• Making Sense Using Honest Physics October 16 - 06:36 pm

Ivan, Michael,

Ok- here we go, thinking straight out of the box...!

Gravity affects all matter … yes … no … ???

What about superfluid helium…?

Ok, what is superfluid helium…?

Superfluid Helium

Super-fluid helium does not obey the laws, notions, ideas, or theories of gravity…!

Ok- we can now prove and fully understand – Relativity is full of contradictions, and is based on one man’s fantasy, which has fooled (made into blithering idiots) thousands of sincere and caring scientific researchers for nearly 100 years…!

So, how can planets stay in orbit by EM?

Is that an excellent question … or hyperbolic overworked imagination…?

The answer is, the observable universe is one of totality, a unified whole entity, but what makes the universe a unified whole?

Is it possible (methinks it is) that the observable universe consists of all the spaces of the shared electrons 93rd and 94th of the 231PU Plutonium Atom composite whole?

Think … Atoms have charge and spin. Consider we materially exist in the spaces of the 93rd and 94th electrons, and see matter as being overall neutral. Remember that the law of gravity is an inverse square law, the exact same mathematical form as the Coulomb law whereas mass substitutes for charge, only EM is 10^40 stronger than gravity. So then, if this is true, if we replace space with charge we in effect remove gravity out of physics…!

Is there any evidence that supports charge is space? Yes there are three well-documented pieces of evidence; one of them being … the missing mass problem.

1st documented evidence: The Titius-Bode rule of planetary spacing is perfect only if you consider the asteroid belt as a past planet which exploded, and we consider Pluto as being an escaped moon of Neptune or Uranus (if either of you know which planet Pluto comes in near orbit to, please post). The Titius-Bode rule makes no logical sense with the law of gravity of mass attracting, but the Titius-Bode rule makes all the sense in the world of the Electromagnetic field as envisioned by Faraday where the tubes are the interplanetary spacing.

2nd documented evidence: Concords with the Titius-Bode rule … only it is a generalized Titius-Bode rule and it is the common and familiar Tifft quantized galaxy speeds. I do not like speeds as well as galaxy distance spacing estimates. Quantized galaxy speeds are a means to show that the galaxies are spaced regularly, but never allowing a galaxy to mess up the exact spacing required. Has anyone ever observed regular planetary spacing in the General Theory of Relativity (the law of gravity) – No! How about in Electromagnetism? The answer is a resounding Yes…! Simply put some iron filings on a sheet of paper with a magnet underneath, and then the Faraday lines of force manifest before your very eyes!

3rd documented evidence: Is the Missing Mass problem, which was observed widespread among many (if not all) globular clusters. Globular clusters display Solid Body Rotation. The law of gravity would never allow or give solid body rotation. Solution: does the law of gravity permit solid body rotation, answer is no. Does EM permit solid body rotations, the answer a conclusive … Yes! An electric motor is the perfect example of solid body rotation.

We can solve the missing mass problem by using the factors stated within these thoughts, so the widespread cosmic phenomenon of Solid Body Rotation is the recognition that EM is the operative moving force of the universe. Most of the mass within the universe is not in doubt, and it is mostly contained within the nucleus of atoms, but keep in mind that it is Solid Body Rotation, which is in wont for a satisfactory explanation. Gravity is at best in Relativity a fakery, or an algorithm of fantasy. I believe it possible for physics today to compute the gravitational attraction of the plutonium nucleus by using electron #94 of the plutonium atom. Gravity is nonsense in QM…! Gravity will not yield Solid Body Rotation, but EM is a force that is Solid Body in Rotation. Think – a phonograph record rotating. Gravity does not have the strength to do that. EM does have the strength to rotate in Solid Body for EM is 10^40 stronger in coupling strength than gravity.

From this point forward all content is © Copyright 2004 by J____ & Associates

Gentlemen … Gravity and EM unified…? If not … please explain why…! No, I am not interested in calculating the numbers, for numbers will not compute reality. Only what is an analog human brain can compute reality … enter, Omegatron Dynamics…!

What is, force… only one force exists…! That force is Electromagnetic Energy at work, which is capable of forcing the whole world of physics to return to the basics…! Basic = one, and to get that one requires only two … charges, which requires the third charge to combine the two charges, which is how matter is created. Three charges … positive+ ,,, negative- ,,, color~ = two * spin basic particles, not 106 per the Standard Model, and one particle that becomes a composite whole consisting of two charges unified by the color~ charge, and it is necessarily a kinetic gas in, of, and comprises all of Nature ... or Reality if you prefer to call it that. Due to its nature as a kinetic gas, these basic whole particles fills all space and rules out the existence of absolute vacuum for any significant period of time. The averaged inter-spatial distance ~ 10^5 cm compares with the Mean Free Path for the other real gasses (e.g. for Hydrogen 1.12x 10^5 cm, Oxygen 0.64x 10^5 cm, Nitrogen 0.595x10^5 cm). This is the medium that pervades and comprises all space, which contains the minimum of ~10^15 composite whole particles per cm^3, and possesses an average mass density described-written as 0.519 x10^33 gm.cm^3….

Here – an atom must be defined and definition locked: Atom - the smallest particle of an element that can exist either alone or in combination.

Here – a molecule must be defined and definition locked: Molecule - the smallest particle of a substance, which retains all the properties of a substance and which, is composed of one or more atoms.

End © Copyright Content….

Ok you two, this presents the basics, and there is no point to ponder prior to the basics as rendered here, for nothing can be smaller than, nothing. Use the figures to indicate, and compare the size of the smallest whole particle possible versus the size of an electron so everyone is on the same page. Fact is – the smallest composite whole particle is only 1 – 1000 billionth of the size of an electron, and an electron’s rest mass is computed thusly … which is in fact only an approximation since the numbers will not compute accurately so all you come up with is gibberish.

Me ... 9.10956 x 10^31 kilogram (kg) = 0.51100 = MeV/C^2

A good source for constants such as these is....

The basic composite particle is so tiny it pervades the interstices betwixt orbiting electrons, protons, and the nucleus of an atom.

J____

J___,

Thanks for the reference to Helium Superfluidity. I will study this some more, but immediately can see how supercool helium begins to act an awful lot like a wave function. The vortex they talk about makes sense to my cosmology, since when you get down to the basic wave functions, you are interacting with the very strong but passive gravity of any region not modified by energy... viz. supercool is low energy. For my mind, all energy in the universe is electromagnetic in a sea of background great gravity, which is the other force of the equation, and when the energy side of the equation wins, you have a universe like the one we know... otherwise, it remains unlivable.

I still do not have a meaningful response to your points made in the above, but will think about it. I am especially interested in the Titius-Bode rule, since I had just completed a comparative review of zero-point-energies for the planetary orbits. It would make sense the asteroid belt was a planet, though the mass is missing, unless it flew off into space to join the other planets as moons, for example. Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit, so it might very well be an escapee from Neptune, still carrying Neptune's energy within it. (That makes some sense from the work I had done on the Jaszz spin.) Also, being virtually all ice, Pluto is something different from the gas giants. I suppose it could be possible in some very distant future that Neptune will once again recapture Pluto as a moon, taking Charon along with it.

