns fall into place. Then we will know if electric force taken to light speed equals Energy.

5. E = Energy = Joules per second, J/s, or Watts, W. -X

This can be figured as either E = Joules, where the per second is dropped, or with the time measure per second, so that the equation for Energy is measured in Watts. So this figures correctly either way. The values of the Axiomatic Equation, such as Planck's constant, h -X, and light speed, c -X, are all recognized in the physics community. The other known value is the gravity constant, g, though it is not the same as Newtonian G -X, and applies to the proton to proton gravity instead. This is very important, because what this "g" says is that there is a gravity relationship for each atom, and it is this g value that may change given the energy environment within which it is measured. This is a key feature to the Axiomatic Equation, that gravity is a variable-constant, and not a universal constant. Here most physicists, or students of physics, really have a hard time. It is also here that the understanding of the new physics is critical, otherwise it makes no sense.

I developed a conversion from "g" to "G" as: G^2/p^2 = gc^2, but still unproven. -0

So the nine knowns, what we had accepted as true in physics, fit into the Axiomatic Equation, leaving for us to ponder and explore the three unknowns, as per above. And this is the critical test of its validity, that the unknowns prove true, so all twelve values are true. If so, then we have a new way to see physics and how the universe is put together. The end result, should it prove true, is that gravity is a variable constant, and that mass is always equal to one, minus its gravity component, plus its magnetic component, where gravity and magnetism are inversely proportional in relation to the Energy of the given system where measured.

I am willing to wait for the results of the New Horizon Space Probe to the Kuiper Belt and beyond Pluto. Alas, the "unbelievers" will have to wait too.

Ivan

ENERGY, WHAT IS IT?

The Wikipedia definition of Energy, found at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy ,
defines it into seven primary components: 1. Kinetic energy, 2. Heat, 3. Potential energy, 4. Chemical energy, 5. Electrical energy, 6. Electromagnetic radiation, and 7. Mass. Together, they do not seem to present any kind of unifying principle, except in that: "The first sort of prediction energy allows one to make is how much work a physical system could be made to do." This leads one to think of energy as a recoverable quantity obeying the law of conservation, which can be applied across various domains where measured. It can also understood as a force at a distance, where it can be expressed as f(x)dx, with f(x) being the amount of force applied as a function of distance moved. We can also measure how chemical bonds can be broken to produce heat, which can then also convert into the force needed to move mass at a distance. This means that all energy can be expressed in Newton force, or as kilograms, distance, and time: m.kg.s^2. So all these expressions of force and energy are interrelated, same as Einstein's famous equation equates energy with mass and light energy, E =mc^2, but it still does not tell us exactly what Energy is.

Quantum physics gives us some further breakdown of energy into: strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and gravity. However, these are still disunited, though the function of energy can be measured in Joules, or work, and can also be power when expressed as Watts, or Joules per second. Yet, the mystery remains, since we do not know why energy can be further broken down into positive and negative charges of electricity and magnetism, or why these like charges repel and opposite charges attract. So we are yet no wiser in knowing what Energy is, except that we have given it various nomenclature names, and mathematical expressions, and had learned to use it in our technological know-how from steam engines to computer chips. We have put energy to work, but what is it?

Therefore, the question "What is Energy" is still philosophical, one subject to speculative theory, and hopefully to be someday answered when we truly understand it. Per the Axiomatic Equation, should this prove true, energy is an interaction between itself, in its electromagnetic form, and itself as gravity. These two interact to form mass, which then results in how this mass reveals the gravity potential energy where it is measured, and its magnetic potential, which is proportional to the electromagnetic energy gnerated by the local star where it is measured. However, this still does not answer the critical question as to why energy can have its bipolar existence as both positive and negative charges. The temptation is to think of gravity, such as it is in its super form inside the atomic nucleus, or in what results as a black hole at the galaxy center, that these are positive charges; and that the electron shell, electric negative potential, and very possibly the overall charge of whole galaxies, as being of negative charged. However, at this point, this is pure speculation derived from how the atomic mass forms, that the nucleus has a positive proton and a negative electron shell. Also, when light dissolves into the black hole, it may be converting back to its positive and negative components, per the Feynman diagram, so that one is absorbed by the black hole, while the other is spun out through the axis as charged ions at near light speed, which seem to be electric in that they generate a magnetic force. Again, this is only speculation.

The real way to visualize Energy is still elusive, or as Wiki says: "There is no uniform way to visualize energy; it is best regarded as an abstract quantity useful in making predictions." So this is where the matter rests, in the abstract. But I suspect that if we can better understand how light works, how the dual charged electromagnetic waves can propagate through space without either splitting apart or cancelling together, but maintain their dual charge integrity, then we may better understand what is it that we call Energy. And in the end, it may prove to be no more than how the force of unmodified gravity interacts with its modifying electromagnetic energy, to form mass. This brings us back to the Axiomatic Equation with its prediction of a variable-constant for gravity, as well as E =mc^2, which was proven by exploding an atomic bomb, though we do not truly know what this Energy is.

Lastly, there is the matter of Relativistic mass, and "rest mass" energy. These are worked out mathematically, but what do they really mean? Does rest mass ever truly exist in the universe? If so, in relation to what? Perhaps rest mass exists only in relation to itself, where either spin or motion or radiation can take itself as a starting point; but it surely does not exist in terms of space itself, for if all things are already in motion, then all motion must be at rest mass, which is a contradiction. Perhaps the answer will lie somewhere in the understanding of why light travels at c? Or is all mass already at v=c? There must be a simpler way than space-time geometry to understand all this...

Ivan

LIGHT, BLACK HOLES AND NEUTRON STARS, revisited:

Current astrophysical theory has it that a dying star no more than two or three solar masses will collapse into a neutron star, and greater in mass will collapse into a black hole. This may happen via a supernova or not, though it is not clear why this is so. The black hole then compresses into a very small radius, as computed by Schwarzchild equation, so that it may be only a few kilometers across. In its center, calculated mathematically via General Relativity, is a singularity with no radius, which is composed of pure space time. Why is the defining solar mass of neutron star versus black hole about three solar masses? It is because it calculates out that if the mass is greater, the speed of sound upon collapse would exceed the speed of light, which is an astrophysical taboo.

However, seeing things differently from the perspective of the new physics, as per the Axiomatic Equation, neutron stars and black holes have a very different origin. When stars approach their end, their high energy level temporarily exceeds the gravitational constant, where g =0, so that it per force it must explode, since gravity ceases to hold it together; if this g=0 is not exceeded, it collapses once the energy is no longer produced, so that gravity takes over. If there is energy left over from within the star, then it remains a neutron star, but if it totally cold, then one would expect a black hole, though this is not so. So the new physics would likely produce theory that says that all collapsed stars are neutron stars, regardless of mass, and only where light energy is totally negated can there be a black hole. In effect, the gravity level within a black, where g = 1, is total gravity, and it is also what the universe is made of. So inside the black hole is pure universal gravity unmodified by electromagnetic energy, or light. Space time is a mathematical creation and has nothing to do with it.

Because collapsed stars will always have some latent energy, they will never become black holes. The only way you can have a black hole is to totally negate light, and this means that all light wave lambda has to cancel out. This only happens from the concentric flow of light from all around the circumference of a spiral galaxy into the center, where the lambda cancel, and a black hole forms there; though it may happen from a non spiral galaxy if the stars are arranged into total mass where there is a cancellation of light somewhere in the center. So black holes are light related phenomena, not collapsed stars; and neutron stars are collapsed or spent stars, where the natural gravity takes over again, and can never become black holes. Theoretically the neutron star and black hole can coincide if they happen to be at the correct center of a large collection of stellar bodies, so that their light cancels exactly where the neutron star happens to be. Considering that the gravity of the black hole and neutron star would attract one another, it is theoretically possible. Once any matter or light approaches the black hole, it spirals in at tremendous velocities, and is broken out into their bipolar components of which one charge will be absorbed and the other spun out the axis as ions. Electromagnetic energy, either as mass or as light, approaching a neuron star will likewise be absorbed, but there it merely enters and modifies the gravity within the neutron star. This may mean that if enough energy is absorbed, the neutron star may once again reignite into a hot star, though this will not likely happen unless there is sufficient hydrogen present. The point here is that neutron stars and black holes are intrinsically unrelated, but two separate phenomena, one a result of a collapsed star, the other a result of totally cancelled out electromagnetic energy. For this reason, the only place we will find black holes are in the center of galaxies. All other such phenomena will be neutron stars, some very great with much more than three solar masses, but not black holes.

In conclusion, gravity is not space time warpage, but rather gravity is the natural state of the universe when not modified by the presence of electromagnetic energy. When such energy is present, the raw gravity is converted to mass with a remainder gravitational constant dependent upon the energy received, which will exhibit a gravitational force per mass. Where we are, here in the vicinity of the sun, gravity is highly modified by our hot star and thus is extremely weak. In space, far from solar energy sources, it will prove to be much stronger, so that any mass passing through those high gravity regions will exhibit greater gravity per mass, in effect become compressed by their own gravity. Upon returning to the region of high energy, they will decompress again. The sought after dark matter is no more than this phenomenon in action. To think that neutron stars are made of mass stripped of their electrons is interesting, but it may not be totally true, since there may still be electrons present, but they do not have enough energy to rise above the first level, so the mass appears to be very dense. In fact, the mass is dense because the raw gravity of space is taking over in the absence of sufficient light energy, which results in a byproduct of tremendous spin. Another byproduct is that neutron stars generate very high x-ray frequencies, which black holes do not, though this electromagnetic output is not strong enough to counter the raw gravity. The two are different, and besides finding black holes at galaxy centers, they will also have a signature of very high velocity ions out their axis, which will be observable by the magnetic field generated there.

* * *

The stuff we're being told today about black holes and neutron stars is pure silliness, though having known many scientists personally, I am not totally surprised by what they will believe. The surprising part is that they created a math to prove them right! In fact, they made it much more complicated than it needs to be, but what do I know? I'm only a philosopher. J

Ivan

by crom-
black holes are masters of the universe
terminators- feared and revered with light
in ultimate sacrifice of death

by crom-
gods of light fight back
a stygian darkness kept at bay
by a great host of stars
in a terrible dance

by crom-
all who enter here never return
spinning madly into oblivion
lost and not lost
to begin their light anew

by crom-
enter the schwartzschild
if you dare
to challenge
the ultimate
masters of the universe
in space time

by crom-

Crom!

...in the end, it is a new beginning.

:-]

STRANGE STRINGS?

Times are about to change, and this is the last strong effort to convince the world of the validity of the strange mathematical world of quarks and Strings as real basic building blocks of reality.

A Theory of Everything?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

This may be one last gasp, trying to justify where we got lost when Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, in 1916. It was a staggering work showing mathematically how the fabric of "space-time" is the true expression of what is real. Then chimed in Quantum mechanics, and the rest is history. This is the strange entangled web of what is reality we are now led to believe as true.

Smashing Pictures:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/smas-nf.html

Reason was abandoned for strange computer models of particles in collision, leaving behind "trails", that are as avidly read today as did our ancestors read "entrails" centuries ago to divine the gods. The god of today is the Strings of the Standard Model in Einstein's space-time universe, a complete mathematical expression of its own rules, which obscures more than enlightens. The patterns registered are no more than how energy is released and immediately reabsorbed into the supergravity nucleus, whether of an atom or the great gravity created by energy's cancellation. There is no great mystery, for we are no closer to the truth, and the research string is running out.

Regrettably, all this is slated to be blown away, like an imploding "big bang", with the simplicity of the New Physics.

Axiomatic Equation:
http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/108.html

What will out? Force of will of a convoluted space-time super-Strings Physics, or the simple elegance of the New Physics, which says the universe is entirely an interaction of gravity and electromagnetic energy? Will it be first justified by the empirical observation of gravity variability at a distance? Time will tell.

Ivan

STRINGS AS THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE?

I had great fun watching Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe: Strings", and had a purely simple impression of it: The whole thrust of Strings is a uniquely homocentric philosophy.

The pivot for this is the "probabilistic" nature of Quantum Mechanics. But this rule of "probability" is man made, a theory we must fall back upon because of the chaotic nature of the particle forces within an atom. Because we cannot fathom an infinity of forces interrelated into what composes the atom's particle structure, we then assume that this is a probabilistic universe. In fact, the interrelationships that define each particle event within the atom is "known", by the infinity of these forces stretched throughout the universe, though it is not known to us. However, since we cannot fathom this, and cannot ascribe "intelligent" sensibility to the universe, other than its general laws, we then assume in our "homocentric" way that the universe makes sense only as multidimensional tiny vibrating strands of energy called "strings". So this is the theory we had settled for, one which is uniquely human, assuming that we are the intelligence in the universe, and not the universe itself. The promise that the universe is intelligent at its infinity of interrelationships, as a totality, has no place in this theory, since it would unseat man as the center of intelligence. The result? Strings becomes a homocentric theory. Is this science? No, it is merely another arcane human philosophical myth, albeit more advanced that the gods ruling the skies, but along the same vein.

That was my impression, for this I was tickled pink, with laughter that had me in stiches. Is there a unifying equation that brings together all the known forces? Of course there is, but Relativity and String theory are not it. In theory, if we have multidimensional probabilistic reality that is our universe, why should we believe this particular theory? Can you see the paradox? If we have a multidimensional reality, why should we believe in this particular theory, here in this reality? In another universe, it may be totally different! Now you know why I found Greene's program so wonderfully amusing, for this is a self canceling concept.

Truly, the simple and elegant interrelationship of gravity and electromagnetism described by the Axiomatic Equation is so much more real. If Einstein had seen his famous equation as E= (m-g)c^2, where "g" is the gravity proton relationship, he would have gotten it. Then we would not have been stuck with his gravity wells, nor the maximum light speed of gravity, nor the twins paradox, which is not a paradox but an error of logic. Finally, the Big Bang would have seen as the fiction it spawned, since it was built out of a theory that the universe has a "steady state" gravity throughout it. In fact, gravity is much greater in the cold of deep space, since it is a variable in inverse proportion to the electromagnetic energy level where it is being measured. If so, then light over great distances redshifts naturally, which means no expansion, and hence no Big Bang. And thus, no Strings. It is all so much simpler.

There was also a serious typo in the program that seemed to run through it. It was: "And experiments would show...", when in fact the correct terminology should have been: "And our theoretical mathematics would show...". This was a glaring omission which skewed the truth for unsuspecting viewers. String theory is truly a triumph of mathematics, but not reality.

It is time to ring out the old and ring in the new. Let's see if gravity is the Newtonian-Einsteinian universal force it is believed to be, or is it a variable-constant the new physics predicts. We created the theory of space and time, but the universe is patient with our sophisticated illusions, and our homocentric theories with prove out to be no more than our modern day myth of our mathematically created Relativistic Quantum gods: Strings is merely an entangled philosophical sophistry. A hint? The atom is not only a positive nucleus and negatively charged shell. Rather, the atom is an interaction between a very great gravity and electromagnetic energy. Which is right? Which is truth, and which fiction? "Will it be a theory a everything, or will it be a theory of nothing?" Time will tell...

Ivan

As cross-posted from the Space-Talk forums: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=2070&pagenumber=2
----------------------------------------------------------

ON THE FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS

I know there are many who love physics and study it with great care and detail. I should be one of them, though I am not, for I came to physics through the back door of philosophy rather than science. Hence, I am perhaps ill equipped to handle its formulation properly, though I had tried. I am no mathematician, nor physicist, for my expertise in real life is finance, things like stock markets, bonds, currencies and futures. But I have a passion for understanding how works the universe, and though this is at first a philosophical passion, I have come to understand some things, intuitively perhaps, that touch on the world of physics. And it was this that I tried to explain on these boards, though falteringly at times.

I have an intuitive idea, one that is in my mind's eye, that the universe is a very simple place. Because of this, I have difficulty living with much of current theory in physics which takes us to phenomenal heights of complexity, such as String or Brane theory. These are the products of spectacular mathematical achievements. But mathematics is a language first with its own rules, and a useful tool second to help us explain what we understand, and thus is not beyond the pale of being a language that can express gibberish even if totally correct by its own rules. The intuitive idea I have is that gravity and electromagnetism are not complementary, but rather they are opposing forces. This means that where there is an abundance of electromagnetic energy we will find that mass there will be well defined as matter exhibiting gravity, but that this gravity will in fact be very weak. The opposing force of gravity should, by this reasoning, be extremely powerful, as it is exhibited by the mass defined where it is measured, in areas where energy is weak. I had tried to explain this mathematically, which came up as what I called the Axiomatic Equation*, but not being a physicist nor mathematician, it may very well be that my feeble attempts only led to mathematical inaccuracies, or even gibberish. Nevertheless, what the equation tried to explain is that electromagnetic energy and gravity, within the full spectrum of what is Energy, are somehow inversely proportional to each other, and therefore where there is an abundance of energy, there is little gravity, and vice versa, because this is how matter becomes defined there. The reason this became important, at least to me, was that if true, then we may have another form of energy available for future use. The equation would indicate, perhaps wrongly, that by somehow eliminating electromagnetic energy, perhaps removing all the spectra of what is produced by our local star, gravity would once again reassert itself in its full force, and this could be a usable force. No thinking at present, to my knowledge, would indicate this to be true. So per this thinking, really only philosophical for now, may be the kernel of some future idea that will propel us beyond the use of chemical and electromagnetic energy, i.e., fire, and take us into a realm of using gravity itself, i.e., darkness. Then it becomes a matter of focussing where this dark energy would be, and pointing it towards where we want to go, and have our ship designed to follow it. In this way, we may be onto unleashing what would be a virtually inexhaustible "dark" energy to be used at tremendous velocities, since the gravity force is an accelerative force which does not tire and is continuous. That is the dream, but I do not have the tools to make it reality.

In my attempts at understanding this vision, I no doubt had made many mistakes, as some have pointed out on these boards. But that is not a worry to me, since we learn from mistakes and are challenged to correct them. Hence, more study is needed on my part, time and other obligations allowing. Perhaps I will never succeed in understanding what I think I see, but the challenge should never be discouraged if done sincerely and with some degree of competence. I am sure the great scientific minds of the past did not have an easy time either. Under pressure to come up with a better theory of gravity than known since the days of Newton, Albert Einstein came up with his General and Special Relativity theories. They are brilliant, but they may not yet fill the void of our understanding of gravity, and perhaps even detour us from such understanding by enthralling us with its complexity. I know people who study this all their lives, and yet produce nothing new. Often, they resign themselves to becoming teachers of others, who will repeat this process again, without meaningful gain in the fundamental understandings of physics. And this is how I see the future of physics, that to break this cycle, all who have a vision of physics should be encouraged to pursue it, honestly and with much hard work, because though the odds of failure are very great, the slight chance of success will perhaps give us that special breakthrough to make it worthwhile. This is the realm of new ideas of the future. Challenging each other to prove points, or to correct obvious errors, is part and parcel of that process, same as encouragement and support should be given where it is needed. Science is a hard taskmaster, so none should approach this project casually, but neither should anyone approach it trembling with fear. It takes courage to present a new idea, to be shot down, even humiliated, but all should be encouraged to present theirs. Take the chance, for we never know where the next jewel of truth with come from, sometimes unsuspectingly in spite of ourselves.

In a hundred years, all this may be different, and our understanding may have undergone a quantum leap in physics. We may be looking back at today with a wry amusement, that it was so difficult for us. Many of us know "something" worth sharing with others, though we should expect to falter in trying to either understand it better, and certainly in explaining it to others. When I was a kid, PS 149, Brooklyn, NY, we once had the school principal come into our science class and ask us what was wrong with placing a penny in an electric fusebox. Somehow, we all knew it was wrong and tried our hardest to answer, but not being conversant in scientific things, we all faltered in our explanations, though we understood in principle how it was wrong. I see a forum in Space-Talk like that classroom. Sure, we know something is wrong with physics today, but we falter in explaining it, or even understanding it, mostly because we are ill equipped, and perhaps largely because we do not have the necessary skills to do so. But once the class was told why a penny in a fusebox is a bad thing, everyone suddenly saw it clearly. This is the skill of a good teacher, and the future of physics, that what is so mysterious and difficult today will one day light up like a lightbulb in our head, and become eminently clear. Will we go into space with this new knowledge, perhaps achieving distances and velocities never imagined today? As a betting man, I'd bet a lot that in one hundred years, we will. And the process of search starts now, humbly in a place like this. It is a gift of the world wide web.

So the fundamentals of physics are only what we understand, but they do not yet encompass what we do not understand, of necessity. So it is up to a collective of interested and intelligent minds to each bring something to the table of how they see things. Together, we can make a truly wonderful collection of ideas, a kind of pot-luck, some of which will be absolutely awful, but others really quite good. And from this smorgasbord may yet evolve a new direction of how things work in the universe, which will be the next branch of physics that will take us far into the future, and into space.

So best wishes to all participants, for it is a noble and worthwhile cause. Don't be shy, tell your story clearly, and do not be offended if no one believes you. It's okay. Let history be your judge. Good luck!

Coppernicus2

*Axiomatic Equation:
http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/108.html

Fresh news on Alternative Fusion Machine, BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2928435.stm

Please pay special attention to the "firing of powerful laser beams" from all directions to force atoms to fuse, which is in line with the theory of Axiomatic Equation, which would use the same process to recreate the very strong gravity, or strong force, in the atomic nucleus. This is what the equation would predict, though it may not have been done yet successfully.

The missing component to this experiment is to have all lambda represented from infrared to gamma, as produced by our local star, to negate the sun's power. The result should be fusion if focussed on "deuterium and tritium - isotopes of hydrogen", and a very strong gravity if focussed on a point in the vacuum inside a vessel.

Ivan

X(3872)

In the NewScientist.com article "New particle is double trouble for physicists",
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994389 , there seems to be a mysterious new particle meson (X(3872) which is outside the current Standard Theory. Quantum Physics has a great deal of creativity in naming the newly discovered short-lived particles resulting from torn apart atoms. We enter into a world of "quarks, baryons, antiquarks, charmoniums, beauty mesons", some of which are stable, like the proton baryon, while others, such as mesons, will exist for only a billionth of a trillionth of a second. All this makes for an exotic "alphabet soup" of subatomic forces, now supplemented by double quarks and antiquarks, X(3872). Where do we go from here?

Can we be looking into the internal interplay of forces within the atom, not a natural state of things but one created by our disturbing the forces that form the atom? If this proves so, then all the subatomic particles spotted and named are no more than an illustration of how rich and varied are the forces inside the atom which brings itself into a complete whole. Can it be that we have not yet reached the end of the alphabet soup of subatomic forces to be discovered? Where will it end? Is an infinite regress of subatomic particles needed? Will additional work on smashing atoms really yield any more clarity on the structure of the universe?

Actually, how useful is it to know the "quarky" alphabet soup if the atom is much more simple than we had made it? Or are there others who also think this Quantum minutia research is essentially irrelevant to understanding how the universe works? In other words, perhaps what happens "inside" the atom does not necessarily constitute what the cosmos is all about.

Editors

WHY EARTH MAY HAVE A MINIATURE BLACKHOLE

Per the Axiomatic Equation when all electromagnetic energy converges on a point and cancels there, the strong force gravity is released to become a miniature blackhole. This is expected to happen in a vacuum, since in the presence of matter or gas, this canceling effect is negated through the transfer of energy in the medium present. However, inside a planet may be a special case, or inside a star, because the gravitational pull of all mass from around a spherical body's center is balanced out equally in all directions, so that at the center gravity is nil. This creates a special region within the planet, or star, where all the hot energy is concentrated on a point, a point where an absence of gravitational force may created a de facto vacuum. If so, then the self canceling effect of electromagnetic waves of energy on that center re-release the strong force gravity which had been modified by the local star's powerful energy output. This could mean, only a possibility at present, that this resulting mini-blackhole at the spherical body's center then powers the planet or star with the incredibly powerful energy of the strong force gravity released, which gives it both spin and interaction with this strong gravity's effect on mass around it. The result is a very hot interior spinning faster than the whole body, a kind of strong gravitational churning of the interior. It may also be here that is generated the electromagnetically derived magnetic field, meaning the stronger this mini-blackhole, the greater the resulting magnetic field. This is not the same understanding as the presently believed "dynamo effect" within planets, but it would better explain how a magnetic field can exist at temperatures above the Curie temperature, especially inside hot stars. So a mini-blackhole center of all hot bodies gives them the perpetual spin and heat all planets and stars experience, a powerful engine which never runs down, even though they generate magnetic fields that would otherwise slow down spin in time. This makes more sense than today's commonly accepted physics of heavenly bodies, though it must remain in the realm of speculation until we know for sure the Axiomatic Equation is right. But if we find gravity is indeed a variable-constant inversely proportional to the electromagnetic energy present, then this mini-blackhole theory begins to make sense.

Ivan

BEYOND E = mc^2 -?

"A first glimpse of a postmodern physics" by Bernard Haisch: http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html

Editors

BABY PICTURES OF GALAXIES

First Galaxies?

Soon after Big Bang?

Biggest Baby?

Black Hole Secrets?

Space.com articles and images. The answers are out there.

Toivo Jaakkola, a Finnish physicist, in his paper at: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO3PDF/V03N3JAA.PDF , titled "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation: Discussion and Possible Solution of the Dilemma", explores gravitational and electromagnetic counterparts as the dual exchange of forces that result in an equilibrium Universe. The expanding Universe postulated from Doppler redshift of light is an observational error which has spawned not only bad cosmology but has risen to acceptability in the science community bordering on myth. He also states that Newtonian physics, a mathematically derived Euclidean system, is more true to cosmological observations, where the "ether" concept of a static and stationary medium, first derived from Cartesian geometry, was already anachronistic at the time of its Michelson-Morley demise in the 19th century. The real ether, if it must be postulated as a medium for electromagnetic wave propagation, is in fact nothing more than the gravitational field itself. All the other exotic relativity derived definitions for gravity, such as postulated by Einstein in his General Relativity, had always been in doubt by serious scientific thinkers, Einstein included, though his great popularity and fortuitous place in history relative to the atom bomb, his favorite "hobby horse" pet theory gained a prominence which it really never deserved. This is the sad state of current astrophysics, that we had fallen into some "gravity hole" of a neo-Cartesian ether called "space-time", and from which we will have a great difficulty extricating ourselves to merge all of physics into observable facts. The real reason for cosmic light redshift is that space is full of gravitational fields much greater than they are experienced on Earth and in our solar vicinity.

Gravitons, as postulated by Jaakkola may or may not exist, but the gravitational fields of deep space are almost certainly of greater intensity than we had hitherto imagined. Gravity may very well prove to be a variable-constant in inverse relation to the electromagnetic energy present where it is being measured, as postulated by the Axiomatic Equation. Modern physics needs rethinking.

In this Space.com article, "Neutron Stars Shed Light on Black Holes", is extremely strong evidence of light redshift that is not due to Doppler effect expanding universe, but due to the intense gravity around neutron stars and black holes.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/death_spiral_sidebar_010111.html

Do we need more proof? Of course, but the idea of strong gravitational fields in deep space as the origin of cosmic redshift looks pretty good so far.

Ivan

I thought that when a small star collapses, electromagnetism is extinquished, and the remaining white dwarf is comprised of nuclei 'swimming' in an electron 'soup'.

And, that when a larger star collapses, both electromagnetism and the strong force are extinguished, with the electrons and protons combining to form the neutrons of a neutron star.

Finally, when the largest of stars collapse, the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces are extinguished, with the only remaining force being gravity. This would be the black hole.

Is there any reason why this couldn't be correct?

Hi Becky,

In yours:

---

Quote:

I thought that when a small star collapses, electromagnetism is extinquished, and the remaining white dwarf is comprised of nuclei 'swimming' in an electron 'soup'.

And, that when a larger star collapses, both electromagnetism and the strong force are extinguished, with the electrons and protons combining to form the neutrons of a neutron star.

Finally, when the largest of stars collapse, the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces are extinguished, with the only remaining force being gravity. This would be the black hole.

Is there any reason why this couldn't be correct?

---

Ivan,
Thanks for replying. As to why the forces would be extinguished at the death of a star, could the answer be as simple as the magnitude of the impact, combined with the intensity of the gravity, when the star implodes? I don't know what the math would be behind that, but it makes sense. The greatest impact yields a black hole. Large dying stars may not be the only source of black holes.

I also suggest this - is there an impact so great, involving a black hole, that for an instant, gravity ceases to exist? Would that create a 'big bang'? What could cause such an impact? Is this an explanation of how galaxies are born? Maybe quasars exemplify this concept.

Maybe a pulsar is a neutron star at a point where it is about to collapse further into a black hole.

I have been out of college for some time, and only majored in physics for 1 semester. I changed my major towards computers because I preferred discussions of entropy, over a tedious 50 minute differential equation :)

I hope I understand the weak force vs. strong force. Strong force holds the nucleus together, correct? and Weak force is involved with nuclei decaying into protons & electrons and/or the combining of electrons and protons into neutrons, correct? I was hoping I understood the weak force enough to make my original suggestion.

Becky

Hi Becky,

In Hyperphysics pages, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html , see "Astrophysics => Black Hole => Black Hole Conditions => Neutron Star".

In the Neutron Star page, see electron and neutron degeneracy, since they describe what you are asking. I think you will find this site very informative, also with a good index to find more stuff.

I think that the 'collapsed star' syndrome is a good model for how neutron stars form, since the star's energy generating capacity becomes too weak to stem off the star's gravitational force, so gravity takes over. This collapse forces electrons together, but because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, where no two electrons can have the same quantum number, and the Chandrasekhar limit a threshold is reached where the star can collapse no further. The greater the star mass, the faster this limit is broken, forcing electrons and neutrons to combine into neutrons, which is the neutron star's new equilibrium. At that neutron star equilibrium between gravity and neutron energy, the star is exceptionally dense and exhibits immense spin, some at hundreds of revolutions per second. If the star mass is too great, then there is no limit and gravity's crush continues until it becomes a black hole.

Well, at least that's how its understood at present, though I am not entirely sure that is actually what happens. I suspect, without knowing, that the gravity of a collapsing star takes over because, once the star e.m. energy is spent, the space-vacuum itself is gravity in its most powerful form. So a total collapse of star energy becomes once again total gravity, if my hunch is right, not to contradict current theory but merely to modify it. This could be verified by studying energy outputs for various white and brown dwarfs, and neutron stars, to see if there is a correlation between energy output and gravitational intensity. If this proves so, it greatly simplifies what gravity is, since we would then have an index showing the relationship between energy output and gravity field intensity for any given star. Of course, that would necessitate a non-constant gravity, as opposed to a universally constant gravity theorized at present.

Can the star's collapse "impact be so great, involving a black hole, that for an instant, gravity ceases to exist?" This is an interesting idea, and if gravity ceased momentarily, one could expect a kind of 'big bang', or at least a 'mini-bang' from the black hole. Mind, if true, the original 'Big Bang' originated outside of space and time, so any comparison here would be tenuous. Another consideration is that black holes at galactic centers seem to radiate a powerful jet of charged ions out the axis, which may be proto-hydrogen atoms being created and cast off into space at very high velocities. If so, these proto-hydrogen atoms may later become actual hydrogen, so that black holes would in effect be re-seeding the universe from within whatever they are. Here's another 'if': If gravity is greater by orders of magnitude in the energy poor, cold, regions of deep space, then that environment would be conducive to yield a much higher gravity reading for each hydrogen atom, forcing them together. In sufficient numbers, under sufficient gravitational pressure, these condensed hydrogen interstellar clouds could then re-ignite into stars again, either as hot stars like our Sun, or relatively cool stars, such as white and brown dwarfs. Of course, there is no way to theorize this 'if' because we do not yet know if gravity is everywhere the same or not.

Can gravity momentarily cease to exist? That depends upon what it is: If gravity is a natural condition of space, a very strong force akin to the nucleus strong force, then the only way to stop it is to 'big bang' it with high energy; if it is a universal constant as now believed, a very weak force, then it is a possible. However, since I see gravity and electromagnetic energy as inverse corollaries, which when applied against each other creates the atom of 'one' minus the very small residual gravity we experience here, I think of gravity as being weak in our region only because the Sun is a very powerful source of energy, and gravity then cancels only when things explode from too much energy.

Remember, I too am not a physicist (my work is on Wall Street), so we are both only bouncing around ideas. But even us 'outsiders' are allowed seeing physics from perspectives different from those accepted in the mainstream, and maybe even discover something of value. In fact, though I aced math and chemistry, physics was always an enigma to me, not because of the onerous math but because the theory never really made sense.

Hope you enjoy this exchange, for it is fun for me. J

Ivan

Thank you for the great website :) I read about the limits in describing collapsing stars and found it very interesting.

As a star grows, it expands. It burns all it's hydrogen and starts fusing helium, expanding and getting hotter ... all the way to iron, which the star cannot fuse. At this point, the star no longer has the fussion energy left to support it's expansion, and gravity does take over. Gravity takes the super hot stuff and implodes it with such force, that limits may be 'broken' and a new equilibrium reached, stretching the 'fabric' of space-time.

Is the energy output of 'dead' stars from the processing of new matter, such as pulling in a live star? Would 'rogue' black holes give off energy levels like those detected from the centers of galaxies, where there is plenty of stuff to digest?

If a black hole is matter compressed to it's limit, then it contains no space. If it contains no space, then it exists outside of space-time. At the threshold of a black hole, we theorize that time stands still. If we could horseshoe around a black hole, and return to earth, we would be in earth's future. (Can go forward in time, but not backwards!) Time seems to stand still from the perspective of a black hole. That is because it exists outside of space-time, and space-time dilates around it. Maybe there is some 'limit' to which space could then 'contract' ??

Gravity and time have a definate relation. That has been proven by the difference in the way atom clocks keep time when removed from the gravitational affects of earth. I believe gravity remains a function of mass and distance. I don't think gravity changes it's properties, but theoretically, most anything is possible :)

I would like to think that our universe is reseeding itself. Planets form from 'star dust', from which we emerged. It is amazing that 'dust' such as we, can begin to comprehend the grandness of it all :) Yes, it is fun :)

Ivan, I guess what I meant (and I didn't say it right) was that for the gravity of a black hole to digest other matter, the other matter has to be closeby. By 'rogue', I was referring to black holes that are not near other matter, and are not changing. Maybe 'isolated' would have been a better term. I believe that the energy observed by black holes currently, is based on binary pairs, and centers of galaxies, where there is plenty of matter closeby to digest. What about those 'stranded' away from everything else? Are they giving off energy? Have we detected any such thing?

There has to be some limit for black holes, whereby galaxies are born. How it all ties to one single universe, remains a mystery to me. Since gravity is a function of distance, and everything is flying away from each other from the big bang (for ever and ever . . .), then entropy is possible. But then again, I'm assuming a balloon shaped universe is expanding.

I do tend to think that there are simple explanations for things when one understands the laws of nature. However, many things turn out to be not as they seem. I admire those who work hard to put the math behind the ideas, coming up with new truths and wonderful discoveries. Becky

Becky, Ivan,

One factor to think about given there appears to be blank or empty spaces in the universe, but can such emptiness, blanks, or spaces ... actually be...?

In other words, is there a place in the universe where nothing is near...?

Because the universe is so vast ... me think everyone is putting too many eggs into a basket of nothingness that is without potential to even be.

In other words ... I don't think or believe that there is a place in the universe void of matter; therefore, my bet is on Gravity Probe B to produce the answer, and the answer is - Einstein was totally wrong.

J____

Hi J___, Becky,

The 'nothingness' of space is chockfull of energy, as the people at CalPhysics write in "Zero Point Energy": http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

"Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations." (italics mine)

GP-B will be very important in solving the GR riddle, as to whether space-time works as now theorized. Of course, with a little math finagling, maybe even that will not convince the 'believers'.

:-))

J_ and Ivan,

The Gravity Probe B is expected to begin collecting data in June sometime! The changes in the spins of the four gyroscopes will measure how space-time is warped by earth, and how earth's rotation drags space-time around with it. This will be analyzed for a year (precisely why space shuttles are so important)!

The idea of zero-point energy is very intriquing. This may go along with my thinking that when matter is compressed so completely as to squeeze out all space, then the body exists outside of space-time. Yet, it still has the dimensions of volume, of 3-D space and location. This 4th dimension - space-time is very mysterious, indeed. Space-time may very well have energy of it's own, and some type of limits, in relation to super-condensed, super massive bodies. (??!)

Ivan, Your Axiomatic Equation research is very interesting, and although a little over my head it makes me smile. Mathematics defines perfection. I tried to explain once to a perfectionist, from a philosophical view, that a circle is only perfect in concept. That a perfect circle is contained in it's entirety within it's equation. But no matter how 'fine' the tools, a circle in reality can never be perfect, because at some microscopic level, it won't be perfectly round! That's the true beauty of Mathematics, that it embodies perfection; something that in reality, we can only approach :)

I am returning to my second job early this-next morning (took 8 weeks off), and will not have as much time now. However, I have subscribed to updates on the Gravity Probe B, and will drop in to humancafe whenever I can. :) Thanks much for the responses, ideas and websites :) Becky S (be back)

Becky, Ivan,

The problem all of us have when referring to space ... void ... nothing ... is because the concept of ... nothing ... is strictly an abstract fabrication within our mind that defines ... no thing is in that place.

In reality ... there is something everywhere, even the interstice betwixt orbiting electrons and the nucleus of an atom is completely filled with something. In this there is no doubt, which causes all sorts of problems for mathematical equations because we represent them as nothing with the symbol -0-, and use it as a placeholder, but in reality any such a place cannot be, for the minute we give existence to that ... nothing ... we have in fact turned it into ... something, which in reality there is something there … in that place we identify as … nothing.

It is not possible to objectify nothing, so nothing is only a representation of ... something ... we cannot sense or detect, or identify.

When modern science decides to deal with the limitations of language, perhaps we can begin to overcome the multitude of problems now being taught by proponents of what is bad science. This leads us to the meaning of basic. Basic means - the basis of, or the starting point; however, according to modern science there are 105 basic particles (or at least at last formal count that I am aware of). How can that be possible? If there are in fact 105 basic particles, which particle is the basis for construction of matter? Only one can be basic; hence, there is only one basic particle – to believe otherwise is simply bad science … primarily because of the linguistic methods we employ today. This has led us to terms which are not … realistic … such as “virtual entities,” which in this case equals – imaginary – or not real, but required in order to make sense of Special Relativity, and Relativity. Question is: “What is a virtual particle?” The answer is, virtual particles do not exist. Science is madly searching for the Higgs Boson … but it is not theoretically possible for such a particle to exist; yet it is bad science that has led us to the search for the Higgs Boson.

The Einstein/Minkowski concept of space-time is wrong headed for it demands that we acknowledge time as an entity, and give existence to it, and when we do that, all sorts of strange things begin to happen such as, reference frames, which are required to make any sense of Relativity and Special Relativity. What is a reference frame … again, it is an “imagined thing,” which does not exist … but when we give it existence, we have in essence put … something … where bad science declares … nothing exists.

When we begin to receive raw data from Gravity Probe B, we will process the data by using two formats … conventional math, and Omegatron Dynamics. Please note here that conventional math is digital, but Omegatron Dynamics is purely analog, which is how we can prove … there is no place where … nothing is. The universe exists in the analog world of reality, and not the digital world of hypothetical computations.

J____

Hi.
There is no 'void' or 'nothingness', for we exist within space-time. I don't believe that space-time 'has' gravity, but I do believe it has properties unknown to us. I prefer not to define the vacuum of space as 'nothing'.

1- Time does exist, and is related to gravity as defined by mass.
2- Time is also relative to speed.
Someone stated "Because the clocks of different observers run at different rates, depending on their velocities, the time for a given observer is a property of that observer."
3- Speed happens through space, so speed is relative to space as defined by distance.
4- The farther away we see, the farther back in time we are seeing. So time and distance in space are obviously related.
5- Gravity is related to speed, in the force of it's pull.
6- Gravity is related to space in 2 ways, by it's force being a function of distance; and in that maximum gravity is matter in space, that contains no space.

So, I ask you, how could space have gravity, if the absense of space in a body yields maximum gravity??

I don't believe there currently is an equation that unifies speed, space/distance, time and gravity/mass. Am I wrong about that?

Someone also said "Gravity and inertia are two sides of the same force." And, "Gravity cannot be a variable since it is wholly dependent upon accumulation of mass." (is a function of mass)

Ivan, you had stated, "Why is the defining solar mass of neutron star versus black hole about three solar masses? It is because it calculates out that if the mass is greater, the speed of sound upon collapse would exceed the speed of light, which is an astrophysical taboo." This cannot possibly be.

I also disagree with the statement at this website: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/death_spiral_sidebar_010111.html
“A black hole, on the other hand, has no surface -- just a point of infinite density surrounded by the event horizon -- so there is no matter for the surface to strike.” Common sense indicates that a black hole has some dimension, representing solid matter of some measurable volume (just because it is black does not mean it is not 3-D). I do not believe in black hole singularities, or that earth has a black hole.

Also, note that rapid spin warps the sphere that is rotating, and it bulges at the equator. Black holes appear to suck up matter as a disk because of it's disk-like shape. Disk-shaped large stars have been discovered. The perfectly spherical event horizon is a deceptive model!

Furthermore, I disagree with the analogy at this site:
http://63.111.59.137/archive/output.cfm?ID=1068
The quote “Imagine Earth immersed in a viscous fluid, he said, like molasses. Spin the planet, and the molasses, depending on just how viscous it is, will be pulled around with it. Any object in the molasses will be pulled around as well. This frame-dragging effect should be most noticeable close to the rotating Earth, and should eventually fade to virtually nothing farther away.”
Since the earth contains space within it’s atoms, a better analogy would be spinning a soaked dense sponge in it’s liquid.

Also, solar storms can displace satellites. I’m sure all of this has been considered in the 40 years of planning of the Gravity Probe.

Thinking outside the box and brainstorming is great, but I am a pragmatist! Common sense should be considered.

If I had the time, I would like to collect all the constants known to physical science, including properties of elasticity to the speed of light, and I would engage in a study of all the constants altogether. It might be very revealing.

Becky

Ivan
"Why is the defining solar mass of neutron star versus black hole about three solar masses? It is because it calculates out that if the mass is greater, the speed of sound upon collapse would exceed the speed of light, which is an astrophysical taboo."

I reread this and it now makes sense :) Getting too tired of reading for one night !
Becky

5- Gravity is related to speed, in the force of it's pull. AND, I MIGHT ADD, in the momentum gained with increased speed.
Becky
Good night!

Quark predicts heavier Higgs NewScientist.com article explains why.

This may be more fun that watching popcorn pop, salt and buttered, though there may be mathematical equations to predict how it will pop, which proves the validity of the quarkcorn theory. Only fully popped kernels need be measured, of course.

*smile*

Relativity and Temperature

Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 77, Suppl. 1, 2003, pp. S179 - S182.

I. Avramov


SUMMARY

Phenomenological considerations demonstrate that temperature and pressure are invariant with Lorentz transformations. Consider two observers one at rest and the other at relative speed b=v/c in respect to a thermodynamic system. If the system is in equilibrium at a triple point of a given P vs T diagram, both observers will see three phases in equilibrium, independent on b. For instance these could be vapours, ice and water. Therefore both will conclude that the system is at a temperature of the triple point (273.16 K for H2O).
Important experimental indication is the distribution law of temperature of distant stars. Because of the universe expansion they moove at a relatively high speed. Therefore, according to Planck they shoud be cold and unvisible. On the other hand, according to Ott they shoud be infinitely hot and bright. As soon as their temperature is within the “normal” limits one has to conclude that the temperature is invarint with Lorentz transformations.
If temperature is invariant with speed then entropy is not. This put serious problems to statistical physics




Introduction
Relativistic generalization of thermodynamics was considered by the founders of relativity and quantum mechanics [1-5]. In 1907 Planck assumed that the First and the Second Law of Thermodynamics keep their form in all inertial frames. He menaged to demonstrate that pressure is invariant with the Lorentz transformations. In the same time he find that if Qo is the heat of a system at rest with its inertial frame Ko then a distinct inertial reference frame K, moving with uniform velocity u in respect to Ko would ascribe to this system a lower heat contents
, (1)
where b=u/c. However, in 1963, this results was challenged by Ott [6] who reached exactly the opposite result:
(2)
The difference originates from the different definitions of force and impulces. Result of Ott was supported by later on by Arzelies [7]. Recently, Landsberg and Matsas [8], considering Unruh-DeWitt detector concludes that, for black body radiation, continuous Lorentz transformations of temperature cannot exist.
Assuming invariance of the entropy, Planck concludes that temperature T should transform in the same way as the heat
(3)
Applying the same logics the Ott’s approach leads to
(4)


Phenomenological Considerations
The aim of present article is to demonstrate that from the point of view of phenomenological thermodynamics the pressure and the temperature are invariant in respect to Lorentz transformations. According to the first Einstein Postulate the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. Note that no thermal equilibrium nor thermal contact needs to be established between the observer and the investigated system. Therefore no interchange of energy (heat), or of momentum, between them is needed. This is the reason why Planck spoke of a universal law for temperature, or pressure transformation between inertial observers.
We consider an equilibrium thermodynamic system at rest with respect to the frame Ko . If the system is at a triple point of the corresponding P Vs T diagram, three phases will coexist. For instance these could be graphite, diamond and liquid carbon (at extremely high pressure and temperature) or it could be the triple point of ice and water etc. The same three phases will be seen from any other frame K. As soon as they can coexist at one P,T point only, the temperature and the pressure of this system will be the same in all frames. Temperature is measured by thermometer calibrated at certain equilibrium points. Best recommended is the ideal gas bulb thermometer calibrated at 0 K and at the triple point of water 273.16 K. If an observer at rest with Ko see ice and water in equilibrium then all observers will see the same phases in equilibrium and will conclude that the system is at the same temperature. Therefore one can conclude that pressure and temperature are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformation.
The transformation law for temperature can be investigated experimentally. It is sufficient to study the temperature distribution law of distant stars. Because of the universe expansion their speed is very high. According to Eq.(4) they shoud be cold and not seen. According to Eq.(5), however, they shoud be infinitely bright. Their temperature is within the “normal” limits just because temperature is invarint with Lorentz transformations.
It can be shown that temperature is invariant even for non-equilibrium systems. Let consider, for instance, a system consisting of a charged battery connected to a heater with a link that is conducting at some temperature interval and isolating otside this interval. For example, it could be a wire of high temperature superconductor being an isolator at room temperature. If the observer at Ko is at room temperature he will see no electrical current and the battery will remain charged. In the same time the observer at K should see (if temperature is not invariant) that the battery is discharging, heating the surrounding. As this process is irreversible, the observer will never see the opposite process, the surroundings to cool spontaneously, charging back the battery, even if it accelerates. Therefore an absurd situation will appear if the second observer arrives by the first one at Ko . At the same spacetime point the first observer should see the battery charged, while the second one should see it uncharged. The conclusion is that temperature is invariant with speed, for both equilibrium and nonequilibrium systems. It is invariant even if the framework is non-inertial. This does not mean that temperature is invariant if the system is accelerating or introduced in strong gravity field. The latter will be a problem for future investigation.
The set of relativity transformation laws for the volume V, temperature T and pressure P
(5)
is sufficient to determine the Lorentz transformation for other thermodynamic variables. First, note that Eq.(5) together with the well known expression dS=dQ/T requires that entropy has the same transformation law as the heat. Following Boltzmann
(6)
Therefore, one has to conclude that either the Boltzmann constant kB or the number of realizations of the system W , or both of them are b dependent. There is an additional indication that Boltzmann constant is not invariant wit respect to Lorentz transformations originating from the equation of state of ideal gas
(7)
Since both sides of Eq.(6) should follow the same transformation law, Eq.(7) will be satisfied in any frame only if
(8)
It should be noted that Eq.(8) is in agreement with Eq.(6) if Plancks transformation law for the element of heat, Eq.(1) is satisfied. Following the same logics one can derive the transformation laws from the known thermodynamic relations.
Temperature is measured by thermometer calibrated at certain equilibrium points. Best recommended is the ideal gas bulb thermometer calibrated at T=0 and at the triple point of water. If the bulb is coaxial with the direction of motion Planck temperature will be measured. By definition T=0 is the temperature where the pressure of ideal gas would become zero (if that were possible). The second point, called defined point, was chosen in 1968 by international agreement to be the triple point of water, where the temperature is 273.16 K. Temperature is a scalar, therefore it cannot depend on the direction. Let us compare two thermometers. The bulb of the one that is ^ to the motion axes will be unchanged, while the bulb of thermometer coaxial with the direction of motion will be shorter. However, this does not mean that temperature is lower. This simply means that thermometer has to be recalibrated because at every point there is only one temperature.
Here we conclude that temperature is invariant with speed in disagreement of Planck and of Ott (Eqs. (2,3)). It is important to study the temperature distribution law of distant stars. Because of the universe expansion their speed is very high. According to Eq.(2) they shoud be cold and not seen. According to Eq.(3), however, they shoud be infinitely bright. Note, there is important difference between the frequency shift of light caused by Doppler effect and a shift caused by temperature change. According to Planck’s formula the intensity I depends on frequency n and temperature T as follows:

(8)
It is seen that it is possible to distinguish the intensity change caused by the Doppler effect from the shift caused by the Lorenz transformation of the h/kBT product. Moreower, the Doppler effect depends on whether the object is moving towards or from the observer.

Conclusions
Our main conclusion is that temperature and pressure are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations. This comes from both the requirement of invariance of the triple points in P Vs T diagrams and from the experimental observation of fast moving stars. In the same time the product of entropy and temperature must have a relativity transformation equivalent to that predicted by Planck for the element of heat. This phenomenon is a tempting problem for the statistical thermodynamics. It seems the simplest explanation is that Boltzmann constant is not invariant in respect to relative speed of the object.



References
1. Einstein A., Jahrb. Radioaktivitaet Elektronik 4 (1907) 411
2. Planck M., Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 26 (1908) 1
3. Pauli W., “Theory of Relativity” Pergammon Press , NY 1958 , p.134 ; Die Relativitaetstheorie , Encyclopedia der mathemathischen Vissenschaften Vol.2 (Teubner, Leipzig 1921).
4. Tolman R. “Relativity thermodynamics and cosmology” Claredon, Oxford 1934
5. Von Laue M. Die Relativitaetstheorie 1. Band 7th edition Vieweg, Braunschweig 1961
6. Ott H., “Lorentz transformation der Warme und der Temperatur” , Z. PHYS 175: (1) 70-& 1963
7. Arzelies H., Nuovo Cimento B 35 (1965) 792
8. Landsberg P., Matsas G., Phys. Lett. A 223 (1996) 401

Dear Avramov,

Thanks for posting your paper on Relativity and Temperature. Here is a related article from Space.com, A Cool Study, Lots of Hot Air, No Answers which talks about the X-ray brightness and heat generated by the gas near our galactic black hole. It may be a function of very high spin velocity in that region, though that is not known for sure. Can Relativity answer these questions, that Laws of Thermodynamics are valid equally in all inertial frames? This has come us as a contentious topic of debate in astrophysics today. See: "Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics" by Paul Marmet. Also, there is another debate as per Open Letter to the Scientific Community which addresses this.

Can Relativity explain why the universe is not brilliant with light, as per Olber's paradox, or Ott's, or why it is not cold and invisible, as per Planck's? I suspect the universe space vacuum is full of energy we have not yet detected directly, which may give rise to the so-called "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter", though I realize this adds another layer of speculation rather than answer the question. We certainly live in interesting times!

Ivan

(Ps: It may be the equations in your text did not copy over, if so, send them to me via my email link above, and I will load them up if possible.)

Three New Energy Patents of Multi trillion dollar potential. See www.intersurf.com/~propul. Let's don't what? Let's don't continue to waste 3/4ths the energy when accel or when decel. That's what we are doing.Richard Foster 225 261 4859