• Does Modern Physics Need Rethinking? February 5 - 08:57 pm
• Dr. Albert Einstein's Errors? September 25 - 09:53 am

Continued from earlier thread (above) titled "Does Modern Physics Need Rethinking", which had grown too large to load quickly...

There is very much work that needs to be done, so it continues. Also see Axiomatic Equation for a continuation of this NuPhysics thesis. Its predecessors are the TOE and Atomus Summus threads in the Archived forums.

Ivan

THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE


By re-analysing Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment and the ideal experiment from which the uncertainty principle is derived, it is actually found that the uncertainty principle can not be obtained from them. It is therefore found to be untenable.

Key words:
uncertainty principle; Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope Experiment; ideal experiment

Ideal Experiment 1

Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope Experiment


A free electron sits directly beneath the center of the microscope's lens (please see AIP page http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm or diagram below) . The circular lens forms a cone of angle 2A from the electron. The electron is then illuminated from the left by gamma rays--high energy light which has the shortest wavelength. These yield the highest resolution, for according to a principle of wave optics, the microscope can resolve (that is, "see" or distinguish) objects to a size of dx, which is related to and to the wavelength L of the gamma ray, by the expression:

dx = L/(2sinA) (1)

However, in quantum mechanics, where a light wave can act like a particle, a gamma ray striking an electron gives it a kick. At the moment the light is diffracted by the electron into the microscope lens, the electron is thrust to the right. To be observed by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A. In quantum mechanics, the gamma ray carries momentum as if it were a particle. The total momentum p is related to the wavelength by the formula,

p = h / L, where h is Planck's constant. (2)

In the extreme case of diffraction of the gamma ray to the right edge of the lens, the total momentum would be the sum of the electron's momentum P'x in the x direction and the gamma ray's momentum in the x direction:

P' x + (h sinA) / L', where L' is the wavelength of the deflected gamma ray.

In the other extreme, the observed gamma ray recoils backward, just hitting the left edge of the lens. In this case, the total momentum in the x direction is:

P''x - (h sinA) / L''.

The final x momentum in each case must equal the initial x momentum, since momentum is conserved. Therefore, the final x momenta are equal to each other:

P'x + (h sinA) / L' = P''x - (h sinA) / L'' (3)

If A is small, then the wavelengths are approximately the same,

L' ~ L" ~ L. So we have

P''x - P'x = dPx ~ 2h sinA / L (4)

Since dx = L/(2 sinA), we obtain a reciprocal relationship between the minimum uncertainty in the measured position, dx, of the electron along the x axis and the uncertainty in its momentum, dPx, in the x direction:

dPx ~ h / dx or dPx dx ~ h. (5)

For more than minimum uncertainty, the "greater than" sign may added.

Except for the factor of 4pi and an equal sign, this is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation for the simultaneous measurement of the position and momentum of an object.

Re-analysis

To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A.

The microscope can resolve (that is, "see" or distinguish) objects to a size of dx, which is related to and to the wavelength L of the gamma ray, by the expression:

dx = L/(2sinA) (1)

This is the resolving limit of the microscope and it is the uncertain quantity of the object's position.

The microscope can not see the object whose size is smaller than its resolving limit, dx. Therefore, to be seen by the microscope, the size of the electron must be larger than or equal to the resolving limit.

But if the size of the electron is larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx, the electron will not be in the range dx. Therefore, dx can not be deemed to be the uncertain quantity of the electron's position which can be seen by the microscope, but deemed to be the uncertain quantity of the electron's position which can not be seen by the microscope. To repeat, dx is uncertainty in the electron's position which can not be seen by the microscope.

To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A, so we can measure the momentum of the electron.

dPx is the uncertainty in the electron's momentum which can be seen by microscope.

What relates to dx is the electron where the size is smaller than the resolving limit. When the electron is in the range dx, it can not be seen by the microscope, so its position is uncertain.

What relates to dPx is the electron where the size is larger than or equal to the resolving limit .The electron is not in the range dx, so it can be seen by the microscope and its position is certain.

Therefore, the electron which relates to dx and dPx respectively is not the same. What we can see is the electron where the size is larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx and has a certain position, dx = 0.

Quantum mechanics does not rely on the size of the object, but on Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment. The use of the microscope must relate to the size of the object. The size of the object which can be seen by the microscope must be larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx of the microscope, thus the uncertain quantity of the electron's position does not exist. The gamma ray which is diffracted by the electron can be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A, where we can measure the momentum of the electron.

What we can see is the electron which has a certain position, dx = 0, so that in no other position can we measure the momentum of the electron. In Quantum mechanics, the momentum of the electron can be measured accurately when we measure the momentum of the electron only, therefore, we have gained dPx = 0.

And,

dPx dx =0. (6)

Every physical principle is based on an Ideal Experiment, not based on MATHEMATICS, including heisenberg uncertainty principle.

For example, the Law of Conservation of Momentum is based on the collision of two stretch ball in the vacuum; the Principle of equivalence(general relativity) is besed on the Einstein's laboratory in the lift.

Please see the book:

Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc New York ) Page 96



Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment is an ideal experiment.

Einstein said, One Experiment is enough to negate a physical principle.

Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment has negated the uncertainty principle.



Ideal experiment 2

Single Slit Diffraction Experiment


Suppose a particle moves in the Y direction originally and then passes a slit with width dx(Please see diagram below) . The uncertain quantity of the particle's position in the X direction is dx, and interference occurs at the back slit . According to Wave Optics , the angle where No.1 min of interference pattern is can be calculated by following formula:

sinA=L/2dx (1)

and L=h/p where h is Planck's constant. (2)

So the uncertainty principle can be obtained

dPx dx ~ h (5)

Re-analysis

According to Newton first law , if an external force in the X direction does not affect the particle, it will move in a uniform straight line, ( Motion State or Static State) , and the motion in the Y direction is unchanged .Therefore , we can learn its position in the slit from its starting point.

The particle can have a certain position in the slit and the uncertain quantity of the position is dx =0. According to Newton first law , if the external force at the X direction does not affect particle, and the original motion in the Y direction is not changed , the momentum of the particle int the X direction will be Px=0 and the uncertain quantity of the momentum will be dPx =0.

This gives:

dPx dx =0. (6)

No experiment negates NEWTON FIRST LAW. Whether in quantum mechanics or classical mechanics, it applies to the microcosmic world and is of the form of the Energy-Momentum conservation laws. If an external force does not affect the particle and it does not remain static or in uniform motion, it has disobeyed the Energy-Momentum conservation laws. Under the above ideal experiment , it is considered that the width of the slit is the uncertain quantity of the particle's position. But there is certainly no reason for us to consider that the particle in the above experiment has an uncertain position, and no reason for us to consider that the slit's width is the uncertain quantity of the particle. Therefore, the uncertainty principle,

dPx dx ~ h (5)

which is derived from the above experiment is unreasonable.

Conclusion


From the above re-analysis , it is realized that the ideal experiment demonstration for the uncertainty principle is untenable. Therefore, the uncertainty principle is untenable.




Reference:
1. Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc New York ) Page 65
2. Ibid, Page 67
3. http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm



Author : BingXin Gong
Postal address : P.O.Box A111 YongFa XiaoQu XinHua HuaDu
GuangZhou 510800 P.R.China

E-mail: hdgbyi@public.guangzhou.gd.cn
Tel: 86---20---86856616

UNTENABLE UNCERTAINTY?

Dear Gong, I read your paper on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The thought experiment using a Gamma-Ray Microscope yields an 'uncertainty' only in relation to the microscope's ability to read where is the electron. If I understand yours correctly, it is the gamma ray that is subject to diffraction scattering, so that its reading will give an uncertain position for the electron observed. As you point out:

"...thus the uncertain quantity of the electron's position does not exist. The gamma ray which is diffracted by the electron can be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A, where we can measure the momentum of the electron."

ACTION, REACTION, AND SPACE-VACUUM-INERTIA

We all know that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", Newton's Third Law. Firing a rifle gives a kickback, or an astronaut floating in space knows that each movement will have a countermovement. Another variation of this is holding a spinning bicycle wheel while sitting on a rotating stool, where any movement of the wheel's axis will result in a changed position on the stool. This has never been fully explained, nor specifically challenged, though totally accepted.

What does not happen, however, is that this countermovement does not continue, except in the form of inertia it generated, so the accelerative effect ceases immediatly. Thus, there is no follow through on the force that causes the motion to occur. So, once the action is over, the counteraction is over also. There is an exception to this rule, however, in the way gravity works. It causes an action, but there is no cancelation of the corresponding counteraction, where both bodies continue to move towards each other; the action continues in an accelerative way indefinitely. Why? We know that when we lift an object higher above the Earth, it will create the energy necessary to bring it back down again, for example. How are the two related?

In fact, they may be two aspects of the same thing. What may be happening when any mass is acted upon is that the spacevacuum energy which is displaced by its motion acts on the reacting mass, so there is an equivalence of their force on each other, which shows up as inertia. This same spacevacuum may also be responsible for the energy experienced in what we call gravity, where the atoms all possess some value of this spacevacuum energy in some measure, the gravitational constant, not more nor less, which gives mass its inertia. That same spacevacuum energy then acts upon any mass it encounters, thus causing it to move towards it. The reason for the action-reaction limitation of non continuous acceleration, where the acceleration drops down to zero as soon as the action and reaction are completed, is that the original impetus for the motion was not great enough to offset this self cancelling event, so that as soon as the action force applied is done, the force reacting to it is done simultaneously. What would change this relationship, however, is if the force applied was not external, like two billiard balls colliding, but internal, more like what gravity does to mass?

By this reasoning, one could expect that if it were possible to somehow harness this gravity like energy of the spacevacuum in such a way that it remained continuous, its effect on mass would be continuous. If so, then the motion generated by this force would likewise remain continuous, or in effect, it would be accelerative without ceasing. And this event, should we be able to duplicate it, would yield us a new source of energy that is not only freely available, as is the spacevacuum, but continuously accelerative. The end result might be velocities achieved that to us at present would seem impossible, perhaps even reaching those of the speed of light. And because this velocity would be accelerated by the same force that causes gravity to exist, the resulting motion could be achieved without the normal reaction, or G forces experienced by the astronauts in their rocket propelled crafts, but would instead give us acceleration without an effective feeling of motion. Thus, if this were possible to achieve, we could accelerate to tremendous speeds, and not feel it.

How could this be achieved? In theory at least, if the Axiomatic Equation should prove correct, we could recreated the spacevacuum energy by eliminating all electromagnetic wavelength, at a point in the spacevacuum, preferably inside the vehicle. Then, it would be simply a matter of relocating, or moving, the mass of the vehicle in such a way that it causes a reaction. By illustration, imagine that a liquid is displaced within a vehicle that has its activated spacevacuum in the center. Ignoring that this spacevacuum energy would give the vehicle spin, which can be adjusted for by having a floating cabin above the spacevacuum energy to eliminate spin; by moving the liquid medium, perhaps water, away from the center of the vacuum energy would act upon it to bring it back into the center. Since the vehicle is free to move in space, this action would create a reaction to our displacement of water, and move the vehicle in the opposite direction. To reverse direction, or to change it, is merely a matter of shifting the water to another part of the vehicle, in the opposite direction of the desired motion. Once this spacevacuum drive is activated, should this prove possible, then motion is merely in reaction to where the mass is moved to. But it does not stop there; rather, the motion accelerates continuously.

There is still much debate as to what is gravity, or whether Einstein's theory of relativity describes it correctly, or perhaps other theories of gravity are still forthcoming. But the real test, as Einstein had reminded us, is in the experiment that shows it conclusively: "Experimentum summus judex". If we could built such a spacevacuum drive, where all electromagnetic lambda is cancelled on a point in the spacevacuum, and it proves to be as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation, that the cancelled energy lambda regenerates spacevacuum energy, then we should see evidence of that in the form of a gravitational increase, increase in spin, and ultimately an action-reaction phenomenon as described above. If this works, the vehicle should move away from the shifted mass, and thus bring all aboard towards its spacevacuum center, continuously, and in an accelerative manner. This would be our proof positive that gravity as defined by the missing component of mass modified by electromagnetic energy is in fact the basic stuff of Newton's First Law, of what inertia is made of.

This is not the same as the so-called ElectroGravity, which exhausts itself in seconds and takes a long time to rebuild the charge, rendering it impractical. Rather, it is a new phenomenon still untried, since no one has duplicated the spacevacuum energy, to my knowledge. Can we do it in 5 years? I'm game to give it a try, and have an idea on how to achieve this. But I would need help.

Ivan

"Small bytes take a big bite out of modern physics theory."

This is a headline that has not happened yet, but one can image some future press release something like it, where "a short equation, no more than a couple of inches, and text less than 12 kb, totally overturns how we understand gravity and electromagnetic energy..." would signal a whole new way of seeing things. Einstein, and his predecessor Newton, imagined gravity to be a constant that is universally the same everywhere, so that all we observed in the universe was seen through this lens of our understanding. However, if gravity is merely a left-over force from how electromagnetic energy interacts with an atom's nucleus, where the resulting standing wave is the atomic mass - minus its gravity-inertia component - then there is no reason to believe gravity is everywhere the same. This is how is theorized the several inch long Axiomatic Equation which shows how the two forces are inversely proportional. The more electromagnetic energy, the hotter the environment around a star, the weaker is the remainder force of gravity; and vice versa, the weaker the hot energy, the greater the gravity. Around cold stars, or deep in the cold of space, gravity is much greater than here.

Why did we ever think that the gravity we experience on Earth is the same throughout space? We never hitherto had any reason to doubt it. Now we do, though headlines have not yet announced it. However, before they do, more observations of astronomical events will need to be carried out, to understand better black holes (where all lambda cancel as energy waves from all directions of the galaxy converge on one point of the axis), why neutron stars have such great gravity (they are cold stars), whether or not so-called "dark matter" is the effect of the greater gravity of deep space, and whether or not cosmic light redshifts because of it (more gravity means more redshift, not due to Doppler motion, though it may also be blueshifted back into the heliosphere). Before we could accept a "unified theory" which in "one equation that would allow us to read the mind of God" (as said by Michio Katu, theoretical physicist at City College, City University of New York), we will still need to address all the misconceptions now generated by Einstein's General Relativity, where gravity was assumed a constant, and the myriad of strange concepts it spawned, such as the Big Bang and expanding universe, or Strings. It will prove much cleaner, more in keeping with Ocham's Razor, if we in fact discover that the universe is not so mind bendlingly complex, with a multidomensional space-time continuum, but answers to a simplicity and elegance we had overlooked since the days of Newton. In fact, when we do, we may have discovered the pleasant dividend of a new source of usuable energy, that of a recreated gravity in the space-vacuum.

Some work now being done in this field:
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics
Vasant Corporation

So watch for that headline, where one day it dawns on us that gravity is not a universal constant, but is a variable constant instead. The rest of the universe will suddenly become infinitely more understandable to us, including the internals of the atom as described by quantum dynamics Then we will realize that the "unified theory" is not one that unifies electromagnetic energy and gravity into one, but in fact one where they are irreconcilably opposed, though brought together in mind bending simplicity in the formation of the atom. The future physics may not be universally unified, but at least the dance between macro-physics and quantum dynamics will be substantially more in harmony.

SPOOKY QUANTUM NOT SO STRANGE -- outside of "physics kindergarten".

Spooky connections between Quantum particles and their perpendicular offsets at a distance is a mystery as to how they can communicate instantaneously. Quantum measurements are uncertain, or indeterminate, not in the sense that they don't know what they should be, but in the sense that we cannot know in advance with certainty until they are observed. While the uncertainty is unresolved until observed, the certainty of a particle's offset at a distance is simultaneously known to the other. If so, then the uncertainty principle is really no more than one of our own making, since we cannot know in advance, though the spooky communications between particles already know this.

This issue of photon offset led to the same conundrum of uncertainty for light polarisation, where we could not know the polarisation of a photon until it passed through the gold perforations filter, but the successive photons behind it already knew. Again, this seems to be instantaneously known to the photons of energy within their parameters of certainty, whereas they are known to us only after the fact, and can only be calculated as to probability. How could such cause and effect be so simultaneously contradictory, where it is both probabilistic and instantaneous?

This paradox exist because half of the story is missing. The answer to this puzzle, which also puzzled Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in their famous EPR Paradox, that paired EPR photons know simultaneously though separated by distance, is not such a fluke when you consider that they are in fact already bridged gravitationally. Why would gravity, which is an inverse force to the photon state, be missing from our quantum physics? The spookiness disappears when one considers that what all photons traveling have in common, whether paired or not, is that in passing through the spacevacuum they are traveling through a common medium of gravity in that vacuum. That this gravity then manifests in the mass present, for us to measure it as what we call "gravity", it remains nevertheless locked in the spacevacuum medium whether measurable to us or not, though any mass passing through it will display its force. Same as quantum energy states, gravitational states exist whether or not we can successfully measure them: the gravitational quantum states exist as either weaker or stronger forces dependent upon the photon energy levels present there. If we postulate a universe where gravity is not a universal constant, as had been believed, but rather a remainder force of this quantum interaction between photons and the gravity spacevacuum, then there should be no mystery as to how these two know each other instantaneously, since gravity is then no more than a state of being within which the photons travel. Gravity being a "state of being" medium makes it instantaneous by definition.

The spooky mystery is easily resolved in a non-uniform gravity universe. Rather, in a universe made up of the spacevacuum fabric (not Lorenzian space-time) that is originally extremely redshiftingly-gravity rich, and where the remainder measurable gravity of mass in photon rich environments is exceptionally blueshiftingly-weak, such as we encounter on our planet Earth in this vicinity of our star the Sun, then gravity takes its proper place in the calculations of quantum states. The redshifted distant cosmic light coming to our instruments on Earth are already blueshifted back from what they were in the cold deep of intergalactic space where gravity is very great. When seen this way, the "expanding" universe is in fact no more than an optical illusion created by our having ignored one half of the quantum story.

Isn't it strange that we have unnecessarily complicated quantum physics and cosmological astrophysics by shifting all of our focus on electromagnetic energy to the neglect of its counter shadow force, and original medium, of gravity?... However, we will not know this with certainty until we are able to get out of the strong photon energy environment of our star, and get out into the cold zone of space. Ironically, if this theory fits true, we will not be able to get out there until we can tap into that electromagnetic shadow energy, that other side of quantum energy, which is gravity itself. Otherwise, we will be hampered by the increased inertia requirements outside the hot zone, which our rocket fuel ships could not possibly overcome, and remain in "physics kindergarten" for the foreseeable future.

If we do not get to the next step in physics, as per the Axiomatic Equation, we will be doomed to remain in orbit around our Sun indefinitely. So this is a strange test. And that this test is already predetermined for us, if we are to move out of the small orbit of physics kindergarten, is indeed strange and spooky.

Ivan

PARADOXICAL TRUTH

There is something in human nature that believes in paradox before it believes in truth, to the detriment of clarity and the promotion of obscurity. This truth has ruled over us in the great religions of the past, and now intrudes into the sciences, what in modern physics is called the Big Bang. Like the reformations of the world's great religions then, this too shall come to pass into science, where the truth will win over paradox, where the enlightenment of truth will find its way into the allegorical cave. Then the light of truth with shine more brightly than the obscurity of relativistic paradox.

Ivan

Constant rethinking is the way___ Paradoxes are easier than truth___ They tease- confuse- fog- are yielding- where truth is unyieding___ Eddies of paradox forever traps us in the shallows- so we never enter the deeper waters of truth___

Constant- or not constant?
http://focus.aps.org/story/v13/st13

Funnel shaped Universe?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

NewScientist.com's "Big Bang glow hints at funnel-shaped Universe" gets stranger. When a new generation of redband telescopes will find fully formed galaxies beyond the original Big Bang at 13.7 billion light years away, the mainstream cosmologists may try to use this funnel shaped universe to explain it, looking down the infinitely long string, etc. It just gets stranger and stranger... cosmologists tootin' their own horn?

Ivan

HUBBLE'S HAPPY 14th BIRTHDAY

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_14_040422.html
That meteor pock marked space telescope has given us fabulous images of the heavens, sad to have it end its days in a fiery death when it is taken out of orbit.

This new release of the Ring Galaxy, 300 million light years away in the 'El' Dorado constellation, is the latest in a series of amazing sights. Of course, seen through the lens of the Axiomatic Equation, the image takes on a whole new meaning. The ring of stars is not due to galactic collisions at all. Rather, what we are seeing is a spiral galaxy in the process of forming, with the thick cluster of stars in the middle crowding a newly formed black hole, resulting from the canceling of star energy in its center, and thus grabbing a circle of stars from surrounding space. All this will eventually settle out into a normal spiral.

This illustrates the sad state of modern astronomy, given what that august body of astrophysics is stuck with, a universally constant Newton-Einstein Gravity G. The Axiomatic says this is wrong, that G is a variable inversely proportional to the electro-magnetic energy in which it is measured, where it is very great in the cold of space and very low in the proximity of hot stars. It also cancels out to maximum G in galactic centers, where all light and electric energy converge on a point.

An example of how 'lost in space' modern astronomers are, given our current ignorance of what is gravity, with all due respect to the author, is evident in this BBC Science article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3650213.stm

Hubble's contribution to understanding the heavens cannot be underestimated, for all its wealth of observational data, subject to future interpretation when we get gravity G right, a variable.

Hang in there Hubble Baby!

Wikipedia's, Special Relativity: "Lack of Absolute Reference Frame": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame

Einstein's Special Relativity has become a fully accepted theory of how is structured the Universe. It was later modified by Einstein to incorporate gravity, to become General Relativity, though to date this has not been fully accepted by mainstream physics. What is most curious of this theory is its 'lack of an absolute reference frame'. If Relativity, in both SR and GR, is a function of 'observation', then ALL reference frames are as seen from the observer only, so no preference exists. However, that then makes the observer the preferred reference frame. Why this is not acceptable to Relativists is because they interpret the observation 'as if' it were what happens for the reference frame observed. This is the main fulcrum of the highly developed relativity theory, where what is observed is actually what is happening in the reality of the observed. However, this is counterintuitive, so it must be accepted as an a priori premise, or Relativity makes no sense. Is this true? It is 'true' from an observational relativistic point of view, since all that is observed is then accepted as it is measured relativistically from the observational frame. To invoke 'invariance' between the observed and observer then becomes realistic only if all computationally derived observations are accepted as being true for the state of being of the observed. This must be uncontested, or Relativity cannot stand on its basic premise, that the observer sees from his reference frame what 'is' in the observed reference frame, unless the time and length variances for the two frames are measured ONLY from the observer's reference frame. The fact that NOTHING may be happening in the observed's reference frame, in terms of that frame, is then of necessity and conveniently ignored. The end result is that there is a preferred reference frame in Realtivity: the preferred frame is the observer's, by default. Then, only then, everything else works if this 'preferred observer's reference' is accepted a priori. However, this may not in fact be true in how works the Universe.

Ivan

---

Quote:

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.

---

Dark matter detector limbers up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3683267.stm

Are they shooting in the dark? I suspect the Wimps will 'wimp' out, since they most likely don't exist. If they do, they have nil to do with 'dark matter'. In this BBC News it says:

"Dark matter pervades the Universe - its presence is betrayed by its gravitational influence on stars and galaxies, but astronomers do not know what it is."

PHOTON'S SPLIT PERSONALITY?

In the Physics Review article, Don't Let Them Know You're Watching, a light 'photon' can be split to be in two places at once.

This photons simultaneity has always been my thought on the nature of light, that they in actuality are how the wave property of light in 'quantized' into a photon when it is read by any receptor measuring it. In effect, photons do not exist except when light's electromagnetic wave interacts with something else, a receptor, in which case a photon results. This is important, conceptually, because it means that any light wave hitting its receptor will always convert into a photon upon contact, so that it will always register as traveling at lightspeed v = c, regardless of the velocity of the receptor capturing it. If so, then the mystery of why light is always at v = c becomes understandable due to the nature of what is a photon. It should be pointed out that this constant light velocity is also one of the key properties of Einstein's relativity.

Light's split personality of being both a wave and a 'particle' photon is thus resolved.

Ivan

How a Star is Born

Space.com's article above says:

"The temperature and density of a nebula determines whether it can become a stellar nursery or not. By nature, gravity works to pull the gas and dust together. But, by virtue of its activity, the material also exerts an outward pressure. The warmer the material, the more active it is, and the more it pushes outward.

In certain types of nebulae, where the temperature is cool enough, the force of gravity overcomes the outward pressure. The gas and dust becomes more tightly packed, and eventually a gravitational collapse occurs."

"Still, the stars behind Barnard 68 are mostly obscured, their light scattered by dust. The effect is similar to what makes a sunset on Earth appear red. Blue light, having a short wavelength, is the most scattered and doesn't get through while longer-wavelength red light passes through more easily."

NOTE on 'DARK ENERGY'

I should point out that in my above: "The Axiomatic effect of gravity would in fact predict a stronger gravitational field in the deep of cold space far from stellar energy sources, so that it would be possible, in theory, to calculate that gravity density for mass by how the interstellar gas and dust pull together. The heat energy generated by this gravitational coming together would then moderate the material collapse, since per the Axiomatic, more energy means less gravity", it is not the same as Dark Energy.

The universe is not expanding, except as an observational illusion due to deep space cosmic lifht redshift, so there is no need to postulate such a Dark Energy. A hot 'expansionary' energy, moderating gravity, is created in how the extra strong gravity of deep space coalesces matter into hot clouds of dust and molecules, precursors to proto-stars, which counterpushes atoms and molecules apart. The reason this Dark Energy is unnecessary as a postulate is that gravity is equal in all directions of infinity, so what is pulling together in any part of it is counterpulled by all the rest of it, so the universe is in constant gravity equilibrium where 'hot-energy' and 'gravity-energy' both cancel out. What forms within these competing forces are then the physical universe we observe with all its galaxies, dust clouds, hot and cold stars, and the galactic center black holes.

I should note that none of this is proven, as yet. Modern physics, in my opinion, does not yet qualify as a bona fide Science, but is more in the realm of a good detective story, trying to sort out all the clues of how this universe is put together. To give it a finality in space and time is absurd, a terracentric observation colored by neo-creationist whims, and not real. We human beings have a fond wish to place ourselves at the top of universal intelligence, and at the center of all Creation, which is still a sign of our evolutionary immaturity, but for such we may be excused of our homocentrism, for we are still young.

:-))

HOW BIG WAS IT?

Space.com's: Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!

This is another example of the confusion surrounding our astrophysical interpretation of cosmic light redshift, where it is believed to be due to Doppler motion rather than due to the greater gravity variable-constant of deep space. At least it conveniently solves the problem of seeing fully formed galaxies 13 billion light years away! (see: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/galaxy_string_040119.html ). So now when we look past the assumed 'origin' of the universe, we will not be embarrassed with the wealth of fully formed galaxies in abundance.

Of course, I am quite convinced, after reading all this fascinating astro-fantasm that if we look far enough, we will not only see more fully formed galaxies, even if 100s of billion light years away, but the real treat will be when we can see the Easter Bunny, Snow White and the seven dwarfs, and far enough away Santa Claus flying over the north pole... ha ha, what a trip!

Net net, gravity ain't universally all the same, but is greater in deep cold of intergalactic space. Hint: there is no Easter Bunny.

J

Space.com/Proof of Black Hole

They really have no idea what this is, but the evidence is clear, Black Holes exist. Of course, the reasons of its existence leaves me rolling on the floor in stitches, millions of tightly packed super suns in neutron-boson stars, totally oblivious of the obvious: that all the galaxy's energy cancels at the center; this canceled energy then accretes into the supermassive gravity of the primordial space-vacuum. There is nothing strange about that, nor is there an 'Eather Bunny' either.

---

Quote:

Still, a handful of other exotic explanations have been put forth to account for the heavy center of the Milky Way, based on what scientists understand about physics: a cluster stellar mass black holes; a cluster of neutron stars made entirely of tightly packed neutrons; or perhaps a big ball of heavy neutrinos.

---

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Finally a voice of reason, up the mainstream.

BBC Science News: Universe at least 156 billion lightyears across.

The inherent flaw in this reasoning is that the light which went the other way, away from us and invisible to us, is not being considered, though it is part of the whole universe. This means you must double the 156 figure, to 312 billion lightyears across, at least, since that too is believed expanding. Also, any light racing along the line of expansion of necessity violates the v = c limit, so it becomes v' = c+z, which invalidates the light constant. At what point does an expanding universe stretch this light to invisibility? How valid are distance estimates in an expanding universe, i.e., where is it now? If there is no center and no boundary, then where are we in it? What does 'expanding' space-vacuum mean? How much of this is real and how much a far stretched-fairy-tale?

No wonder serious scientists are signing the above petition Open Letter challenging the whole idea. If I were a scientist with credentials, I'd sign it too.

I vote for greater-gravity related light redshift instead, far more realistic than the stretch of an expanding Big Bang.

Ivan

LUNATIK'S PARADOX?

As posted by Lunatik on Bad Astronomy:

Uhh... why would anyone assume that light in an expanding-space universe is visible to us? What if it is only visible in the other stretched-dimensions of space, where it is traveling expanded? Isn't explosive-expanding space something of a stretch, of our imagination, or outright lunacy? Who dreamt up this Big Bang stuff in the first place? Is it any wonder real observations, those not filtered by expectations, don't measure up? I'm impressed that it continues to impress.

And if light coming from stretched-dimensions is no longer visible to us, even at short distances, then why isn't the sky black? Call it a 'Lunatik's paradox'. J

CMB as proof? Of what? Not BBT... just background noise.

BBT Paradoxes?

(As posted by 'Lunatik' on Bad Astronomy: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=274449#274449)

It surprises me how little attention is given to obvious paradoxes inherent in an expanding universe. All of these represent 'weak links', so should be considered:

1. An expanding universe violates the speed of light constant c.

This one is most surprising of all, since the whole BBT argument originates from a light constant built into Relativity, both SR and GR, so that v = c always. However, if expansion is a fact (assuming that expanding space allows us to see light at all -- see my post "Big Bang Busted?"- 6/7/04), then light traversing space expanding of necessity becomes v' = c+z. However, if light cannot exceed is constant c, how can this be? The resulting Doppler redshift, which we accept as the reason space is expanding, then violates the most fundamental argument of what Relativity is made of, which is a paradox. If anyone has trouble visualizing why this is so, imagine the light originating here and traveling away into cosmic space where it encounters space expansion, and in doing so, it now travels above v = c as it accelerates away from us, so that of necessity v > c.

2. The second reason requires special attention, because it is even more important. Per cyrek1's quote:

---

Quote:

There is no center. You appear to be in the center regardless of where you are located.

---

---

Quote:

There is no definable center, if everything is in constant motion it is impossible to ascertain any absolute model, you can only construct a relative one.

---

CONTINUED: Bad Astronomy: An Impossibility?

---

Quote:

"freddo": This expanding of ALL points further away from us outwards necessitates only ONE center, which contradicts the concept that ALL points in the universe are its center. Hence, this is why it is a paradox.

Not a paradox... Because it's not just all points away from us, it's all points away from all other points...



Very simple diagram to give you an idea why it doesn't matter where you are, the view will be the same...

---

---

Quote:

"Sam5": Exactly what is meant by “the expansion of space”??

What we see by means of the redshifts is the distant galaxies moving away from us. Up until the mid 1990s, this was called by its traditional name, i.e. “moving”. As a matter of fact, this was called “moving” in astronomy books in the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 1990s, but once the superluminal galaxies were discovered, there developed a cult within astrophysics that started calling this phenomenon “the expansion of space” rather than “the movement of the galaxies”. This cult seems to center around a belief in the “c limiting speed” proclamation of 1905, and the cultists will go to great extremes to keep that proclamation from being violated by observational data. This is a case where modern theory is distorted specifically so that observational facts can be avoided and twisted in a way to avoid the violation of an old superstition.

For example, here is a quote from a 1991 university astronomy textbook:


“APPENDIX 14: THE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
..snip...

So, here we have the pre-“expanding space” math-hoax way of trying to get around the “violation” of the 1905 “limiting speed”. But now in the early 21st Century, the speeds of the distant galaxies are recognized in some ways as a kind of “speed”, but their speed is not attributed to “motion,” but to the so-called expansion of nothing, i.e. the “expansion of space”. So while their “speeds” now are handled mathematically as “speeds”, the conceptual part of the theory says the distant galaxies are “not really moving” but being “carried along” by expanding nothing, i.e. “expanding space”.

---

---

Quote:

"TravisM": The speed of light has been established by the permitivity and permiability of electricity and magnetism in a vacuum.
There is no medium in a vacuum, hence the name.

...snip...

Space is expanding. The BB did happen. There are piles of data that not only hint at the answer but whack you over the head with the answer. Seeing red shifts and assuming space expands is the EASIEST explanation at the moment with the physics we have (which were developed independantly of cosmology or astronomy by the way.)
Now, I don't know what this "we should see blue shifts too" farse is, but it has got to stop. If I've been following this thread correctly, which I don't always do, then most everyone who posted here besides a few who know who they are (because they're not confused) doesn't know how to visualize this expansion, and probably never will....

---

BIG BANG, CONTINUED:

As posted by Lunatik on Bad Astronomy, June 10, 2004: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=275172#275172 (to see responses to below)

---

Quote:

Quote:
Tensor: Ok, Lunatic (sic), to take an example, what exactly is the error in logic or leap of faith in the way General Relativity defines an event on a manifold?

---

Good question, though it is looking at the end of a process of reason rather than at the beginning. I am examining the premises, not the nomenclature of end results, except that if the premises have flaws in them, then the end results are in doubt. So it is a test of logic and what derives from basic assumptions that leads me to have a "reasonable doubt". Since I am not an initiate of the specialized field of Tensor Metrics, I will leave that end of the debate on "the way GR defines an event on a manifold" to those who practice that particular art of mathematics.

There is another way to illustrate BBT, with a "bubble" example, call it BBBT, or the Big Bang in a Bubble Theory. What this means is that all light coming to us from every direction of the 13-15 billion light years sphere we observe, since the beginning of BB, is actually the Ground Zero of the Big Bang. In effect, the sphere surface observable in every direction is the origin, and we are in the bubble within it as we look outwards. This is a somewhat easier visualization of BBT than the earlier illustration. The reason we only see redshifted light (never blueshifted) is because from our perspective, we can only see the universe from its origin within that bubble, and cannot know if the same event is registered from any other point of space, though we assume it is. For example, if we were positioned physically on the periphery of this bubble (what to us appears as Ground Zero), we would no doubt see the same bubble again, though this is only an imaginary guess. However, we must remember that this light coming to us from that original Ground Zero, what is now the sphere surface of the observable universe, had been coming here for 13-15 billion years. So, in effect, we should be able to register that beginning in our observations. We do register energy which is about 3 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and interpret that as the earliest evidence of the Big Bang. However, in between that light and now there is still 13-15 billion years of space creation, of stars and galaxies, that had formed until the present. The deeper we look into space with our astronomical instruments, the further we go backwards in time. The problem, however, is that though we had already gone back 13.2 billion light years with Hubble, the stars and galaxies were already fully formed. Shouldn't there be evidence of their formations? And if so, where is it?

I am using this BBBT bubble analogy as an example of how the Big Bang might be possible and not as proof. The corollary to this is that what we see is merely what it is, that it had always been there, and that looking backwards through time, by capturing widely dispersed photons to make an image, is no indication that a Big Bang happened back then. What appears to us as Ground Zero may be no more than the margins of our visible universe. The rest is subject to interpretation, so that if we want to imagine a Big Bang, the universe obliges by let us do just that.

The fact that sophisticated mathematics were used to interpret this data of observation in such a way that it leads us to think of an origin, which originally was believed to be about 8 billion years ago and since adjusted to near 15 billion years ago, merely illustrates that we are very clever. But it does not constitute a proof of a Big Bang, unless we can spot in space the actual formation of galaxies on a massive scale somewhere near where we computed them to be, in every direction equally. Without that, there remains "reasonable doubt".

I think it will be more fruitfull and realistic to look for other causes of cosmic redshift. That is the point I wanted to make on this thread: We just don't know... Or as Einstein was fond of saying: "Experimentum summus judex."

I should also add that it is standard practice for the defenders of BBT, and Relativity in general, to intellectually intimidate any who question it, usually with references to advanced mathematics and relativistic theory. This is further reinforced with ideas that are ''counterintuitive" and thus cannot be understood except as symbols and equations. I call it "boilerplate", because if an idea is beyond understanding, exactly how good is it? I take it as a basic premise, that if it is beyond reason, then it is very likely unreasonable. If reason cannot be communicated, then how good is it to explain a universe in counterintuitive terms? The explanation fails, and the burden of proof rests on the science.

-as an aside, my friends at LANL tell me their rocket scientists are called "Lunatiks".
J

PROOF THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE (just for fun!)

There is a very simple mathematical proof the universe is infinite. Let us call it the Big Bang Bubble Theory, or BBBT, so that the absolute center of this immense explosion of Space took place at some point in time, where t = 0, and its center is now ALL of the distant edges of the visible universe some 15 billion light years away. This means that from any position in space the view is always the same, approximately 15 billion light years away, which is actually Ground Zero for BBT. That 15 billion light year margin of visibility is then what is for us on Earth the edge of the Bubble of the Big Bang that is in actuality stretched over 15 billion years.

Now, we can also express this spherical margin, which is the original point of the explosion, as its center, mathematically. Taking the now stretched Ground Zero as an equation of the surface area of that 15 BLY sphere, A = 4 pi r^2, which is the inverse of itself, the original zero space at time t = 0, we can say that A = 0, and that this A is also = 1/(4 pi r^2):

0 = 1/ (4 pi r^2)

So what do we get?

(0)(4 pi r^2) = 1

The solution to this equation of necessity invokes the "zero x infinity = one" theorem. We know this was never formally proven mathematically, however by using the inverse of numbers multiplied by their whole digits, we get:

n => infinity, as 1/n => zero, so that multiplying these two progressions together always equals: n x 1/n = 1, which for an infinite progression approximates the "zero time infinity equals one" theorem.

If so, then the value of "4 pi r^2" is of necessity infinity, therefore:

(0)(4 pi r^2) = 1, where (4 pi r^2) is infinity.

What this means is that if Ground Zero is seen observationally as the surface area of the whole observable event of the Big Bang, then that surface area as an inverse of point zero, where the Big Bang began at t = 0, so that the surface area (4 pi r^2) is infinite.

And if so, the Big Bang did not take place 15 billion years ago, if it took place at all, but an infinite time ago. Therefore, the Universe is infinite.

End of proof.

(Please note: If there is no Big Bang, then this equation is moot, and only remains as an illustration of infinity closed in on itself.)

* * *

BIG BANG IS OBSERVATIONALLY INVISIBLE

There is another factor to be considered, not mathematically but conceptually, which calls into doubt the Big Bang:

If the universe began in a Big Bang, in the BBBT fashion where we are at the center of an observable Big Bang "bubble", so that in all directions we see the Ground Zero of this expansion 15 billion light years away, then the same expansion should also be taking place at our observational point as well. This means that we are not the center from which this expansion is taking place, but are actually moving along with it so that our position within the "bubble" is actually the margin of that expansion rather than its center, as we are being carried along by it. Our position here is the end product of this space expansion. We were never stationary for the past 15 billion years, if a Big Bang occurred.

Now, this is an important concept which may be difficult to visualize: But if we are the end product of this Big Bang explosion, then we are not its center, but its ending, which means the universe had been expanding with us and not away from us. Therefore, the "bubble" of expansion we see is actually an illusion, because the light and space from the explosion has for 15 billion years been moving towards us as we moved with it. The conclusion which follows, of necessity, is that the Ground Zero is not some 15 billion light years away, but because it had been moving towards us in all that time, is observationally also here. While we are the end product of such an explosion, we are also at Ground Zero, because we moved with it. Therefore, observationally, if such a Big Bang explosion took place, its visual observation "bubble" would simultaneously collapse on us as we are carried by it, so the universe would disappear. There would be no redshift of distant cosmic light, since it would be invisible to us, and the night sky would have absolutely nothing in it.

The fact that we can see distant cosmic light, and redshift is observed, means that there cannot have been a Big Bang. The Universe always was, is, and will be what it is, and redshift happens for reasons we do not yet understand.

There is no Doppler motion involved, either of astronomical physical bodies, or of space itself. If gravity is at fault, meaning deep space has more gravity than here, as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation, then light passing through that greater gravity field would redshift naturally, which makes much more sense then a Big Bang.

Ivan

SciAm article Milky Way X-ray Mystery Deepens shows deep space plasma with possible neutron star or black hole in it.

This hot ionized gas, or plasma, recorded may be the proto-matter of future star formations. It would need a gravitic center to gather it up and put into a high spin, which would be the beginning of a new galaxy. Once a galaxy forms, the ambient surrounding light would cancel on a central point, hence forming a powerful black hole gravity center, per Axiomatic Equation. Such a black hole, with the high spin of plasma around it, would then send out powerful X-ray as a byproduct.

Also see Bad Astronomy forum posts on "Milky Way X-ray Mystery".

This suggested theory above, however, is my own.

Ivan

HOW BLACK HOLES FORM, see mine (Lunatik) at Against the Mainstream Milky Way X-ray...

It makes sense, no?

Ivan

IT MAY BE AN ELECTRIC, PLASMA UNIVERSE?

IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS

The above linked article show how electric force exists throughout the universe, even linking stars and galaxies together, and that the universe is nearly all plasma. This also makes sense from the Axiomatic Equation's new physics, since Energy is electric force times lightspeed, or E = E_m*c = B_m*c^2, so that it is also magnetic times c^2. Of course, what the article fails to mention is that Gravity plays a very major role as the counterforce of electromagnetic energy, which is very important.

Another good paper on plasma is at: Plasma Redshift and the Astrophysics of the Non-Exploding Universe which not only discusses how the universe is largely made of Plasma, but also how this photo-ionized plasma influences redshift of distant cosmic light. I suspect the greater gravity of deep space, where this higher G causes hydrogen atoms and space dust to coalesce, is more responsible, but this may be a part of it too.

Ivan

DO NEUTRONS, OR NEUTRON STARS, ACTUALLY EXIST?

(as posted on Bad Astronomy: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15235

I'd like to ask this strange question because I can find no reference to anyone actually seeing a neutron. We can identify they exist from spectral scattering patterns, but does this mean the neutrons actually exist? We assume they exist from our atomic and subatomic modelling, useful in chemistry to balance out the electron charge against that of the proton, but they do not seem to actually exist as seperate entities that can be seen directly. We also assume that stars with immense gravity are 'neutron' stars, but what does this actually mean? Are we giving this great gravity generating star a neutron composition, though the neutron has not been found to exist outside of spectral observations? For example, a neutron accelerator is only now being built, which should be operational by 2006, at SNS in Oak Ridge, TN, so it is at least theoretically possible to identify a neutron particle seperate from the nucleus. Will this accelerator finally identify a neutron? Or could a neutron be a 'filler' for our atomic modelling, though it may not actually exist? I've searched for where a neutron was 'seen', but have come up empty.

So my question, strange that it is since it doubts the validity of atomic science of more than a century, is that perhaps we had 'assumed' a neutron exist, but never actually seen one, and from this assumption 'imagined' neutron stars based on this assumption. Here's a paper by Harold Aspden, 1994, on Cold Fusion that may be interesting on this matter: POWER FROM WATER: COLD FUSION: PART I

---

Quote:

3. The neutron as a real particle has only been detected upon creation in the free state and it has a half-lifetime measured in minutes but physicists extrapolate and create 'neutron stars' in their imagination, stars which survive far longer than a few minutes! They cannot 'see' a neutron in an atom, such as in the deuteron, but they assume it is there because the deuteron has two atomic units of mass and one of charge. But, surely, one could better surmise that two anti-protons plus three positive beta-particles represent two atomic units of mass having one positive unit of charge.

---

Ivan,

Neutrons are real, and can be observed....

Neutron

J____

Ivan,

It is not difficult to duplicate the early experiments. When an object hits another object, the object is real, not hypothetical. Neutrons are real.

Without the Electron ... nothing is...!

J____

Thanks Michael for access to these links:

Dipolar-shaped Magnetic Field

Magnetic Moment and Angular Monentum

Observations of Magnetic Fields/Inside and outside Solar System

J___, Michael, and all,

Just some very fun pages to look at, by Jacques P. Vallee (Canadian), in relation to what we're talking about here.

BLACK HOLES ARE HOT

NewScientist.com's Spinning black holes fire off violent jets gives a confusing picture of what happens in a galactic black hole, anything from it being billions of Suns massive to magnetic fields kicking out jets of charged particles up the poles.

I suspect the answer is easier, that the jets of charged particles out the poles are a natural consequence of how a black hole forms. By having all ambient light from the surrounding galaxy converge on a point in the center cancels all wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, where one charge is absorbed by the black hole, while the other charge goes out the path of least resistance, which is its axis. If all the energy is coming in from the sides, the charge particles escape out through the poles, which is the only open path. This should be true for all black holes regardless of their size. The greater the amount of light falling in, the greater the size, which means the greater the gravity region of maximum force. At the black hole, maximum G = c, of its electromagnetic velocity equivalent. Hence, no light shows since there it is being cancelled out.

This is all matter for future study, since at present physics does not theorize gravity being a variable force, which is how the new physics based on the Axiomatic Equation sees it. The evidence will come in, by and by, but when it does, black holes will be hot stuff.

Ivan,

Ok- thought experiment on black holes.

Consider BH = Monster vacuum cleaner

Purpose = Annihilate all superfluous light

Result = Recycled basic particles

Instead of black hole, why not properly rename to … clyster energy recyclers?

Would such a result meet the demanded thermodynamic laws…?

J____

How about looking at it like a filter?
You have a 500hz Carrier signal with Voice modulation on it, then it is transmitted thought the air.

Fact the SINCE the mans Voice disappeared going througth the radio transmission in the air.
Does Air eat up radio waves since we can not see them? no!
It is just a change of energy state I think, As electron waves, light waves and such are still there, Just RIDING the CARRIER GRAVITY waves of a black hole. THEY are just sped up or slowed down, like radio transmissions.

Becuase we can not see a Disc Jockeis voice Transmit throught the Air, DOES NOT MEAN it is not there, just at a Diffrent E Level!

Make Sense? I think?!?!

Ivan,

You are still on the gravity as a wave kick ... believe me ... it don't happen that way...!

J____

J___,

Rather than 'gravity as a wave', I think of it more as 'gravity as a frequency'. The difference is that electromagnetic frequency is a traveling wave, whereas as gravity is a stationary 'wave', does not travel but is felt instantaneously throughout infinity. So this is not a wave in a true sense, but a hybrid of frequency, a kind of potential force wave which stays in one place. As an aside, I also see this potential force as what constitutes the nucleus of the atom. There it is a very powerful standing gravity wave which breaks down into positive charge or neutral, depending upon the electromagnetic energy received, so that an electron is formed around it to give us the atom.

The spin off from this is that if we ever learn to manipulate it, since it is extremely strong in its raw form, and because it is instantaneous, this gravity 'frequency' could someday be used for interstellar communications, like in Star Trek's 'subspace communications'. Of course, for as long as we think gravity is that pidlingly weak force we experience on Earth, then none of this will ever happen. So we need a paradigm here, that gravity is a very powerful force of which we experience only a very diluted version here.

Do I make sense? Really thinking way outside the box... Thanks for bringing it up, since it was instrumental in thinking about it! I also suspect the SETI efforts are fruitless because advanced worlds already use this 'gravity frequency' to communicate. We are simply unable to hear it, not yet being there technologically.

Ivan

Ivan,

For something to have frequency it must oscillate, to oscillate it must have something to oscillate within, if something oscillates within something - it will cause waves in that something, and such waves cannot be prevented.

You are thinking in the wrong box.

Think ... neutron

A neutron is a 1/2 spin neutral particle with mass.

Mn = 1.6750 x 10^24 g = 1.6750 x 10^27 kg

Since the neutron is neutral in charge ... they are anti-symmetric when it comes to wave functions; therefore, is incapable of oscillation!

Neutrons can be found in the nucleus of atoms, but they also exist as free particles; therefore, the force effect of the neutron is ... static, and independent of all other particulars!

The reality is ... as mean ambient temperature declines the neutron actually loses much of its force through entropic loss of energy, which is as it should be...! What that does in effect is to insure the degradation of all matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity. In very cold regions of the universe ... the inert qualities of the neutron guarantees the "medium" that comprises all the apparent places void of anything, is without gravitational properties whatsoever.

Now, before you challenge the think, we cannot ever omit any of the thermodynamic laws, for the process of degradation (entropy) cannot be stopped, and continually causes the trend to disorder within an ordered system … no matter if closed or open. This will prove the universe employs a method of recycling energy and matter … we just do not understand how it is accomplished.

J____

Ivan,

No think experiment on this.

Neutrons are fermions, and follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle; however, all fermions have anti-symmetric wave functions, and obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.

So far as the DeBroglie wave, it is only theoretical, and cannot be measured ... but do not forget the DeBroglie wave equations were in fact dependent upon ... all nature being ... symmetrical, which the neutron is strictly anti-symmetrical.

You wrote: "Even if a neutron is chilled to near zero Kelvin, and it should become 'heavier', its gravity measurement is overshadowed by the Sun's immense energy output, so our gravitational reading is thrown off, and nothing different shows."

The obvious contradiction is- “Even if a neutron is chilled to near zero Kelvin – it will not become heavier! Instead, the gravitational properties of the neutron will … lessen.

J____

"For something to have frequency it must oscillate, to oscillate it must have something to oscillate within, if something oscillates within something - it will cause waves in that something, and such waves cannot be prevented."--

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, With oscillations?
As the moon orbits the earth, tide waves are made like and oscillation. Each cycle has a high point and a low point. But the average is ZERO. So the rms would be rms={Max(measurment)}/sqrt(2)

Just trying to make a point. Even as they have wondered does Jupiters Orbit play any roll on the sun 11 years sun spot cycle? it is right about an eleven year orbit?

Not saying if gravity travelles in waves or not. but take yourself to a distant planet, and if there is the center star with a planet revoling around it faster then your orbit, if you were to measure the F attraction. That Value for F will Increase and decrease like a sign waves, that Osilattion is what some percieve as a gravitational waves?
I am not sure to look at it this way or not!
Because one can take a speaker sound to vibrate foam beads back and forth.

So I guess one would have look at it like water surface. If you have a rock dropped into the water, the waves would JOG little floating beads around like they are being tossed about.
SO is it that the waves has a wave like a gravity wave?
Well water is a Zero point when flat. we all know water waves did not start the oscilation, but the force of the rock into the water, if not a one time rock, A Constant turning paddle wheel, which ever the case.

I think I maybe babbleing,
Short and sweet.

If anything has a cycle it is a wave, It may not be the direct point of energy causing a wave, but it is most definatly a secondary effect which can be seen, therefore it should be able to be measured to it proportional value of ZERO?

Just like AC signal, the full sign wave average is equal to zero, but it can give you a good bite.

Michael

Michael,

Any moving wave must have a source.

Can we agree on that single principle...?

Consider gravity ... does gravity move?

If gravity moves, gravity must have a source.

What is the "source" that causes gravity to move?

What do the inferrences from above dictate...?

J____

J___, Michael,

Good thinks, which makes us all think!

I don't know what really happens to a neutron that is supercooled to a few degrees above Kelvin. My suspicion is that its gravitational mass is affected somehow, if it is a 'gravitic' particle, but it's a toss up as to whether its inertial mass is now lower, as you suggest, or higher, as I suggest. Here is a paper that addresses this, though I am still not clear of the answer:
Ultracold neutrons, quantum effects of gravity and the weak equivalence principle

Another link paper on the science involved of trapping supercold neutrons:
Magnetic Trapping of Ultracold Neutrons

In the first paper, I find it interesting that Bertolami and Nunes talk about how Newton's gravity may need modification at the very short range region. This is how I see it too, but am not ready yet to really tackle this one. Will look for more data.

One more interesting article on how neutrons, when used at the De Broglie 1 nm wavelength, can be used to make a microscope:
New Way of 'Seeing'

Mike, on your pond analogy, gravity is to me that flat water in which electromagnetic waves will create a ripple. This is why I always thought that if astrophysics ever did find a graviton, it would be a shadow ripple of em energy and not gravity itself. The gravity is the pond! Of course, any motion, even Jupiter's spin in its orbit, gives itself to creating a frequency, so even the tidal motions of the oceans have a frequency. Most movement has some form of oscillation, even it a chaotic one.

J___, does any wave have a source? Most definitely! No, gravity does not move, it is a state of things. Electromagnetic energy has stars as its source. Gravity has itself as its own source in a stationary state. Conclusion? Gravity does not radiate.

Ivan

Ivan, Michael,

Ivan responded: “No, gravity does not move, it is a state of things.

It is very difficult to establish and validate such a claim, for – state = a thing as it is – which is problematic in that no two neutrons can occupy the same state! In other words, each neutron must be unique or different from all other neutrons in the sea of neutrons. I agree gravity is static…!

Ivan responded: “Gravity has itself as its own source in a stationary state.”

Basic tenant of philosophy of science = nothing can be of itself! An electron cannot create itself, a neutron cannot create itself, and neither can gravity create itself, nor is gravity a derivative of self; therefore, gravity is of another source instead of self.

This is where we must turn to the thermodynamic laws, the 2nd of which tells us gravity cannot produce … gravity.

Looking at quantum interrogations does not help us here, for the entire theory of quantum = metaphysics with numbers...! A sad state of affairs methinks!

J____

I agree with you both, that is where I see a view point to play the number game.
if the surface of water is flat it = 0
if the plane of space is flat it = 0

I have been trying to find a common nemesis to gravity. Such to the point if a force has a pull value of so much, it should have the equal oppisite value in the other direction.

the thing I have been looking into all the formulas of wave proporgation, and cycles and freq. of time.
I have been taken only the values that due with the formulas at hand, or converting them into Time based cycles.
Some reoccuring numbers bother me while they also show Venus and neptune done not follow the proper proportions of intervals? I am still looking at that?
I am right now mixing in toroid formulas into the orbits and magnetic fluxs to see if there is a trend or not (in cycles).

--- an off note----
Note that earth cycles one time and jupiter about 11 years, if you where to make Jupiter the ratio norm with cycle = one, that would make earth have 11 cycles to one of Jupiters. NEXT, if when we see that same side of the 30 day rotation of the sun's sun pots reoccur, and how they start at the top of the sun and work their way to the equator over eleven years, then reapper starting at the top.
I wonder if, if if if.... when the spots start at the top, where is the posistions of Jupiter and earth relative in degrees?
If jupiter is alinged with earth to the sun?
Even at diffrent ocation degrees of 0' or 90' or even 180' of earth and Jupiters placement would not so, bit only on eleven year cycles.
That makes me think that there is a galatic play into all this, and it so happens that earth and is in a relative same place every eleven years to see that reoccurance with some distortion.
--- end of the off note-------

This is where I am trying to find a background ZERO value. since I wrote this it makes me think yet again to try some more crunching.


Michael

PS: If the sun is travelling at 19400km/per sec through space, what is the know (educated guess) of the Sols distance to the center of our galaxey?
from that I could ponder up the GM at the center were our sun revolves and get sol into the number crunch, to see what it shows.

THE SIMPLE ATOM

In my Summary of Old Physics vs. New Physics (Aug. 14, 2004):
http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/147.html
I theorized a supposition that the remnant gravity of an atom is charge neutral, taking as a model the charge neutral neutron. This had led me to start thinking in terms of raw gravity being a charge positive force, only neutralized from the interaction this extreme gravity of the nucleus and how it is modified by the electromagnetic energy to give it a unit of mass, the atom. This should be true for either a simple atom like hydrogen, or the more complex atoms which make up the elements chart. Because it takes mass for us to feel gravity, which is how it becomes manifest as a force, we assumed that gravity is a force like energy. However, this may be an error in our thinking, because if gravity is merely a state of being in the spacevacuum, we cannot experience it except through its manifestation in atomic mass, or in the aggregate in matter. In fact, gravity may be only what is left over from how mass forms, so to experience it in its true raw form, we'd have to travel to a black hole, where it is extreme.

So why does energy have charge? This is a question that had been on my mind for a very long time, since it is one of the great unanswered questions of physics. Seeing it as per above, charge begins to make sense within the duality structure of how our universe is put together. Positive charge is the natural charge of extreme gravity, while negative charge is the natural charge of the electron, or electricity as it travels from the negative pole to the positive. We may live in an electric universe after all, though gravity cannot be discounted either. However, because as a product of the atom, because gravity is neutralized so all we get is its neutral equivalent very weak remnant, the positive and negative charges only show in the atom's proton nucleus and its electron shell. The atom is largely charge neutral as well because these balance out, except when it is ionized and electrons are thrown off. The fact that we learned to use electricity, first as an electrostatic force curiosity, and later to power virtually everything in our modern society, is almost as if we did it by accident. Yet, it works, so here it is. Now, let's figure out how to use the charge neutral portion of it, which is the neutron and ultimately gravity. Shouldn't this be a major subject of scientific exploration in physics in the future? Then, once we can do this, we really will have a New Physics.

Ivan

Ivan,

You wrote: “How would you apply your reasoning to the spacevacuum?

First of all I do not recognize space as “the space vacuum,” neither do I recognize space as being Einstein/Minkowski space-time. What we call space is not empty space, but is comprised of a substance (medium) consisting of two basic particles, and is a kinetic gas.

There is no way around what follows in order to make sense of … existing nonsense, so we introduce several new words, terms, and phraseology.

The Standard Model, or the Einstein/Minkowski/Lemaitre Model most cosmologists and physicists work with today does not have one feature that was omitted by Einstein, and is the major flaw in Einsteinian physics. That omission once was called aether/ether, but it is not possible for Electromagnetic Energy to propagate without some type of medium to operate and function within.

Negatrino – the basic non-composite ½ spin micro-most negative charged particle

Positrino – the basic non-composite ½ micro-most positive charged particle

Cosmino - both Negatrino and Positrino when not defined separately

Sharmon - the basic composite particle consisting of one Positrino and one Negatrino

Sharmon Medium – a kinetic gas comprised of Sharmons

A positrino and a negatrino compose the sharmon. The opposing ½ -spins of the pair of composing cosminos produce the sharmon’s 0-spin state, and the co-directional ½ -spins yield the 1-spin sharmon.

From the Negatrino and Positrino particles all matter and energy manifests. The Sharmon Medium is elastic, and it is permeable because it is a kinetic gas with the time averaged distance being ~ 10^5cm, and compares with a Mean Free Path of the known gasses (e.g. for Hydrogen 1.12x 10^5 cm, Oxygen 0.64x 10^5 cm, Nitrogen 0.595x10^5 cm).

The medium contains ~ 10^15 particles per cm^3. And its average mass density is 0.519 x10^33 gm.cm^3, vis-a-vis 3x10^31 gm.cm^3 for what is a Steady State Cosmology and 1.293x10^3 gm cm^3 for air.

The sharmon medium is irremovable by any means since the tiny10^33 cm basic particles can pass through spaces between molecules and atoms of even the densest solids, but also between orbital electrons! Here it must be stated – there is no place in the entire universe where there is no thing, for where we cannot observe anything will exist the medium as is defined herein. This rules out every possibility for a vacuum to occur in natural reality.

The oppositely charged cosminos in the sharmon do not mutually annihilate, unlike the cosmino composed electron-positron pair, because the cosminos themselves are the non-composite micro-most elements; therefore both are scalar; hence, the 0-spin sharmon and the vector 1-spin sharmon are stable and dynamic structures, and can inter-convert.

The constituent cosminos of the sharmon not only spin but also can vibrate along the common axis, imparting an electric as well as a magnetic dipole moment to the sharmon. The electromagnetic properties of the sharmon generate those of the material particles, photon and the sharmon medium, which they compose.

Here it must be stated - No particle or energy quantum is massless, or dimensionless, or "virtual" (i.e. unreal). All particles have more-than-zero definite mass and size including both of the cosminos that comprise the sharmon medium.

Bosonic condensation of sharmons is supported by close distance attractions among the constituent cosminos and imparts gregarious properties to sharmons, which can aggregate to compose energy and neutral mass of all known material particles. Electrically positive or negative charged mass of the charged particles is composed by the respective positive or negative cosminos. The neutrinos, photon, graviton & cosmino have more-than-zero definite definable mass and size.

Here to remove mystery, the neutron-graviton phenomena must be explained. Since we do not fully understand reality, we do not know, and cannot prove the existence of what is called …graviton; however, the word graviton if it does not exist can be properly used to identify a neutron that possesses the attractive properties associated with gravity.

There are two infinite range forces and fields - gravitational & electromagnetic

These are propagated contiguously in the sharmon medium at the same velocity of light c, although set differently by the respective physical parameters of the sharmon medium. Their mediator bosons (graviton, photon) comprise multiple sharmons of more-than-zero definite mass. These two sharmon-mediated basic forces/fields, both gravitational & electromagnetic, are unified into a single primal 'sharmon force/field', of which, there are two manifestations via the corresponding two manifested charges of mass and electric of the cosminos composing the sharmons in the sharmon medium. Remember, there are two forces & two fields that are unified into a single primal force/field…!

There are three short-range exchange interactions mediated via 0-spin bosons (± diads, sharmon, sharmon-diad units).

(a) Electric interaction, mediated by electrically charged bosons, the ± diads.
(b) Gravitational interaction, mediated by bosons with no electric charge, the 0-spin sharmon aggregates.
(c) Mechanical interaction, mediated via absorption of the mechanical momentum of mediator bosons, absorption of outward momenta yielding the repulsive force and of inward momenta, the attractive force.

Ivan wrote: “Are they not both a static or stationary thing?

There is nothing in the universe that is not in motion. Even the gravitational fields that surround objects in the universe are in motion, as is the Sharmon Medium, which was at first proven to exist by Dayton Miller, rejected by Einstein, and mostly discarded today.

Ivan wrote: “How is this against "nothing can be itself?"

The correct phrase should be – Nothing can come of itself, e.g. nothing can come out of itself … In other words, a neutron cannot come out of a neutron, an electron cannot come out of an electron; hence, gravity cannot come out of gravity, or be derived from gravity.

Ivan wrote: “Though, I do agree that two neutrons cannot occupy the same space at the same time, since they are a manifestation of something.

I am not talking about occupying the same space (area) simultaneously – I am talking of the eigenstate of particles, which for essential purposes is superfluous to this exchange.

Don’t know where else to go with this now….

J____

Michael,

You wrote: “If anything has a cycle it is a wave, It may not be the direct point of energy causing a wave, but it is most definatly a secondary effect which can be seen, therefore it should be able to be measured to it proportional value of ZERO?"

I am not well versed in waves; however, methinks we need to consider magnets first since gravity is – magnetic, which means > attractor. If something attracts, what is the mechanism of the attraction…? Is it not always polarity…? Does not polarity in fact mean – or + charged, or the opposite ends of the “electric” dipole moment?

If that were the case, wouldn’t gravity of necessity be a monopole field…? Thereby of necessity could be singular charged + or - …?

I am struggling here because I cannot think my way through a singular charge in that it being unidirectional - a one way street with no escape. That is like earth with only a south pole, and no north pole…! To my logic such a phenomenon cannot exist in reality…!

Ok- maybe … wrong track…!

Every object has a center of mass … that is where the opposite end of the charge state exists. In other words … earth has not one, but two charge fields that meet directly at earth’s center of mass.

One from the North Pole to the center of the earth is negative –
This one ends at the center of earth’s mass is positive +

One from the South Pole to the center of the earth is positive +
This one ends at the center of earth’s mass is negative –

What happens when two differing poles meet head on? Of course – they attract one to the other if – meets + or + meets - … and if – meets – they repel one another, so the same when + meets + …!

Could this be the mechanism that heats earth’s core…?

What a strange experience this has been. Start out on a path to find an answer, and come up with something totally unrelated! Problem is for me though what I envision with this little exercise is a field (gravity), without the spectral lines that identify any typical waveforms of Electromagnetic energy. Is it possible? Omegatron Dynamics indicates gravity is not propagated, and functions without waves.

J____

Ivan,

You wrote: “Where does the 'sharmon' come from, if it is the most basic small particle with density of the sharmon medium at ~10e33 gm.cm^3? Does this not make the sharmon, through this infinite regress, the basic of all particles? And if so, how did it come out of itself without violating the basic tenet of philosophy of science mentioned above? Do you see why I am puzzled here?”

This is where we separate from mainstream physics, cosmology, and the models that everyone considers Standard.

Statement of fact: Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed.

The laws of thermodynamics demands the statement is true, testing and observation have conclusively proven it to be true; hence, we just murdered Big Bang along with all its proponents. Realistic physics will not try to force fit Reality into any theory in order to prove and validate the theory…! That is bad physics, and unconscionable…!

If matter and energy cannot be destroyed = the universe, all energy, and all matter have existed forever, which means, everything within the universe is conserved, and recycled. In other words, there is no genesis to the Positrino, Negatrino or Sharmon, which comprises all energy and matter. Think– a basic part is basic in that only one piece = basic. The negatrino is a negative charged part; the positrino is a positive charged part. For practical purposes consider positrino and negatrino as elements, which when combined = produce one particle = Sharmon. The Sharmon Medium is comprised of Sharmons, whole particles … without having it this way the new theory would be ripe with the 212 basic elements of the Standard Symmetry model.

Ivan, you are now trying to force fit this data and information into yours, which will not work because you have followed conventional physics and cosmology, and thus includes the use of most every convention many of which, are nonsense such as a “virtual particle,”

Ivan wrote: “My most puzzling question is: If gravity is the primordial force of the universe, how did it succeed in splitting itself off into the energy/electromagnetic duality?”

Please dispense with the word … primordial … and instead use the word … prime … as would be defined: the most active, or thriving … or the word … primal … meaning as … first in importance. The word … primordial = first created or developed, which puts us back into bad physics in that … demand of an original source, which is pure metaphysic in context. Gravity is not the primal force … the unified force, which embodies both EM and Gravity is the primal force. Mediator bosons determine which is which, be it gravity or EM in character and function. Gravity is a residual force based on neutron weight and mass of the combined atoms in any substance, or object; hence, functions only as a force field and is without any wave properties whatsoever.

We are not advocating anything totally new … Dr. Fred Hoyle resisted the Big Bang Gang all of his active lifetime, and nearly succeeded against the Einstein/Minkowski … Lemaitre model on several occasions. I fully realize most of this flies directly into the face of your efforts, but nearly every factor in the new theory as developed and documented can be tested and observed with existing technology. In fact, if there is even the possibility a consensus can be established the need to build supercolliders of the magnitude now underway can be dispensed with. Particle smashing designed to find the Higgs Boson are ill conceived, and without need; besides, what could the world of physics do with it … what purpose would be served?

J____

NEUTRON DECAY MAY BE A GRAVITY FUNCTION?

If a neutron is a 'gravitic' particle, since its extra presence in an isotope will increase mass, then its resulting decay radiation, via Beta decay or neutron decay, may be the link between extreme gravity of the nucleus and electromagnetic energy, as gamma radiation. If so, the highly excited electromagnetic radiation in the form of gammay rays is what rebalances the nucleus of an isotope with excess neutrons to shed its gravitic mass.

Nuclear physics has this process well studied, and it is beautiful, well observed and documented. Present understanding of it may be short of exactly what happens, however, since the nucleus is not understood in terms of extreme gravity, only seen as positive charge and atomic weight. Per the (hypothetical) new physics, this neutron decay as radiation may be the link between positive-charged extreme-gravity-nucleus and negative-charged-electron, via the neutrino. The neutrino may in fact be the missing link tying extreme gravity and electric energy together, though it is independent of either. Its purpose may be no more than to fascillitate neutron decay, and then escape... (Of course, this is only my spin on it, so a hypothesis only.) This is how a neutron is converted into a proton mass equivalent, in effect it is 'ejected'.

See Wikipedia for easy to understand descriptions of neutron decay:
Radiation
Isotope
Particle radiation
Beta decay
Neutron radiation
Ionizing radiation
Electron-positron annihilation
Neutrino
Solar wind

List of Particles

Does this ever happen to hydrogen, which has atomic weight, a proton but no neutron?...

I wonder?

Ivan…

Because of the nature of my response – © Copyright affixed to part of it.

You wrote: “Mostly, where I part company with nearly all of modern physics is that gravity is not a universal constant, but instead is a predictable and measurable variable, constant only in its particular orbital location in space.”

Ivan I am not sure but think our difference stems from the fact you are looking for an answer from gravity that should be challenged. Unified force = one force, with two differing modalities, which produce three distinct interactions as follows….

(a) Electric interaction, mediated by electrically charged bosons, the ± diads.
(b) Gravitational interaction, mediated by bosons with no electric charge, the 0-spin sharmon aggregates.
(c) Mechanical interaction, mediated via absorption of the mechanical momentum of mediator bosons, absorption of outward momenta yielding the repulsive force and of inward momenta, the attractive force.

What you are calling Super Gravity, methinks you should be calling the elusive ZPE, which does exist if we can only learn to understand what it is. Omegatron Dynamics indicate the Sharmon Medium is responsible for all force, but here terminology goes off the deep end into nothing. If the term "energy" is a convenient abstraction, then it does not exist in physical form, and really describes the potential to perform work as a by-product of matter and electromagnetic radiation in perpetual motion, some of the force of which has been diverted through a path where it performs the desired work, as it goes on its merry way through the universe. Every change of form of either matter and/or radiation involves the "work" which induces the change, or the "work" which is induced by the change. Without work there is no change, but all work is ultimately the product of the universe in perpetual, self-sustaining motion, as a rule and not an exception.

Here again we go off the deep end of nothing … dark matter as it is called is nothing but the Sharmon Medium. Next I regress, what is energy? Reach out and grab us a handful of energy … it cannot be done, impossible! Ok- just what in the Sam hell are we talking about? Methinks we can eliminate the term … energy, from all equations.

© Copyright by J____ 2004 all rights reserved.

ZPE…? No, it should be ZPF … Zero Point Force. Force = work.

How is ZPF imparted to matter? ZPF is imparted to matter by the spinning of the universe at c, which imparts ZPF directly into the Sharmon Medium. But ZPF is in fact unharnessed EM force in a neutral state. To utilize it, it only needs excitation that causes acceleration until vortices develop, after which, acceleration continues until fusion begins when the vortices spinning counter to direction of the Sharmon Medium obtain speed c. Once fusion begins the vortices increase in size until they can no longer maintain the disparate inequality of shape, when compression begins and the vortices transforms to spinning globular objects. This can be demonstrated in water.

End © Copyright material by J____ 2004

Tesla once stated: “Environmental Energy - the Discovery of a new physical Truth: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.”

No doubt Tesla was speaking of the environment within that, of which ZPF exists as a Raw Force in a neutral state, the Sharmon Medium.

J____

NEUTRONS AND HYDROGEN ISOTOPES

In answer to my query above regarding a hydrogen isotope, the hydrogen atom can have isotopes with neutrons: ²H deuterium, and ³H tritium. The natural question is what happens when these neutrons radiate out as beta or gamma radiation? Per the hypothesis of the new physics, if neutron radiation is the way the nucleonic center is rebalanced into its prime extreme gravitic form, where the atom nucleus is extreme gravity with positive charge, then its neutral charge is converted back into a positive proton. By this line of reasoning, can we say that any neutron attached to a proton is an incomplete formation, meaning that it takes a certain amount of electromagnetic energy to create a positive-proton to negative-electron atomic relationship, but if this energy is not great enough, it only succeeds in forming a neutron? This would mean the neutron retains its gravitic mass but does not split off into positive and negative charges, such as proton and electron, but remains balanced to remain charge neutral. Once it decays and radiates out this 'balanced' charge, the gravitic mass is 'ejected'. Conversely, would more energy applied to deuterium or tritium then raise the hydrogen isotope to helium, for example? Food for thought... ??? ... but have no answers at present.

Ivan

Ivan,

...............?

J____

J___,

RE "............?"

I was mulling over in my mind out loud this point in particular: "can we say that any neutron attached to a proton is an incomplete formation, meaning that it takes a certain amount of electromagnetic energy to create a positive-proton to negative-electron atomic relationship, but if this energy is not great enough, it only succeeds in forming a neutron?"... however, I have no idea what I am talking about either!

:-))

Ivan,

What is energy...? Is energy real...? This is the problem physics must address, and must do it quick.

Your above musing reflects a problem that very few people have ever addressed in that, by using energy as a noun (it cannot be an adjective or anything but a noun) only, some factors required are missing because energy is in fact and actuality an abstracted concept with no material existence. There is only matter, everything is matter; there is no such thing as energy…! All matter can be used to do … work, even the lowly rock can be used to smash another rock, but does a rock contain … energy? Of course not, but to hear everyone speak of energy, you would think energy is a thing out there in reality that is useable, but all I can see is Einsteinian theory quickly evaporating before those millions of eYes that have strained for almost a hundred years trying to decipher what is more and more becoming total nonsense … a bad fantasy…!

There is a common denominator for work … we call it … heat. Now … everyone can relate to heat because heat only exists within the matter it occupies; therefore, methinks we can honestly say … heat exists. What is heat…? Heat is the result of doing work, and without matter no work can/will be done, and without matter no thing can live, and without heat … nothing is…!

What is fusion…? What is fission…? Both are the result of doing work, but are in fact direct opposites … fission blows things apart … fusion welds things together; however, they are both the result of work being done. How can that be…?

E=mc2 is a joke … a bad joke at that … for energy does not exist – only matter exists.

In this is the answer to your question, and you are not as lost as you presume self to be.

Remember ZPF ... not ZPE ... puts whom up the tree...?

J____

Hey guys dont mind me, I have been watching from the side lines, and have not missed anything you guys have posted.

I have been going over my spead sheets, and have pondered a few things myself. I am not happy with the energy equations myself.

I have been getting closer to a gravity/magnetic relations in the numbers, but have wonder if you might have a clue? I am sure J___ might be able to answer this one in some form of a way.

But it has also stired up new question to ask which are not here or below, I will post them after I gather the list of them.

I have been ripping apart magnetic engineering books, Electronic physics books and higher learning astronomy physic books. And have gotton alot of Garbled lectures on the Magnetic theory.

Not in any of the books do they support a strong formula on the magnetic flux density measurments, I think you would now what I mean when they talk about E in those formulas as well.
but what might help me compare the known datas would be if some one could answer
this
Why do they have to move the feild on order to get a canculation?
either they move the field or a object(conducter) through the field in order to see "how much Work" was done?
But in no book or papers can I find simple equations on the mu of a magnetic, lenght of it, flux density,

or for that matter, How about a magnetic sitting on the table all by itself with no movement, and spill the beans on the total charateristics of its flux density, How far are the bands reaching away at what intervals, with how much lines or Flux density in CM or meters.

It is funny how you say E is a joke, I agree, just glancing over the equations they give, it is like the Energy or Force does not esist or is not there untill it has motion.

well I do not believe this, because electricity with current through a coil has magnetic properties, but a magnetic is nothing untill it moves? Well I guess I am just venting. HAHA

The question: J___
for arguement sake, what is the simplilest form of nuclues of a magnetic field that you know of WITH mesurements of
1. Field Strength
2. Flux density at what intervals of distance
3. shape size of center mass (bar shape with dimesions and material make up)

you dont have to answer this if you cant, because It is not readily available on the web! I have looked, they talk about it all the time with ficticous objects on paper, but no actual mass shape dimension and the field magnetic properties relating to the pyshical objet properties, then comparing them to other ones as well.

J___ and Ivan, Just like you can not find much explination on the web with Earths 180' shift of the magnetic fields of an electrons entry into the earth to its exit point, I did note that on that drawing.

Well I guess it is funny how all that harness power of E is nothing untill it has motion?

I guess I must take a break, and come back to it.
I do think I under stand or have a theory for my 180' shift in the magnetic (like in earth as well), like the one I drew on the crude drawing. I might draw up another one and send it to both of you if I can not find the words to explain it.

Mike

I dont know if this is an outright blunt dumb statment but, what happens if the H and B fileds are not that propotional.

Take to thought how polerized lens work, or how Horizontal and vertical anttenas work to pick up the signals or not even see them.

I believe there is a force from top to bottom in a galatice sense, or solar system sense. I field E or energy for that fact that travels not sidways (horizontal) througth space, level with the orbits, but vetical up and down.
As bodies pass through this fiels as well.

Take a radiation or photon tavelling from the sun to earth, it has B and H and E properties, since it does blow back or get defelcted by the magnetic fields at the equater, but enters in the poles with ease. makes me wonder if the B and H feilds play some roll of poleration to the strength of (or Freq harmonics) where it deflects, or filters, or does something?
but when going over the poles why does the magnetic fields act almost like a vacumm to them?
I could go on and on, but I thought you might interpete that thought or notion into something?

That what happens to H and B fields that travel 90' or 180' or 0' at each other in their phases. Do they attract, cancle or deflect each other?

Or even a vertical H field passing by a vetical H filed? I dont think all H feilds are vertical and B or horizontal, because you can minipulate them by changing the direction of and anttena, so why not in space, if so in that perfect univers on paper it is so, BUT WHAT IF so?

Mike

Michael, RE UR

"well I do not believe this, because electricity with current through a coil has magnetic properties, but a magnetic is nothing until it moves?"

Is this how the Maxwell equation plays out? E_m = B{m}*c is how the equation looks, which says electric force is magnetic force at light speed? So the magnetic field at light speed is electricity, which makes sense. Together, electric force and magnetic field travel together to create the electromagnetic energy of light, for example. So all these are interrelated as 'energy', though the mystery of what exactly is a magnetic field eludes us. I have no clue why Earth's magnetic poles reverse periodically, though there is very good evidence this happens. Yet, it is not simply chaotic, so there will be an answer when we get it all together.

So what is Energy?

J___, I can see how your model of matter being everything, and energy being only heat, so energy by itself is not really a separate value that should be sought after. However, since heat is a measurement only of molecular motion response to en....gy, we are back to wondering what is this force that activates the molecular motion. In my Jaszz spin calculations I show how solar irradiance times distance of planet from the Sun, times the planet's total orbital kinetic energy (E = 1/2 mv^2), all equals an Energy value that, for Earth at least, approximates the E = mc^2 value of 90 petajoules. This is all heat and work, heat from the Sun, and work of its orbital velocity: together they can be called Energy. So I don't think we can so easily dismiss Energy as non-existent, since it is a useful value to work with. What proved useful in how E was calculated was that it ultimately yielded a relationship of planetary heat and solar heat as planetary spin, which surprised even me.

(I think the reason E = mc^2 is in fact slightly less than 9e16 J is because the Earth's interior heat must be subtracted from its total orbital Energy, so for us on Earth, E = ~8.99e16 J, whereas the orbital is E = 9.06e16 J.)

Think of it as an aggregate Energy value of all the various interrelated values that make it up: motion, acceleration, gravity, heat, electricity, magnetism, matter, subatomic particles. So is energy only light, heat? Not in my view. Energy is BOTH light/heat and gravity, and all their interactions that then manifest in existence: matter, motion, force, electricity, magnetism, heat, and radiation decay. So, yes I can see what you mean, but no, I cannot abandon Energy as a meaningful value of how works the universe. Even radioactive decay is energy, in the form of gamma rays, for example, which may also tie together gravity and light. This was the point of my musings on the neutron, in which its 'neutral' charge masks these interactions. My musings on the neutron/gravitic particle is merely an embryonic thought, so not to be taken too seriously here, just wandering around in my mind...

That said, I think the ideas of 'space-time-relativity' values for Energy are all wrong, however.

Ivan

Michael,

You wrote: “Why do they have to move the feild on order to get a canculation?”

Methinks that is the only way to obtain a cancellation, but only one apparent reason comes to my reasoning as for the why … the field is static except for movements of any differing matters inside the field, which also would cause fluctuations, and make it very difficult to establish the perimeters. In other words we are talking about true fuzzy computations.

Some information on shape of the magnetosphere from links I have bookmarked.

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/magnetosphere/mag5.html

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast27oct98_1.htm

Next link has the best visuals for the magnetosphere I have found.

http://www.resonancepub.com/magnetosphere.htm

After viewing some pictures of the magnetosphere as portrayed in the above links it is also very apparent for the magnetosphere to obtain the shape is does, there is another factor that is missing from the Einsteinian theories = the Sharmon Medium, which is the cause of the compression and elongation of the head and tail of the magnetosphere. As the earth moves forward in its orbit, the Sharmon Medium is compressed against itself causing the head flattening effect – as the earth passes through the Sharmon Medium it also is dragging the Sharmon Medium behind it, which is trying to fill what is a vacuum effect as the Sharmon Medium returns to normal. We know the Sharmon Medium is a kinetic gas; therefore, is subject to fluid dynamics in all of the associated aspects.

I cannot answer the question about the simplest nucleus form for a magnet.

Concerning your second post the links above might give you a different perspective to the extent you can develop a comprehensive spreadsheet that allows proper interpretation of the obvious variables that makes reasoning very difficult for ordering progressive stages.

J____

Ivan, Michael,

Ivan wrote: “However, since heat is a measurement only of molecular motion response to en....gy, we are back to wondering what is this force that activates the molecular motion.”

In actuality heat is work done … for once work is done, the heat begins to dissipate and cool according to thermodynamics … entropy. The fallacy in using energy is it is always expressed as Joules, which is an erroneous concept based on electricity, and then corrupted per the Maxwell equations, which are without a doubt suspect at best and wrong by Ivor Catt. It was Kelvin who told Maxwell to read Faraday, Kelvin, and Ampere in that specific order; however, Joules and Maxwell were contemporary in that, Maxwell was born after Joules, but died before Joules.

Ivor Catt on Maxwell Equations

Michael – You will find the Catt information helpful to your cause…!

The Joule is actually the numerical relation between heat and the mechanical equivalent of heat, which is defined as = the work done by a force of one Newton acting to move an object through a distance of one meter in the direction in which the force is applied. The problem is – mechanical equivalent … for mechanical = additional force lost through heat via friction of components; thereby, rendering everything Maxwell electric as invalid when it comes to reality of, the situation and circumstances within … reality. Methinks should be done is – use raw thermal calculations instead of E computations. By doing so will at least eliminate need and demand that c is a constant, because we already know c is not a constant, but a variable…!

Think – Redshift … based on heat, not energy....

Reason being … everyone knows heat … distorts and plays tricks with optics....

J____

in Ultracold neutrons, quantum..." the authors Bertolami and Nunes say:

---

Quote:

A particularly interesting implication of the mentioned approaches to Planck-scale physics is that the coupling a is not a universal constant, but instead a parameter dependent on the chemical composition of the test masses as first pointed out in [12]."--(italics mine)

---

Ivan,

You are chasing your own numbers.

Even with present technology, we cannot measure the strength of gravity accurately to less than three decimal places, but we can measure an electron’s charge to seven decimal places.

The problem of measuring gravity is that it is not possible to shield out the gravitational attraction of other objects. This is a problem that cannot be overcome because we don’t know all the gravitational influences effecting earth, or even our surrounding regions in the solar system and galaxy.

So far as monitored spacecraft slowing down when deep in outer space – the problem is solved … The JPL monitoring the situation finally agreed observations do not show any effect on natural objects in the universe … only the several spacecraft monitored.

All of the monitored spacecraft have plutonium-based radioisotope thermoelectric generators used as power source. All spacecraft have louvered heat sinks affixed to dissipate generated heat, which face away from the sun … photons exiting from the louvered heat sinks are causing acceleration according to Newton’s Third Law, and functioning as a miniature breaking system.

Pioneer 10 has been sending data back to earth since 1972, and was the first of several deep space craft to exhibit the slowing down the further it went, and it took the JPL 22 after the slowing down first manifested to prove the factors involved.

Remember, I continue saying ... numbers only get us close

J____

Thanks J____,

"We see that the mathematicians are incompetent where physical reality is concerned and hide their incompetence and confuse others by conjuring up nonsensical, interrelated formulae.
When Hertz established that electromagnetic waves existed, Maxwell’s equations should have been re-examined, and the large rubbish element removed."-Quote from link.

After reading the quotes and the link you gave, made me feel better about Hertz and waves, then when Maxwell's taken over, it completely made me mad in the head! and to re-group my sanity!

Which then states that there is room for inprovement, and some day they will get back to raw canculations that are not mathmatically looped holed into themselves.

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

Ivan and J___, thanks for the input, mainly all of this made me see further into mechenical action, heat of working or work done in that aspect. and by keeping a thought on formulas which it terms residual heat time framed
HAHA
Past, Present, and furture Work Formulas.

(this is not the case, but it is the only example I can put into words.)
NOTE TO SELF-
"Not to assume that (Energy OR heat now) is not mistaken for work all ready done OR to be done."

I will try out some new equations at work when I get their Sat. and if they yeild anything you will be the first to know.

Michael.

Michael,

When working with Maxwell equations ... it can literally drive a person to insanity!

It is impossible to correlate all data computed using the Maxwell crap when in association with other formulations that are correct, for the results will always be corrupt, which must then be modified after the fact

Using energy as a component of formulas = the chance of stepping into two buckets ... If you step in the left bucket you will be lost and it is very difficult to find self again so you can step into the right bucket.

The problem with many physicists, and mathematicians who attempt to make reality fit into the numbers they play with is the cause of so many anomalies, which are not really anomalies at all, but errors in original calculations that often go undiscovered until after significant number of years have passed.

J____

I agree, I have been goning nuts with that one formula, or lets say OBSERVATION, in that

(P'of density)*(a m/s)*(surface spin in meters/s)/ (Radius in meters*4) = (Raw GUESS)

(p'* a * Ss) / (R*4) = (Raw Guess)

if you where to put the data on a slope, even though the vaules do not match, and gathered data is not always correct, And if you do not times R by 4, the Guessed slope follows the So far known Gauss slope in some good proportion.
I am aware that this is not percise in any way, and I know there may be some anomoly I am over looking at to a possiable mathmatical Shape formula, or freq. formula, and such which must be incorperated into it to smooth it out.
just as you have a Raw Mass formulas, this would be like a raw Gauss formula. I have also incorperated like the Heat factor of black body into this before, and saw a raw data which was high near the merc and slope smooth down to saturn, and then climb back up in proportion to neptune/plutos same value. I will have to get that posted as well.

Here a point like in magnetic breaking, a spinning peice of aluminium can effect a magnet just cm's away in a plastic try, the spinning metal effects the magnetic lines enough that the magnetic is draged into the spin direction.

POINT making, far fetched but!!! If non matalic material can can lines of force and have and efeect on them, what is not to say that the earths spin in cutting in to these feilds as well, That the mass is a valve of it own in satitic state. But orbital movemoent has an increase to cutting into them, and rotatational spin just magnifies that effect.
If this is at all possiable, Then it would make sense if their was that ZERO POINT MAGNETIC FIELDS which all mass orbit and rotated Cutting into them and effecting all kinds of materials?

EVEN Farther fetched, if EARTHS magnetic fields are only seen becuase of the spin, and location. Magnetic feilds expand an emense distance, Just think is Our solar system was orbital near a cycle of another system, or Cycle which in space the fields are in oppisite direction, and the earth only actually magnifiys that seen effect. would be the flipping of the polls every 20 thousand years or so, which ever it is in time.
BECAUSE the aluminium or MAss of a planet may not hve or care what the field direction is, IT may just MANIPULATE it.

IMPORTANT: So just think if the MATH of MATHIMATICIANS have been giving Positive and Negative potentials to points of ""Math"", when they should have just seen the Transfer efeect of it, or the manipulation effect strenght something has.
It hard for me to put in words to describe it. I will let you think about what I wrote here first.

Here is a block of my sheet, once I have a test to make I run it acrossed all these known bodies to see if they all make sense, as long as the data has been given to us on the web.

Raw guess of Gauss-in the works

KNOWN___________Gauss_________(p'*a*Ss)/(R*4)=
SOL ________2________0.276215159
Mercury ________0.0033________0.006221276
Venus ________0________-0.00347733
Earth ________0.3076________0.984590734
moon ________0________0.00821905
Mars ________0________0.258437664
Phobos ________0________0.014471829
Deimos ________0________0.00246427
Ceres ________0________0.062473217
Pallas ________0________#DIV/0!
Juno ________0________#DIV/0!
Vesta ________0______#DIV/0!
Jupiter ________4.28________1.347094274
Halo Start________0_______#DIV/0!
Halo end________0________#DIV/0!
Main Start________0________#DIV/0!
Main end________0________#DIV/0!
Gossamer Start inner________0________#DIV/0!
Gossamer end outer________0________#DIV/0!
Gossamer Start inner________0________#DIV/0!
Gossamer end outer_______0________#DIV/0!
Metis________0________#DIV/0!
Adrastea________0________#DIV/0!
Amalthea________0________#DIV/0!
Thebe________0________#DIV/0!
Io________0_______#DIV/0!
Europa________0________#DIV/0!
Ganymede________0________#DIV/0!
Callisto________0________#DIV/0!
leda________0________ #DIV/0!
himalia________0________#DIV/0!
lysithea________0_______#DIV/0!
elara________0________ #DIV/0!
Ananke________0________ #DIV/0!
Carme________0________ #DIV/0!
Pasiphae_______0________#DIV/0!
Sinope ________0________#DIV/0!
Saturn ________0.21________0.251922923
Pan ________0________#DIV/0!
Atlas ________0________#DIV/0!
Prometheus________0________#DIV/0!
pandora ________0________#DIV/0!
epimethues________0________#DIV/0!
Janus_______0________#DIV/0!
Mimas (SI)________0________#DIV/0!
Enceladus (SII) ________0________#DIV/0!
Calypso ________0________#DIV/0!
telesto ________0________#DIV/0!
Tethys (SIII)________0________#DIV/0!
Dione (SIV)________0________#DIV/0!
Helene ________0________#DIV/0!
Rhea (SV)________0________#DIV/0!
Titan (SVI)________0________#DIV/0!
Hyperion (SVII) ________0________#DIV/0!
Iapetus (SVIII) ________0________#DIV/0!
Phoebe ________0________#DIV/0!
Uranius ________0.228________0.279179412
Miranda (V)________0________#DIV/0!
Ariel (I)________0________#DIV/0!
Umbriel (II)________0_______#DIV/0!
Titania (III)________0________#DIV/0!
Oberon (IV)________0________#DIV/0!
Neptune ________0.142________0.487762259
Nereid (NII)________0______#DIV/0!
Triton (NI)________0________#DIV/0!
Pluto________0________0.002887629
charon________0________0.039157653


See that where I talked about a Galatic field from top to bottom, the kinetic body mass passing through though those lines and twisting them with rotation and such, will be seen as great or small depending upon the masses profile make up.

Hey its just a thought because of the nature of NON Magnetic spinning material! and is effect on magnetic lines of force.

Michael

I figured if they whated to test such an effect, they would have to create a magnetic potential instrument to read the variation of the feilds at a planet surface from top to bottom of direction.
Say like the Moon around Earth or Io around Jupiter, or for that fact and of the moons around Jupiter or saturn.

When the body is in orbit, the readings would be positive going in one half cycle of it orbit, and Negitive going in the other half. It will be very small, but if it is readable and constant in it variation, then that would expliane how our Sol System has a cycle of magnetic change in a bigger effect. If our Sol system keeps repeating that swaping of the poles every given amount of years,
1. does mars, and the other bodies in our system experience that same cycle?
2. If this is a cycle, what is our system orbiting around what force in distance of the sun tavelling at 19400km per sec?
3. Or we on the other side of an effectiving/munipulating body which sends opposite fields though our Sol's system for Half a orbit cycle of our sun?

But if this is true, i think that an insturment would be able to read such a small amount of chage which it orbits a larger body. It would be a very small value and a less than 50% chance they could read it if it could be seen on such a small scale around the munipulating effect of it M1 body?

What do you think? can a possitive hole be shot through that thought?

Michael

Looking into that thought it would be best seen on one of Neptunes moon, since neptune is on it side, vs one of the other main bodies which it upright!

heres another one to look into, That is Magnetic feilds have any thing to due with distances, Intensity of flux, M2 planetary profiles of p' and a and R here is something else I am looking into

Raw Formula trying to work it out.

Keep in mind that not every JPL reading of planetary Gauss was in the same spot relative to the M2 body, they where just reading at their spot in space at that time.

Raw formula from raw Data.

Name__distance__Surface_spin__known_gauss_ANSWER
Mercury_6334683819__3.02353___0.0033____262.6494
Earth___693826.3927_464.3446__0.3076____256.2192
Jupiter__5156.480524_12287.74__4.28______307.341
Saturn__15774.56932_9532.891__0.21______26.37534
Uranius_436161.4022_2566.276__0.228_____150.5769
Neptune_632259.0916_2666.369__0.142_____112.9109

I got these by taking the Known (distance of m2 from M1) and dividing it by the (m2 Surface speedin meters ^2)

Now take that new number and/ it by the known Gauss reading we got from the Satilite fly byes.
Even thought some satilites where closer some farther, Some older tech and Some where equateral or pole fly bys.

I have taken into consdieration if that Heat also has something to smooth out that slope of the data curve on a plot.

I will have to show that the profile of the m2 make up from density and R and it a effect that ANswer which comes up, that everything is balanced and works backwards into the formulas.


Michael

Sorry I forgot to say that you have to
[Sqrt( r / Ss^2) then / known guass reading ]= #

Adding a twist into it? working it out backwards

lets say that number is not know at the moment,
you see it runs around 265 up or down, well here is a twist I will use 273, just to Zero to for the moment

So... [M1's a]/(sqrt( m2's distance / m2's Surfacespin^2) = yeilds an answer of...
for a Gauss guess, Note some answers may look off a bit, but that was the values to work with given by JPL.
note the DIV/)# was a columb off not known data at this time from the web.


SOL #VALUE!
Mercury 0.003442612
Venus 0.001507661
Earth 0.328946413
moon 0.004618851
Mars 0.137840546
Phobos 0.074662624
Deimos 0.00663288
Ceres 0.07744294
Pallas #DIV/0!
Juno #DIV/0!
Vesta #DIV/0!
Jupiter 3.815696924
Halo Start #DIV/0!
Halo end #DIV/0!
Main Start #DIV/0!
Main end #DIV/0!
Gossamer Start inner #DIV/0!
Gossamer end outer #DIV/0!
Gossamer Start inner #DIV/0!
Gossamer end outer #DIV/0!
Metis #DIV/0!
Adrastea #DIV/0!
Amalthea #DIV/0!
Thebe #DIV/0!
Io #DIV/0!
Europa #DIV/0!
Ganymede #DIV/0!
Callisto #DIV/0!
leda #DIV/0!
himalia #DIV/0!
lysithea #DIV/0!
elara #DIV/0!
Ananke #DIV/0!
Carme #DIV/0!
Pasiphae #DIV/0!
Sinope #DIV/0!
Saturn 2.181583335
Pan #DIV/0!
Atlas #DIV/0!
Prometheus #DIV/0!
pandora #DIV/0!
epimethues #DIV/0!
Janus #DIV/0!
Mimas (SI) #DIV/0!
Enceladus (SII) #DIV/0!
Calypso #DIV/0!
telesto #DIV/0!
Tethys (SIII) #DIV/0!
Dione (SIV) #DIV/0!
Helene #DIV/0!
Rhea (SV) #DIV/0!
Titan (SVI) #DIV/0!
Hyperion (SVII) #DIV/0!
Iapetus (SVIII) #DIV/0!
Phoebe #DIV/0!
Uranius 0.414884249
Miranda (V) #DIV/0!
Ariel (I) #DIV/0!
Umbriel (II) #DIV/0!
Titania (III) #DIV/0!
Oberon (IV) #DIV/0!
Neptune 0.344590279
Nereid (NII) #DIV/0!
Triton (NI) #DIV/0!
Pluto 0.001537968
charon 0.067096193

Michael,

My gawd ... no wonder your brain hurts...!

One factor = spin, how do we incorporate the spin of the entire universe...?

I am positive the entire universe is spinning at c^pi or c x 3.14159 & every object in the universe is located precisely at the center of the universe!

299,792,458 x 3.14159 = 941,824,988.12822 meters per second = is universe rotational spin rate.

After thousands of computations over many years, there is only one explanation that can make any sense whatsoever that explains the … problem of time. Time cannot exist, and there is not one shred of doubt in my mind the perpetual … now … we experience, as is a reality, of the manifestation of reality is based solely on the universe being a perpetual, or eternal object that is without beginning. Only in such a system can perpetuity be defined, and functionally complete, which demands we never forget the laws of thermodynamics must be used to validate each equation derived before considering it as a factually honest representation of reality.

The square root of the universe rotational spin = 30689.167276552487128743537791465 – so we lop off the decimals after 10 places = 30,689.1672765525 by rounding up to that last digit being 5 instead of 4. Ok- for all practical purposes we can even dispense with all the digits after the decimal point because the only number we care about is 30,689…!

30,689 is the one number that nobody knows the derivation of; however, I finally figured it out using Omegatron Dynamics – as per the equations above; however, the number as is defined as 30,689 is the smallest prime number containing all curved digits, i.e., 0, 3, 6, 8 and 9 only. Think – 1+2+4+5+7 (26) = 0+3+6+8+9 (19) |=| 26 - 19 = 7

30,689 is the factor of curves, and proves our numerical system is in fact a curved system (circular) meaning … infinite, and is not linear if or when any of the numbers included in 30,689 are used to compute an equation!

What say you two…?

J____

Good! You kinda got my drift! LOL

YES Curves no striaght lines.

Ok
"The Sun is estimated to be
about a distance of 34,000 light years distance from the center of the galaxy."
one light year = 9,460,800,000,000,000 meters

which then is 3.21667E+20 for r
and Sols v = to 1940o meters per sec

so the GM should equal= 1.21063E+29

if divided by G the mass would be a
mass of 1.81503E+39
at the center.

Does this Jive with you?
--------------
warning!!--BELOW, JUST A Formula Test-------
if my guess of a gauss formula by taking the r of sol from the univers, divide by its rotational surface spin of 1993.258 m/s, yeilding an answer squared is 8997870.352
by taking 8997870.352 and dividing it by the known Gauss of the sun at 2 to 3 gauss, so use 2.5 gauss yeilds an answer of 3599148.141 for a (a value at the center)
So if a have the mass of center and an a value, the Radius of our center is roughly 1.83403E+11?
-------------
Thats just a outright guess I am making

Could we find if they have seen any stars rotating around our center, to see if their orbit velocities or periods co inside with it?

Michael

Ok here another what if...
If we new the r and v of Sol in meters and meter/s
and was able to gets its circumfrence/velocity=
the seconds it takes to go aroung the center of our galaxy.
If it is so, than it would be in years to be about
3,310,330,410.25 years to orbit once
and half that cycle would be
1,655,165,205.12 years,
Hmmm?????
Is it not about a million years or so the earth flips its poles for the same amount of time?

Let me check the web,....
"Such flips normally happen every
500,000 years" @ http://www.greatdreams.com/poleshift.htm

and

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_poles_040407.html
"In the past 15 million years, there have been four reversals every 1 million years, or about one shift each 250,000 years, Clement explained. The last one, however, was 790,000 years ago. That might suggest we're overdue for a big change. Not necessarily so, Clement says. The flips are not periodic, meaning they don't adhere to a schedule of even intervals"

so maybe our Sol system has a dual twin System that it works with as it goes around the center of our galaxey?
Or a force which travels closer near the center than ours, which completes about fuor cycles to our one cycle?

Well if not!!!
At least I have new data to add to my work sheet!
As I will try your Sqrt of the universe is going at, and now also a rough Idea of what the Sol's system cycle is about 500,000 years in Earth's magnetic pole changes, BUT Does it happen on our other planets?

But here is some links I will look into it
"All stars in the galaxy rotate around a galactic center but not with the same period. Stars at the center have a shorter period than those farther out. The Sun is located in the outer part of the galaxy. The speed of the solar system due to the galactic rotation is about 220 km/s. The disk of stars in the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across and the sun is located about 30,000 light years from the star's center. Based on a distance of 30,000 light years and a speed of 220 km/s, the Sun's orbit around the center of the Milky Way once every 225 million years. The period of time is called a cosmic year. The Sun has orbited the galaxy, more than 20 times during its 5 billion year lifetime. The motions of the period are studied by measuring the positions of lines in the galaxy spectra."
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/StacyLeong.shtml

Note there is conflicts on how fast our sun is trvalling at one said earlier that Sol is 19.400 km/s to stars near by, and this has an extra 200km/sec, so I will have to re compute everything I did early at 200km/s +/-19.4Km/s.

When I give the answer again it will just be short and sweet.

if so that...
Hubble reading
Mean orbital velocity 217000 meters/sec
and
Semimajor axis(METERS)
2.51E+20=r in meters

then
GM of center
=1.18E+31

Mass of center
=1.77E+41

Orbit Length Meters
=1,577,441,823,897,140,000,000.00

seconds of orbit
=7,269,317,160,816,310.00

years equal
=230,983,157.96

So if I was to ratio the 250,000years
to be one full reversal is 500,000 years
Thats a ratio of 1:461.97

they say its 26000 light years to orbit once
=150,000 light year per orbit *6,000,000,000,000miles
*1.609344
into kilometers * 1000 for meters =
1,448,409,600,000,000,000,000.00 meters

I had from R*2*3.14=
251,057,664,000,000,000,000 meters
Which gives me
230,983,157.96 years of orbit
either my math sucks bad!

J____ or Ivan, what to give it a shot with the web data, and work out the r and V^2 of our sun and year cycle?


You know what?!? I dont think any one knows!
I would rather believe the Cycle time of a nearby star, and its velocity^2*distance and average it to what we know about our Sol's Profile?

I think I will give this one a rest untill further data garthering

I dont care for the numbers to much the wasy they work out becuase the given data is so vague.

Michael

Michael,

Gonna need to think on this a bit ... there is a snake somewhere...!

J____

I think I have a theory to the earth reversal effect?

What if you consider Iron bar, not as a magnet which puts on a reflection of the fields of a nearby strong magnet! Even if the Iron bar had a field of its on it will still see a change due to the potential of the magnetic Rise and fall of the fields movements dur to r change.

GOING UP IN SYSTEM ORBIT!
Say if a magnetic is north above the plane and south below it. If our sol system Travels upward and acrossed into the flux bands at an angle from the center of Sol's Systems orbit, then earth would see a magnetic reflection of those bands by its MASS makeup, reflecting it, by Movement of the mass cutting acrossed and upward into the bands.

GETTING READY FOR THE DESCENT!
As it reaches the top of its orbit. The Bands would still cut the flux lines from the CENTER, BUT they would be not potential change in the upward Distance from the plane. This is where earth fields so less of a REFLECTION and look as if they are collapsing.
About 2000-15000 years

GOING DOWN IN SYSTEM ORBIT!
Here it was not the Potentail Flux lines are still being Cut but the Downward location into the plane and passed it to the bottom to come back up to complete a sol system orbit.
During the descent (250000years), earth fields will see an increase in the reflection strength of the Flux lines Our SYSTEM CUTS as it a whole desent into and up from!

THOUGHTS, if the earths magnetic fields have decreased by about 10% in the passed 150 years, this will give me a clue to the Ratio of reflection effect.

---------you see where I am going with this?---

1. I will check to see if the Orbit highest and lowest level to our sun also have a high Guass reflection if seen in the data.

PS. I will also wonder if if Ivan can start a new thread titled in the proper respect of the topic?

Hi J___,

RE UR, see 2004 paper "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11": http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf

If that doesn't open, see: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 for abstract with link. You said:

"You are chasing your own numbers.

Even with present technology, we cannot measure the strength of gravity accurately to less than three decimal places, but we can measure an electron's charge to seven decimal places.

The problem of measuring gravity is that it is not possible to shield out the gravitational attraction of other objects. This is a problem that cannot be overcome because we don't know all the gravitational influences effecting earth, or even our surrounding regions in the solar system and galaxy.

So far as monitored spacecraft slowing down when deep in outer space – the problem is solved … The JPL monitoring the situation finally agreed observations do not show any effect on natural objects in the universe … only the several spacecraft monitored.

All of the monitored spacecraft have plutonium-based radioisotope thermoelectric generators used as power source. All spacecraft have louvered heat sinks affixed to dissipate generated heat, which face away from the sun … photons exiting from the louvered heat sinks are causing acceleration according to Newton's Third Law, and functioning as a miniature breaking system."

Hi Michael, I'll have to read your last with some care, so printed it out, for 15 hr. airtrip reading.

Below is the Hyperphysics with links pages that may help us better understand the Gauss Laws:

Gauss's Law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Would you want to start a thread, maybe something like "Gaussian Effect of Planetary Spin?" Okay with me. Back in a couple.

Ciao, Ivan

Yes that sounds Good! enjoy the air time!

"Gaussian Effect to Planetary Spin?"

Thank you Ivan

Ivan,

Newton’s third law = for every action there will be a reaction; hence, the heat generated by the heat sinks is adequate to have a braking effect on forward momentum because of the temperatures involved. Heat is not only a radiation energy … heat is work, work that has been done, and being done. E = matter transformation via molecular actions, and the associated reactions.

Don’t forget, those observations of distant objects have been observed for far longer than the observations of spacecraft slowing down. In actuality the fuel expended by spacecraft would lessen the mass; therefore, specific gravity as an object would also be less … furthermore, the spacecraft are moving away from earth and one of them Voyager I is nearing the boundary of our solar system and may in fact already have passed through it.

http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2003-11-06/nationworld/306191.shtml

You wrote: “If gravity is a universal constant, then other than aether considerations, are we not back to square one again?

We are not back at square one. The new theory matches up quite well with what has been observed over the past 250 years. It achieves unification of all forces into one, explains the duality of light, and the mechanisms associated with the transformation of matter. It accurately portrays reality as we observe it, removes the mysteries of dark matter, and the structures within the universe, it fully explains redshift and the gravitational affects of what at first appears to be an expanding universe, which it is not…! What Hubble discovered which would become the Hubble Constant is nothing more than drift of the Sharmon Medium… the same drift discovered by the Michelson and Morley experiments later confirmed by Dayton Miller, ignored by the Einsteinian revolution of which, modern physics and cosmology are now trapped within, which is a virtual world based on hypothetical nonsense.

You wrote: “Does Sharmon aether predict a variable gravity constant, or is it universally the same?”

The New Theory predicts gravity is constant based on Neutron Mass, which explains the orbits of planets within our solar system, and observations of other star systems quite accurately – the constant is not variable.

J____

Well Well, I THINK I HAVE IT!!!
and if it is true

I HOPE I GET CREDIT FOR IT AND YOU LETTING ME POST IT HERE ON HUMAN CAFE!!!!

the proof and link in the numbers!
Or at least I major step in the Right Direction!

Let me see if I get this right the first Time, and clearly.

Ivan, Due you remember my planetary DENSITY to RADIUS which gets the "a" in on step?

Well get this

Remember the factor number I used =(2*G*pi/3)
which equaled 2.63189E-06

OK take that like a proportional DRa factor.

here are some constants!

Stransky-DRa=2.63189E-06
uo=1.25664E-06
c=299,792,458
G=6.673E-11
pi=3.14159265

you know how many people incorperated C^2 and Pi and G^2 some how is connected?

Ok This is what turned up on my data Sheets

TAKE that Stransky DRA of
2.63189E-06 and divide it by pi which gives you
answer of 0.47746483

if that does not look firmiliar to you it does to me in past canculations breaking down the planetary profiles and orbits.

Well lets move on.

take that 0.47746483 and mulitple it to pi and get
1.5 EXACTLY! THAT is the ^2 against any number!

So I think I have found something in the numbers!!

That uo is connected to G in the manner of Magnetics and Gravity!

Note---- I am going like a nut to find out how G, uo, and Planetary profiles, with spin, and distance, is coming along.

This does work out with the force of gravity and magnetics of which I have a theory about which a tried to expliane earlier in some post!!!

More coming soon to type it up!!!!!

Michael

I just have to add in real quick, I never would have found that with out my first thread on SP to discuse a new approch with Density and Radius and a of a planet and told to go get some learning, but this is now a year later, and I hope by being out of the BOX I will see things out of the box.

I hope this is something good, let me know what you opionions are?

Ivan, and J____.

OH I think I made a big mistake!

One columb on the sheet I have uo as a value for G which then just became 1.5 to it self!

But all is not lost, I still have two other numbers which I am close to.

ok I am going to back my wheels up a bit. this way you can see what I am looking at. And I will explian the eqution at the end.

these nimbers are only reprsent the ratio of spin. I was looking to see if there is a mutual reflection effect of guass to each body, represented by the centered bodies actions.
I do beleive a body can have a magnetic field of its own, BUT I also believe the inner bodies magnetic field can be seen in a reflection of how the outer body is reacting.

Just say in spin only, and r (distance is not put into the equation just yet, or the profile make up of the planets. Here I will just show a reflection value for now.

M1Ss=Ss/2*pi
m2Ss=Ss/2*pi
ratio of reflection in gauss?= M2Ss/m2Ss=ratio

please note my comment at the bottom*

here ARE MY ANSWERS AS OF YET

1---Actual Gauss per R^3
2---m2 Name
3---=M1Ss/m2Ss

2.5 SOL 1
0.0033 Mercury 0.001516878
? Venus -0.000908079
0.3076 Earth 0.23295759

? Mars 0.120490863


4.28 Jupiter 6.164652758

0.21 Saturn 4.782567568

0.228 Uranius 1.287478118

0.142 Neptune 1.337693701

? Pluto 0.006822441

*if you note how the nubers are slightly less then the "actual assumed true Gauss of a planet reading".
And how whenn getting further away from the sun they get greater and greater, Well that is offsetted by the distance from the source. If you can see that the flux density would be greater near the sun and less at a greater distance like in "square law", When I show how distance makes this effect the value.

I HAVE the same effect on this Gauss slope for each of the Density, Velocity of orbit, Density make up of a body, How much a is on each body, and more.

My data over laps going in the right direction, But am looking for that back ground value of our system that links them all, it is not G or c or uo, but it may be a new one, or a combination of a few of them.

I am useing the bodies that have sustained themselves over the many many years, since they have been induced with these effects for such a long time and will show a more common background. 2nD I have the moons of each as well, they show good data as well but I will get to that later.

Michael

I have a sheet for each, Surface spin in Meters/sec, Density and radius with Surface acceleration, orbit velocites and distances.

They all follow a sqaure law being right about how gauss is seen, I thought that the jaszz would be the link, but it maybe or maybe just another visaul overlay to what is being seen.
If we find that number it would be great.

From this and some other numbers I seen an Idea as to WHY GRAVITY pulls, and HOW it pulls, or say the physics behind how gravity can pull and it intresting to think about it!
And from my sheets if connected/overlaid, I would not have to explian my self, I would let the numbers speak!

Ok I when over my ratio to Surface spins, and by looking at it I was a bit confused, since I can up with a general number of 1.36e6 to 2.76e6 with in the relations ships of the m2 spinning and gauss TO: around M1 and its relative spin with gauss.

2.03e9 was the mean average of the planets to the sun.

I tried to work the numbers to find out what 2.03e9 was and came up with c?
and 9.87E+00
in the end? I will try to back track how I got that and will post it.
it is a bit odd how that came up!

Ok this time I double checked my numbers before I posted it.
I was looking for that background Field valve that effects spins, but notice this in the equation, and notice G is not used, but is in the numbers. But this time C was used to canculate the orbit or velocity of the m2 around M1.

I have a new number which everything goes to or comes from. works on everything

it is 7.17e17

Take that number 7.17e17/ by sqrt of M1 mass
we will use Sols mass srqt is... 1.41035E+15
so you get...
5.08E+02

By taking that number divided by
5.08E+02 / (((c/m2 distance * pi))^1.5)

like so--------------------------------
(((c/m2 distance * pi))^1.5)
we will use earth's "r"
(299,792,458 / (1.496E+11 * 3.14159265)^1.5
and get 1.61105E-05
---------------------------------------
ok! now take 5.08E+02 / 1.61105E-05 = 3.16E+07

That number is then divived into
(m2 distance * 2 * pi)/ 3.16E+07 = m2 velocity
like so----------------------------------
(1.496E+11 * 2 * 3.14159265) / 3.16E+07 =
2.98E+04
------------------------------------------

end of example

in full it would look like

velocity = sqrt(Mass1)/(r*2*pi)/((c/r*pi)^1.5)

I will see if I can rewrite that number 7.17e17 in other ways to post it correctly.

I am not sure if I have anything, BUT IT iS odd
that on my sheet everything canclled out to 7.17e17
and c was used with PI instead of G

SO that makes it more appearant about the C^2 G^2 and PI^2 thought?

Michael

here is the outcome of my sheet with all known and estimated values from JPL Nasa and other web links. If there is a fualt on my part or a equation error on my sheet it was reflected in the numbers, and because of rounded off numbers.
m2 Name
SOL 7.17E+17
Mercury 7.17E+17
Venus 7.17E+17
Earth 7.17E+17
moon 7.14E+17
Mars 7.17E+17
Phobos 7.17E+17
Deimos 7.18E+17
Ceres 7.17E+17
Pallas 7.16E+17
Juno 7.17E+17
Vesta 7.17E+17
Jupiter 7.16E+17
Halo Start 7.59E+17
Halo end 7.59E+17
Main Start 7.59E+17
Main end 7.59E+17
Gossamer Start inner 7.59E+17
Gossamer end outer 7.59E+17
Gossamer Start inner 7.59E+17
Gossamer end outer 7.59E+17
Metis 7.15E+17
Adrastea 7.15E+17
Amalthea 7.16E+17
Thebe 7.16E+17
Io 7.18E+17
Europa 7.18E+17
Ganymede 7.17E+17
Callisto 7.17E+17
leda 7.17E+17
himalia 7.17E+17
lysithea 7.17E+17
elara 7.17E+17
Ananke 7.12E+17
Carme 7.20E+17
Pasiphae 3.20E+17
Sinope 3.17E+17
Saturn 7.12E+17
Pan 7.16E+17
Atlas 7.16E+17
Prometheus 7.16E+17
pandora 7.16E+17
epimethues 7.16E+17
Janus 7.16E+17
Mimas (SI) 7.17E+17
Enceladus (SII) 7.17E+17
Calypso 7.17E+17
telesto 7.17E+17
Tethys (SIII) 7.17E+17
Dione (SIV) 7.17E+17
Helene 7.17E+17
Rhea (SV) 7.17E+17
Titan (SVI) 7.17E+17
Hyperion (SVII) 7.17E+17
Iapetus (SVIII) 7.17E+17
Phoebe 7.18E+17
Uranius 7.16E+17
Miranda (V) 7.21E+17
Ariel (I) 7.17E+17
Umbriel (II) 7.16E+17
Titania (III) 7.26E+17
Oberon (IV) 7.17E+17
Neptune 7.18E+17
Nereid (NII) 7.17E+17
Triton (NI) 7.17E+17
Pluto 7.22E+17
charon 2.10E+19

m2 Name
SOL 7.17E+17
Mercury 7.17E+17
Venus 7.17E+17
Earth 7.17E+17
Mars 7.17E+17
Ceres 7.17E+17
Jupiter 7.16E+17
Saturn 7.12E+17
Neptune 7.18E+17
Pluto 7.22E+17

How ever I am concerned with the whole F=M1m2G/R^2
which gives alot of F to one body and may offset the mass greater or less than it realy is (like jupiter and saturn) and now the numbers show it? or a very large elliptical orbit for a proper mean Velocity or mean distance (like pluto). not my Jupiter balets had some thought up numbers of ring velocities by JPL and other web sites which shows how off the numbers are to other bodies.

Michael

Ok that 7.17e17 is equal to

(7.17e17 / pi^3 ) / G^1.5 = 4

or 4*G^1.5*Pi^3= 7.17e17

ok and this 1/(2*G*pi/3) = 7155614684
from my Density to Radius getting surface G's
Remeber that number of mine?

well 7.17e17 / 7155614684 = 1.00E+08

1.00e8/2*pi = 15954613.19
15954613.19
sqrt(15954613.19)=3994.322619

1/3994.322619=0.000250355

0.000250355 * 10,000 [teslas & guass] is 2.5

remember?
"by taking 8997870.352 and dividing it by the known Gauss of the sun at 2 to 3 gauss, so use 2.5 gauss yeilds an answer of 3599148.141 for a (a value at the center)" from above

this all had to do with magnetic fields at the speed of c.

I am still not sure if that is a background value or not but I am looking into it.

Let me know what you think of 7.17e17?

correction on my part-------------

velocity =(7.17e17)/( sqrt(Mass1)/(r*2*pi)/((c/r*pi)^1.5))

and or
(pi^3/G^1.5)*pi*4=7.14855E+17
also
3/(2*G*pi)=7155614684
and
7155614684 / 7.14855E+17 = 1.00099E-08
-------------------------------------------
ok
note how that looks against magnetic formulas
B=(Idl*r uo)/4*pi r^3

and is also close to being seen in formulas like
Z0 = square root{ µ0 / e0 } = (4 x pi x 10e-7 / 8.854 x 10e-12)1/2 = 376.7 ohms

So maybe I do have something? ? ? ?
Do I have a link between Magnetic fields at c and Forces of G?

I think I posted the formula wrong. here was my step by step to get to 7.148547737e17
take 1/(pi*r)/c))^1.5 = (Value #1)
Take r*2*pi/v = (value#2)
Take (Value1) * (Value2) = (Value3)
last (Value3)* sqrt(mass1) = 7.1---E17
sorry for the cunfusion if any.

I am still running other tests and examples and found also works. This comes out of my sheet converting everthing to Cycles and frequencies.
meters in lenght and everthing in seconds. that was to help me get closer to the magnetic fields which travel at the speed of c.

heres the earth moon relationship!

[1/(half moons orbit/c)^1.5]= 4.23622E-07
[1/((pi*r)/c)^1.5] = 4.23622E-07

take 4.23622E-07/ moons freq. of orbit 4.23617E-07

which gives you an answer of 291979.6868

now 7.14e17/291979.6868=5.97986E+24 earths mass.
------------
heres the sun earth relationship!
[1/(half earths orbit/c)^1.5]= 3.16882E-08
[1/((pi*r)/c)^1.5] = 3.16882E-08

take 3.16882E-08/ earths freq. of
orbit 1.16057E-05

which gives you an answer of 508.4071315

now 7.14e17/508.4071315=1.9723E+30 suns mass.
it works!!!

but with the full 7.14-------e17 comes out to the full 1.98+30 mass of the sun

J___ and Ivan,

cut to the chase....

Note I will go over my inner Mass number
and my outer mass number
Inner 7155614684
outer 7.15e17
Note I still must refine my number.

I will post the first one, of many.

7.15e17 Balance number
------------
Take [7.15e17]/[sqrt(Mass of M1)]/[seconds of m2 orbit]
Sol sq.mass and earth orbit seconds
example 7.15e17/1.41035E+15/31557513.6 = 1.61E-05

note 1.61E-05 is also eqaul to 1/(pi*r{e}/c)^1.5
show as
1/((3.14159265*1.496E+11/299,792,458)^1.5)=1.61E-05
-----------

IN OTHER WORDS...
7.14855E+17= 4*pi /(G^1.5)*(pi^3)

That means


{{[4*pi /(G^1.5)*(pi^3)]/[sqrt(Mass of M1)]/[seconds of m2 orbit]}} = is equal to = 1/(pi*r{e}/c)^1.5

if I rewrite it smaller it looks like
{{[4*pi/(G^1.5)*(pi^3)]/[sqrt(M1)]/[r*2*pi/v]}} =is equal to=
(c/(pi*r))^1.5

So in a manner of speaking I think J___ said that the universe moves at the speed of light, correct me if I am wrong?

But if this is the case, then you have C on one side and G on the other with Mass being munipulated in it all!!!

I forgot, its been quite?, Its a holiday weekend and I need to get a life HAHAHA!!!

Enjoys yours!!!

ok
You know how a/b=c/d stuff

here is what I have so far...
all measurements in meters and seconds

*****Inner Mass*****
Planet Bodies
Radius in meters * 2 * Density^3=
=is equal to=
=Surface a * (3/(2*G*pi))
********************


and On
******Outer mass*****
sqrt(M1 mass) / ((r*pi*2)/v)=
=is equal to=
=((4*pi^4)/(G^1.5)) / ((c/pi)/r)^1.5
*********************

Yet there is a factor of proportion of values which is 1e8 greater in the numbers outside the M1

My meaning

Note how the 4*pi*e-7 is muO
That is seen in the numbers I have which I will try to show/post next.

more soon...

Michael, Ivan,

Something to think about … 7.17e17

I have contended all along the Universe is spinning at … c x 3

However, it makes more sense the Universe is spinning at … c x 3.141592653

No need to take … pi … beyond 9 decimals…!

We have been computing Gravity using only Neutron Mass … more accurate…!

If what we surmise is true … with the Universe Spinning at … c x 3.141592653 – every object in the Universe is located precisely at the dead center of the Universe…!

Think of it this way … a huge gyroscope spinning at … c x 3.141592653 = a ball floating inside of a liquid with the associated vortexes responsible for Galaxy Rotation & Drift, as well as Planetary Rotation & Drift, as well as Individual Star System Rotation & Drift.

No straight lines – everything is moving in circular motion.

J____

Yes,

Just an Idea which got me to this equation.

Magnetic lines of force are said to be travelling at the speed of light, ok, Fine

If any m2 is in an orbit around an m1, well dont look at it as a horizontail plane, I was trying to visualize Magnetice lines and how strong they where, so the r*2*pi is the orbit of the m2
BUT that same r is a Diameter to the magnetic line fields from an magnetic feild. and travels at c.

I played with the numbers like so
IF r*2*pi/v is earths disytance in orbit/speed=time in secs

and with the mag bands
r*pi/c is the circlular path that the bands distance out the M1 poles to m2 is*pi for distance/ the speed of light= a rough guess of time in seconds for the band of fileds.

I do not know if it is true or not, But when the numbers crunch backwards in that formula=
C/r*pi was better seen as (r*pi/c)^1.5

well I am glad you enjoy your holiday, and will give you some time to think about what I have.

As to that ^1.5 is actually ^.666667 in the other direction.

As if
2^2=4
2^3=8

2^1.5=2.828
But 4^1.5=8
and 8^.66667=4

This is because my (C/r*pi)= to half of the R*2*pi/v ...I think?

I will let you know later.
and the link of 1e8 between Inner and outer numbers of force? I will try

I think I have an idea with this new approch, if I consider that the (c/r*pi)^1.5 is like an intesity of the lines @ a given distance.
Like so the closer you are to the M1 body the smaller r will be resulting in a Higher ratio then further away from M1.

I hope to over lay this reflection results with a proportion to the proflies of the m2's guass and spin with planetary makeup.

If it does work, then This will prove my numbers and we can say there is more then one way to get to GM=r*v2, because right now others would see it as just pure numbers.

Michael

so far I am alittle baffelled?
Due to my poor grammer, spelling, I try not to let that hold me back in at least trying.
------------------

you know how r*v^2=Gm of any M1 m2 relationship.

some people who argue with me "what is your 7.15e17 number mean?" "What units is it? how are we to visualize it in a sense?"

Well it just depends on how you look at it. So I would in turn say, ok, I can visualize density^3 as a cube, or mass as a cube, or even the speed over time as a straight line from point a to b like as Radius or distance is represented.
But one thing I do have a hard time is how to visualize seconds^2 in the form of a square shape, like as in the direction velocity travals at v^2.
It is not that we can not understand how or what v^2 is, the point is when they what thing in units of understanding from new ideas, and they can not even describe how v^2 or sec^2 is draw on a cicular path around another mass?
Get my meaning?

Well any way the thing I wanted to describe,
if I was looking at how magnetic lines travel at the speed of c as in a value or a potential.
the distance from M1 to m2 is a DIAMETER of a line of force leaving the M1 to m2 back to M1 in a vertical plain. so the r is a diameter in this equation.
r*pi to get the cicumfrance of the circle. that circumfrance divided by the Velocity of c would give the time of that force.
So r*pi/c=time in seconds.
as in earths case = to 1567.692075seconds
here is my point on shapes
if one was to give a proportion vaule to a shere equaling 8 or a shepe with 8 equal sections in angels 90' from each other, you would have 4 on top and four on the bottom. shapes cut out like those seen in sectional cut outs of planets to show the interrior core layers. I hope you can see in your mind what i mean.
OK
8 sections = the whole sphere
4 sections = half the sphere
2 sections = a quater of the shpere

2^3 = 8 the whole sphere
4^1.5 = 8 the whole sphere
8^.667 = 4 half the sphere

now if you can recall many formulas which want you to only use half the Mass in modern day formulas? where force is used and stuff like that.

well if half the mass is to be used what is half of the whole 8? ....Correct half is 4

Ok here where it gets intresting, bare with me about such small numbers.
if M = 8 you happen to dived it by .667 given you
an answer of 11.994003
so if say this 11.994003 was your Mass number and 8 was your GM number
WELL then THE SQUARE ROOT OF 11.994003
is 3.463235914 Close to 4
Half of the whole?

So in my equation by take the square root of mass
WITHOUT USEING G in it....
but that number needs a counter part
a number^.6666667 cancles to #^1.5

And note how I have
7.15e17/srqt(Sols mass)= 506.8619038
and now I apply a ^1.5 to (c/r*pi)^1.5
506.8619038/(c/r*pi)^1.5=31461599.24
note very carfully that
31461599.24 is in seconds, and those seconds match the orbit seconds of the m2 in question
31461599.24/60secs/60minutes/24hours=364.1388801

Wow! our one earth year by using half the mass with out G but C at a vertical circumfrance?!?!

So if could v^2 actual be represented by its orbital seconds and the so call time that C travels in a vertical orbit at that given length from M1 to m2? and only half the mass since one direction of the field is actually not of the whole mass but half the mass facing the direction towards m2?
---------
I guess this was the best way I could try to word my visaulation of my theory? I hope this helps and turns out to be something?!

If you think you got the jest of what I said and can visaulize it, and wish to give a crack at re-explianing it, please be my guest!!!
LOL, haha.

because many people fight over the whole G value, well I hope that I explianed that G is measurable, but was still a fugde factor like like my 7.15e17 and my equation, BUT still, the G does not eqivalation the vertical speed of c in magnetic propogation like mine did? I think, correct me if I am wrong.

Michael Stransky

And Ivan, if you wish to start a new thread which best suits this idea, I am game if it looks worth it!

Hi J___, Michael,

I'm just now reviewing your postings, now that I'm back from Rome, and that real party town Dublin. Phew! Keeping up with your voluminous postings is some work, but great!

J___, on Aug. 24, 2004, your wrote: "The New Theory predicts gravity is constant based on Neutron Mass, which explains the orbits of planets within our solar system, and observations of other star systems quite accurately – the constant is not variable."

Of course, if Newton's G is a constant not variable then the Axiomatic Equation leads to naught. I don't have yet proof positive that G is a variable-constant as I suspect, just how that equation works out. And as you pointed out, 250 years of observation failed to show this variable. However, we must remember that our gravity observations at a distance are limited to orbital velocities, assuming a constant G and commensurate mass of the body observed, so that if we are wrong on the mass value estimated, we have no way of knowing if our G reading is correct. This is the conundrum that leaves open the possibility that G may not be what we think, hence, mass estimated may also be wrong.

You also said that the Universe is spinning at c x 3.14159..., at lighspeed times pi, which I think is also my hunch. I've always maintained the reason Einstein's Relativity made no sense was because the universe may very well be traveling at v = c already, so that the initial reference frame of necessity breaks the lightspeed rule imposed on Relativity. If all is spinning at c+, then what does it do to mass? So it becomes gibberish, since mass is not infinite, and time is not standing still, and any motion of v immediately violates c maximum... it makes no sense to me. I'd rather think that what we see here as initial reference frame of v = o is already the same as v = c, so Relativity is moot.

Michael,

Well, I'm not savvy enough to keep with all your numbers, but I try! On your Aug. 28, 2004, post you said: "Remember the factor number I used =(2*G*pi/3) which equaled 2.63189E-06"

I am sure you have this figured out, but I didn't come up with the 2.63189E-06 result. What it came out to be instead, using your equation (2*G*pi/3), was 1.39696E-10. What did I do wrong?

Also, multiplying by pi and dividing by 3 is approx. = 1.047967, which is almost one.. so not sure I am following this correctly here. Maybe you can clarify for me? Thanks.

Of course, I look forward to better understanding what 7.17E+17 represents, if you can add some explanation for that too! Is this a constant of some kind? I see in the Sep. 4, 2004, posts how this number is used to show Earth Sun relationships, which leads to mass numbers: i.e., Earth mass = 5.97986E+24, etc.

Lastly, an aside, I like the idea that c^3 is an upper limit to the Universe's energy output, where E = 10^3, though I don't know why this should be so. In my earlier work, post of July 1, 2004, "Does Gravity Zero-point Energy Explain Spin", I showed how the Sun's energy is E = 10E+24 Joules, probably at the very hot corona surface, and thus per the Axiomatic, the molecules there experience 'zero gravity' so they can escape the Sun's powerful G and fly off into space, which we call the solar wind. So this is one explanation of max E, but not sure I know why this is so. Still thinking about it, along with why is there spin, or why are atoms where they are, or how does Gauss Magnetic energy relate to planetary spin, or... how to make sense of it all!

Take care, will look things over some more.

Ivan

Ps: I'll start a new thread titled "Guassian Effect and Planetary Spin" shortly.

Ivan,

You did the math right.
"Well, I'm not savvy enough to keep with all your numbers, but I try! On your Aug. 28, 2004, post you said: "Remember the factor number I used =(2*G*pi/3) which equaled 2.63189E-06"-Ivan

"I am sure you have this figured out, but I didn't come up with the 2.63189E-06 result. What it came out to be instead, using your equation (2*G*pi/3), was 1.39696E-10. What did I do wrong? "

My Fault- My minds spins 10xfaster then my Mouth, and 20X faster then my fingers. My handicap is that my brian knows what I am thinking and assumes my fingers type just as fast. - I am so sorry!!!

That (2*G*pi/3)= 1.3975E-10
and
(3/2*G*pi) = 7155614684
or 1/x=
-------
Ivan and J___,

Please go to this thread to pick up where I left off with that thought from above.
"Dr. Albert Einstein's Errors?"
I try to put the equations next to the numbers I did so that it would be easier to follow in case I jumped some steps.
- From this post I think I completed the Idea how and where G came from in the numbers, and you might like that.
- If I am right of where it came from Then I think I can take out that proportion factor, and maybe able to get clear number and what they will than actually represent. Who know, when I get done with that, I think we might be able to stick a per the Axiomatic, formula in its place to see what happens, I think G with any other NEW formula to understand the slight deviations of curves and stuff, is being Violated by the STIFF G constant, it might have to be "One or the Other!"

CRATER ON MARS, Space.com's NASA image of Endurance.

Endurace Crater on Mars, then click on the link to get a truly spectacular high resolution detail of the crater, and notice all the 'blueberries'. Nasa, a job well done!

A pix is worth a million words!

Hi Micheal,

I found your above entry of Sept. 8, 2004, where you say:

---

Quote:

If it does work, then This will prove my numbers and we can say there is more then one way to get to GM=r*v2, because right now others would see it as just pure numbers.

---

Great! Great! Great!

OK, I dont feel so bad that you to see it as well!!!

I will comment as soon as I can, I will comment on the other thread "Spin" that you have just started a little while ago.

And from what I came up with, and what you came up with, we see eye to eye. I hope to make a comment and gain some ground on the very last equation I sent you with magnetic fields in the equation of
quote-
"GM = v^2R, so that you too found an alternative equation for G, which becomes: G = v^2R/M. "

Which if I am right G may just be a balance point of 'F' at the measurment of 'c'.

I think you still remember that last equation I sent you or post that had to do with the
sqrt(M1) and had c in it with ^1.5

[smile] Well since you see the same also I will go further (try to explian, comment) into it again and inclued that as well into it.

BIG BANG, or a Bigga Balloney?

See BBC Science news: Flash, Big Bang, Wallop! What a picture!

The Big Bang is the big fantasy of the modern age, not surprisingly theorized by a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre, though he did not name it, which lends some sort of legitimacy to a creationist theory of the universe. The cosmic microwave background imaged by COBE also lends credibility, unless one considers that the blotchiness of the image may be due to gravity density variability in the great cosmic distances of space, affecting how the microwave energy is received on Earth.

There is another theoretical problem with a sudden expansion of space within nanoseconds from the 'day before there was a yesterday', which surprisingly was not noticed by Lemaitre and company: Since we measure all time from ourselves backwards as we look into space, as distant cosmic light reaches us, means we are on the edge of the Big Bang; then everywhere we look we are looking into its origin, so every point on the 360' sphere at the farthest distance is its center. But this creates an irreconcilable paradox: How can we be on the edge of the Big Bang and at the center of the universe, since all points in the universe are its center, at the same time? Anyone, anyone...?

I liked the picture of the young Hoyle as a rascal in school, he did not believe in the Big Bang Theory. The whole thing is an imagining of silly fuddy duddy old men. Sorry guys, it's balloney.

Ivan

Ivan,

Hehehehehehehehehehehe....!

Now you got them ... If we are on the edge of the BB, where is the edge opposite us...?

Now, lets see the numbers that can define that!

J____

65 MILLION (LIGHT) YEARS AWAY (AGO), and the Dino Galaxy-- or is Big Bang reeaaallly a STRETTCHH?

Here's a brain teaser: If we look back 65 million light years away, we're looking back into the final days of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. Now, pick a galaxy visible there, let's call it the "Dino Galaxy", and imagine yourself looking from it towards us. What do you see?

Well, it makes sense that what you're seeing is Earth's time 65 million years ago, the final age of the Dinosaurs. But look in any other direction, and that is the same thing you see, that Dino Age for any galaxy. Of course, what you see is no longer there, time has gone by, but also if space is truly expanding, then what you see is no longer there because it has moved away. So when we look back into time at cosmic distances, we never see what's there, if space is expanding, or even what was there, since it was no longer there almost immediately. Yet, from either perspective, whether looking out 65 million light years from Earth, or looking from Dino Galaxy towards Earth, you are on the expanding edge of the universe, if it is expanding. What's wrong with this picture?

First of all, in which ever direction you look, if far enough, you are looking into the origin of the Big Bang, no matter from where you look. Then, since you are on the expanding edge of the universe, you can only see backwards in time, and never laterally into your present universe, since light does not travel fast enough to allow you to do this. We never-ever-ever see the present in space, only the past, if the universe is static. But if the universe is expanding, then we are double deceived, since now what we see is not even there anymore. What does that make of astronomical observations? They become pretty much meaningless. Now, imagine that simultaneously, someone from Dino Galaxy, 65 million light years away, is watching you through a telescope as you are watching them. Is there some point midway where your vision meets, so that you are both watching the same space at the same time? That depends.

If the universe is not expanding, static, then somewhere around 32.5 million light years away, you're both looking at the same midway point, call it the Midway Galaxy. But if the universe is expanding, then you're both short of the mark, since what was Midway Galaxy there at the time no longer is. This means both observers will get different images on the same point. Yet, if someone was there at the midway point looking in both directions, he/she/it would be looking towards Earth's (post-dinosaur) period, and Dino Galaxy, as it was 32.5 million years ago. However, that midway point is now the expanding edge of the universe, if it is a Big Bang generated expansion. So from their point of view, today, they see the universe as it was for us 32.5 million years ago, except that neither the dinosaurs here, nor Dino Galaxy there, are still there. So in looking in these two simultaneous directions, if Big Bang expanding, they only see an illusion, since neither is there anymore.

Why is this significant? On a very large scale, we never see the present, only the past. On a very small scale, such as within the Milky Way, we have access to a more recent past, about 40,000 years ago, if looking into the black hole at the center, for example, but there is no evidence of expansion within a galaxy. This space-expansion is reserved for intergalactic space, which in itself makes it suspect, though theoretically possible, even necessary to prove Einstein's cosmological constant right. But also, on a very large scale, we never see what was actually there at the time, since it already moved away by the time we trained our scopes on it. Remember that each observer, from wherever this observation is taking place in the present, is on the expanding edge of the universe, the present. But what each observer sees is only a fallacious image of what it may have been long ago, if the universe is expanding. And if so, how can we make justifiable projections of what the universe is at any point in space-time since we never know what that is? It's always changing. If not expanding, then at least we have the certitude that what we see is what was once there. But if expanding, then what we see is no longer there, and was there only for a brief moment, so that next time we train our scopes in that direction, it should no longer be there, but moved away. But! And this is a major BUT: Where did it go? Did it go towards us? Did it move away from us? Or did it go sideways? If it is expanding, where is it, and which way is it going?

This is the fundamental problem with the Big Bang: If Dino Galaxy is moving away from us, then when they train their scopes on us, are we still here, or did we move away? But which way? We don't know which way, because the universe has no center, so no direction is guaranteed. If I pick Dino Galaxy 2, at 180 degrees away from the first one, but at the same distance of 65 million light years, which way is that galaxy moving? Can it be moving towards us, rather than away? Or is space expansion so consistent that it has to move away from us. Then if observers from Dino 2 are looking towards Dino 1, can they still see it, if it's moving away? And if they do see it, how can they judge how far it is? And if they both train their scopes towards each other, and we are now the midway Milky Way galaxy, are they seeing us 65 million years ago? Are we still here, or did we expand in space in some direction or other? We cannot know from here in which direction because the universe has no center, so all directions are valid: Which way did the Milky Way go?

So here is a problem, where we're all looking at each other, but cannot see each other because we are all in motion away from each other. By the time we train our scopes at distances in any direction billions of light years away, we should not blink, for we will miss what was there, what cannot be there moments later, as they speed away from us at multiples of lightspeed. In fact, it is something of a stretch that space can expand at above lightspeed, and we can still see it. How is light reaching us from sources that are moving away from us above lightspeed? Or are we merely seeing an illusory shadow of what was there, very long ago, but no longer there? We know Hubble Deep Space gave us image from over 12 billion light years away, but at what point was light so stretched by an 'expanding' universe that it should no longer have been visible for us?

I suspect that it makes much more sense that if we can see billions of light years away, that we are actually seeing into the past of what was there at the time, but it had not moved away. Rather, whatever happened to it over the past billions of years is still there, in its current form. True the universe has no center, but nor does it have an expanding edge. There is no border to reality, because there is no expansion taking place. Things move around because of internal forces manifest within a universe that affects each and every part of itself, ad infinitum, of which we are but one small infinitesimal piece. We are not on the expanding edge of reality, anymore than we are at the center of all existence.

Finally, if space is expanding, why should light reach us at all? Why doesn't it get lost into some other dimension of space instead? Why would stretched-space allow light to reach us in this un-stretched-dimension at all? Or is it all too much of a strettchh?

"Hehehehehehehahaha...!"

Ivan

DINO GALAXY REVISITED.

There is another question about expansion, if it exists. Imagine being on Dino Galaxy looking towards Earth, 65 million light years away; and conversely you are simultaneously looking from Earth towards Dino Galaxy. In both cases, you see expansion due to so-called Doppler redshift, as now assumed. But now it is not enough to consider this expansion only from one observation point, since it must be equally considered from both observation points, so that the expansion is now compounded by both observations.* It is more than merely a confirmation of what is being observed from either vantage point; in fact, it is a confirmation that both bodies are allegedly moving away from each other simultaneously, if expansion is to be believed. If only one observation is believed, then space is expanding as now postulated. But if both observations are believed, then space is expanding at a compound rate of both observations. This, of course, changes everything. Take this further to include every point in space expanding from every other, compounded, and your expansion is exponential. In fact, it should be so great that by now nothing should even be visible to us anymore, since it had all expanded away. Why leave the thesis of expansion only for Earth's point of view, thus making it intrinsically Terracentric? Why not make it a universal event, so that it is universally exponential instead? Naturally, neither need be true, if there was no expansion, and what's left is only an observational illusion, which looks like Doppler related expansion.

However, if cosmic light redshift is really due to Doppler motion, then by now, billions of years after the presumed Big Bang, there should be nothing visible anymore, anywhere. The fact that the universe is visible for at least 12 billion light years leaves us with the only possible conclusion: Cosmic light redshift is due to intrinsic factors of space, and not expansion. Redshift is a fact of life for distant light, but it does not necessitate a Doppler reason for it. It may in fact redshift for a dozen variety of reasons, some of which can be explained by physics, or space dust, but most of which still leave us in the dark. My preference is that gravity is greater in the cold vast reaches of space, shifting light naturally to the red. Everything we see is where it was, and it had not expanded away, except that it had changed intrinsically due to motions and events local to it. In fact, I suspect the universe turns, it spins in some unfathomable fashion, so that in the end, all things return to where they were, over and over again. Evolution is the only break from this monotonous existence, and we are a product of such an event. But it does not necessitate a Big Bang to get us here. Ditto for Dino. If it doesn't take an Einstein to figure this out, why didn't they think of it before they launched this whole absurd Big Bang idea? Of course, I am sure Big Bangers will disagree, though in all fairness, it should be mentioned that paradoxically Einstein did not agree with the Big Bang idea spawned from his Relativity.

*(Einstein's first postulate, that there are no preferential reference frames, dictates that observations from all frames are valid, not just the observer's. I use this here only as illustration to show the absurdity of this notion; in reality, only the observer's frame is valid.)

Ivan

PYTHAGOREAN PHYSICS: A Collection of Writings by Todd Matthews Kelso.

Margaret

A CHICKEN AND EGG QUESTION: Which came first, the galaxy or the black hole?

See Space.com's The New History of Black Holes: 'Co-evolution'

"Co-evolution" is the key word here, especially given that supermassive black holes are now detected within one billion years of the postulated Big Bang: Huge Black Holes Formed Quickly After Big Bang, as in this Space.com article by Rob Roy Britt, 22 Nov. 2004. It now appears they were already there much sooner than anyone would have expected, calling into question the theory of black holes being collapsed massive stars. In fact, they may be something much more germane to how a galaxy forms, so they exist from the beginning of necessity.

If you click on the illustration of the latter, you'll see how a torus of gas and dust is pulled into the black hole which puts it into an immense spin around it. This is probably fairly close to what actually is happening, except in the origin of this black hole the torus was rich with plasma energy, not yet stars, which was concentrated most in one spot. It takes this weird mechanics of how our universe is put together to activate this hot plasma torus into action, which happens when all the energy is symmetrically centered on one point within it. When that happens, as any kitchen experiment with a water bowl would predict, the plasma energy self cancels on that point, so that something new takes place. What happens in that moment, as predicted by the (as yet unfinished) Axiomatic Equation (see other thread), is that the self-canceled light opens a hole for the very powerful gravity that is endemic of the space vacuum, at maximum G = c. This sudden appearance of the gravity (black) hole puts the plasma gas into spin around it, sending some of it into the galaxy plane of spin to form the eventual spiral of stars and planets, and retaining a portion of it as a protective wall as a kind of high energy-shielding-vortex to keep the black-gravity-hole alive in perpetuity. When the galaxy forms, perhaps over a billion years, it then persists as this self-perpetuating system until it either merges with another or dies of old age, perhaps some 20 billion years later, or more, as the stars created die out.

This is how the "co-evolution" would work based on the hypothesis of the Axiomatic Equation, but this is not yet theory, so just another "artist's" rendering of what happened 12.7 billion years ago in SDSSp J1306 and J1030, as a way of illustration. Once this system is put in motion, it works on for eons, gathering more interspace gases and plasma, recycling pions sent out the axis jets of the black hole, and recycling whatever mass and energy finds its way into the giant gravity hole. A rather nice system, built by someone very smart indeed, Whoever it was who Created this universe!

So which came first, the black hole or the galaxy? The answer is "both"! One could not have formed without the other. Collapsed massive or supermassive stars? Well... they were okay for yesteryear's theory...

Ivan

WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY COME FROM IN EINSTEIN'S
CURVED SPACE-TIME GRAVITATIONAL MOTION?

This is a question often asked by students of Einstein's relativistic gravity, General Relativity, as per Wiki's:
How energy is conserved if no forces act at a distance ? I find the answer most intriguing, that since energy has mass, it then increases m as the kinetic energy increases. Or to be more exact (fair use):

---

Quote:

Energy has mass and so m goes up. However c2 drops
down by the same amount since the falling object gets into
space where time is running slower (recall time dilation) and so
the speed of light, as observed by the same distant observer
who is seeing the increasing kinetic energy, is slower as well
(that's why the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational
field). If both m and c2 change in opposite directions by the
same amount, the product (the total energy of the object) stays
the same for a free falling object. That's how the conservation of
energy works in Einstein's gravity.

---

THE COMPLEXITY FALLACY

The natural order of things is that an understanding of reality can be constructed from reasonable assumptions showing their interrelationships such that a whole model results with predictive capability of real events. When this model is tested against reality, the observations and theory should match up fairly well, so the theoretical model is validated. No matter how complex the model, as long as it is reasonable and consistent, the results should always match with real observations of either events or details of our universe. So complexity per se is not a hindrance to such understanding, unless this complexity itself takes precedence over observable facts. When this modeling complexity becomes overdominant over reality observations, however, it leads to a fallacy.

This principle of complexity is in and of itself not a problem unless we apply it to a theoretical model where the observations themselves are influenced by complexity. This happens in both Relativity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle*, where the observed results are of necessity interpreted by the theory describing them. It would appear at first glance as merely a benign effect, that the highly complex but totally consistent theory should yield predictions of what should be observed. However in these two cases, the results can only be interpreted using the logic of its highly complex modeling, and without them they remain merely observations for which explanations would be lacking. The result is that theory explains itself within the parameters of its complex structure, but this same explanation may not actually reflect what is happening in reality. Hence, the results become suspect, and the basic assumptions upon which theory rests likewise remain unconfirmed.

In effect, the validation for theory of observations in relativistic and uncertainty events is not based upon the validity of their basic assumptions, which may be in error, but upon the consistency of the theory itself. The fact that it can remain highly complex, mathematically correct, to the point of where results become counter-intuitive, is itself the validation of why this theory is believed. The usual descriptive language of Relativity, or the Standard Model, is that of 'elegance and beauty' in its mathematical structure, as if this was sufficient to lend credibility. Mathematical modeling is only as valid as it describes real events, since it is merely another language with its own symbols and grammar, but it is not in and of itself reason to believe that the universe is more intelligible because of its complex beauty. The universe is understandable as intuitive logic, and if we have to transgress this understanding into what becomes counter-intuitive in its results, the results themselves must become suspect. Then there is room to doubt that the model itself may be at risk of error, even though it remains totally consistent within itself. For example, to incorporate the force of gravity into the Standard Model theory indicates that we have to look for what happened within the first three milliseconds of the Big Bang (see "God Particle" below), which itself was spawned of calculations by Einstein's General Relativity with its 'cosmological constant' morphed into Hubble's constant to explain cosmic light redshift. So here we have a structure of theory built upon the premise that relativistic interpretations of the universe are applicable to the Doppler redshift of light to confirm an expanding universe from a Big Bang (see '"Big Bang' is just Religion disguised as Science" below), which may never have happened. What results is a case of where the theory predicts, in its highly complex fashion, a perhaps mythical Big Bang to support a search for a 'God particle' which might have existed within the first three milliseconds of the universe's 'creation'. Indeed, this may be a case of complexity having run amok, which is why it may be considered a fallacy. Of course, this puts the whole theory into jeopardy if there was no Big Bang, and thus no three milliseconds for the 'God particle', which then renders CERN's multibillion dollar project an exercise in futility. Here is a clear example of how 'complexity' of theory can run itself into an ever expanding circle of fallacy to give questionable results built upon a foundation of unproven assumptions. Is Einstein's first postulate of Special Relativity, and its successor General Relativity, true? Are all reference frames equal? Perhaps they are not, and if so, the whole structure of Relativity, other than as an observational technique for near light velocity, crumbles under its own weight, taking with it Big Bang and the gravity component of the Standard Model as well. Smashing protons at very high energy levels may not yield results significantly different from earlier experiments, though such experimenting is in itself not without meaningful consequences, and worth pursuing for the sake of science. It is merely that we may not use the results as proof of the theoretical structure upon which they were founded. Complexity is not proof the results are any more valid than simplicy, or some other theory as yet to be discovered as to why there is gravity, or how electromagnetic energy modifies the atom, or why the universe is built the way it is. Rather, complexity courted for its mathematical beauty may be no more than an inherent fallacy in this original assumptions, if the results are counter-intuitive to normal understanding. Is there a 'God particle', or is there a better explanation for why cosmic redshifts over great distances? Mass may be no more than how gravity and electromagnetic energy interact in a very simple way, which gives us the atom. (See "Axtionatic Equation" as possible alternative theory , still unproven, to Standard Model). To date, we still do not have a viable theory to show this, and the 'complexity fallacy' has merely taken us further afield from discovering the truth. That said, money spent on research, no matter how unlikely the end results per the underlying theoretical expectations, is never money ill spent.

It can be said that, as a rule, consistent complexity is no guarantee of theoretical accuracy, no matter how mathematically beautiful, for it may lead to a 'complexity fallacy'.


Underground search for 'God particle' CERN
THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

*(see Gong's post above, Feb. 25, 2004, "The Uncertainty Principle is Untenable").

Ivan D. Alexander

Dark Matter Galaxy Found, per discussion on BAD Astronomy.

Is there a simple answer? Can Newton's G be a variable where in 'darkness' it becomes the power to hold a giant hydrogen cloud in space the size of a galaxy? Is there an 'inverse' relationship between light and darkness, or between em radiation and gravity? These in today's physics remain a mystery...

Ivan

Per above BAD Astronomy link: Dark matter galaxy at 1000 times hydrogen atoms mass?

It says in Space.com "The first dark galaxy?", said Minchin:

"From the speed it is spinning, we realized that VIRGOHI21 was a thousand time more massive than could be accounted for by the observed hydrogen atoms alone."

If by using nuclear "atomic mass units" where 1 amu = 1.66x10^-27 kg as a basic weight, then if hydrogen is "a thousand times more massive", can we figure that the hydrogen amu in the Dark matter galaxy is 1 amu = ~1.66x10^-24 kg?

May this be interpreted in another way? For example, if it were a variable G function of G', which is Dark matter gravity proportional, as ratio to Earth's measured G, which is 6.67x10^-11 Nm^2 kg^-2, then expressing it as:

(G'/G)kg = (~6.67x10^-8 N/ 6.67x10^-11 N)kg, substituing 1 amu for kg, translates into:

(~10x^3)(1.66x10^-27 kg) = ~1.66x10^-24 kg.

This illustrates a principle where if Newton's G is 1000x greater than Earth's G for the Dark matter galaxy, at G' = ~6.67x10^-8 Nm^2 kg^-2, then each hydrogen atom should be a thousand times heavier, as per Minchin's statement above. Are the two not the same, as when I said in #3 above: "a factor in how G operates as a 'proportional' of atraction between masses on hydrogen atoms there?"

I would think this represents a fair way of illustrating a greater G, the Axiomatic Equation, in the Dark matter galaxy found. Curious that G is only 1000 times greater than here. I would have guessed a greater number.

Per the (modified) deBroglie equation: E = hc/ lm

if 1 amu on the Dark matter galaxy is 1.66x10^-24 kg, as per above, keeping h, c, and lambda constant, we can figure the total ambient Energy for that mysterious galaxy:

E' = (6.626x10^-34)(3x10^8)/ (1.32x10^-15)(1.66x10^-24) = ~9x10^13 J,

which is three orders of magnitude lower than our Sun's E output, E = 9x10^16 J.

However, this may overstate the ambient energy if lambda is too high, since 10^-15 is in the range of near X-ray. Also, we do not know that Planck's constant would still work the same way if E is lower. What is surprising is that the Energy output of a Dark matter galaxy is still quite high, which means the hydrogen atoms there are fairly active, but not biding to form stars. Thus they cannot produce light. Curious... so if there were a meaningful way to measure the Dark matter galaxy's ambient Energy, we might arrive at a more true value of G'.

I think this may also work here, taking the energy as hydrogen's 21 centimeter wavelength, or 2.1x10^-3 meters.

E = hc/ L(m'), where L is lambda and m' is adjusted atomic mass:

E = (6.626x10^-34)(3x10^8 )/ (2.1x10^-3)(1.66x10^-24) = 57.03 J

This seems extremely low to me. My guess is the real E number is somewhere in between.

Ivan

HE1327-2326 which sets a new record for being the most heavy element-deficient, per SpaceRef.com

Note 4 makes no sense. Why is a star from the 'early' universe only 4000 light years away? Shouldn't it be like billions of light years?

There's something very wrong and troubled with 'dating' in the universe,using redshifted Hubble's.

Ivan

STARS ARE BORN IN HIGH GRAVITY-ELELCTROMAGNETIC SOUP?
Baby Star is Way Ahead of its Time

It seems new stars, such as those about 500 light years away per article above, are born in the very cold low energy of space (-240 Celsius) where (per the Axiomatic) G is very high, loose molecules are being thrown together into a magnetic soup releasing high X-ray radiation. Very interesting, watchin' a star being born... check back in a million years!... we might have it figured out by then.

Ivan

EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY, 1st Postulate. K

Let it be said that Einstein's Special Relativity is limited by its first postulate, that there are no preferred reference frames. In reality, the observer's reference frame is always preferred, where the observational information to that frame from all other inertial frames is limited by the speed of light.

This makes Special Relativity only an observational science, always valid from the observer's point of reference, but erroneous as an interpretation of the flow of information, restricted by the lightspeed constant, for all other reference frames. What happens in those other frames does not change, only from the observer's frame do changes such as time and length or mass apply. Hence, only the observer's frame is valid, and preferential.

General Relativity, as an offshoot of Special Relativity, may still work as a mathematical expression, non causal, of how gravity is described, though it may need modification should the gravitational G constant prove to be a function of Energy flux, and thus variable. If there is an inverse proportionality to Energy and gravity, the causality of gravity may be established, with perhaps a far simpler mathematical description to that of the Einsteinian-Lorenzian metric-tensor, which would now default to an ad hoc constant inserted to accommodate the real G in General Relativity. This is of necessity if Newton's G (constant) is not a constant, except within the parameters of the Energy flux where it is measured.

Ivan

THE OSSIFICATION FALLACY

Ideas progress naturally from speculation to hypothesis, then after rigorous examination and tests, to theory. But once established as theory, ideas then face the danger of ossification, where such theories become so deemed irrefutable that to challenge them is nearly an act of heresy.

Once an idea hardens into ossification, it then becomes very difficult to dislodge. This may not be primarily not only because the idea is so good, but also secondarily because its defense sometimes takes on an almost religious zeal, so meaningful debate becomes difficult. Once reaching this stage, all efforts seem to concentrate on disproving any attempts to question anomalous evidence that does not fit theory. So the main focus then shifts from possibly understanding where theory fails in anomalous data, and instead to finding means to explain such theoretically errant evidence in terms of the theory itself. Here lies the danger, that theorists in effect turn a blind eye to facts, and concentrate instead on how to explain them away.

Such an event is now in process within theories of cosmology. It had been assumed for the past three hundred years, and within the last century specifically, that we have a solid understanding of cosmological phenomena. Our astronomy is largely based upon studies of moving bodies at a distance within the older parameters of Newton's universal constant gravity, and within the newer Einstein-Lorentz-Hubble derived parameters of general relativity and expanding space. This has been so examined and theoretically proven as to have become virtually unchallengable. More recent discoveries of the Pioneers Anomaly, postulated "dark matter" for the outer rotations of galaxies, and perhaps also why the gas giants and their moons have surprisingly large atmospheres for their core size, may all be indicative of a gravity that is not universally constant but variable instead. However in presenting such ideas as hypothesis, there seems to exist an immense resistance to this new possibility of a variable gravity, as expressed by Newton's G, so debate quickly regresses into an attack on any new ideas. This is already ossification in progress, where the old idea may not be challenged without heavy penalty to anyone proposing it. The danger within mainstream science is that such challengers are marginalized into obscurity, unpublished, and accused of "pseudo-science". Therefore, a serious investigation of a perhaps well hidden phenomenon, one that had escaped notice for over three hundred years, is likewise marginalized. The outcome of such investigation if proven correct, that gravity is not universally constant, would have obviously dire consequences to existing theory, including the unseating of cosmology giants such as Einstein and later thinkers. It might also, should cosmic light redshift be shown to be a variable gravity artifact, where very great gravity of five orders of magnitude or more in most of deep space is the fact, means the apparent cosmic space expansion is illusory, and of necessity means there was no beginning origin in the form of a primordial Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. Space may be homogeneous and isotropic still, but at 99.99% of it at much higher levels of gravity than here. Gravity may be so great and constant at these higher levels, that the inverse square law, for where gravity ceases to be a variable, fails to act in how we had imagined it. Out there, it may be a vast universal field of very great gravity, within which exist islands and galactic oasises of light gravity. Star light may be what modifies gravity near hot stars and large galaxies into the very weak gravity we experience on Earth, and our near solar system.

However, an examination of this possibility is negated almost from the start, and instead the focus is on increasingly more exotic explanations for why the universe acts the way it does, right down to the quantum levels. Of necessity, forces that cannot be reconciled into any kind of meaningful unification, especially gravity, gets relegated to some imaginary first nanoseconds of space-time at the "birth" of the universe in its Big Bang moment. Theory is forced to become incredibly absurd to maintain the status quo, and rejection of theory becomes virtually impossible due to its ossified nature. Thus, serious scientists are professionally "forbidden" from pursuing alternatives, and all minds must focus on those increasingly absurd ideas to preserve theory. We may have come to a dead end, and it may be time to not merely continue finding ways to prove Einstein right, but instead to seriously begining to find fundamental flaws in such thinking, and ultimately find where he was wrong. No doubt, much of this new theory is correct, including the mathematicaly treatments of curved gravitational space, but if we predicated all of our distant observations on a universal constant gravity, then all calculations for mass relative to motion must be suspect if gravity is not constant, meaning that the calculations may appear to work fine, but their inherent conclusions are actually wrong. That a very small core planet of only two or three Earth masses can account for the very great gravity and atmosphere of Jupiter, or that exceptionally small moons the size of Enceladus can have an atmosphere, is cause enough to begin a process of re-examination of current theory. The Pioneers is merely a first clue that we might have had it wrong. But even there, the efforts had been on finding "systemic" reasons, such as outgassing, for their slowing in the outer solar system rather than any new treatment of how gravity behaves.

So this is the fallacy of ossified theory, that once it is established as true and universal, then it becomes virtually unchallengeable, which goes against the spirit of science. We should be maintaining a much more open mind about what we had come to believe as true within parameters of theory, and begin to question the validity of the theory itself. If we do that, we may be surprised to discover the universe is a very different place from the one painted on the canvas of a Newtonian constant universal gravity. The greater surprise will be that if we find a relationship between star energy and gravity, that one modifies the other, then we may find a way to harness gravity in ways currently imagined. Gravity may yet be the next usable natural force, one that may give us continuous and immense acceleration into a further wide open exploration of space, a cosmos whose radius, and time, is much greater than the currently accepted 14 billion light-years.

Ivan

THE POSTULATES FALLACY

A postulate is an axiom taken a priori as true, upon which is built a hypothesis or theory. Such an axiom or postulate requires no proof, except that in its final manifestation of theory built upon it, the observations are then expected to validate the original postulate. In this kind of circular reasoning, the original axiom is thus validated, where all observers agree with it, and ultimately accept it as true. Thus, it can be said that a postulate is merely an agreed upon condition where it is accepted axiomatically as true.

One such postulate upon which is built the Theory of Relativity is the Lorentz Transformation, which itself is derived from the Galilean transformation, which replaces it in Einstein's Special Relativity. The three dimensions of physical space are now modified by a fourth dimension of time, and thus all four dimensions are treated as equally valid within the mathematical context defining space-time. To make this work, Einstein set the speed of light as constant, so all observations are constrained within these parameters of light constant and four dimensional space. These parameters taken in toto are then applied against another postulate by Einstein that there are no preferred inertial reference frames, so that space-time and the light constant are equally valid for all observers in all inertial reference frames. That in toto is the Theory of Relativity, upon which is then based General Relativity to explain gravity. To make this theory work, mathematically, Lorentz-Einstein's ideas introduced time dilation and mass increase where classical rest mass, what we know of as mass in our reality, expands at relativistic velocities. However, to make this last work for explaining gravity, another postulate is added, that of the clock postulate.

Postulates are just that, postulates, and cannot be proven a priori, so they are given as fundamentally true and agreed upon. In the case of Einstein's Relativity's first postulate, it is axiomatic that all inertial reference frames are equal. In order to make this postulate valid, time simultaneity is of necessity sacrificed to time dilation, which is a de facto acceptance of a postulate: that for all observers exists an indidual time. But the key word is "observers", and this is where the first postulate stumbles: if simultaneous time is valid only for observers in the same inertial frames, and time is no longer simultaneous for an observer in an accelerating reference frame, then can it be held as true that time is a variable? The answer to this becomes of necessity from whose point of view? For the observer in an accelerated reference frame, time continues as simultaneous within that frame, but from the observer of an initial rest frame, the accelerated frame's time is dilated. The end result is that time is simultaneous only within the same reference frame. And therein lies the problem, that Relativity as first defined by Galileo and later postulated by the Lorentz transformation, finally formalized in Einstein's first postulate, demands that the observer be defined as the preferential reference frame, in all cases. So what appears as time dilation for one observer is not what happens for the other, where no such dilation takes place. This in itself is enough to invalidate the "no preferential reference frames" of Einstein's first postulate, because the observer's reference frame is always preferred.

However, all this was made to work by assuming a postulate that may not be true, and then further applied against another postulate, that gravity is a universal constant, dating back to the days of its first formulations by Sir Isaac Newton. This gravity universal constant postulate has been held as true to this day. Is it valid? That depends upon how we view time: If it takes time dilation and mass increase to validate Special Relativity, and the clock postulate to validate General Relativity, then the fact that we find that atomic clocks will beat at a time dilated rate while traveling through gravity is not of necessity a proof of time dilation. In fact, it may be only a proof of variable atomic oscillations within a gravitational field, but time itself remains simultaneous for all reference frames, within these same frames, and only skewed for an observer outside of them. So to make the claim that time is variant because atomic clocks beat at variant rates is a fault of the first postulate, that all reference frames are equal, and therefore leads to an error. Therefore, gravity is kept at G as a universal constant by variable time. Is time itself a variant? The answer is no, it is not a variant, except from an observational point of view. And the reason for this is the light constant, that if we limit all observations to the limitation of using electromagnetic energy traveling through space at a constant velocity, regardless of the velocity of the observer, then time simultaneity is sacrificed. This would not happen if our observational ability was instantaneous, rather than light based, because then all clocks would run at the same time. And if atomic clocks beat at a different rate within gravitational fields, it would be an artifact of gravity, and not relativity. Thus, the gravity universal constant postulate is only a postulate, and most likely wrong. The fact that our astronomical observations have failed to notice is because we are using the same G for all our astronomical calculations, which works so we hit our targets in space, but masks the reality of what gravity and mass are at a distance.

The conclusions drawn from these postulates of Relativity is that Metric Theories are the only way to understand gravity, which includes the strong equivalence principle, and which then leads to String Theory for very short range quantum distances. But now we are drifting further and further afield into the domain created by these postulates, which may not necessarily lead us into an understanding of reality. Quantum theory and General Relativity theory for gravity are irreconcilable, though Einstein had spend the rest of his life trying to fit the two. This has also launched physics in search of new exotic gravitational particles which would reconcile Quantum Theory with gravitational theory, thus far with no results. Gravitational waves, as predicted by General Relativity, also failed. The same for gravitons, a boson particle of energy, also predicted by String Theory, which if discovered may lead to a violation of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. So all this leads to a conundrum, that postulates used to derive these gravitational theories are now sending theory into fantastic metaphysical domains looking for non-existent particles and gravitational waves, where LIGO is this search's latest manifestation. So far LIGO updates yield no meaningful results.

If our postulates are wrong, then per force our cosmological conclusions must be wrong. Some things will fall within the framework of this cosmology and appear right, but these may be illusory. Cosmic light redshift may be no more than a gravitational artifact. But if G is constant instead, it discounts the possibility that deep space gravity is orders of magnitude greater than Earth's 1 AU gravity of 1G, so the result per our postulates is relegated to Doppler expanding space effect instead. However, this may be wrong, and there is no Hubble expansion at work, nor its founding origin in a Big Bang, and merely an artifact of very great variable gravity instead. Our postulates cannot catch that, because their derivatives lead us into what may be an illusory conclusion, though they appear right within their own context. That is the fallacy, if our postulates are wrong. And if we do find evidence in support of our current cosmological predictions of gravity waves, dilating time, Doppler expansion, then we must examine them within the parameters of Relativity only, without an outside basis for confirmation except within these parameters. Thus, we are locked into a self closed circle of observations interpreted by the same postulates that led to these observations, but interpreted only within the parameters of their original postulates, which once again becomes circular. This is about where our cosmology is now, and in our persistence for interpreting Relativity's effects using Relativity, we fall into a postulates fallacy. There very likely never was a Big Bang, nor are gravity waves anything other than a shadow effect of the light constant. All our tests for these are predicated on using relativistic interpretations of data, which necessitates our dependence upon the mathematical creations derived from what may be erroneous postulates. Is time dilated because atomic clocks slow? Can an observer's measures in one reference frame be transposed onto measures in another reference frame? Will neutron stars infalling generate gravity waves? Is the Swartchild radius valid for black holes? Is the universe 13-15 billion years old? Is so called dark matter a necessity to explain galactic rotational velocities if G is not a constant, but perhaps much greater on the galactic fringe? Is a dark energy necessary to explain a, perhaps non-existent, space expansion? All these can only be answered within the postulates given, or the answers make no sense. Mercury's precession has been shown successfully by Einstein using his General Relativity, but it may be no more than the Sun's spin moment of inertia transferred to Mercury's orbital behavior at perihelion. Thus our cosmology is lost within two fallacious postulates: that the gravity G is universal constant, and that there are no preferential inertial reference frames. Both these postulates then require additional ad hoc postulates, the clock postulate and time dilation, and dark energy cum dark matter, to make the Lorentz metrics work in a world postulated upon a four dimensional space-time cosmology, which is limited to the observer's inability to see an accelerating reference frame with any measure faster than light. If we had a means of observing instantaneously, the whole ideal of Relativity would crash, and with it its cosmological derivatives. Relativity belongs merely to an observational science, and cannot be transposed onto how the universe works itself. What could break this circular reasoning? If we find the gravity mass proportional, Newton's G, is not constant.

We do not know with any certainty that Newton's G is a universal constant, for it is merely a postulate. In fact the universe may be isotropic and largely homogeneous in the vast distances between galaxies, but at a different G. Nor can we assume that because of our limited ability in using light, which may very well be a constant though it does not have to be, as an observational tool to measure accelerated reference frames that the measurements apply to those frames; they are only what the observer, limited by the light constant, can see. In effect, the universe may work on a very different set of principles to those built out of our accepted, virtually universally agreed upon, sets of postulates. Time may in fact be simultaneous throughout the universe if the universe is using instantaneous communications within its interconnected reality; and gravity may not be limited to the speed of light, but may already be instantaneous at near infinite distances. Our accepted postulates led us to accept the mathematically derived conclusions from them, for which we then sought confirmations in our cosmological observations, which were necessarily interpreted using the same mathematics; which culminates in a universally accepted Big Bang philosophical theory. Some of our observations may be true, but like the slowing atomic clocks, their conclusions may be false if interpreted within our postulates fallacy, and it is not time that is dilating but merely atomic oscillations. In fact, the universe may be a much more simple and elegant place than now imagined, with still many more secrets to divulge when we drop our postulate fallacies. Our rewards for having done so will be a truer understanding of what reality is all about, our solar system and galaxy, and perhaps still greater revelations into universal cosmology. The resulting new forces at our disposal from a truer understanding of physics and astrophysics may yet open vistas to our galaxy we never considered. We may actually be able to get there.

It may very well be that electricity theories of Faraday, Maxwell, Franklin, Millikan, and their electric quantum applications of Planck, Thompson, deBroglie, and Einstein's photoelectric effect, for which he got a Nobel, were already on the right track. But in this one hundredth year of Einstein's Special Relativity our understanding of gravity got sidetracked by bad postulates. E = mc^2 is still valid, as Thompson-Einstein first theorized, and our physics and electronics achievements are phenomenal, but at a cost: Gravity lost a century.


Ivan D. Alexander, California, USA

Very said Ivan,

History is replete with examples of societies built on concepts of the universe that in time are overcome by events and new insights into the nature of creation.

To say we know everything about gravity or that E-MC2 is the sum total of knowledge regarding the fundamental forces of the universe, at this junction in human history, smacks of human arrogance. The same, however, can be said for religious extremists that base their understanding of cosmology on a single text without reconciling the empirical evidence of the nature of the universe into their view on the nature of creation and then reconciling that evidence back to that contained in the Bible.

With the advent of the World Wide Web we are now beginning to regain ground lost due to narrow minded thinking that accepted things like the trisection of the angle with compass and straight edge is impossible and that faster than light travel as you postulate is also impossible.

What we have done is establish the ground work for the development of a faster than light drive. My research took me in a different path than that of the pure mathematics that you explored, but in the end we reached a point where we both independently developed an understanding of the nature of creation that reconciles the empirical evidence for what you are postulating.

Given the rate of technological development and the connectivity of the Web for sharing of information; I estimate we will reach a point were we could, if emphasis was given, have a prototype star drive within a generation.

Like Oppenheimer, I expect to be sitting somewhere in academia when they test the Star Drive, decades from now. Locked out of the government research laboratories for opposing a War induced by a President and military industrial complex that resorted to such tools as the Bible Code to guide policy.

All my best

Ed Chesky

Thanks Edward. Science has made some real gains since the days of when Aristotle was "science god" and obeyed religiously. Today it's Einstein's turn. I suspect the future in cosmological astrophysics will be very different from what we are being led to believe today. When I look in on debates concerning Relativity, or String Theory, or warp-drives-time-travel, or even the Big Bang, I just shake my head. Where are they going with all this?

Perhaps the madness will not end until we actually get a handle on what gravity does in deep space, away from our comfortable little "universe" at Earth's 1 AU from the Sun. That may be sooner than we expect. Of course, when they find that gravity is a variable, Einstein will go the way of Aristotle, still read, but more a curiosity than real science. Think what our descendants will say about this past century when they read our "relativistic physics" postulated by today's "science god" with amusement: "Man, were they out to lunch!" At least they don't burn us at the stake anymore.

I may not have all the answers, but I won't mind when we finally put all the bad-postulates-modern-phyiscs-astronomy to rest.

:-))

BBT is challenged, on Baut Astronomy forum. The final paper I am working on is yet unfinished.

Ivan

Geometry of the Billiard Problem

Hi Ivan,

I was studying the geomtry of the Billiard Problem and am working out in my mind a relationship between the points of intersection of the points of the Isosceles Triangle with the circumference of the circle and believe that it is related to a complex relationship of Pi. What exactly it is I'm am not sure but I believe it representes an aspect of Pi that Hippias with the Qaudratrix of Hippias was attemping to explain.

Alhazan's Billiard problem was the culmination of his lifetime of work that dealt with optics and refraction of light. In his quest to understand it I believe that Alhazan, one of the greatest mathmeticians of the Arab and history, was exploring the concepts relating to the fundamental structure of the universe, much as Hippias was. Hence my idea that the Billiard Problem and Qaudratrix of Hippias are visual represenations of a aspect of Pi and the universe that we are now being to understand.

It is also my idea that this aspect of Pi is why in your Aximotic Equations you see a reflection of it when it is removed from the equations.

Unfortunatley due to military service and chemical exposure in the line of duty working with the CIA I have suffered damage to my right temporal lobe and math processing centers of my brain and I am limited to working with graphical images. I can perform basic math but higher level math is very difficult for me.

In terms of mentally running geometric concepts relating to the biliard problem and the Qaudratrix of Hippias what I saw was an infinte series of geomtric shapes of all types, including multi-dimestional, ones relating to the application of the Qaudratrix and its use in solving the Billiard Problem. In effect an underlaying aspect of Pi that is just out of my reach of understanding.

I hope this helps.

Ed Chesky

As I sit here with my coffee this morning reflecting about the geometry of The Billiard Problem, I am reading a article about Scott Ritter, being invited and paid to lecture at Universities about the War In Iraq and False Intelligence.

I used to be one of the DOD's paramount experts on Game Theory, Cryptographics, Visualization of the Battlespace and Geometry. I hope one day to be invited to lecture at Universities, including the National Defense College on the Billiard Problem and its impications for geometry. What I saw as I pondered the interationship of geometry math and physics was an overlapping inconnectivity in explaining the structure of the universe with each discipline offering a different view of the underlaying structure of the universe and reality itself.

Ed Chesky

Albert Einstein

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

Einstein's speech 'My Credo' to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, page 262

In solving the Billiard Problem, I too humbly grasped a image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

Those of us who have grapsed a fragment of this structure are forever changed. It is awsome in its complexity and vast beyound imagination.

Math, Physics and Geometry, together we will one day crack the code of faster than light travel and the human race will forever be transformed.

A posting from a interesting website

I am a Platonist - more like Penrose than Hawking. For instance, I perceive that geometry exists in reality and the mathematician comes along and discovers it, e.g. pi, Schwarzschild Geometry, Riemannian Geometry and so on.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/929494/posts

Ed Chesky

Euclid's Window: The story of Geometry from parallel lines to Hyperspace.

A good book and a easy read.

Ed Chesky

One thing of interest, in trisecting the angle and solving the Billiard Problem I noticed the generation of a geometric figure within each operation consisting of two curves. The relationship of this figure to the solution of the problems and its nature is I believe similar to that of the Trident explored by Sir Issac Newton in that it represents a multidimentional construct and the representation of Pi as defined by the Qaudratrix of Hippias. I have more work to do on the subject but I think and have feeling it lends to understanding multi-dimentionality.

I also have to say that geometry has a long way to go in understanding the implications of the work of the early greats such as Sir Issac and the rest.

Ed Chesky

As we work on problems relating to geometry and space time I think its important to note that pure research including geometry is by Law Unclassified and not subject to the Patriot Act or restrictions upon it. I note that the potential of this research could have many intelligence services concerned and have a feeling that they would love to classify it, however, it would be like trying to classify E=MC2

Ed Chesky

As I sit here this morning review some information on geometry. I am struck by how simple something like the billiard problem looks when completed and how much time and effort went into creating the problem in the first place.

It took me forty years of work to solve it and I am still unraveling its mysteries.

I look forward to the day, when I can walk into a lecture hall and lecture on it. Taking my place at the podium as I once did as I trained scores of military personnel over the years

Ed Chesky

Alhazen's Billiard Problem

I have been doing some research with regards to the Billiard Problem and note a relationship between it's solution and Galileo's, Michelson-Moreley's, and Lorentz's study with regards to the speed of light and the geometry of space time, which in term was used by Einstein to develop his theory.

Hence my thought as to why its solution may be linked to your Axiomatic equations regarding the possibility of Faster Than Light Travel.

A very interesting concept. I note Albriet Durer was exploring the structure and nature of the universe through geometry before he died and note that before he died he came close to solving the Billiard Problem himself.

I also note that like most great minds Durer suffered from a degree of parinoia like Dr. Nash and lived in fear of being poisoned. I also note that Michelson himself suffered a nervous breakdown during his experiments to measure the speed of light, but recovered to continue his work.

http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html

Hope this helps

I also hope one day, like Michelson and Dr. Nash to stand once again in front of class and lecture from the podium on subjects more in keeping with my distinguished military service, solution to the Billiard Problem and subjects relating to game theory and intelligence.

Ed Chesky

Here's a link to Alhazen's Billiard Problem:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlhazensBilliardProblem.html

This is Nick Giordano's illustration, chaotic: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~giordano/tmp/billiard/billiard.html

Looks like a quadratic equation, but must admit I don't know the details of it.

Glad you understand this Ed. Cheers, Ivan
J

I suspect we will be studying this problem for years to come Ivan:)

The chaotic part of the problem is related to quantumn mechanics which Einstein had a problem with. The best solution I could come up with to explain it was in my treatise. On the Wolfram Website and in Nick Giordano's illustration we are looking at the solution from a limited number of dimentions and need to expand it.

When I built upon the billiard problem using compass and ruler I was able to generate a tesserect or hypercube, a multidimentional figure that depending on the angle you looked at it rotated in terms of orientation. I am still trying to figure that one out and it gives me a headache:)I haven't posted that one on the web because the roation of it as you look at it makes me naseus

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tesseract.html

My best

Ed Chesky

Cheers and thanks for the help

PS With regards to the predictions of earthquakes what I was doing was building a mental image in my mind of gravitational field interactions and charting them in terms of a three dimetional image.

I coupled that to the feed I was getting from the USGS, satellight and other data and was predicting peaks in gravitational stresses that I matched with gravity meter readings off the web, sorting through earthquakes to find underlaying trend that matched my predictive model.

I am ashamed to say that I used it to scare a number of religous fanactics much like eclipse prediction was used to scare primitive tribes. I must also addmit that I am likely to pay a price for doing that for some time to come.

In the intelligence services a number of doomsday cults were being monitored for having messianic leaders that were claiming the ability to predict earthquakes work magic and the like, one nasty one in particular was caught planing to try and start a war between the arabs and jews in order to bring about fulfillment of prophecy.

So I decided to teach them a lesson about doing that, I coupled it to prediction of solar flares, from my gravitational model, tied it to predictions of prophecy off the web and earthquake prediction and I think I, excuse me, scared the •••• out a whole lot of religous fanactics around the globe. That coupled to a blood test for a sub-lethal dose of nerve agent, exposure to a viriety of bio-agents after being vaccinated for them and the rest is as you say is history.

I expect that one day as I lecture military students and senior intelligence officers and officials of the government in the future that I will see a lot of red faces out in the auidience as I discuss gsame theory the Billiard Problem and psychological warefare.

Take Care

On a side note and truth in advertising.

I just watched show on TV about magicians tricks and decided it is time to come clean.


While in Mexico the CIA tried to blackmail me into working for them after what I did in India and Saudi Arabia...they said we know every nasty dirty secret of your life. I told them to F-off. They said we will make your life misserable for the rest of your life if you squeal...I said go ahead...and they then threw me in a high security ward for three days...for threatening to blow the CIA recruitment operation in Mexico...and the fact a terrorist group used anthrax on our embassy in Mexico city just after First Lady Laura Busch visited it...during the time I was in the ward recovering from the weaponized anthrax attack in Mexico... which my medical records clearly show I was infected with a strong bio-agent...and based on urinalysis was recoving from...I managed to convince a bunch of nut cases that were there in the ward on self referal that I was descended from the familiy of Jesus Christ via some fast talking and predictive analysis...this was as part of break out plan I came up with...I was subsquently released because under the law they had no grounds to hold me and besides that a bunch of nut cases had gotten loose were running around saying that DOD had a member of Jesus Christ's family locked up and he was working miricles by predicitng the future and talking to space aliens..which I thought I was while recoiving from the anthrax attack...After that CIA/DOD routed me via economic pressure to JAC Molesworth England to break terrorist networks and then integrate massive computer databases with no help and three broken down computers long hours high stress low pay...very much like Alhazen was forced to do by his Sultan....I think you get the point....

I decided to protest...using my modeling of gravitational fields I was able to predict solar flares, earthquakes and the like and I used it to scare the DOD and CIA personnel working there for the nasty working conditions...high stress and low pay and being locked up for three days of which I had a major grudge and still do....using a que of data I would walk out mumble and say behold and poof there was an earthquake or solar flare....I coupled that to a Judeo-Christian religous theme and prophecy off the web... while in the command center I got a report of a near earth asteroid that NASA did not know if it was going to hit the planet or not...looking at the orbital data my gravitational model and some other data I saw before the NASA computers it was going to miss...so I did some mumbo jumbo and poof it shifted course to miss the earth in schedule with my graviational predictions....I also made a number of acurate predictions of world situation reactions based on analysis of unclassified data and leaked it to protest my working conditions and used it in the context of Judeo-Christian them to make it seeem as I could see the future...

One day when I back at the War College lecturing on psychological operations and the Billiard Problem I will lift a glass to you Ivan and toast the biggest and best intelligence operation ever run in history...and look forward to day when the frame of our starship is assembled in high orbit....

Just goes to show you what a good geometrist can do when his back is up against the wall and he is given bad working conditions

Ed Chesky

In terms of the model of the universe in which I am performing my geometric operations and visualization of gravitational forces it is a varient of Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space, which you attempting to describe in your Axiomatic equations. In that space it is possible to exceed lightspeed and perform a number of complex geometric functions that can not be perfomed in Euclidean space. This space is also related to the Kline Bottle and mobius strips of which I discussed earlier.

I have attached some related material which pertains to that space and people who have explored it I hope it helps as your Axiomatic equations are begining to reflect the nature of the space, which when we gain further understanding of it could and most likely will lead to the break through you envison with FTL travel. Hittler a great intellect although depraved saw the same thing and operated in a non-Euclidean space world view which accounts for the NAZI fascination with anti-gravity research and hatred of Jewish math and fascination with geometry and architexture.

Ed Chesky

Transcendence of π

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

A solution of the problem of squaring the circle by straightedge and compass demands construction of the number , and the impossibility of this undertaking follows from the fact that π (pi) is a transcendental number—that is, it is non-algebraic and therefore a non-constructible number. The transcendence of π was proved by Ferdinand von Lindemann in 1882. If you solve the problem of the quadrature of the circle, this means you have also found an algebraic value of π, which is impossible. Nonetheless it is possible to construct a square with an area arbitrarily close to that of a given circle.

If a rational number is used as an approximation of π, then squaring the circle becomes possible, depending on the values chosen. However, this is only an approximation and does not meet the constraints of the ancient rules for solving the problem. Several mathematicians have demonstrated workable procedures based on a variety of approximations.

BENDING THE RULES BY ALLOWING AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RULER AND COMPASS CONSTRUCTIONS or by performing the operations on certain non-Euclidean spaces also makes squaring the circle possible. For example, although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can in Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space.
]
"Squaring the circle" as a metaphor
The mathematical proof that the quadrature of the circle is impossible has not proved to be a hindrance to the many "free spirits" who have invested years in this problem anyway. The futility of undertaking exercises aimed at finding the quadrature of the circle has brought this term into use in totally unrelated contexts, where it is simply used to mean a hopeless, meaningless, or vain undertaking. See also pseudomathematics.

Aleister Crowley used the metaphor in a different sense, to represent the goal of magick and mysticism. He implicitly associated his system of Thelema with Pi. For more information, see Abrahadabra.

This aspect of Pi as it relates to the application of the Qaudratrix of Hippias is waht I am convinced lead to the nervous breakdown of many mathmeticians and geometrists over the course of history and why the greeks attempted to bury the concept because it did not fit with their understanding of the universe.

I also note that Aleister Crowley was grand master of Chess, and master of game theory, who went over the deep edge because he through his explorations of Pi got some insight into the Universe that did not fit with established thought.

Food for thought

Aleister Crowley
Chess
Crowley learned to play chess at the age of six and first competed on the Eastbourne College chess team (where he was taking classes in 1892). He showed immediate competence, besting the adult champion in town and even editing a chess column for the local newspaper, the Eastbourne Gazette (Sutin, p.33), which he often used to criticize the Eastbourne team. He later joined the university chess club at Cambridge, where he beat the president in his freshman year and practiced two hours a day towards becoming a champion — "My one serious worldly ambition had been to become the champion of the world at chess" (Confessions, p.193).

However, he gave up his chess aspirations in 1897 when attending a chess conference in Berlin:

But I had hardly entered the room where the masters were playing when I was seized with what may justly be described as a mystical experience. I seemed to be looking on at the tournament from outside myself. I saw the masters— one, shabby, snuffy and blear-eyed; another, in badly fitting would-be respectable shoddy; a third, a mere parody of humanity, and so on for the rest. These were the people to whose ranks I was seeking admission. "There, but for the grace of God, goes Aleister Crowley," I exclaimed to myself with disgust, and there and then I registered a vow never to play another serious game of chess. I perceived with preternatural lucidity that I had not alighted on this planet with the object of playing chess. (Confessions, Ch.16).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry

Hyperbolic geometry was initially explored by Saccheri in the 1700s, who nevertheless believed that it was inconsistent, and later by Bolyai, Gauss, and Lobachevsky, after whom it is sometimes named. (See article on non-Euclidean geometry for more history.)

In Hyperbolic geometry (also called saddle geometry or Lobachevskian geometry) the term parallel only applies to lines that don't intersect in the hyperbolic plane but intersect at the circle at infinity. Lines that neither intersect in the hyperbolic plane nor the circle at infinity are called ultraparallel. One remarkable property of the hyperbolic plane is that there is a unique common perpendicular for each pair of ultraparallel lines (see Ultraparallel theorem).

There are four models commonly used for hyperbolic geometry: the Klein model, the Poincaré disc model, the Poincaré half-plane model and the Lorentz model.

The Klein model, also known as the projective disc model and Beltrami-Klein model, uses the interior of a circle for the hyperbolic plane, and chords of the circle as lines. This model has the advantage of simplicity, but the disadvantage that angles in the hyperbolic plane are distorted.

The Poincaré disc model, also known as the conformal disc model, also employs the interior of a circle, but lines are represented by arcs of circles that are orthogonal to the boundary circle, plus diameters of the boundary circle. The Poincaré half-plane model takes one-half of the Euclidean plane, as determined by a Euclidean line B, to be the hyperbolic plane (B itself is not included). Hyperbolic lines are then either half-circles orthogonal to B or rays perpendicular to B.

Both Poincaré models preserve hyperbolic angles, and are thereby conformal. All isometries within these models are therefore Möbius transformations.

A fourth model is the Lorentz model or hyperboloid model, which employs a 2-dimensional hyperboloid of revolution (of two sheets, but using one) embedded in 3-dimensional Minkowski space. This model is generally credited to Poincaré, but Reynolds (see below) says that Wilhelm Killing and Karl Weierstrass used this model from 1872.

Hyperbolic geometry has many properties foreign to Euclidean geometry, all of which are consequences of the hyperbolic postulate.

A physical model of hyperbolic geometry is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. For example, using the Poincare Disk model above, set up a polar coordinate system. Then any point on the disk can be identified with a rapidity vector in two dimensional space. (The point (2, 30), for example, could represent an object travelling on a plane with a uniform rapidity of 2 in the direction of 30 degrees north of the polar axis.) The Poincare distance between two points can be identified with the relative speed between two objects travelling in uniform motion on the plane. So every theorem in hyperbolic geometry can be translated into a true statement in special relativity.

[edit]
Visualizing hyperbolic geometry
The famous circle limit III [1] and IV [2] drawings of M. C. Escher illustrate the unit disc version of the model quite well. In both one can see the geodesics (in III the white lines are not geodesics, but they run alongside them). It is also possible to see quite plainly the negative curvature of the hyperbolic plane, via its effect on the sum of angles in triangles and squares.

For example, in III every vertex is the intersection of three triangles and three squares. In normal Euclidean plane, this would sum up to 450°, leading to a contradiction. Hence we see that the sum of angles of a triangle in the hyperbolic plane must be smaller than 180°. Another visible property is the fact that the hyperbolic plane has exponential growth. In IV, for example, one can see that the number of angles with a distance of n from the center rises exponentially. The angles have equal hyperbolic area, so the area of a ball of radius n must rise exponentially in n.

Another fun thing to do, when things are slow at the office, is to cut a couple of sheets of paper into a few dozen identically sized squares, and tape them together putting five squares at each corner. Then note how two "rows" of squares which are next to each other at on point will diverge until they are arbitrarily far apart.

[edit]
Relationship to Riemann surfaces
Two-dimensional hyperbolic surfaces can also be understood according to the language of Riemann surfaces. According to the uniformization theorem, every Riemann surface is either elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic. Most hyperbolic surfaces have a non-trivial fundamental group π1 = Γ, known as the Fuchsian group. The quotient space H/Γ of the upper half-plane modulo the fundamental group is known as the Fuchsian model of the hyperbolic surface. The Poincaré half plane is also hyperbolic, but is simply connected and noncompact. It is the universal cover of the other hyperbolic surfaces.

The analogous construction for three-dimensional hyperbolic surfaces is the Kleinian model.


Hope this helps

Ed Chesky

Implications of non-Euclidean space world view

Non-Euclidean space and thinking can be explored through the use of the Qaudratrix of Hippias and related geometrical concepts and contructs such as the mobius strip and klein bottle.

The DC snipper, uni-bomber, Crowley Saddam, Osama and Al Zakari are all illustrations of non-euclidean thinkers and masters of game theory that use non-euclidean thinking to conduct operations hence why it was so hard to catch them. In non-euclidean space thinking, logic and math do not function as you have been trained to think.

The implacations of this in terms of advanced computing AIs FTL travel and game theory is what I have been trying to get across for a while.

I hope this helps. As I perform my geometry I perform the geometrical operations in non-euclidean space and then translate the solution into normal geomtery for reproduction hence why I can sit here and trisect angles all day and why the Qaudratrix of Hippias is so important, it is the tool we use to probe that space and unlock its mysteries

Ed Chesky

PS I am looking forward to getting back to the Podium at the War College and drinking vodka tonics or gin and tonic

Pattern analysis in non-euclidean space. The previous posting on how chaotic the patern of the billiard problem looks when graphed is an example of an euclidean view of a non-eulcidean space problem.

Hence the belief that its impossible to control a transit through a micro-wormhole due to the random factor of quantumn mechanics. In non-eulcidean space it is possible to control the access and entry points of a worm-hole transit duplicating the transit to a point in space time after time. Hence why the solutions to the trisection of the angle and the Billiard Problem are so important. Understanding it is a trascendental event.

Ed Chesky

One note on the paradox of time travel with regards to the use of non-euclidean space. Non-euclidean equations allow for time space travel BUT it is to a point in space time infinitely close to the selected destination but is not the same destination, it exists on an infinite time line. So to an observer you are going back and forth to the same point from your perspective but in reality you are moving between different points of space time that are close but for all purposes the same. So that timeline integrity is intact.

Its related to the infinate number of solutions to the trisection of the angle that I came up with using the Hippias work

Ed Chesky

I have added a diagram of the Billiard Problem and the trisection of the angle formed by it using compass and ruler. The instraments used to draw the diagram were not the best it was just a check to see if Hippias' quadratrix and the Billiard Problem were related and integral to each other. It appears that they are.

Ed Chesky

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/edwardchesky/album?.dir=66d7&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

We are making progress towards Faster Than Light travel as we explore Non-Eulcidian Space and the Axiomatic Equations. Know that this is being read around the globe in all capitals and that like the royal society of old free research will prevail. Despite the patriot act and efforts by repressive governments like china to stop it.

I have attached a link to the history of Max Planck for review and reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck


Ed Chesky

On a personal note,

My medical history clearly shows that I was fine and healthy until the military medical system got hold of me.

I suffered paralesis as a result of adverse reactions to vacinations, had excessive amounts of spinal fluid removed from my spine during a botched spinal tap which later ruptured and looked like something out a horror movie, was subjected to battery after battery of tests only to determine that I suffred brain damage as a result of a drop in CNS fluid pressure from the botched spinal tap.

Despite all of this I went on to serve my country honorably in Saudi Arabia, India and Mexico were I was subjected to biotoxins in the line of duty drugged and almost died while breaking spy and terorist networks.

Then after being hit with weaponized anthrax in Mexico city that was part of an effort to take out the local CIA leadership after the First Lady visited Mexico City just prior to president George Bush's visit to Mexico, I was thrown in a secure ward for walking out on the planning session for the run up to the current Gulf War out of fear of the military leadership that I served with honor and distinction that I would spill the beans on the war.

I was then subjected to economic blackmail dragged off to crack codes and terrorist networks in Iraq and then set up to fail and be drumed out after refusing to play ball with George Bush.

Overall one of the worse abuses of an individual that you can imagine. Despite the trauma to my brain and body I still retain my skills as an analyst and can perform feats of analytic performance in Geometry and visualization of graviational forces that puts me on par with a number of the past greats of geometry.

A lesson about what the Bush administration is really like and what they do to people that don't play ball with them.

As this is read around the globe in captial after capital from Moscow to Bejing and Washington to London and Paris. Know this I have trisected the angle and solved the Billiard Problem and know that faster than light travel is possible from the geometry of the problem. As I walk the streets thousands in every capital from Moscow to Riyadh to London to Bejing look on me and my fellow members of the Royal Society as the people that put their feet on the path to the stars and will die for us. The press and pavorotti out of respect leave me alone, something not seen before. Terrifying for those in power. A force large enough to topple governments.

As you read this know that a wave is building that will sweep across this planet that is greater than the great tsunami. It is the desire of the human race to be free of this planet and take its place in the Universe. It can not be stopped and will sweep everything from its path that holds this race back in darkness and superstition. When I once again step into a briefing room it will be a moment unlike any seen before as I look into the eyes of the men and women that cast me out, and yet know that I and my society have placed their feet on the path to the stars.

Ed Chesky

Use of Non-Euclidian Geometry with regards to code breaking.

To break the old enigma code of the NAZI's it was necessary to develope computational techniques based on non-Euclidian Geometry. This aspect of geometry was incorporated into the computer that was was used to break the enigma code, which in its self reflected aspects of non-euclidian Geometry. The use of non-euclidian computations to break the enigma code allowed the code breakers the ability to rapidly shift through thousands of permutations to find the key to the engima code.

To do accurate terrorist predictive analysis and accurate prediction of terorist attacks I had to do the same thing with regards to pattern analysis of message traffic data coupled to the sermons of Osama Bin Ladden and his higher echelon. They were using an old code NAZI code system technique that was given to the Grand Mufti duuring his visit to see Adolph Hitler in Berlin during WWII.

The technique was keyed to broadcasts the Mufti would make keyed to coded dates and times based on an old German code system. This used a varient of the enigma code.

http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period3/3-25.html

Today this same system is being used to pass data by terrorists groups using sermons, videos and coded websites and cell phone text messages.

Part of the code key was tied to historical dates of NAZI actions, hence why many terrorist attacks coincided with NAZI dates in history and spooked a lot of people.

An example of the application of non-Euclidean thinking and calculations.

Ed Chesky

Follow up on the Enigma Code.

The German Machine was the state of the art in technology for the Germans and represented in its gearing, a crude attempt to replicate the random factor of quantumn mechanics. Subsequent German code technology is based solidly on quantum mathmatics and derives from the old Enigma system.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3475908

In an effort to break the code the allied mathmeticians and computer technology was pushed to the edge. Many of the mathmeticians had nervous breakdowns or suffered from other forms of mental injuries from the stress of it. Many found god after the war. In their effort to crack the code they had to push the limits of math into the realm of quantumn mechanics and non-euclidian geometry. Most likely kept notebooks which remain highly classified even to this day because of what they saw during that great battle. These men went on to teach in later life and many shared their expertise in many ways to Stephen Hawkings, whose work we know well. At the end of the War the Brittish invited Max Planck to England to visit on the aniversery of SIr Issac's death. I strongly believe that these men, some of the Enigma code breakes and Planck met in an understanding of what they had discovered as a result of the battle of minds that was enigma and that they understood the world was not yet ready for some of what they had learned to be released.

We are close to Faster Than Light Travel. How long I suspect will be a generation or more. I also suspect that those enigma code breakers did not turn all their work over to MI5/6 or Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Ed Chesky

Einstein-Rosen bridge

What struck me about the solution to the trisection of the angle and the Billiard problem in terms of Geometry was the generation of a geometric figure that consisted of two arcs that was used to express the irrationality of Pi and needed to trisect the angle and solve the billiard problem, much like Hippias and Saccheri explored in their foreys into Non-Eculdian geometry. This shape if expanded to three dimentions is similar to the graphical depictions of a Einstein-Rosen bridge inside a wormhole. This depiction in Schwarzschild Geometry was explored just before Einstein published his equations. Hence my previsous discussions of multi-dimentionality, the link to geometry and blackholes. When solving the geometry of this problem, I had an insight similiar to that of Schwrzchild regarding the nature of black holes and space time and gravity that insight lead me to your website.

Food for thought.

Ed Chesky

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html

As I sit here this morning drinking my coffee before work I am reminded of a movie called the omega code. A nice piece of Christian Science Fiction. In some ways it inspired me, it is based off of Sir Issac Newton's foreys into the bible an attempt to unlock a code contained within it. That movie and book was very popular at the time but is nothing but science fiction.

Sir Issac was delussional towards the end of his life from mercury posining that I suspect he took as cure for a social disease. That being the cure at the time of it.

All the same SIr Issac stand as one of the greatest minds in human history and was my inspiration for most of my life.

Ed Chesky

The Wave-Particle duality and the Photoelectric Effect:

In Einstein's famous work on the Photoelectric Effect the wave-particle duality of photons was confirmed, validating the deBroglie hypothesis. When this hypothesis was taken further into the Axiomatic Equation, this duality phenomenon took on a new meaning: the energy 'cut-off' wavelength of the photoelectric effect matches approximately the gravity 'cut-off' wavelength (June 3, 2004) for when electromagnetic energy fails to modify atomic mass, both of which are within range of lambda = 400-700 nanometers. Is this not a strange coincidence? It would appear that the 'cause' for this anomaly of how radiant energy modifies atomic mass is that if e.m. energy fails to modify atomic mass in the photoelectric lambda range, then the atom's gravitational mass is greater than its electron release parameter, so that the electron remains locked on the (sodium) metallic mass; when the wavelength is shorter than this range, the gravitational mass is lowered enough to release the electron. This may be the nature of the wave-particle duality, that it is in fact a 'gravitational' effect: at greater energy wavelengths (smaller lambda) the photon is wavelike, and the released electron is also wavelike like; while at lower energy wavelength (longer lambda) the photon is particle like, and the electron remains locked in, so it remains a particle-like photon. Perhaps this is not a suitable explanation (since it may be in reverse order?), but somewhere within this reasoning resides the Wave-Particle Duality.

Ivan

Ivan,

I was thinking about duality myself today. Represented in the trisection of the angle that I did is a representation of a duality similiar to the one you are talking about. If you take the trisected angle and extend the lines of the original angle to represent a cross you can then replicate the trisection of the angle in the mirror image with the same elipse shape constructed of two arcs I identified as being similiar to the cross section of the einstein-rosen bridge depicted in the link posted above.

If you take the geometry further you and expand it multidimentionally to express the multidementionality of Pi, which Hippias was trying to explain, it is possible to replicate the shape of the einstein-rosen bridge.

Further support of the importance of Pi in your equations and a similiar view of your concept of space time as express geometrically.

Now I would not go as far out on a limb as to say this indicates a way to excede light speed but I have a thought that it could indicate the posibility of a way to transit through a einstein-rosen bridge to an virtually identicle point in space time and then back again, in a open ended infite multi-dimentional universe.

Ed Chesky

Space-time Vortex 11.16.2005

NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft has gathered all the data physicists need to check a bizarre prediction of Einstein's relativity.

Ed Chesky

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/16nov_gpb.htm?list800013

Einstein was right, again? J

Thanks Ed, glad to know a year's worth of data collected for Gravity Probe-B, and now another year more to analyze data will reveal if Einstein got it right, again, or not. Searching for the 'gravity vortex' pedicted by General Relativity reminds me of the old Michelson-Morley search for the 'ether', but we'll know in one year what they got. Very exciting, I think. Stay tuned.

Ivan

Hi Ivan,

I think the probe will shed some interesting light on the issue of space time. I have been playing with a visulization of the space time aspect of all of this from a geometric perspective and have had some thoughts based on observations.

I note that the sun's gravity well and effect on the rest of the solar system is the greatest and note that the space time vortex that surrounds the sun should be the most intense in the solar system. I also note that from a space time perspective that it may be possible that the sun is somehow affecting local planetary space time and gravity by a mechanism that we don't quite understand yet. Hence my idea about a quantumn singularity at the heart of the sun and its effects on the local space time environment and the sun itself. I also feel the effects of what ever mechanism that is influencing the spacetime vortex around the sun and on gravity would be so small as to be out of the reach of our current earth based instruments but look forward to seeing the data from the NASA satelight.

Now my idea is that by some mechanism the sun is affecting both space time and gravity as discussed above, and that this effect on space time in turn effects our own space time vortex with the effects manefesting themselves in a variety of ways that we are only now becoming aware of, possibly affecting the nature of space time at the quantumn level. Some of these these effects in my opinion could be manfested as data artifacts that manefest themselves as probability anonomilies that I have been studying as well as gravity effects. I note that this fascination with searching for these anomolies and the pattern behind them takes many forms including scaning the media for data paterns that can be cross referenced against other data in an effort to undertand the mechanism causing it. I point out that Dr. Nash himself engaged in this type of behavior and also tried to tie it to gravity but failed in his attempt and never came to terms with it.

Like Dr. in and effort to understand and visualize this concept I turned to geometry and note that Dr. Nash did much work later with the concept of space time manifords like I do and can visualize.

I hope this helps.

Ed Chesky

PS: I trust one day I will be able to draw my geometry for classes and discuss it and game theory for the military once again.

A qoute from Dr. Nash's Noble Speach

During this period of time I managed to solve a classical unsolved problem relating to differential geometry which was also of some interest in relation to the geometric questions arising in general relativity. This was the problem to prove the isometric embeddability of abstract Riemannian manifolds in flat (or "Euclidean") spaces. But this problem, although classical, was not much talked about as an outstanding problem. It was not like, for example, the 4-color conjecture.

So as it happened, as soon as I heard in conversation at M.I.T. about the question of the embeddability being open I began to study it. The first break led to a curious result about the embeddability being realizable in surprisingly low-dimensional ambient spaces provided that one would accept that the embedding would have only limited smoothness. And later, with "heavy analysis", the problem was solved in terms of embeddings with a more proper degree of smoothness.
-------------------------------------------------
When I solved the Billiard problem it lead accross a bridge, an Einstein-Rosen bridge, through space time into the heart of a black hole. It was a grand journey through the multi-universe. My geometry is related like Dr. Nash's to the concept of relativity and space time. Unlike Nash I do not have the math to go with it due to brain damage.

This was journey 4000 years in the making from Hippias to Durer to Newton to Hawking to Einstein and beyound.

Ed Chesky

One thought regarding Quantum Mechanics Space Time and Probability theory. If particles near the sun or an object were to exit or enter normal local space time, would such a disturbence in local space time cause by the object leaving or entering normal space cause a disturbance at the quantum level that would affect probabilites at the local space time level? Could it be that this effect is manefested as a subtle shift in probabilities that we see in data?

It would be very interesting to review the NASA Gavity Probe DATA and compare it to the sun's gravity well and space time vortex to see what if any relationships exist. But to do that we would need another satellight.

Ed Chesky

The Madness and Passion of Genius

The following is a good article regarding the link between genius and mental illness and the ability to process data sets and stimuli that ordinary people can not do and arrive at a conclusion regarding the data. IN a way I was functioning as a organic quantumn computer making intuitive shifts to match the jump in codes that was taking place during the cold war.

Having been in the same position as Dr. Nash and many others in similar circumstances, Descartes, Huygen, Newton to mention a few. I can attest to the power of the influx of stimuli and ability to integrate vast data sets to reach an intuitive conclusion. During the six wars and campaigns I was in I did this routinely performing feats of analystic brillience that made me a target for the KGB on Panam 103.

As I aged like Dr. Nash I found that I needed medication to deal with the symptoms that manifested themselves later in life. These new classes of drugs are light years beyound what Dr. Nash had to endure.

The old enigma code mathmeticians suffered from the same degree of illness as Dr. Nash and with treatment and support went into the universities and churches to serve and teach later in life, carrying the stigma of mental illness with them for decades untill Dr. Nash found the courage to undergo treatment and drug thearpy advanced.

Source: University Of Toronto

Date: 2003-10-01
Email to friend

Biological Basis For Creativity Linked To Mental Illness

Psychologists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University have identified one of the biological bases of creativity.

Stanford Researchers Establish Link Between Creative Genius And Mental Illness (May 22, 2002) -- For decades, scientists have known that eminently creative individuals have a much higher rate of manic depression, or bipolar disorder, than does the general population. But few controlled studies

The study in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology says the brains of creative people appear to be more open to incoming stimuli from the surrounding environment. Other people's brains might shut out this same information through a process called "latent inhibition" - defined as an animal's unconscious capacity to ignore stimuli that experience has shown are irrelevant to its needs. Through psychological testing, the researchers showed that creative individuals are much more likely to have low levels of latent inhibition.

"This means that creative individuals remain in contact with the extra information constantly streaming in from the environment," says co-author and U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson. "The normal person classifies an object, and then forgets about it, even though that object is much more complex and interesting than he or she thinks. The creative person, by contrast, is always open to new possibilities."

Previously, scientists have associated failure to screen out stimuli with psychosis. However, Peterson and his co-researchers - lead author and psychology lecturer Shelley Carson of Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard PhD candidate Daniel Higgins - hypothesized that it might also contribute to original thinking, especially when combined with high IQ. They administered tests of latent inhibition to Harvard undergraduates. Those classified as eminent creative achievers - participants under age 21 who reported unusually high scores in a single area of creative achievement - were seven times more likely to have low latent inhibition scores.

The authors hypothesize that latent inhibition may be positive when combined with high intelligence and good working memory - the capacity to think about many things at once - but negative otherwise. Peterson states: "If you are open to new information, new ideas, you better be able to intelligently and carefully edit and choose. If you have 50 ideas, only two or three are likely to be good. You have to be able to discriminate or you'll get swamped."

"Scientists have wondered for a long time why madness and creativity seem linked," says Carson. "It appears likely that low levels of latent inhibition and exceptional flexibility in thought might predispose to mental illness under some conditions and to creative accomplishment under others."

For example, during the early stages of diseases such as schizophrenia, which are often accompanied by feelings of deep insight, mystical knowledge and religious experience, chemical changes take place in which latent inhibition disappears.

"We are very excited by the results of these studies," says Peterson. "It appears that we have not only identified one of the biological bases of creativity but have moved towards cracking an age-old mystery: the relationship between genius, madness and the doors of perception."


This research was funded by the Stimson Fund and the Clark Fund at Harvard University and by the Connaught Fund at U of T.

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Toronto.

I have added one varient to the Billiard Problem which required the generation of an Isosceles within a circle using only compass and ruler. It is depicted on the following website.

Its a complicated formulation involving Pi and Hippias work depicted graphically

Ed Chesky

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/edwardchesky/album?.dir=66d7&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

A note into the mind of Sir Issac Newton and his pention for secrecy when he developed calculus.

Ed Chesky

http://www.escape.com/~paulg53/math/pi/newton/

http://www.math.purdue.edu/~eremenko/bernoulli.html

While Newton made a secret of his discovery of fluxions, Leibniz publicized his calculus, and by the year of 1695 he and his student John Bernoulli developed calculus into a magnificent tool for solving a variety of problems.

To find out how much Newton really knew, Leibniz and Bernoulli devised the following test. According to the custom of that time, John Bernoulli, published in June 1696 a challenging problem, which he addressed "to acutest mathematicians of the world''

`To find the curve connecting two points, at different heights and not on the same vertical line, along which a body acted upon only by gravity will fall in the shortest time'.

Leibniz and Bernoulli were confident that only a person who knows calculus could solve this problem. Bernoulli allowed six months for the solutions but no solutions were received during this period. At the request of Leibniz, the time was publicly extended for a year in order that all contestants should have an equal chance. On 29th of January 1697 the challenge was received by Newton from France and on the next day (according to his nephew's memoirs) he sent to Montague, who was then President of the Royal society, his solution. The only other solutions were sent by Leibniz and l'Hôpital. (The latter, another student of Leibniz, was the author of the first calculus textbook). Following Bernoulli's suggestion the curve which solves the problem is called the `brachistochrone', which is the Greek for `the shortest time'.

Can you solve the problem? If you are curious to see Bernoulli's solution, click here for pdf or ps format. A prerequisite to this solution is the Fermat's explanation of Snell's Law of refraction. And of course, what you already learned in MA 366.

Bernoulli's problem was an early example of a class of problems called Calculus of Variations now. These are extremal problems (finding maxima and minima), where the independent variable is not a number, not even several numbers, but a curve or a function. A rule which assigns a number to each curve of a given collection is called a "functional". It is like an ordinary function, except that a collection of curves instead of numbers serves as an independent variable.

A general approach to this class of problems, based on differential equations, was first found by Euler. In the end of XVIII century, Lagrange discovered that the fundamental laws of mechanics can be formulated as Variational Principles. About optics a similar discovery was made much earlier, by Fermat. Thus ALL fundamental laws of nature, known by the XIX century could be formulated in terms of Calculus of Variations. Amazingly, this also applies to all new fundamental laws discovered in XIX and XX century. (For quantum mechanics this was shown by R. Feynman in 1942; his beautiful lecture for undergraduates about variational principles is mentioned below).

Thus it turns out that Calculus of Variations is a kind of universal language of physics. In XVIII century this curious fact was even considered as a proof of the existence of God. (The Nature achieves its goals in "best possible" ways, that is by minimizing some functional depending of "all possible ways").

Sources:

L. T. Moore, Isaac Newton. A Biography, Dover, NY, 1934,
Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 2, ch. 19.

Vatican astronomer joins evolution debate
Intelligent design isn’t science, ‘though it pretends to be,’ he says

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101394/

I agree with the Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, that Intelligent Design does not belong in Science. It is a parallel idea within Philosophy, parallel to scientific ideas, but certainly it is not science.

The Universe may be intelligently designed, as it appears to be by all measures, especially if one considers the intense economy exhibited within it, and ultimately complete simplification as a result; then whether or not a 'God' rules the Universe, there certainly appears to have been some form of incredibly (far above human) intelligence that put it all into place. Call it a Prime Mover, or Mind, if you will, but the Universe is not a stupid place at all, and rather brilliant in its execution of matter and energy, and especially of Life.

I like the desert because within it is exhibited on a micro scale the intense economy of how life clings to itself. The currency of this existence is water, and it is shared and economized to the maximum. That is the beauty of the Universe, that what can be is, and what cannot be is discarded. Is this 'intelligent'? Yes, in many ways it is, but it is of a form that may be so intensely economical in its format that we muddied it with our thinking of it. In effect, we are far less intelligent than the intelligence exhibited by the Universe.

Should 'Intelligent Design' be taught in school? No problem with that. Should it be taught as 'Science'? Absolutely not. ID is philosophy.

Ivan

On God, ID, Science and Jihad

I too concur with the statement by the chief of Astronmy of the Vatican observatory. Both with regards to ID and his view on God. I also note that in our debates here we have identified, like Sir Issac Newton and others the nature of God, as being largely in keeping with the Vatican position on the subject.

Sir Issac understood this concept of God very well what he had a problem with was the interpretation of religon and the teachings of Jesus Christ by the men of his age. Which from his childhood were colored by strick stern interpretation of the bible. Had he been raised diferently I suspect that he would have had a different outlook on life that guided him in his later years.

In response to attempted forced entry into a vocation in the Christian Church he rebelled against the order and became a Arian. This I suspect had a lot to do with his ego, and a I suspect medical conditions that he had which later clouded his judgment and had he had the benefit of drug thearapy and counseling and support he would have gone on to be much more productive and contributed much more to math science and geometric thinking in his later years.

One of the unfortunate parts of all of this is that in his later delusional state Sir Issac made some interpretations of the Bible which have later, and even today, become to be associated with prophecy and extreme Christian views on the end of the world. He even went on to think in his later years he was a magician and prophet.

I have attached an example of such a view of Sir Issac.
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2004/daniel.html

I bring this up because I feel it relevent to a discussion of Islam and its view on God and Jihad as opposed to Christianity. Unlike Christianity, in which the most inspired christian geniuses turn their created talents passions, fears and actions into acts of great creativity, Islamic Geniuses in their religon, for the most part, turn their talents and passions to jihad and conquest. There lays the difference between Christinity and Islam and the manefestation of the passion displayed and world view difference between the two religons and the world views on God, Religon, War, Science and Education of their great creative geniuses

I also note I have been trained in theology in my youth by the Jesuits and share their world view on the nature of god as is discussed below and their understanding for the need for appropiate medical treatment, which due to a chemically induced change in my brain chemistry due to exposure to a neurotoxin I need a mild and low dose of medicine to restore and maintain a delicate chemical balance in my brain. For which I give thanks to God, Jesus Christ the Angels and Saints for the advances in medicine. In earlier days the treatment for such chemically induced disorders were things like lobotomies. Which I shudder to think of and the loss that would have been done to geometry with the destruction of that part of my brain that allows me to solve things like the Billiard Problem with compass and ruler.

I also note that this view on God, the angels and Saints, is in keeping with my views on the possible effects of FTL transit of particles and the effect such a transit would have on the sapce time vortex and casuality at the quantum level that surrounds this planet as theorized by Einstein, and which I see reflected in probability. I see this effect on space time as a sort of natural background noise of probability that from time to time is influenced by the creator, angels and saints as part of a grand design. I suspect lookimg out in time that we will at some future date have to deal with a concept of space time causality polution but I suspect that it and the administrative organization that will have to be set up to deal with it is a long way off.

In closing, as the Rev George Coyne said with regards to ID and God and fundamentalist views on God

"Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent."

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome


Ed Chesky

In my variant to the solution to the Billiard Problem, which is more in keeping with the problem possed by Al Hazen, I used an application of the pythagorean theorem as it is applied to Non-Euclidean geometry a summary of which is attached below. In this solution Pi is essential to the solution of the problem.

I am working on another concept related to the ancients of geometry that deals with the fact that the diameter of a circle extended to infiniity equals a straight line.

I spoke to an old code breaker from World War II that served in the pacific, he told me he used to use a series of code wheels to break codes using mathmetaical formuli based on a derivative of Pi. He would perform the calculations in his head and find the solution to the code

Ed Chesky

The Pythagorean theorem is derived from the axioms of Euclidean geometry, and in fact, the Euclidean form of the Pythagorean theorem given above does not hold in non-Euclidean geometry. For example, in spherical geometry, all three sides of the right triangle bounding an octant of the unit sphere have length equal to ð / 2; this violates the Euclidean Pythagorean theorem because .

This means that in non-Euclidean geometry, the Pythagorean theorem must necessarily take a different form from the Euclidean theorem. There are two cases to consider -- spherical geometry and hyperbolic plane geometry; in each case, as in the Euclidean case, the result follows from the appropriate law of cosines:

For any right triangle on a sphere of radius R, the Pythagorean theorem takes the form

By using the Maclaurin series for the cosine function, it can be shown that as the radius R approaches infinity, the spherical form of the Pythagorean theorem approaches the Euclidean form.

For any triangle in the hyperbolic plane (with Gaussian curvature −1), the Pythagorean theorem takes the form

where cosh is the hyperbolic cosine. By using the Maclaurin series for this function, it can be shown that as a hyperbolic triangle becomes very small (i.e., as a, b, and c all approach zero), the hyperbolic form of the Pythagorean theorem approaches the Euclidean form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

A link to the application of the Spacetime Pythagorean Theorem

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node43.html

As I sit here drinking my coffee on a snowy thanksgiving day. I am awed by the intellect of the ancients of geometry and the power of a simple compass and ruler with regards to its ability to open a window into the universe.

In China under a repressive government research is classified and restricted, the same goes for much of the Isamic world.

What we have show here is that its possible with paper and ruler and compass and even oragami to stimulate the creative thoughts of millions in the a quest for a doorway to the stars despite the tyrany of repression. Something to be tahnkful for this Thanksgiving Day.

Ed Chesky

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

There are a lot of things to be thankful for, our health, our loved ones, our friends all over the world, our planet's beauty, and all the good things created by the mind and hand of man, and woman. The sunrise or sunset, and the stars that follow, are works of wonder for which we cannot even be thankful enough, just like every breath we take.

I personally like turkeys, had seen them flying in the wild, and know them as strong and gentle birds. So my thankfulness skips eating turkey, just my own thing, and a can of baked beans, some nuts and fruit, and that is my personall dinner on this day. Not that it's wrong for others to celebrate it in a family way, but when alone, that is my (hermit's) simple fare. I always think of food as simple, and if we kill less for it, so much the better. But then, I am no ordinary mortal, and accept my peculiarity in some such matters, not to wish them on anyone else. J

I wish Thanksgiving Day as a celebration of our common goodness and humanity, in any way we feast.

Cheers, Ivan

Ed, in your trisecting the triangle link in the Nov. 18th post above, I see you needed three sections made by the compass to achieve the lines. But how did you know where to set the radius of the compass? Very interesting.

Ivan

Ivan those figures are based on years of doing it with thousands of attempts, in the later diagrams I completed the interesection of arc and line to depict Hippias work. No magic there just a life time of practice, sort of like how Michelangelo could look at a block of marble and strike it in a the precise point to cause it be shaped perfectly. He understood spacial forces and had the same gift.

Ed Chesky

Marble carving is hard work, loud and dirty. Every blow of hammer to chisel is a collision of metal against metal striking stone. Marble chips fly in all directions; the dust lies thick. Modern stone workers wear goggles; Michelangelo did not. He had to see the stone, to see each mark, to make tiny adjustments to the angle of his chisel and to the force of his blow. He could not afford to slip. One wrong stroke could break a finger, an arm, or worse. A figure comes alive only after thousands and thousands--tens of thousands--of perfectly directed hard and soft blows. Marble carving is difficult and unforgiving.

Michelangelo was one of the greatest marble sculptors of all time. Quite astonishingly, given the years required to master a craft, he was also one of the greatest painters, architects, and poets. Few artists have been as prolific; fewer still have succeeded in creating enduring masterpieces in so many different media. Had Michelangelo only carved the David, or painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or erected St. Peter's, he would have guaranteed his place in history. Rather, he made all three works, and each is a central achievement in the history of human endeavor. His was a creative genius unmatched in ancient or modern times.

If I had to say the link between me and Michelangelo in terms of ability it relates to a common ability to visualize spacial forces and and various matrix and construct a visual image of the problem set or matrix. Hence why Michelangelo could look at a block of granite and see the stress lines and patern where the appropriate pressure would cause the stone to fracture.

Michelangelo used his ability to see and created some of the greatest works of art the world has ever seen. In the world of power politcs I am able to reconstruct the matrix of forces in terms of events and then based on experience visulize things. Hence my ability to reconstruct data and agents networks in terms of events analysis. IN the military we called it an events analysis matrix

Ed Chesky