Your Gravity is nonsense in QM makes sense, since the QM theory is focussed on all the 'quarky' things that go on inside a smashed atom. There is little room for gravity where energy is the big play, so gravity gets overcome almost totally... hence they failed to see it. But it does reappear in the vortexes of force that keep popping up inside the smashed atom, since when energy is taken away, this very great passive gravity takes over again... and those 'trails' they study so intimately are just those vortexes. (Because there is a method to the universe's gravity madness, those vortexes have repetitive patterns, what we call 'flavors - spin - color' etc. for all the other 'elementary (sic) particles' we'll discover in the future.) At least, this makes sense to me, though don't expect anyone else to see it for now.

Finally, what is mass? This is still a much unresolved issue. I think of mass as that portion of the atom that had not been conquered by em energy, what remains as its inertia. Of course, I am perhaps a voice of one on this one, but it makes more sense to me than not. The flip side of this will be when we in the future can use this inertial energy to propel our crafts, in which case all this will become elementary and make a great deal of sense, though we may not be around to see it. For now, we will have to be happy playing around with gyroscopes, where a part of this inertial force shows up, as toys.

Still thinkin'...

Ivan

OLD PHYSICS VERSUS NEW PHYSICS: a Basic Summary Review.

Abstract: This paper is meant as a review of the physics as it had been know and a new physics still in the making. It is not a definitive study of the new physics, as this theory had not yet been tested in the field or laboratory. So we still do not know if this is a true theory or not. The necessary final piece of this puzzle is for us to discover that the gravitational constant, Newton's G, is not a universal value as now assumed, but a variable value that is inherently inverse to the energy of the space where it is being measured. Once found, the really hard work of measuring and finalizing the equations listed below can begin. Only then can we begin to think we have a unified theory of energy and gravity.

I. OLD PHYSICS: Assumptions and Conclusions of Physics as it is now known.

1. E = mc^2. This is a basic value of energy to mass conversion, per Einstein. Mass times light squared equals its energy, which is approximately 90 petajoules for one kilogram of mass.

2. Newton's gravitational constant is universal: F_gravity = GMm/r^2, where G = 6.67e-11 N.m^2.kg^-2, and is always measured from the mass center. This G constant is true everywhere in the universe.

3. The Bohr model for the atom. The nucleus is a positively charged proton, often with a neutrally charged neutron, offset by negatively charged electron orbital shells, to form an atom. An aggregate of atoms results in mass, which will exhibit constant gravitational characteristics in relation to this mass. Electron shells have a quantum relationship to photon energy received or released.

4. Gravity is expressed by Einstein's General Relativity, where gravity wells around mass result in gravitational pull towards the mass center. Gravity is a function of the space-time continuum, and is equally constant everywhere for any given mass, per inverse square law.

5. The universe is a Relativistic phenomenon. The speed of light is a constant v = c, where mass cannot reach the speed of light without becoming infinite. Nothing can go faster than c.

6. The universe is expanding from an original Big Bang. The redshifted light from distant cosmic bodies indicates, as per the Hubble and Einstein constants, there is a Doppler effect from these receding bodies. The more distant the body, the greater its redshift, so that distances can be accurately estimated for them. It is believed the universe is approximately 12-15 billion years old, and it will end in either a big chill or big crunch, perhaps another 15 billion years from now, as we are in its near perfect balance at the moment. Dark Energy may be accelerating this expansion.

7. Quantum Theory defines subatomic basic elements. There are now about 200 "basic" (sic) particles as determined by spin, color, charge, flavour, if their virtual anti-particles are included, as resulting from observations and measurements of atom smashing experiments. These subatomic particles are in the form of proton, electron, neutron, quark, gluon, lepton, boson, nutrino, positron, pion, etc. Most had been calculated from the conservation of energy law, so that resulting energy trails from smashed atoms or particles can be calculated.

8. Quantum Theory and General Relativity combine in the Standard Model, which works well except for gravity. It is believed that at the time of the Big Bang, the Standard Model was complete, when all the known forces of Quantum Theory, strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity were combined into one.

9. Black holes are at galactic centers and are common throughout the universe, some may be separate from galaxies. They are the result of very massive collapsed stars. Lesser stars of three sun masses or less become neutron stars. Both exhibit very great mass, very great gravity, and immense spin. Black holes are powerful enough gravitationally to absorb even light. It is believed that once past the event horizon of a black hole, time stands still.

10. String theory. It is believed that in addition to the four dimensional space-time continuum, there are additional dimensions, perhaps as many as twenty, where the universe as we know it is affected by them. Some dimensions are infinitesimally small, while others are parallel universes. All of existence is then defined by how these Strings behave.

11. Planetary spin has no know cause and effect other than the primordial momentum of planet formation. This spin continues for billions of years from the conservation of momentum law only.

12. Dr. Albert Einstein's Relativity is how the universe works, and has superseded Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics for the universe at near light velocities. This Relativity based physics is considered superior to Newtonian physics at relativistic speeds.

1. E = ~mc^2, only approximately, for a gravity component was missing. The Axiomatic Equation becomes instead:
E = hf /(m_proton) = hc /l (m_proton) = (1_m- g)c^2.
This is the DeBroglie and Einstein equations modified by proton mass to equal mass as one kilogram. The result is E = ~90 petajoules. Mass is always m = 1, which is a (kg/kg) mass function for all values of E. The gravitational constant in this equation is g = ~5.9e-39 (a proton to proton gravitational coupling constant, dimensionless, but also in Volts) which is subtracted from mass m = 1. This (m-g) times c^2 becomes E = Energy. The gravitational constant is inversely proportional to the electromagnetic energy received, so that where there is no energy, g = 1, its maximum. This is not Newton's G, but can be converted to G through an equation (see below). For very high electromagnetic energy levels, meaning high frequency or very small wavelengths, the gravitational constant is very weak as it approaches zero. At zero, mass escapes (i.e., as solar wind).

2. Newton's gravitational constant G is a variable. The greater the stellar energy in the spacevacuum where it is measured, the weaker gravity becomes; the less energy, the greater it becomes. The constant G can be figured using the Axiomatic Equation to determine proton mass and its equivalent proton gravitational constant, the small g. This g can be converted into G by employing c^2 with the equation: G^2 = gc^2pi^2, where the square root yields an approximate value for the gravitational constant G.

3. The new physics model of the atom is the resulting interaction between a very powerful nuclear zero-point gravity and the electromagnetic energy of the zero-point spacevacuum where it is (only a suposition for now). The Bohr model is still operative, except the positive charge is a function of the great gravity at the atomic center, and the negative charge is a function of the electromagnetic wave interacting with this positive charge. Repulsion of like positive charge in the proton is countered by extreme gravity, what is now called the Strong force, which cancels almost immediately due to like charge, with a small remainder force which is the proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant. The neutron is by default a 'gravity-like' particle with properties similar to, and with nearly equal mass of, the proton. This interaction between a powerful nuclear gravity force and electromagnetic electron shell forms the complete atom, where mass is always m = 1 (to be adjusted for whatever measure values for mass are desired), with a charge neutral force left over as gravity. (To raise this theory above suposition, the neutron would need to be identified with its gravitic characteristic.)

4. Gravity is the missing element of an incomplete atom. The electromagnetic energy interaction with its gravity nucleus is a nearly complete formation, with the proton gravity constant remaining. If there was total energy, E = mc^3 such as found on the hot surface of the sun, then g would be zero. Because this is a specialized case, g is greater than zero. In deep space, where energy is very weak, the g is very great, which yields a much higher G constant for any atoms and molecules there. This may be the so-called Dark Matter, since any space dust in the cold of deep space takes on more G. In the aggregate, mass takes on the G of matter within the energy environment where it is measured, per the inverse square law. (See "Table A" below for computed E and G values for the planets of our solar system, per the Axiomatic Equation.)

5. The speed of light is a universal constant of v = c in a vacuum, like the old physics. However, it will always register at that velocity no matter the velocity of the receiver, since it then changes from a wave to a photon-like particle upon reaching the receptor. The relative velocity of the receptor is irrelevant for this reason. Faster than light travel is theoretically possible.

6. The universe may be expanding, or not, but this is not the main issue. All light traveling great cosmic distance will redshift because it must pass through the greater gravity fields of matter out there in the cold of deep space. The redshift can be used to estimate distances, but the Doppler effect is not the reason why. Distant bodies are not receding from us, as they may be advancing towards us same as receding. The universe is not expanding from an original Big Bang, but instead is in total equilibrium both gravitationally and electromagnetically, since these two are in interaction constantly. If not expanding, Dark Energy becomes meaningless. There was no Big Bang, nor will there be a Big Chill, nor a Big Crunch. Infinity by its definition yields that gravity pulls on us in every direction equally, so there is no favored center or margin to the universe. The age of the universe is unknown.

7. The basic atom is all there is. The subatomic particles are a breakdown of the atom's interaction between a powerful gravity positive charged nucleus and its negative charged counterforce electron. Smashing atoms releases vortexes of gravity-energy interactions, in the spacevacuum between the nucleus and electron shell, that are quantized into the so-called basic subatomic particles, with their variety of colorful descriptions. These had been derived from the energy conservation equation and so exist only as shattered remnants of these collisions. The atom is an elegant self contained unit, minus a very weak gravity remnant from its charge neutralized nucleus. In the deep of cold space, the atom's remnant gravity is greater than on Earth, or extremely weak close to any hot star.

8. There was no Big Bang, so the Standard Model is based on a faulty premise, though it may still yield valid results. Everything in the universe, all matter of stars, planets, space dust, comets, planetoids, space plasma, is the result of the interaction between great gravity and electromagnetic energy. Change is a constant, and change will continue where stars are born and die, planets have life or not, and all gets recycled in the end into black hole centers of galaxies where the energy is once again broken down into positive and negative charge. Positive ions exit through the black hole axis, which is the path of least resistance, to become future proto matter.

9. Black holes, so called, are not collapsed stars. They are the result of all the ambient light from the surround galaxy converging onto a central point where the electromagnetic wavelengths cancel each other out. Without electromagnetic energy present, in effect, the primordial gravity of the spacevacuum is once again reasserted, so gravity is at its maximum there. This is where little g is maximum, g = 1, and Newton's G = c, so no light is visible from it. Neutron stars, so called, are not collapsed suns of necessity, though they can be, and instead are stars whose combustion level never reached the cut-off level of energy to become true hot stars. Below the cut-off level of energy, which approximates the energy level of the photoelectric effect, stars cannot produce enough energy to overcome great gravity, and thus remain at a tremendous level of G, with very high spin due to whatever zero-point energy is present there. Once a hot star loses its ability to generate sufficient energy, it will become a so-called neutron star. (There is a possibility that whereas gravity per atom is charge neutral, in its raw form it has a positive charge, still unknown.) Time never stands still in a black hole.

10. Strings are a mathematical fiction. There are no dimensions beyond the physical three dimensional universe of length, depth, and height. Time is not a physical dimension but merely a way to mark change, and is always a constant once established. Time is a notch on a stick, no matter how sophisticated the equipment used to measure it. String Theory is a mathematical curiosity, not real physics.

11. Planets spin because of the interaction between solar irradiance and their interior black-body heat in relation to the spacevacuum energy where they are located. The hotter the planet in relation to its spacevacuum energy zone, the faster the spin. This spin may be a result of a micro-black hole that forms in its center from all the excess energy of its interior cancelling at one point. A planet in total balance between its interior heat and its space energy zone at its orbit will have virtually no spin, meaning it will spin once upon its orbit. This may be the case for Venus, which is a hot planet in a hot zone. Moons and planetoids very far from any hot zone energy will exhibit no spin, since their exterior and interior energies are the same, unless there is interior black body heat to cause spin. (See "Table B" below for examples of planetary spin.)

12. Relativity is merely an observational science, and not how works the universe. Atomic clocks will slow while passing through gravity fields in the same way light will redshift, but time had not slowed. Mass does not expand to infinity at light speed, though it may take a near infinite amount of energy to get it there, and once there it will become invisible to the observers in the stationary reference frame from which they left, nothing more. It may be theorized that once the traveling mass is invisible, it had entered another dimension, but this is only from our point of view. For itself, nothing changed. The universe is not a relativistic complexity, counterintuitive to our understanding, but rather is a very simple and elegant place, economical almost to a fault, and easily understood by anyone.

These values were computed using the Axiomatic Equation:

E = hc/l (m_proton) = (1_m- g)c^2 = mc^2 - (G^2*m/p^2) = Joules/seconds = Watts

With data used from JPL NASA Planetary fact sheet we were able to calculate the total orbital Energy for each planet. Using kinetic energy as E = 1/2 mv^2, where v = orbital velocity, the equation yields total planetary E in Joules:

(Solar irradiance) x (planet's distance from sun in meters) x (orbital kinetic energy) = total orbital Energy (left column). The gravity constant G is right column:

VALUES:

Orbital Energy

Proton mass

Newton's G

SUN(max):

10e24 J

(zero) kg

(zero) Nm^2

Please note these above figures for the Sun do not imply it has no gravity, which we know is very great, but merely that the molecules on the Sun's surface in its hottest regions, where E = mc^3 Joules, inhabit a zone where their proton mass is zero, and thus carry a Newton's G value of zero. At any distance from that hot region, their mass and G will increase in proportion to the E values as Energy decreases, per the chart below. The Axiomatic Equation was used to arrive at the proton mass and Newton's G values.

MERCURY:

60.55e16 J

2.48e-28 kg

2.79e-13 Nm^2

VENUS:

17.33e16 J

8.67e-28 kg

5.20e-12 Nm^2

EARTH:

9.0e16 J

1.67e-27 kg

6.67e-11 Mn^2

MARS:

3.66e16 J

3.86e-27 kg

1.096e-10 Nm^2

JUPITER:

0.335e16 J

4.49e-26 kg

3.86e-10 Nm^2

SATURN:

0.1004e16J

1.498e-25kg

6.85e-10 Nm^2

URANUS:

0.0247e16J

6.1e-25 kg

1.38e-9 Nm^2

NEPTUNE:

0.01e16 J

1.5e-24 kg

2.17e-9 Nm^2

PLUTO:

0.006e16 J

2.58e-24 kg

2.84e-9 Nm^2

If we take Venus as our base, since it has the slowest spin (-1.08, as a ratio of spin to annual orbit, almost =1) then we will need to find a ratio of Venus's orbital E to that of the other planets. Using that ratio, as adjusted for each planet, we may possibly find an E value that could be applied against the planet's internal heat, its black-body Kelvin temperature, to see if any kind of spin can be determined. This is the goal, to find a ratio of spin that approximates what the planets are doing. We are assuming the planet black-body heat readings are more or less correct.

Venus has spin of virtually "zero", where it spins -1.08 per its orbital year, which means it spins once on itself in orbit.

In equation form, the planetary spin looks like this, where P = planet, E = orbital Energy, for either the planet 'p' or Venus 'v', and K = Kelvin:

(K_p / E_p) ÷ (K_v / E_v) x (K_p / K_v) = SR

Simplified, it becomes:

K_p^2 / (K_v^2 * E_p * E_v) = SR

(Please see link "Does Gravity Zeropoint Energy Explain Spin?" for detailed tables of planetary Kelvin temperatures and other data, and how SR values were derived: Jaszz Spin - phases 1-6, Jul. 28 - Aug. 7, 2004.)

Now, these were the values we were left with to date (SR as per the table below). What we are looking for is the relationship that will match the SR with planetary spin, taking Earth's 1 spin per day as a basis. For this we will need to adjust it further, since the "zero" spin basis was Venus, and not Earth. In words:

"Spin Ratio divided by the ratio of planet's full orbital days divided by Earth's orbital days (365); this value is divided by the planetary spin (expressed in Earth days); which yields a ZPH factor."

Let me explain why I call this a 'ZPH factor'. It is because it will be this differential between what the ratios yield and what the actual spins become. Of necessity, this will imply that planets, especially if they are 'hot' planets, will generate this kind of zero-point-heat for their internal environment (to which any moons it has will respond in like manner planets respond to their solar ZPH), though this value will be very small, and as yet inconclusive as to its true meaning. So this is a planetary ratio only, not to be confused with Energy as such. In equation form it becomes:

SR / (P_{orbital days} / 365) ÷ P_spin = ZPH_planet

Planetary spin is divided by Earth's 365 in order to bring it in line with Earth's spin of 1 day, so that all planets's spins will be as a multiple, or fraction, of Earth days.

MERCURY: 1.043 / (88/365) ÷ 58.8 = 0.0736 ZPH
VENUS: 0.996 / (244/365) ÷ 245 = 0.006 ZPH
EARTH: 2.316 / (365/365) ÷ 1 = 2.316 ZPH
MARS: 3.69 / 1.81 ÷ 1.03 = 1.973 ZPH

What this means is that if ZPH tends towards zero, it is fairly balanced in terms of its interior heat and exterior solar energy. The higher ZPH, the greater is the planet's interior heat to its orbital energy environment, as it is expressed by solar irradiance. So Earth and Mars are relatively 'hot' planets, both with good spin, though of different temperatures since they inhabit different energy regions (Mars's is cooler than Earth's); whereas Mercury is cooler, slower spin, in relation to its solar irradiance; and Venus is almost totally balanced within its solar energy environment, hence almost no spin. Now, let us turn to the gas giants:

JUPITER: 11.67 / (4329/365) ÷ 0.415 = 2.371 ZPH
SATURN: 21.15 / 29.46 ÷ 0.445 = 1.613 ZPH
URANUS: 44.18 / 84 ÷ 0.718 = 0.732 ZPH
NEPTUNE: 70.27 / 165 ÷ 0.673 = 0.633 ZPH

PLUTO: ~75.66 / 248 ÷ 6.3 = ~0.0484 ZPH

Notice how 'hot' the gas giants are, especially Jupiter and Saturn, where they more approximate the internal heat ratio to orbital relative solar irradiance of Earth and Mars, and hence have fairly high spins. Pluto's internal temperature may be higher than estimated, since it has a higher relative spin, so that the resulting SR is off. The gas giants's Kelvin temperatures may be understimated as well, since their relative spins are greater than the SR results above.

POSTSCRIPTS, on the Old vs. New Physics: On mass = 1.

There are some points that may need clarification in my post above. Mainly, how is mass always equal to one if E = mc^2 and is greater than 90 petajoules?

Mass = 1.

It must be remembered that we measure all physical phenomena from Earth. This means that the equation for Energy, E = mc^2, is an Earth based equation, where mass is what we understand here as kilograms, relative to Earth's gravity. In the Axiomatic Equation, Earth is still the primary reference for all measures, so that the proton to proton gravitational coupling constant, ~5.9e-39, is an Earth based constant, and proton mass is an Earth gravity related mass. Gravity is Newton's G at ~6.67e-11 Nm^2.s^-2, and Planck's constant h, ~6.626e-34, is what we know it to be from here on Earth. The total orbital Energy computed for each planet, as per above, shows that this Energy is higher for the inner planets, and progressively lower for the outer planets. However, since E is greater than 90 petajoules for both Venus and Mercury, what does it do to the concept of mass always being equal to one, viz. m =1? That is a good question, because it is important to understand how E can be greater than E = mc^2 on Earth. On the hottest part of the corona on the Sun, E = mc^3, ~10e24 J, which is substantially greater than total Energy on Earth, ~9e16 J. It is important to understand that no matter where mass is measured, for each hydrogen atom, m is always =1, whether in deep space where energy is poor and gravity great, meaning inertial gravity is also great; or on the Sun's corona surface, where Energy is so great that m approaches zero, it is still one. All the other variable factors are then adjusted.

It should be understood that in taking Earth as a base measure, we are assuming that all our constants are in fact constant. However, we know for sure that lightspeed is a constant, and we know lambda is a constant, however we are not sure the proton mass is a constant, nor whether or not gravity is a constant, though this is now predicted by the Axiomatic Equation. If we take Earth as m = 1, then all the other m values are adjusted accordingly, so they are greater than one in the inner planets, and less than one for the outer planets. If instead we took Venus as m = 1, then Earth's m would be slightly lower than one, and Mars lower still, etc. If we took Jupiter's m =1, then we would have to adjust Earth's m as greater than one. With this adjustment would follow that proton mass, and possibly Planck's constant, would all have to be adjusted as well. Since mass is calculated as kilograms within Earth's gravity field, if we select another gravity field to measure mass, it would have to be different, and all other variable factors adjusted.

Newton's gravity-variable G.

How did I arrive at Newton's gravity constant G for the other planets, since they are all different? I took an easy route, which may in fact not be totally accurate, but I wanted to illustrate a point. So these calculations worked out for the variable constant G need to be tested against actual measurements in space where they are located. Not having access to variable G readings in space, since no such thing is theorized in today's accepted physics, certainly not in General Relativity, I had to guesstimate it by computing the proton mass at different total orbital Energy readings, which worked, and then translated it into G. I did this by assuming that c is constant, h is constant, and l for light received remains constant, though lambda may redshift slightly for the outer planets (if redshift is not Doppler, but greater gravity instead, as theorized, then such redshift should be expected); the Planck constant is potentially a question mark. In getting the ratio of each planet's computed proton mass, I then applied that ratio to the proton to proton gravitational coupling constant, which gave me a reading I then could use in the conversion equation, G^2=gc^2pi^2, to find the variable constant G. Thus, I calculated a decreasing G for the inner planets, where proton mass is lower, and a greater G for the outer planets, where proton mass is greater, as per the Axiomatic. I do not know for certain that these calculations are true to fact, since I am estimating a ratio using Planck's constant as the same for all the planets, which may or may not be the case. However, it gave me enough of a consistent reading to tell me that I am probably on the right track. It would take actual readings of gravity at the planets's orbital locations to know if these numbers for G are right or not. For now, they are for illustrative purposes only, until the science can catch up with real readings. To my knowledge, there is still no interest on the part of astronomers to find such a variable G, since they had calculated it as being the same as on Earth, and simply used Newton's orbital equation to figure each planet's mass, which may be an error.

Planetary spin ratios.

It is the same for the spin ratios, and the planetary ZPH factors, as calculated, where I estimated these using the above constants. However, though the numbers are not exactly right to explain planetary spin vis a vis their internal black-body heat within their respective orbital Energy, the results were close enough to tend in the right direction. Once we can better measure planetary heat, and better understand each planet's total orbital Energy, then perhaps these readings can be adjusted to better reflect the spin velocity for each one. For now, it is for illustrative purposes only, to show how some relationship, of heat vs. space energy in orbit, explaining their spin exists. Planets are not maintaining their spin from angular momentum only, but are actually powered by this energy differential.

On a unified theory.

Lastly, I do not know if what I had presented here, as computed using the Axiomatic Equation, is a unified theory of physics or not. Certainly it was not my intent to prove Einstein and cohort wrong. Really, by comparrison, I could not even hold up a match to Einstein's brilliant mind, of gigantic achievements. Merely, I pursued an idea to its end, as much as I could with my limited ability, to see where it leads, with the conclusion that gravity is a variable. Now, looking back at it all, I am amazed we ever thought it should be anything else. Is this what so badly skewed all other physics of astronomical observations? Why did we not see the gravity in deep space as much greater than here? Why were neutron stars such a mystery, or Dark matter? Why are black-holes at the center of every galaxy, where all ambient light converges? Why was cosmic light redshift such a mystery, still presently so badly misunderstood? It is because with a gravity variable, they have to be. There was really no Big Bang at all! String theory becomes a mathematically lovely fiction. Gravity is the relativistic force of the universe. No wonder the Pioneers and Cassini show evidence of spin anomalies and velocity slowing, as they enter greater gravity regions; they have to. All this makes much more sense now, including why the gas giants are further from the Sun, since greater gravity there holds gas together better in planet form, and why rings around Jupiter and Saturn have the composition of materials they have; it's all to do with variable gravity. Was Einstein wrong? Well, if gravity is not a universal constant, then the answer per force is yes, alas. The bigger puzzle is that we had never seen this before, and as of now, still do not know it to be so. So, nothing to be done further except to await the announcement that the gravity G is greater in deep space, or for the outer planets, than it is on Earth, or lesser for the inner planets. Then, when this happens, we can pursue this Axiomatic Equation further, refine it if needed, get a better fix on Planck's constant, and start looking for ways to cancel all lambda at a point. When this happens, we will have a new energy source which will take us from the limited energy of kinetic push engines to an incredibly accelerative gravity pull engine. If my hunch is right, it will take very little energy on our part to release this new and nearly inexhaustible gravity energy to pull our ships are velocities we cannot even dream of. And when done, whether or not it is a unifying theory of physics becomes secondary, for this primary new energy will make for a very fine future new physics.

Ivan

WHERE ARE WE YET?

I think finding out that gravity is NOT a universal constant is important enough to pursue it further. But my interest is not in solving how the solar system formed, or how the galaxy works, or even how the universe evolved. My interest in this is much more mundane: I want to use this new discovery to invent a new source of energy for us to use in the future. I suspect that once we can harness a 'modifiable' gravity, we will be able to harness it to give us constant acceleration, which can launch our vehicles into space at velocities now only dreamed of. And of course, such a new energy source is virtually inexhaustible, manipulated with very little electromagnetic energy, and can be made into ordinary motors to power everything from refrigerators to cars. But we're not there yet.

To recap what's been done to date:

1. Feb. 23, 2002: First ask the question as per "Is there a Theory of Everything?", which launched a string of inquiry over the next several months, thanks to contributions for Claude, Dave, Greg, WJ, and others. These were later developed, Sept. 15, 2002, into a paper titled "Atomus Summus et Universus", which spelled out the first ideas of a new interpretation of E = mc^2, where mass is a function of E and its inverse, as c^2, to equal one, i.e., E/c^2 = m = 1.

2. This function of mass was then modified to include a gravitational constant, not the Newton G but a proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant. A question was asked as to why, why not proton to electron? The answer was because we are looking for a gravity-like relationship between matter, between nucleuses, and this little g, which is approximately g=5.9E-39 dimensionless, made sense. The DeBroglie Wavelength gave the definition for E, though we later learned this was still incomplete, so that E = hf = hc/l still had a gravity component missing, as it pertains to mass. So the new mass function became: h/cl = 1-g = m, or rewritten as h/cl + g = 1 = mass, so that mass is always one, a product of integers and their inverse. As said in an illustration, the ultimate expression of this is "zero times infinity equals one", always, since any number multiplied by its inverse is always one, by definition. This remained the algorithm for a 'theory of everything' for many months.

3. The real breakthrough, after voluminous discussion on this forum (see TOE 2-4, Archived) with many reference links, and with help from inputs from Zink, Dr. Smart, and others, happened on March 15, 2003, when the Axiomatic Equation was first formulated. This equation combined DeBroglie's quantum equation with Maxwell's electric and Einstein's Energy equation: E_m * c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (Bm)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy, though it was still incomplete. We had not yet factored in the necessary proton mass to balance both sides of the equation, so with input from J-- and members of other forums, it became on Sept. 16, 2003, the current Axiomatic Equation adjusted for proton mass:

E = E_m * c = hc/l(m_proton) = h/l (e_om_o)^1/2 * (1/m_proton) = (1m- g)c^2 = mc^2 - (G^2*m/p^2) = (B_m)c^2 = E Energy ©, = 9e16 m^2.kg.s^-3 = Joules/seconds = Watts, where mass (m) is proton mass 1.67e-27 kg (multiplied by its inverse 5.99e28 to become m = 1, kilogram per kilogram) to result in total E = 90 petajoules, per second.

By then the proton gravitational constant was selected, but there was still no connection between it and Newton's G constant. This was accomplished intuitively, since little g needed to be raised by c^2 to become gravity, per the Axiomatic, on Dec. 14, 2003, when the proton gravity constant conversion to Newton's G was finalized:

G^2*m = gc^2 pi^2, which as Energy is: E = (1-g)c^2 = (m) c^2 - G^2/pi^2

This completed that phase of the search for an all inclusive theory using both electromagnetic energy and gravity, a kind of Theory of Everything.

4. Gravity was now part of the Sun's electromagnetic energy, so that it became inversely proportional to its total Energy output, the more solar energy received, the lower the gravity G, and vice versa, the less energy received, the greater G. This led to a calculation of the Sun's output of Energy, with contributions by Stransky, where in using "solar irradiation times distance times the planet's kinetic energy" we came to "total orbital Energy"; which on July 28, 2004, led to the computations of total solar Energy, as per the Jaszz Spin calculations (see July 28 to Aug. 7, Jaszz 1-6). Once these were calculated for the planets, and their corresponding G per the Axiomatic Equation were computed, it was possible to graph this on Oct. 4, 2004, per the referenced link above. This changed everything. Now we could see that the so-called 'constant' in fact was not a universal constant as always assumed, but grew linearly directly proportional with distance (i.e., d/d^2 = 1/d) so that the G constant could now be figured at any distance from the Sun. This was a major breakthrough, since it gave us a relationship which, relative to the parabolic curve of Energy, allowed us to estimate not only G for distant planets, but also revise their mass M, per GM=Rv^2.

5. The proof (since until now it remained speculation) came on Oct. 23, 2004, when it was figured that the Pioneer 10 & 11 distant probes accelerating towards the Sun, at ~8E-8 cm/s^2, was (approximately) towards the same rate as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation, viz. ~7.3E-10 cm/s^2. (See Oct. 23rd, Jaszz link above. Original post had an error, reported as a=~7.3e-8 cm/s^2, corrected)*. This completed the cycle from the first question, can there be a 'theory of everything', to the confirmation via Pioneers slowing in the outer solar system, that the equation modifying Einstein's E=mc^2 as E = (1-g)c^2, and matching it against a modified DeBroglie quantum equation E= hc/l(m_proton), that the two equations give us a way to solve for lambda, proton mass, the proton gravitational constant, and finally for G and M. This is what the Axiomatic Equation is all about, solving for a variable G, given E, since these two values have an algorimthmically inversely proportional relationship.


So what? Where does this take us? I suspect the real plum will be to use this new theory for seeking a new source of energy. If gravity is a modifiable force, that it is not a universal constant, then we should be able to harness it. I have an idea of how to do this, but without laboratory or engineering access, I cannot do it alone. I do not think, however, that so-called 'lifter' technology is the right answer.

If anyone has an interest in pursuing this further, please e-mail me at: ivan@humancafe.com and use the Subject heading "Modified Energy", so that I will not delete it with my junk mail. All your ideas and interests will be welcome.

Tootles for now, glad you were around to read this. Special thanks to Hyperphysics.com for comprehensive and interactive physics references and data. And my many and sincere thanks to all who had contributed to this developmental theory, even if you were there only to criticize. It all helped!


Ivan D. Alexander

Costa Mesa, CA USA

Ps: I hope to have a formal physics paper written before long, but knowing what I am up against in the scientific mainstream, and knowing what the ramifications of a non-constant G will be to current cosmology, I'm not too eager to do so. In time.... If anyone wants to help me with this, for joint publication (though it may put you in peril with the physics community), please let me know. There may be a 'right' way to do this without attracting their ire. I think it is important, and it should be brought out right... we're not there yet.

*[Edited 10/31/2004. Erratum for calculated value of acceleration towards the Sun of Pioneers: a=~7.3e-10 cm/s^2, per Axiomatic Equation. In fact, this acceleration value is more reasonable than LANL's, since theirs would imply a G growing at the rate of ~8e-9 G per AU, which is obviously wrong, given Earth's G is at one AU, and equal to ~6.67e-11 G, which is closer to how the Axiomatic works out: G grows at the rate of ~7.3e-11 Nm^2kg^-2 per AU, so this seems to be the intrinsic rate of growth of G at a distance from the Sun.]

See the BAD Astronomy posts on Time, Matter, and Gravity.

Very interesting "universe is wave equations" book by Morris G. Anderson: see PDF at: Wave Propagation In A Gravitational Field. There seems to be some effort to explain motion and gravity entirely with the 'variable' speed of light, though this may be overly ambitious.

Lunatik/Ivan

As a footnote, on page 49 of the book, it says:

"Postulate 12: Space and matter are mutually dependent upon each other. Where there is space there is matter, and where there is matter, there is space. One does not exist without the other."

WHERE AR WE? Addendum:

I probably would not be so confident, or outright sassy about it, if it were not that the growing 'constant' G as figured out for planet orbital Energy using the Axiomatic Equation did not give such consistent results. And when I realized that these same results can rather nicely explain why Pioneers are slowing by the amount of constant acceleration measured, which is easily explained with constantly growing G, then I knew I had it. Of course, as always, the real proof will lie in the actual measurement of G in the outer solar system. It might also show up as a much smaller G for Mercury, for example, since Energy is so much greater than here. But all this is subject to empirical data. I am satisfied.

Ivan

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

Margaret

A GRAVITY VARIABLE NEWTON'S G "CONSTANT" HYPOTHESIS FOR THE PIONEER 10 AND 11 DISTANT PROBES ACCELERATION ANOMALIES.

By Ivan D. Alexander
USA

[This is a short version of a theoretical scientific paper titled: "Atomic Mass as a Gravity and Energy Function, per the Axiomatic Equation: with implications for the Pioneers 10 and 11 acceleration anomalies," which will not be shown here on these forums, reserved for peer reviewed publication. --IDA]


Abstract: Radio Doppler and ranging for the Pioneer 10 and 11 distant spacecraft in the solar system reveal an anomalous acceleration towards the Sun at a consistent rate of approximately ~8E-8 cm/s^2, where possible systemic origins of this anomaly had been discounted [1]. At a present distance of over 60 AU, the spacecrafts exiting the Kuiper Belt, this anomaly remains constant and undetermined as to its cause. A hypothetical increased Newton's G at a distance from the Sun can be calculated from this anomalous acceleration measured, though such a variable G "constant" does not fit current physics theory. The DeBroglie-Einstein equation*, E = hf, can be used to better understand how such a variable G may be possible. The objective of this paper is to show how this G variable may be responsible for most of the anomaly, but not all. The hypothesis allows for other systemic reasons to account for the balance of slowing by Pioneers, in excess of ~7E-10 cm/s^2, as they enter deep space in opposite directions towards the Oort Cloud.


1. Introduction: As a hypothesis, if we were to assume Newton's G is growing at a constant rate with distance from the Sun, then it could be established that given a constant acceleration towards the Sun, this growing G would be linear in nature, and thus can be calculated. The delta G, assumed linear, can be computed by a reverse process of taking the delta G divided by Earth's known G, ~6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2, and divided by the distance of one AU, ~150E+6 km, to give us the resulting anomalous acceleration ~8E-8 cm/s^2 per AU. This reverse calculation yields:

8E-8 cm/s^2 = 8E-10 m s^-2, which times 6.67E-11 m^3kg^-1s^-2 is:
(8E-10 m/s^2)( 6.67E-11 m^3kg^-1s^-2) = 53.36E-21 m^3kg^-1s^-2 (m/s^2)
which times one AU in meters is:
[53.36E-21 m^3kg^-1s^-2 (m/s^2)] [150E+9 m] = 8004E-12, so that:
delta G = 8.0E-9 m^3kg^-1s^-2 (m^2/s^2) per AU.

This growing G possibility is a serious enough result for the European Space Agency to design a probe specifically to explain this strange gravitational anomaly [2]. The above result, however, is inconsistent with a linear growing constant G per AU, since we know Newton's G on Earth is about a hundredfold less, viz. ~6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, which means the resulting delta G is too high, since it exceeds Earth's G at one AU. In fact, per AU (Earth at one AU), the result should be closer to delta G =~6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2.
(I dropped the m^2/s^2 for the remainder of this paper, though it is implied.)

If Newton's G is a variable growing linearly from the Sun, there may be a way to find this expression independently using a variant of Kepler's Law for the planets.


2. A variable Newton's G hypothesis: Modified Newtonian Dynamics [3], or MOND, is not entirely outside the realm of physics. The flattening of the galaxies rotation curve has been astronomically observed, though at present no explanation exists for this phenomenon other than a conjectural "dark matter" postulate. However, as this so-called dark matter has proven illusive, another approach may yield better results to account for the greater gravity postulated on galaxy fringes. Such a greater gravity for the matter there would not be inconsistent with the measured anomaly results of the Pioneer spacecrafts.

One possible approach is to measure the total orbital Energy for the planets in our solar system, and then compare these Energy levels with the DeBroglie-Einstein equation to calculate a proton-mass equivalent for each planet. This calculation may be accomplished by multiplying the solar radiance in Watts (per meter squared) by the distance from the Sun, and then multiplying the result by the planet's orbital kinetic energy, where KE = 1/2 mv^2, and m = 1 (kg/kg). When calculated for Earth's orbital Energy, taking data from "Nasa Planetary Fact Sheet" [4] we get the following:

Solar irradiance: 1367.6 W/m^2
Mean distance from Sun: 149.6E+9 meters
Mean orbital velocity: v = 29.78 km/s

(1367.6) (149.6E+9) = 204592.96E+9 = 2.046E+14 W/m

KE = (1/2) (1) (29.78)^2 = (1/2)(1)(886.85) = 443.4 m^2.kg.s^-2 (Joules)

KE * W/m = ( 443.4 J) (2.046E+14 W/m) = 9.07e16 J/s/m (Watts/meter) = Earth's total orbital Energy. (Please note m = 1 is a net function of planet mass in orbital motion, and the planet KE is a template function only.)

Earth's E = ~9.07E+16 W/m, which is relative to E = mc^2 = 90 petajoules, (in Joules/second/meter). This Energy level for Earth then sets the basic template for like Energy levels for the other planets, using the same methodology:

MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J
VENUS: 17.33E+16 J
EARTH: 9.0E+16 J
MARS: 3.66E+16 J
JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J
SATURN: 0.1004E+16J
URANUS: 0.0247E+16J
NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J
PLUTO: 0.006E+16 J


The resulting Energy values if plotted on a chart show a parabolic steeply curved upward for the inner planets and progressively lower and flatter for the outer planets, with an elbow for this curve at about the level of Mars and the asteroid belt. It is immediately obvious that the inner planets receive a much greater level of solar irradiance than the distant planets, and that this total energy in Joules for each orbital area has a consistent parabolic relationship, where the energy levels for the outer planets declines on a curve.

How does this apply to Newton's G constant? We can calculate an intermediary function resulting from this Energy variance through the DeBroglie-Einstein equation:
E = hf, which rewritten is: E = hc/ l(proton mass) = 90 petajoules. In computing the proton mass for each Energy level, we get a variable that can be used to estimate Newton's G at each Energy level. Assuming that Planck's constant h = 6.626E-34 m^2kg^s^-2, and electromagnetic energy lambda, 1.32E-15 m, are constants, with light c, 3E+8 m/s, as constant, we get:

E = hc/ l(proton mass)
E = 9.0E+16 J = (19.878E-26) / (1.322E-15)(proton mass), so that proton mass is:

Proton m = 1.67E-27 kg

Using the same methodology, we can compute proton mass equivalents for each of the planets Energy levels, where E is on the left, and equivalent proton mass is on right:


MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg

VENUS: 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg

EARTH: 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg

MARS: 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg

JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg

SATURN: 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25kg

URANUS: 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg

NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg

PLUTO: 0.006eE+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg


From this above, we can see immediately that proton mass varies inversely to Energy, so that the equivalent proton mass on Mercury is lower than Earth's, while on Saturn it is greater. Because these were calculated using the DeBroglie-Einstein equation as it applies to the calculated total orbital Energy for the planets, they may lend themselves to a proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant equivalent, here called little g, using Earth's g = ~5.9E-39 (dimensionless) as a basis. Taking a direct proportional value for g relative to their proton mass, the ratio of the planet's proton mass to Earth's, times 5.9E-39, for example: Mars proton mass = 3.86E-27 kg, as a ratio of Earth's proton mass = 1.67E-27 kg, is 2.311, so that Mars's proton gravitational constant = 2.31* 5.9E-39 = 1.36E-38 (larger than Earth's g). This methodology yields the following proton gravity constants:


PLANET: total orbital Energy, Proton mass, Proton gravity constant:

MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg, 8.76E-40

VENUS: 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg, 3.06E-39

EARTH: 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg, 5.9E-39

MARS: 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg, 1.36E-38

JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg, 1.586E-37

SATURN: 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25 kg, 5.29E-37

URANUS: 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg, 2.153E-36

NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg, 5.3E-36

PLUTO: 0.006E+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg, 9.11E-36


As can be seen from the above, the proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant increases with distance from the Sun, and decrease towards the Sun, so the inverse relationship of Energy to proton gravitational constant is preserved. This can be further converted into Newton's G values via an equation, derived incidentally but beyond the scope of this paper, though it offers a fairly close fit:

G^2 * m = g c^2 pi^2, where g is the proton gravitational constant, and m =1,
G^2 * 1 = (5.9E-39)(9E+16)(9.87) = 524.1E-23 = 52.41E-22, of which square root is:

G = ~7.239E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 for Earth.
(Please note this is 0.57E-11 more than Newton's G =6.67E-11 N.)

Using this methodology, we can now calculate the variable local Newton's G "constant" for each of the Energy levels for the planets:

PLANET: total orbital Energy, Proton mass, Proton gravity constant, local Newton's G:

MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg, 8.76E-40, ~2.79E-11 Nm^2kg^-2

VENUS: 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg, 3.06E-39, ~ 5.20E-11 N

EARTH: 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg, 5.9E-39, ~6.67E-11 N

MARS: 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg, 1.36E-38, ~1.096E-10 N

JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg, 1.586E-37, ~ 3.86E-10 N

SATURN: 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25 kg, 5.29E-37, ~6.85E-10 N

URANUS: 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg, 2.153E-36, ~1.38E-9 N

NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg, 5.3E-36, ~2.17E-9 N

PLUTO: 0.006E+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg, 9.11E-36, ~2.84E-9 N


When these Newton's G values are plotted on a chart on the Y axis, with planetary distance from the Sun in AUs on the X axis, it shows a linear growth at the rate of approximately: delta G = ~7.239E-11 per AU.

Such a hypothetical G variable is not beyond the scope of possibility, as it had been explored by others, i.e., Toivo Jaakkola [5] and MOND [3], and others, though no conclusive theory has yet emerged. In the above, given the parabolic nature of the Energy curve, which was not expected to yield a linear Newton's delta G, offers an algorithmic solution to a variable Newton's G. Rather, what is sought from these calculations is the hypothetical rate of acceleration towards the Sun by the Pioneer distant probes.


3. Calculating the Pioneers 10 and 11 anomalous acceleration: Given that the above calculations yield a linear growth of Newton's G by the rate of 7.23E-11 per AU, the resulting plotted line points inwards towards the Sun towards zero, and outwards towards the gas giants, so that by Saturn the G variable is approximately 68.5E-11 Nm^kg^-2 which at 9.5 AUs from the Sun is about ten times Earth's G equivalent. Taking it beyond the solar system out to the Oort Cloud, for example, at about 50,000 AU, yields a G value of about 3.5E-6 Nm^2kg^-2, though this value may flatten.

We had never really considered a variable Newton's G because our local trajectoral needs were satisfactorily met using a constant G and its resulting estimated mass for distant bodies. The obvious implication here is that our mass estimates may have been wrong, at least in terms of local G, but that we still managed to reach our trajectoral objectives with in-flight adjustments. Given we computed local mass from a universal G, it gave us sufficiently good results. The fact that the Pioneers are now about 250,000 miles closer than they should be has raised a valid question on the resulting trajectory. The probes's spin factors may also account for greater G values of the outer solar system, where the spacecraft's greater inertial mass, resulting from a greater G, affects both its velocity and spin.

The acceleration towards the Sun may therefore be calculated from the G variable, using the same methodology as in the beginning of this paper. Taking the delta G divided by Earth's known G, and then divided by one AU in meters yields the expected acceleration pointed towards the Sun:

Delta G = 7.23E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 (m^/s^2)
Earth G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2
One AU in meters = 150E+9 meters

(7.239E-11 Nm^2kg^-2) / (6.67E-11) / (150E+9) = Pioneers acceleration anomaly

hypothetical acceleration = 1.084 / 150E+9 = 7.239E-12 m/s^2, in centimeters is:

d -a = ~7.235E-14 cm/s^2, which satisfies the computed delta G of 7.239E-11 per AU, and closer to Earth's G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 at one AU from the Sun. However, this is not the Pioneers Anomolous acceleration, which should be (numerically only) its square root: -a = ~2.7E-7 cm/s^2. (This is a function of what happens to mass in a variable G, where kilograms are no longer in Earth measures, but in local "kg".)

It is this value the Pioneers should experience due to the equivalence of delta G on their inertial mass as they travel out of the solar system. The fact that their trajectories had been calculated as ~8E-8 cm/s^2 leaves room for other factors as to why the probes are slowing in deep space. These anomalies had been proposed by others, including heat venting, space dust, and other conventional reasons, such as proposed by Louis S Scheffer [6] , as having no gravity or "new physics" basis. As can be seen from the above, however, there may in fact be a gravitational basis for the distant spacecrafts acceleration anomaly, because it is germane to the G environment through which they travel, as it grows linearly from the Sun. However, space is not empty entirely, so other factors may also be contributing to their acceleration towards the Sun as measured, possibly due to their heat related "Crookes" effect, or perhaps due to factors of planetary 'heat' affecting G (lowering it) for those far off regions.

Can this Pioneers anomaly be the basis for a "new physics"? In part, if Newton's G is not a universal constant, as had been always assumed, then per force the answer is that we will need to make some modifications to our understanding of gravity. Looking back on it, one wonders why we ever assumed it to be a universal constant in the first place? The solution to this problem, one which may involve adjusting Einstein's General Relativity to these new findings, is to go out into space and measure inertial mass there. Based on Einstein's theory of gravity-inertia equivalence [7], that is what the European Space Agency [2] is seeking, because that is how we will be able to measure the actual Newton's G in those far off reaches of space.


4. Concluding remarks: The obvious implications from the above postulated variable G is that our distant bodies orbital mass estimates are wrong. However, if the mass traveling through greater G is increasing in inertial mass, then for all practical purposes the difference will not be meaningful for short distances from the Sun, but more meaningful for greater distances, as these mass estimates will become more pronounced. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper, future studies may seek to better understand planetary mass and density. For example, why is Mercury such a dense and nearly all metallic planet, while the gaseous giants are not, with Earth and Mars rocky planets. There may also be implications for some relationship between planetary spin and their interior heat versus the Energy levels within which they orbit, so that a total equality of the two would yield no spin, for example, as is nearly the case for Venus. If this hypothesis of a variable Newton's G proves correct in our future studies, there will open new avenues of inquiry into many astronomical phenomena currently beyond understanding, including so-called dark matter, cosmic light redshift, neutron stars, and possibly even why black holes exist at galactic centers. A variable Newton's G is a very powerful tool for future space explorations, which in the end may very well yield to a "new physics", but that too is beyond the scope of this paper.

I might predict that all of the above, should it prove true, will lend itself easily to a very simple equation, though such an equation, axiomatic in its simplicity, is still a work in progress. Thank you.


Ivan D. Alexander
Ivan@humancafe.com

November 13, 2004.
www.humancafe.com

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

References:
[1] "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11" by John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, Slava G. Turyshev (2002). http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

[2] "Pioneer anomaly put to the test", Sept. 2004, PhysicsWeb.com news, authors: Slava Turyshev, John Anderson, Michael Martin Nieto. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3

[3] "Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND)", per Wikipedia encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

[4] "Nasa Planetary Fact Sheet":
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html

[5] "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation", by Toivo Jaakkola:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO3PDF/V03N3JAA.PDF

[6] "Conventional Forces can Explain the Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer 10" by
Louis K. Scheffer: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107092

[7] "Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis" by Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch, and Roh Tung: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0108026

*A special thanks to Hyperphysics.com for their excellent reference pages:
As in the DeBroglie-Einstein wavelength equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html#c1

SCIENTIFIC BELIEF

I think that a mind that is shut from the start, approaching any new idea* with the belief that it can't possibly be right, can never be opened with reason. It's a gut thing, something that goes right down to the core of that person's belief system, even right down to all the reasons why this belief is true. Even when the data starts streaming in that perhaps something is wrong, there will be dire resistance to the end. For example, if data proves that the universal Newton's G 'constant' is not so constant after all in deep space, that perhaps MOND was right, and that the so-called Dark Matter is no more than a higher Newton's G gravitational 'proportional' for mass, even then, most will run back to their General Relativity text books to explain the phenomenon away. They will simply not be able to accept that their cherished belief was wrong. It's a gut thing, and in Science as in any religion, this gut thing is a Gordian knot that cannot be untied. Of course, we know how Alexander of legend untied the Gordian knot. It may have to be just like that, beyond reason, and just cut like an umbilical cord to an old and bad idea. The cosmology of modern physics is as complicated and as absurd as the cosmology of the ancients. But like their gods ruling their universe from the unreachable heights of Olympus, these new gods rule the universe from the absurdly unatainable heights of Einstein's mathematical Relativity. That is the power of Belief.

*(see BAD Astronomy's posts by Lunatik.)

Ivan.

PLANET'S TOTAL ORBITAL ENERGY: E = sol radiance x (1/2) GM, an alternative short cut?

The post above Dec. 14, 2004, talks about the relationship of solar radiant energy to the variable Newton's G 'constant' for planet orbital Energy. There had been questions as to how I arrived at the equation:

(Solar irradiance in Watts/m^2) x (distance from Sun in meters) x (1/2) mv^2 for planet's orbital KE = planet's total orbital Energy, for which Earth's base E = 9E+16 J (90 petajoules)

This may be recognized as a rewriting of:

GM = Rv^2 combined with KE = 1/2 mv^2, where the two match up as: E = (Rv^2)/2 x (solar irradiance), where R is the distance from the Sun, and m =1.

Now, taking KE = 1/2 mv^2, we get (1/2) v^2 = (KE)/m, where m =1, and we get v^2 = GM/R, where M is solar mass, and G is Newton's constant G, so that (1/2) v^2 = KE = (1/2)GM/R.

Therefore, E = R x sol radiance x (1/2) GM/R, so that R (distance from Sun) drops out, and we are left with:

E = sol radiance x (1/2) GM.

For Earth: sol radiance = 1367.6 W/m^2
G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2
M = 1.99E+30 kg

So multiplying it out we get: E = 1/2 (1367.6)(6.67E-11)(1.99E30) = (1/2) 18,152.6E+19 = 9,076E+19, which breaks down into 9.076E+22, which is to a power of 10^+6 higher than 90 petajoules, or a million times!!! greater than 9E+16 J.

Of course, this is only a base model, so ALL planets would need to be adjusted by 10^+6 to establish the orbital Energy equivalents for each. Not perfect, but a workable model. The other possibility is that this above implies that M is way too high, and that the Sun's real mass may be closer to 1.99E+24 kg? ... or the Sun's G is 10^-6 less than our Earth's G... a puzzler for now.

[Please note: Earth's orbital G is 7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2, but due to the planet's internal energy, this is lowered to G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2. Of course, all the planets would have a similar adjustment to their G per their respective internal energy.]

How can that be? Because the Sun is NOT a solid body but has temperature and radiant energy variances throughout, so the end product is "as if" Sol's M is 10^+24 kg (!!!). Seeing it this way leaves a bigger mystery than when we started out, but that's how the numbers work out! Hot surface radiance changes the Sun's effective mass in kilograms, though the M = 1.99E+30 kg is how it was estimated using Newton's orbital equation. I don't know why.

For comparison, