What about Light?

One wonders why energy radiation travels at a constant velocity, more or less, and remains constant for any observer regardless of velocity, as it is now believed. The variable then becomes redshift in relation to the observer's motion. The question that comes to mind is: Why light at constant velocity?

In Harold W.G. Allen's paper "Cosmic Perspective", there is an observation that light is restricted to the "escape velocity" of gravitational quanta.

Of course I have a different perspective, that the escape velocity of light, such as generated by a released photon from within an atom when the energy shell drops a quanta, is of necessity an "escape velocity" from the atom. This means inversely that the super gravity which held the electromagnetic quanta of light in the first place, what holds together the atom shell, is of the same magnitude as the escape velocity of light. This could be further taken to say that this is a constant velocity because the force holding light quantas, or photons, in place is a constant force. So supergravity within the atom, or black hole at the galaxy center, is inversely proportional to the escape velocity of light, which is the speed of light. So it is not the "escape velocity" of gravitational quanta that regulates the light speed constant, but rather the escape velocity of light quanta from their gravitational hold. This makes more sense per the new physics of the Axiomatic Equation.

Another observation within this above mentioned paper is that there is an abundance of high redshift quasars in one direction, but a dearth of them at right angle. If I understand this correctly, and assuming the expanding universe idea is bunk, then it is a natural consequence of the velocity and direction within which we are traveling, and not more than this. The universe has motion throughout, but redshift cannot be taken to mean it is expanding, rather it is to mean that light passing through the great density of gravity in space has to redshift. The fact that it redshifts more on one direction versus another is merely an indication of our travel within space. Indeed, more distant quasars will redshift more, but not equally in all directions, since there is one direction in which we are traveling where they will redshift less. Though very likely we are not at the center of the universe, it should follow that there will be discrepancies in redshift in relation to our motion within it. Otherwise, all redshifts should prove to be equal, since they are a function of light passing through the great gravity density of cold space.

Another phenomenon that bears thinking is that the attraction between opposite magnetic charges is approximately 10^40 times greater than the gravitational attraction between protons, which is about 5.9x10^-39. Per the Axiomatic Equation, the magnetic value B_m ranges from zero to one in inverse proportion to the gravitational constant g, which also ranges from zero to one. In effect, the two are opposite forces, as the equation predicts, and in a region of very low energy and high gravity, the magnetic value should be very low. In our region, where our sun provides abundant light energy, the gravitational value is very small, 10^-39, while the magnetic value is its inverse, a very high B_m=~1, or nearly one. This is significant in that light and gravity are opposing forces, which are resolved in the atom, where mass is always equal to one, and from the atom then leak out the remainder forces, which are magnetism and gravity, themselves inversely proportional as well.

Well, that's all for now, but something to think about: why are distant objects in "perspective"?

Ivan

PERSPECTIVE IMAGE = 1/distance. Can it be that simple?

Newton's Inverse Square Law should be applicable to how perspective works. After all, we are only seeing light at a distance, so the image formed by this light for our eyes should likewise obey the same principle that governs all forms of radiation, which is the inverse square law. This is best described as Intensity being equal to one over the distance squared:

I = 1/d²

However, in computing this in reverse, to see if it generates perspective, an odd result happens, in that the lines become curved. This cannot be correct, as anyone looking down parallel railroad tracks will know that perspective is the result of straight lines. Therefore, some adjustment needs to be made to make the inverse square law, which governs light, to more correctly reflect what it is we see. The solution to this is to substitute Intensity with perspective Image, which at a distance is divided by the distance squared. Thus, the resulting equation is:

I_image = d/d², which is also: I_image = 1/d , or more correctly, using the same for radiation inverse square:

I = S/4pr²

The important thing here is that perspective is made up of straight rather than curved lines, and the equation for perspective must result in the same:

Therefore, I_image = 1/d, also as:

I_img = 4pr/4pr² = 1/r

which then plots as a constant straight line in relation to distance and the image perceived. The problem then is one of angle of viewing. If one's eye level is with the tracks, the resulting receding image is a straight line across meeting where the two parallel tracks touch at some great vanishing point. To call this vanishing point "infinity" is only a convenience, since in fact it is finite. The greater the distance, the slower the merging of the two parallel lines, though from the eye's point of view, it is always at the same rate of = 1/d, which is a function of = d/d², distance over the distance squared. This can be verified by taking a small frame with a grid on it, and holding it close to the eye so that a whole image of what is being studied fits within it. The distant objects, say equally spaced telephone poles, should follow that pattern of receding in size by 1/d, or 1/r, so that a pole twice the distance should appear to be half the size of the nearer. Another problem that arises, again with the parallel tracks, is that if they are viewed from a higher angle, or from above, their perspective changes. However, if from above, the vanishing points are dual, one for each end of the track, and should still be in proportion to 1/d as these distances are viewed. It may take triangulation to gauge the distance, but the result should be the same. It may be that our eyes are designed to see these "distance over the distance-squared" relationships naturally, so even with only one eye, the same perspective exists for us. Then the brain rearranges this perspective image so that things can look for us either bigger or smaller in relation to each other, like the full moon rising over the horizon seeming apparently bigger than overhead, though it is not. Perspective is simply the inverse of distance, period.

A practical application would be a scope that is able to gauge both distance and/or size together, by this formula. No doubt this was already done with bombing target view finders, so I'm just whistling in the air here, though don't know for sure.

Ivan

NATURE OF LIGHT WAVELENGTH

In Atomus Summus-2 it says that photon lambda, l = ~2.2087x10^-42 meters, what satisfies Einstein's famous E=mc^2, may be a summation of wavelengths from 10^-3 m to 10^-9 m. This is interesting because it happens to also be the grouping of lambda for light on both sides of the energy of one photons equal one electron volt, eV =1, which ranges from 10^-3 eV to 10^3 eV. This can be seen in the chart at http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/ Radiography/Physics/nature.htm, where the wavelengths of electromagnetic energy on both sides of visible light, and what is generated by our local star, ranges from infrared-microwaves at 10^-3 m to X-rays at 10^-9 m range. It seems to be more than mere coincidence that this is the summation of the range that satisfies the Axiomatic Equation of the new physics.

Ivan

WHAT ABOUT LIGHT OF SUPERNOVAE?

The current belief is that the accelerated redshift of light emenating from distant supernovae stars proves the expanding universe, and that this universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to "dark energy". This is a fantastic story worthy of myth, and yet it is widely believed. But what if the universe is NOT expanding, how can this increased redshift of light be understood?

We know light redshifts while passing through gravity. We also can theorize, per the new physics of the Axiomatic Equation, that when energy collapses, gravity increases in inverse proportion. Taken together, it would make much more sense to reasonable people that the sudden collapse of energy experienced when a star goes supernova would release a tremendous burst of sudden gravity, which would instantly redshift the light escaping from this explosive phenomenon. That would handily explain the increased redshift of light from distant supernovae, which has nothing to do with their motion, nor with an expanding universe. What we see is light responding to a sudden surge in gravity, nothing more.

One wonders how grown and intelligent mature individuals can fall for this accelerated expanding universe, and then seeking fantastic stories to make it believable. Is this not some strange sort of oxymoron? And yet, this is what we are being fed by the experts as "proof": Hubble chases exploding stars BBC News. Also Distant supernova shows Universe defied gravity, accelerating faster and faster... really?

Ever wonder why supernovae are all so far away? Redshift readings may be misunderstood, which then means they may not be so far away as we think, nor at the "beginning" time of the universe. In fact, supernovae may be rather unexotic, once understood, though it's too bad for the living planets that happen to be near them... poof!

MORE...

Here's more learned stuff on Supernovae: "Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe" http://www.supernova.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf

Note how dependent the whole structure of an accelerating universe is built on the original assumption, that redshift equates with receding motion and expanding universe. This idea is so well accepted today that all of cosmology is seen through this prism, with rather odd conclusions that don't equate with other branches of physics, nor itself, so that exotic constants and adjustments must be made. The Axiomatic Equation results are so much cleaner, though not necessarily fact until proven. Also note at the end of the paper:

"One is tempted to speculate that these ingredients are add-ons, like the Ptolemaic epicycles, to preserve an incomplete theory."

DUAL NATURE: Is light photons (quanta) or waves? Or is it positive-negative dual charges, which then interacts with...?

Dual Nature of Light, Nobel Prizes:
http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/ekspong/

Note how the Nobel Prize was not given to Einstein for his Relativity Theory, which has to do with gravity, but only for his work on light, an electromagnetic energy. We are still in the dark over gravity versus light, for now. De Broglie got the Nobel Prize for his work on the wave nature of the electron. Neils Bohr saw the atom as being of positive and negative charges. But none of these have yet reconciled the dual nature of electromagnetic energy as being both a positive and negative charge. Why do positive/negative like charges repel, while opposite charges attract? How could light have both these charges traveling together without either attracting or repelling? Quantum Electrodynamics may explain the dual nature of light as either a wave or photon, but not the dual charges. Is there room here for research into this dual nature of charges, a new version of Feynman's work, with future Nobel Prizes in store?

Why does light incorporate both positive and negative charges, without either splitting apart or canceling out while traveling at c? Is there some property of that velocity that allows for this light to travel as both a wave and photon? And when this light hits a black hole or atom nucleus, is it then once again redivided into positive and negative values, so the nucleus is positive, while the electron negative?

Is light both an electric and magnetic phenomenon when at c? And if so, then is mass as atoms traveling at c also an electric phenomenon, as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation, rather than swelling to infinite mass as currently predicted? Could this be in the nature of light, that its dual positive-negative nature becomes electric when the atomic mass it modifies itself is at c? Hmm... interesting... how would gravity fit into this dual charge nature of light?

There is certainly room for serious research into the duality natures of light.

Also see: Electromagnetics: http://ethel.as.arizona.edu/~collins/astro/subjects/electromag1.html

Ivan

STOP AND GO UNIVERSE... OR SCIENCE?

The NewScientist.com article "Astronomers date Universe;s 'cosmic jerk'" makes interesting reading, if not pure fancy. Note how to accommodate for redshift that is higher than the supernova brightness would indicate, there is a rather creative solution for the problem. The article says:

---

Quote:

They found the light was brighter than expected from their red shifts, indicating that expansion was decelerating at that time.

---

PARADOX OF A PARADOX

I had written elsewhere on these boards how in a relative universe, our velocity could also be understood as v=c, so that we do not know for certain that we are not already traveling at the speed of light. Of course, Einstein's Special Relativity would indicate that this is impossible, since nothing can travel faster than c, and if we alter our present velocity in any direction, we may be danger of violating this prime principle, and thus travel at above light speed, at v=c+v, which is forbidden. The predicted slowing of time, or shortened length dimensions, or mass expanding to infinite "relativistic mass" are never observed by us in our present state of things, so we conclude that we cannot be traveling at v=c. However, this is due to a circular reasoning, since if we assume SR to be correct, that in not violating these expected results of traveling at light speed, we assume our velocity to be substantially below light speed. By making this assumption, however, we are violating logic, since we may be at light speed, but simply not experiencing any of the expected results, which proves nothing.

This faulty reasoning can best be illustrated with the "Twins Paradox". It is presently believed, per Einstein's SR, that if one of the twins remains on Earth while the other takes off on a very fast space ship, the one remaining behind will experience normal time, while the one traveling will experience time slowing down, so that when they meet again, the Earthbound twin is now old, whereas the space traveling twin is considerably younger. So what's wrong with this picture?

If the universal relativity is equal all around, then whether the ship is traveling at high velocity in relation to Earth, or in effect Earth is traveling at great velocity in relation to the space ship, they are the same. This could mean that the twin on Earth is traveling at high velocity, so his time is slowing down and aging less, whereas the twin on the space ship is experiencing normal time, and is aging normally. However, this is a paradox of a paradox, since it cannot be both ways. We cannot have the twin on the space ship aging more slowly while the twin on Earth does not, same as we cannot have the twin on Earth aging more slowly while the twin on the space ship does not. Hence, the "twin paradox" is a self canceling double paradox, and thus void. In relativistic terms, this is simply bad logic.

I know I am not the author of this double paradox, but it shows to illustrate how by a sleight of hand we had been misled into thinking that somehow we are at "rest" while things moving away from us are at some "relative velocity" to us. In fact, this is not true, for all things are constantly at relative velocity to each other, and there is no stable rest velocity from which this may be judged, which means essentially there is no such thing as "rest mass". This is true whether or not the universe is expanding, or whether atomic clocks beat more slowly while passing through gravity fields, or whether the half life of particles slows down at great velocities. In fact, all of these may have other explanations which are more sensible than what is currently believed.

Finally, why should mass expand as velocity approaches light speed? We think this is due to the fact that it takes more energy to accelerate a particle in a particle accelerator as the particle approaches light speed. However, there may be a subtle fallacy here that had been overlooked by the scientific community, which seems so eager to prove Einstein right, which can be easily corrected. We must remember that in accelerating particles in an accelerator we are somewhat at a disadvantage. While the particle is increasing its velocity, we are not, since the accelerator is planted on Earth. So each burst of energy from the magnetic fields accelerating the particle are doing so from the same position, meaning it is stationary in terms of its position on the planet, whereas to truly accelerate the particle beyond v=c, the magnetic fields would have to be traveling with the particle and boosting the velocity from a reference frame that is moving with it. In effect, the accelerator would have to be spinning along with the particle, and magnetically boosting its velocity accordingly. Obviously, we do not know how to do this, since our accelerators are not spinning alongside the particles they are accelerating. When we can accomplish this feat, I suspect we will discover the particle will easily surpass the speed of light, without experiencing all the dimensional distortions currently predicted, except that we here on Earth will likely no longer see it, wherever it goes. Conversely, if we can learn to apply continuous force to any space ship, rather than just giving it a forceful boost and then letting it coast, we will discover that we will be able to travel at many multiples of light speed, without the horrific side effects predicted, nor drinking from the elixir of youth.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the paradox of a paradox, which is amusing, except that it reveals a sleight of hand, a kind of relativistic magic, which does not do science justice. We're all "humans in space", and we're all traveling at undetermined relativistic velocities, which may very well be that we already are at v=c, or faster. And if so, then SR should be discarded along with the alchemists's formulations for turning lead into gold. Just because we think of ourselves as being relatively still, and all that we can observe travels in some relative velocity to ourselves, does not mean the rest of the universe has to obey us. I think it can be safely said that we are not at the center of the universe, nor is "time" anything other than a notch on a stick.

However, alas, if mass is already at v=c, then it opens a new problem: any energy generated by this mass, which itself radiates at c, of necessity makes itself felt at c^2. But what does this mean? Is new mass being created somewhere at where this c^2 is merging... in another reality?

Anybody disagree? Or, can we prove "unreasonableness" with reason?

Cheers, Ivan

WHAT IS THE TOTAL ENERGY OF CRAB NEUTRON STAR?

Or, is luminosity and gravity inversely proportional? Is Planck's constant not so constant?

If we take current readings on the Crab Nebula's neutron star, as per Chandra X-ray Observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/crabfact.html , we can "guesstimate" the total energy output of that star.

We know it spins very fast, 30 times per second, so that it has very great gravity. This gravity is estimated as a 100 billion times greater than that for the Sun, so that it is a factor of 10^11 times greater than Newton's G = 6.67x10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-1. This means in effect G on Crab is G = 6.67x10^0, a very great gravity indeed.

Using the conversion formula for gravity, we can now "guesstimate" the atomic g, per the equation: G^2 = g c^2 pi^2, so that we get:

(6.67)^2 = g (9x10^16) (9.866) , which gives us g = 5x10^-15

Now, with g = 5x10^-15, we can figure what is the Energy, by first computing the electromagnetic lambda of the Crab's output. This can be achieved with the Axiomatic Equation's portion:

E = hc/l = (1-g)c^2, which can be further simplified into:

h/cl = 1-g, if the c^2 is taken out, so that bringing over the g, we get:

h/(cl) +g = 1, using the knowns:

h =?
c = 3x10^8
m = 1
g = 5x10^-15
l = ?

I have "h" as question mark because for the equation to balance, where it all equals "one", the numerator of the equation cannot be smaller than g. This means "h" cannot be smaller than 10^-15, which means Planck's constant must be greater for the Crab neutron than h= 6.626x10^-39 on Earth.

Taking the original value for h = 6.626x10^-34, per Planck, plugging it in we get:

(6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)(lambda) = 1 - (5x10^-15), which is: lambda = (6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)(1- 5x10^-15) = l

which becomes 6.626x10^-34/2.999999999..x10^8 = 2.2087x10^-42 = l, so this is nearly exactly what is h for Earth and our Sun, which it cannot be if gravity is so much greater than here, per the equation.

However, if the numerator over the denominator is to equal a number that is 5x10^-15 smaller than one, or h/cl = 1- (5e-15), and we take a numerator/denominator value no greater than 1 - (5e-15), which is 0.99... --> (with 15 digits of 9), or 1/(1+1e-15), and we cap the maximum for h at g, we get different results. This is justified by the fact that if cl=1, such as happens when light self cancels, then g cannot be less than h, if the value for mass is to be at least m=1, (i.e., h/1+g = 1). Of necessity, then h either must approach one, h=>1, or g has to become g => 1, for m=1 to be true. However, if h were to approach one, then g must be less than one, if g is to be any value at all. By this reasoning, strange as it may be, h cannot be less than g. In fact, I believe h will always prove to be measured as greater than g.

Now, if we use a numerator of: h = ~6x10^-14, purely a "guesstimate", it may satisfy this requirement, since it is "one" decimal greater than the g constant of 5e-15. This of necessity would mean that Planck's constant is different for each star where it is measured, depending upon that star's energy output and gravitational constant g. In other words, h, which is approximately equal cl, cannot be less than the local gravitational constant g, by this reasoning. On Earth, in our solar region, h is calculated to be 5 decimals greater than g, (i.e., h=6.626x10^-34 vs. g=~5x10^-39). Now bear with me while I take it to the next step.

If we take the original h/(cl) +g = 1, and substitute the know values, using h=~6x10^-14, we get the following value for l:

6x10^-14/(3x10^8)l + 5x10^-15 = 1, which give us l of approximaly = ~2.01x10^-22 m/s, which is in Hertz approx. 10^30 Hz, which is still a very high output, above gamma ray. To figure total Energy put out by the Crab Nebula neutron star, when can then compute:

E = hc/l = (~6x10^-14)(x10^8)/~2.01x10^-22 = ~8.9x10^16, which computes out to what Energy should be, about 90 petajoules.

This completes my very puzzling, and I may add unsatisfactory, proof. What does it prove? It proves that on the Crab neutron star there is equality of total energy with very high gravity, low electromagnetic energy output, and thus very high spin and low luminosity.

Well, I'm still not satisfied with this output, so consider this only a "work in progress".

Ivan

X-post on the Space-Talk forums at: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=20722#post20722

Wintermute11,

Yes, I used "magnitudes" of electric field and magnetic field too, since this was a simpler way to work it out than going with scalars, though for observational purposes, direction of force scalars are imperative. Now, in answer to your objection to my math that Em = Bm * c = h/L, let me show it this way:

Em = Bm * c breaks down into the following magnitudes, per SI Base Units at: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Em = V/m = m^2 kg s^-3 A^-1 /m , or Em = m kg s^-3 A^-1

Bm = T = kg s^-2 A^-1

Em/Bm = c, so that in SI Base units:

(m kg s^-3 A^-1) / (kg s^-2 A^-1) = c, which canceling out A^-1 becomes:

c = m kg s^-3 / kg s^-2 = m s^-1, (notice how the kg canceled out, which may be important),

which is as it should be, that electric field divided by magnetic flux is lightspeed c in meters per second.

* * *
Now, with h/L, where h is Planck's constant, and L is wavelength lambda, we get:

h = Js = (m^2 kg s^-2)s = m^2 kg s^-1
L = m, so that:

h/L = m^2 kg s^-1 /m = m kg s^-1 ,

which is meters per second, same as c, except that kg is retained. So there's the problem: kg.

Does this make sense to me? Not much... Maybe the kg inside h is not meaningful here? For c, the kg is dropped, if photons have no mass, but is retained for electrons in h/L because they have mass? I don't know... All I can think of, when I see this, is what a physics Ph.D. friend told me once: "Physics is sometimes like that."

Perhaps if h/L is multiplied by c, we get a better picture:

hc/L = (m kg s^-1)(m s^-1) = m^2 kg s^-2 = E in Joules, so this is okay. But is Em*c = E in Joules? Only if we add back kg, in effect, if Em is calculated as = m kg s^-1, would this make sense. But I have no justifiable way of converting V/m into this. ... Hmmm, having said that, I think maybe I do have a way to illustrate something about that. Bear with me...

If Em = V/m, and V = m^2 kg s^-3 A^-1, and A (Amperes) = N/m (Newtons per meter), so that N/m = m kg s^-2 /m, so A = kg s^-2, and therefore:

V = m^2 kg s^-3 / kg s^-2 = m^2 s^-1, which taking V/m gives us:

Em = V/m = m^2 s^-1 / m = m s^-1, which multiplied by c is:

Em * c = m^2 s^-2, which is again c^2, but not Joules (m^2 kg s^-2) unless you put back in the kg. So "kg" is really the wild card here.

So, these are the theoretical conundrum questions: Does light photons have mass? Does electric force have mass? Do electrons traveling at c have mass? Where do we add back mass in kg, and where do we not?

I do not have the answer to these, as these are still being debated by physicists to this day. Some think photons have mass, others do not think so, though all seem to agree that electrons have mass. I hope this helps explain something, as to why Em = h/L "is not algebraically correct" as you point out, though in fact it is correct, but physics is still up in the air about photon/electron mass. To me, this is still a physics conundrum, not that I had not puzzled over this myself.

Still, you ask very good questions and have a valid objection, but I don't have an answer. It seems neither does anyone else. I think a lot of this goes back to the problem with how mass is calculated: When mass is calculated as momentum p, where p = E/c, or p = mc, or at lightspeed pc = E, this problem creeps up. Though E/c = mc, which multiplied out is E = mc^2, is the momentum of a photon the same as mass or not? The physics people still do not have an answer for this, and the unknowns are enough to tie you up in Strings! To me, this is the crux of the matter, and why modern physics had become so incredibly complicated, because we have yet not solved this conundrum. Does Em have mass? I don't know, and I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but my Axiomatic Equation would act as if the electron giving us Em does have kg mass in it. The result is that Em when E is in Joules, works out to be "m kg s^-1", and when E is in Watts (J/s), Em is "m kg s^-2". as per my original. And if so, then Em = Bm *c = h/L, though you're not happy about it, I'm not happy about it, and neither is anyone else.

Maybe we'll find out when we can travel at light speed? J

C2

Em * c = E? ... revisited.

Can E = Em*c, really, but we simply did not see it?

If momentum p = E/c, and p = m*c, where m is electron mass, then it follows that:

E/c = mc, which is the same as E = mc^2. We also know that E = hc/L, where L is lambda, which is the electromagnetic wavelength, which then means that if we take E = hc/L and divide it by c, we get E/c = h/L, which is once again p. So thus far, for momentum, we have:

p = E/c = mc = h/L = (in terms of Em?) my dilemma.

I have a question mark because I think momentum p can also be derived from Maxwell's equation of electric field and magnetic flux: Em/Bm = c. With p = mc, I think I can show that Em*p = Em*m*c = E.

We know we rewrite Em/Bm = c, as Em = Bm*c, so that Bm expressed in T is in SI Base Units kg s^2 A^-1. But if A^-1 is the same as 1/A = 1/kg s^2, then Bm is really kg s^2 / kg s^2, which is "one", or (mass fraction) kg/kg =1. So, in terms of SI Base Units, Bm*c is "similar" to one times lightspeed, which is equal to an electric field: Em = (1)c, so that per this reasoning, Em/1 = Em = c.

Now, if pc = E, then substituting the c with Em, we get p*Em = E, true at least in terms of SI Base Units, which then can be rewritten as: Em = E/p. Now, if p = m*c, then we can rewrite this as: Em = E/ m*c. To solve for E, it becomes: E = Em * m*c.

What does all this mean? It means that my Axiomatic Equation was missing "m" in the first part. The correct equation should have been:

Em*m*c = hc/L = mc^2 = E, which in words is:

"Electric field times mass, times lightspeed, equals Energy." However, in my original Em*c, the mass is missing because in the Axiomatic Equation, mass is always m=1, sot that the corrected version would still read: Em*1*c = E, which gets back again to how I originally wrote it: Em*c = E.

The only exception to this is for the magnetic mass, where dual charges cancels out except for a positive remainder Bm, so that it becomes m=0, to become: Em*1*c = hc/L = (0+Bm)c^2 = ~mc^2. I also rewrote mc^2, since m=1, as 1*c^2. Then I took out the proton gravitational constant g from the mass, so that it became: (1-g)c^2.

So the whole equation would now read, with the corrected mass:

Em*1m*c = hc/L = (0m+Bm)c^2 = (1m-g)c^2 = Energy = ~90 petajoules

(By the way, 9x10^16 Joules, or 90 petajoules, works out for E=mc^2 when m =1, so another reason I chose mass equals one.)

Well, I like my original better, though it is in Watts, which better suits my rebellious nature, as Joules per second rather than Joules. I wanted an equation that would measure the components in the total output of a star system, it Power. The thinking was that if we know a star's Power output, we can then know, in Joules per second, what is the electromagnetic energy, or gravity ratio, anywhere within its star system.

Now I've really got a headache! Still, I grieve at the shame of my plain ignorance, and am only relieved for having added back the mass that was missing from Em*c = E. I don't think it really changes that much from the original. Actually, standing back from it, it is looking kinda pretty... am I getting warm? Will gravity beyond the fringes of the solar system show a greater per mass measure? This is still the great unknown, but the Axiomatic Equation would predict "yes".

Ivan

(Similar text was posted to Space-Talk at: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=20847#post20847

WHY IS "C" CONSTANT?

It has been proven with measurements that lightspeed c is always a constant, ~3x10^8 m/s, but there is not valid explanation for this from the world of physics, whether QED or GR, which is counterintuitive to say the least. Can it be that we are looking at these measurements from the wrong end? Rather than measuring lighspeed as a velocity from its source, we may be measuring lightspeed in how it interacts with the instruments measuring it. This would be a simple and logical explanation, that c is always constant because that is how any instrument registering it will pick it up at that velocity, no matter what velocity originally at the source. Does this not make much more sense, is intuitively understandable so we are not forced to accept this 'truth' on faith, and makes for better science? If this is so, physics can then dismiss much current mythology whereby time is a variable dimension, or that other dimensions are responsible for our reality, or that we are not forced into some contorted counterintuitive logic by mathematical tricks or erroneous theory. Light reaches any instrument measuring it at a constant velocity, pure and simple. Everything else, from lengthening or shortening dimensions to time dilation are creatively conjured up mathematical tricks, for in the real universe, time is no more than our own invention, in effect, time is but a notch on a stick.

Ivan

ONE, AS A RATIO OF C?

Cross post from Space-Talk: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=21431#post21431

---

Quote:

jonrv58
Fact: The speed of light is 1. Modern Physics now accepts that "1 light year (distance) is the same thing as "1 year" (time). Using our units, 300,000km (approx) = 1 second. Check it out "Spacetime Physics" Wheeler & (er forgotten), look on Amazon.

Opinion: The speed of light is a manifestation of a deeper mechanism of the way the universe is. In a sense light does not have a speed except to our perception as we move through time: The extreemes are Either - you are stationary, in which case there is no speed but there is 1 second, or you travel as fast as the universe allows i.e. you travel 300,000km which is also 1 second.
You can check this against relativity (it agrees) take a quadrant of a circle. Mark the vertical as time and the horizontal as distance. Basically (in 1 second) you can "spend" this moving from the origin to the circumference. The direction you choose (if not vertical only, or not horizontal only) defines how much time is offset against distance. You will notice using a bit of pythagorus that time dilation numbers for speed read off exactly the same as in relativity.

---

DEEP SIX REDSHIFTED BIG BANG?

Here are new Hubble results which take us farther than we had ever been before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3387919.stm
This article makes no mention of the distance being viewed, however, so we may be looking past the original Big Bang of 13-15 billion years ago, which could be a conundrum: Can we look past the origin of the universe and find fully formed galaxies there? Also, the fuzzy "red stringy objects nestling at the edge of the Universe" may be no more than fully extended light redshifted to the point where it can no longer be registered as real images. Only a possibility, but worth looking for. If there is no expanding universe, merely redshifted light due to the intense gravity of deep space, as per Axiomatic of the new physics, then the Big Bang goes bust,'deep six'.

Editors

UNCERTAINTY AS A PRINCIPLE

Quantum Mechanics: the Uncertainty Principle
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm

---

Quote:

"If one wants to be clear about what is meant by "position of an object," for example of an electron..., then one has to specify definite experiments by which the "position of an electron" can be measured; otherwise this term has no meaning at all."
--Heisenberg, in uncertainty paper, 1927

---

Ivan,

Light … what is it?

Is light a particle or wave?

Would you believe me if I state: Light is not a particle, and light is not a wave.

This problem must be solved before science can properly address the problem of force unification.

There is but one force … EM.

The problem is solved.

What is a photon? A photon is comprised of ash … the result of energy becoming matter upon release by fission or fusion. This is the method of matter creation – transformation.

Light … does not move; light is incapable of motion.

Proof…? Turn off the source of light … light disappears.

Where does light disappear to when the source of it is extinguished?

Light disappears into what?

If the sun were extinguished … how long would it be before the earth become dark?

Answer the question properly, and I will send you the formulations to back my position.

J____

Hi J___, good to hear from you. RE your:

"Light … does not move; light is incapable of motion.

Proof…? Turn off the source of light … light disappears.

Where does light disappear to when the source of it is extinguished?"

This is an amazingly 'enlightening' statement. Indeed, where does it go to? What happened to all the photons once the source stops producing them? Very curious point of view... will need to think of this some more.

Ivan

J____,

RE: "Proof…? Turn off the source of light … light disappears."

If photons materialize when the source of energy is turned on, where do they go when this same source is turned off? Obviously, if light is contained in a 'box', let's say an airtight, sealed, opaque container, then the light should still be there. But if we look into this box, it is dark. So something happened to extinguish these photons.

One possibility, conceptually, is to think of 'extinguished' photons returning back into the space-vacuum from which they were created. This idea was broached indirectly on a post at Astrophysics/Space-Talk, Principle of Uncertainty, where the referenced paper "Mass Medium", by Marcus Chown, talks of space-vacuum energy as being inherent in the vacuum. If photons are somehow generated from within this quantum vacuum, then it may be that they return to this same vacuum, which looks lightless to us but may be energy rich, as per Sakahrov-Puthoff's ideas.

So what happens when we switch on a light? Photons are created through the electromagnetic field passing through a resistor which incandesces into light, generating photons which travel at lightspeed c, and then revert back to the space-vacuum once the current ceases to flow. Rather intriguing, if the universe works this way. It would fit rather nicely into a concept of the space-vacuum being both the origin of light as well as its medium, and ultimately its final receptor.

Ivan

Ivan,

Space-vacuum...?

What is the space vacuum?

What are the common or specialized definitions used by the coiners of the phrase?

What is the “medium” of space vacuum?

What happens to light from the sun that misses earth … where does it go?

The only thing that can be said about the Principle of Uncertainty is, the principle of uncertainty is uncertain; therefore, it is not certain, which negates any potential for the principle of uncertainty to be anything but conjecture, er, hyperbole, er, nonsense.

Remember, I stated – “light is incapable of motion”; hence, how can a photon move?

If photons return to the space vacuum, why can’t science locate dead photons?

Facts: Light is not a particle – Light is not a wave.

Ok, simple easy answers … Light is a phenomena that occurs when EM passes through the Sharmon Medium© (not space vacuum, and not aether). Light does not move – EM energy moves … EM radiates, or inradiates. EM exists in two forms … wave, and- field, but never is one the other. Yes, a waveform can pass through a field.

If/when an EM field exists – there will be no waveform = inradiates.
If/when an EM waveform exists – there will be no field = radiates.

Gravity … is the field form of EM … and is best thought of as being identical with the “electromagnetic field” that surrounds a functioning electric motor when running, or a magnet. The field that surrounds a magnet – has no wave properties, and a waveform cannot be detected.

There is but one force … Electromagnetic Force – no strong force, no weak force, and no Gravity…!

EM is the only force that can transfer “heat”; therefore, only two processes can generate heat … fusion or fission.

Now do you understand mechanics of the Northern Lights?

What modern science identifies as – a photon – is nothing but the passing of EM through the Sharmon Medium©, which is a kinetic gas that consists of the two building blocks of all matter – the positive Positrino, and negative Negatrino. Those are the two micro-most tiniest particles in existence in the entire universe. The Sharmon Medium© totally fills all interstices between everything whereas, there is no place where nothing exists in the universe. Sharmon Medium© even fills the space between an orbiting electron and the nucleus of even the tiniest of atoms. Fact is – an orbiting electron could not orbit if no “thing” existed for it to “orbit in.” The concept of a – void – exists in theory only as a “comparator” required by our very human inability to comprehend any infinite entity.

J____

Ivan,

Think about it ... the photon does not move since what you call a photon does not exist!

Science cannot prove a photon exists. All science can prove is ... what exists is a "charge state"; nothing more, nothing less.

J____

DOES ONLY REDSHIFTED LIGHT GET HERE?

Aanother question on light, which has been bothering me for some time:

We know that long waves travel longer than short waves, so that whales can make long waves heard across a thousand miles of ocean, or very long waves of sound, such as produced by elephants and barely audible to the human ear, will travel great distances. There are written accounts of people hundreds of miles away hearing when Krakatoa's volcano exploded, for example.

So, can it be the same with light, that the great distances of billions of light years spanned by photons are by those of longer wavelengths, i.e., redshifted, while those of shorter wavelengths did not make it here? Can it be that the light emitted by that original source billions of years ago did so in many wavelengths, but only the very longshifted red ones made it all the way here?

Ivan

Doppler 'effect' is recreated in the lab. 'Blueshifted' receding galaxies?

This paper by J. Moret-Bailly, France- 1998, gives further evidence why the 'expanding universe' thesis may be in doubt, if light red shift is from other causes, see: http://il.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9810/9810473.pdf

Another supporting paper by Paul Marmet, Canada-1988, talking about similar non-Doppler red shift effect: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

On the opposite end is evidence of blueshifted 'receding' galaxies. This is mentioned in Tamara M. Davis's paper, Australia-2004: http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402278

There are reports of light coming from the distant Pioneer spacecraft as also being 'blueshifted', which is a puzzle. One might expect light entering deep space to redshift, as it encounters the greater gravity there, and then blueshift as it reenters the lighter gravity in the vicinity of the heliosphere of a hot star like ours, if the Axiomatic Equation is correct. If so, then the light coming from distant Pioneer at the edge of our solar system, or other 'blueshifted' effects might be a function of light coming back into our light gravity region, since now it is entering a lambda rich region; which would also mean that the light traveling through intergalactic space is actually more redshifted than we see here, as it must blueshift when reentering our heliospher. Of course, all this is contingent upon gravity being a universal variable-constant, as an inverse function of lambda there.

Ivan

NONLINEAR LIGHT?

For months I've been thinking as to why does light travel in a straight line. Why doesn't it travel in some curved fashion, for example? This led me to think of some interesting things.

Bearing in mind that all light is emitted by bodies emanating electromagnetic waves, and that all of space is made up of a gravity rich space-vacuum by the nature of this vacuum, then it stands to reason that the electromagnetic waves emitted travel from their source to the gravity nature of space. This means that these waves, as they begin their journey, are automatically connected to some distant point in space at infinity, at all points of infinity of the gravity nature of space, instantly, though this journey will take time to get there at light's velocity in space, i.e., ~3e8 m/s. Therefore, all light will radiate equally in all directions as these waves, which are concentrically radial in nature, until it is either deflected by objects or from the effect of encountering some other force that will bend it. It is this other force bending light that is special interest here.

If space is gravity rich, meaning that in the absence of strong electromagnetic energy the natural gravity of deep space is once again dominant, then there should be some evidence of that gravity affecting the travel path of light. We know that light bends around massive stars and other massive cosmic bodies, such as large planets, due to their gravity influence. Gravity bends light, as successfully demonstrated by Einstein. However, we never looked for evidence of light bending around so-called dark objects, such as gravity rich clouds of dust in the deep of space between stars and galaxies. If we can find such evidence, that light is bent by these massive clouds, then it can give us one more piece of evidence we need to understand how much gravity deep space actually has. The reason for this is that for gravity to become evident, it needs matter to manifest, or else it remains merely a potential force in the space background; once matter is present, then the amount of gravity there will show up, such as the gravity around our local star, which is very weak due to the Sun being a hot star, or the gravity around a neutron star, where there gravity is very strong because it radiates energy weakly. We have measured cosmic microwave background radiation to be about 3 degrees Celsius above absolute zero, so we know that space is never totally energy free, so the gravity of deep space will not be as absolute as that found in the center of a galactic black hole, for example, but it will be very strong nevertheless. If so, then all matter distributed throughout cosmic space, especially where it is clumped in non-ignited clouds, meaning they do not radiate electromagnetic energy, should exhibit some light bending capability. And if this is found, then depending upon the amount of bending these clouds exhibit would then give us a way to measure how much gravity is present there.

So light by its nature will travel a straight line to all points of infinity, since those points of infinity are the space-vacuum gravity; that space infinity is then punctuated by bodies of matter, which will deflect light gravitationally; gravity will both redshift and bend light as it travels on its otherwise straight path. To find a way to measure how this light is bent is then the key to understanding how much gravity is present in cosmic space. I would think this would be a very worthwhile enterprise, since in solving this puzzle, we may actually realize that the so-called dark matter is no more than the greater gravity affecting all mass present there; and conversely the natural redshift of light as it passes these greater gravity regions would indicate that there is no Doppler shift for the universe as a whole, but only where motion is registered for individual bodies. The conclusion would then automatically fall into the category that the universe is gravitationally in balance, there is no expansion, and of course, no Big Bang origin either. Should this prove so, that light can be used as a way to measure distant gravity by how it is bent, astrophysical phenomena may become more understandable than they are today. This lightbending nature of space can also be measured by the amount of redshift encountered in any region of space.

Gravitational bending of light, see:
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/bending.html
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/baranow2.htm
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/spaceimages/ab16gravlen.html
http://www.nlr.ru:8101/emag/grav/english/volume_2_1.html #Baryshev_Gubanov_Raikov
http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/belobodorov_main.htm


Ivan

LIGHT IS MORE COMPLEX

Physical Review: http://focus.aps.org/story/v13/st20

Ligth waves are more complex than v = c, and more beautiful, 'precursors' to a better understanding of what is light.

Detecting the spin of a single electron; this Physlink.com article talks about decoherence, the process in which at the quantum level an electron wave ceases to be a wave.

Question: Can this same process of decoherence be responsible for how light converts from a wave into a particle-like photon? If so, can this same process be used to explain why light is always measured a velocity c, since this conversion, no matter the velocity of light, is always registered at that conversion as v = c for light in a vacuum? Can this lead to a new understanding of what is 'light'? Perhaps light is always v = c from our perspective, no matter what, since that is how it converts from a wave to a photon?

Could this wave to photon conversion be another spin on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, where the wave converts into a particle in his thought experiment?

(see Gong's post on forum regarding Heisenberg's.)

Ivan

Voyager Probe Poised to Plunge into Interstellar Space has a great link to animation of Voyager approaching bow edge of Sun's heliosphere. Magnetic intensity is greater there, the part that connects with instellar space dust and gases. Space is a much more complex place than space vacuum suggests, dynamic with interstellar turbulence. Photons traveling billions of light years have to penetrate all these windshears of cosmic dust, and then make it to Earth. Is it Redshifted? Obviously yes.

LIGHT REDSHIFT DISTANCE TRAVELED AT 1 Z (in intergalactic medium), with implications for deep space gravity.

Question: What is the mass of the deep space "vacuum" at the distance light traveled to redshift 1z; and what is its effective deep space G?

From Answers.com it says one light-year is approximately D_ly = ~9.46E+15 meters. Though the spacevacuum is not entirely empty, let's assume light travels at c = 3E+8 m/s. How far would this light have to have traveled before it redshifted to 1 z? We know 1 + z = ~1 + (v/c) in non-relativistic terms (for v << c).

(1) Question of distance: If 1 z (where light is at 1% of lightspeed) is approximately 129.2 million light-years(*), then what is the distance traveled to reach delta 1 z? Can we multiply 129.2E+6 light years by the distance of one light-year? If so, then the distance is:

129.2E+6 l.y. * 9.46E+15 meters = 1222.2E+21 meters, or D_1z = 1.222E+24 meters.

This is quite a range of distance for light to travel in space to redshift 1 z. I do not know for sure if this is right or not (not sure how correct EvC Forum number is, and hard to find elsewhere), but it may be a useful number to figure something out, where light traveled 1.222E+24 meters at delta 1 z, where light has redshifted to only one percent of lightspeed c. If this is to be measured in AUs, where 1 AU = 1.5E+11 m, dividing gives us a distance for 1z of ~8.15E+12 AU, which is a lot! To put it into billions, it's roughtly 8,000 billion AUs, or 8,000 giga AUs, get redshift z = 1.

(2) Next question, number of atoms: How much space dust and gas, let's say primarily hydrogen, is there per one cubic meter stretched over that distance of D_1z = 1.222E+24 meters? Let's say that it is the conventional one atom per cubic centimeter, of which 99% is gas (of which 92% is hydrogen gas), and convert this to 100 atoms per meter. Now that meter distance for 1 z is 1.222E+24 m long, so the total volume of that long meter is 1.222E+26 atoms of (mostly) hydrogen per the distance of light traveling delta 1 z. Okay, so what does it mean?

(3) Question, mass of deep space atoms: If we have a reading on Earth (in Earth's 1 G gravity) of light "gravitational redshift" as D l/l = gh/c^2 = 1.136E-16 per kg (2.5E-15 divided by 22 meters)**, what would this same "gravitational redshift" be for space, where the volume density of the distance of 1 z is approximately 1.222E+26 hydrogen atoms?

We know hydrogen mass is m_h = 1.67E-27 kg, so multiply this by the interstellar volume of hydrogen, and you get the total mass per 1 z:

1.67E-27 kg * 1.222E+26 * = 2.04E-1 kg, which multiplied by gravitational-lightshift z, 1.136E-16 kg^-1 is:

2.04E-1 kg * 1.136E-16 kg^-1 = 2.318E-17

and we know gravity's G is 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. Now dividing, the interstellar volume of hydrogen mass times z, by the known G, and what do you get?

2.318E-17 / (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^2. (This is the G for the gross mass of that one cubic centimeter of interstellar medium, over distance of 1 z)

G-deep space, is the "gravitational G" for hydrogen gas over the distance of 1z. In effect, this is the amount of gravitational G needed to make light redshift delta 1 z.

The answer is: G-deep space = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Note: I had previously separately figured out a "cut-off" gravity in deep space as about 1.3E-6 N.., but this above is the new instellar G to accommodate this cosmic redshift 1 z. (The prior was figured out, where G is about 1.3E-6 N.., which coincided with with "cut-off" wavelength of light, l = ~3.97E-7 m (orange light) as the photo-electric effect for sodium metal. These calculations above, if they are right, seem to fall pretty close in line, where the original, with less than one order of magnitude difference: 0.347E-6 N... vs. 1.3E-6 N., where the difference may be accounted for other factors in space. (See: Axiomatic Equation, posts June 19, 2005; Mar. 30, 2005; and June 3, 2004, for how derived originally.) There may be additional e.m. radiant energy in space to account for the difference, but don't know this.

(5) Taking this one step further, the "interstellar hydrogen" mass (per equivalence), is 1z_M = (1.67E-27 kg) * (0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = ~0.58E-33 m^3 s^-2, and divided by Earth's G (to convert back to Earth based units): (0.58E-33 m^3 s^-2) / (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.087E-22 kg, or interstellar m_h = 0.87E-21 kg, which is the interstellar mass equivalent, approximately, for hydrogen in interstellar space (over five orders of magnitude greater than here on Earth). No wonder hydrogen gas clouds, when there is enough volume, fuse together under great pressure to ignite stars!

These are merely rough estimates, but it gives us the idea of how much gravity G is needed in deep space to redshift light to z = 1, and what the hydrogen mass is, per equivalence, for all that interstellar medium, which makes up 99.99% of our universal space "vacuum". If it is found to be so with future observations, or close to it, then Doppler "expansion of space" in our universe becomes irrelevant, if light redshifts naturally due to a very high level of gravity per mass of the intergalactic gases of space. Is this "dark matter"?

__________
(*) [Note: this distance in light-years was derived from EvC Forum, where it says "a delta z (red shift) of about 0.024% (72 km/s or 3.1 million light years) that has been confirmed time and time again..", which if multiplied by the inverse of 0.024 (41.666) we get 129.2 million light years. I thus presume that if I multiply this distance of 129.2 million years by 100 x100 (reciprocal of 1% for z?), I should get the limits of the universe where light "greys out", which should be at about 12.9 billions years, hence the "estimated" beginning, or Big Bang's birthdate? If so, then the number given by VeC is more or less correct. See Wiki's Age of the Universe.]

(**) As derived from Gravitational Redshift, from Wiki.
_________
THE EQUATIONS FOR DEEP SPACE GRAVITY AND MASS:

1) Equation for G value in deep intergalactic space:

[(delta z)* (1z_D * Nh* Mp)] / G-earth = G-space

[(1.136E-16 kg^-1) * (2.04E-1 kg) * (1.67E-27 kg)/ (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

In words: "Distance light travels in 1z, times number of atoms (per cubic centimeter) in one linear meter of space, times proton mass on Earth, times redshift on Earth for one meter, all divided by Earth's G, equals gravity G for deep space."

[Note (this is new): I say atoms per meter and "per kilogram" because we are converting distance meters into kilograms equivalent of space-mass per meter, as it applies to gravitational lightshift per meter. So per a linear meter of mass, the gravitational lightshift z is also per the kilograms in that linear meter. If we multiply this linear meter cum kilograms by the basic gravitational lightshift measured (in Earth's 1 G), per meter, we get: delta G-z = 1.136E-16 kg^-1.]

2) Equation for deep intergalactic space Mass of hydrogen molecules:

(h mass * G-space)/ G-earth = proton Mass-space

[(1.67E-27 kg) * (0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2)] / (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.087E-22 kg , or h_M = 0.87E-21 kg in deep space.

In words: "Earth's proton mass times (deep space) gravity G-space, divided by Earth's G, equals deep space Mass for proton, or hydrogen atoms."

________
Ivan

[Edited July 15, 2005, for calculation errors]

Okay, I think I'm ready for Prime time. Now it looks right to me.

Ivan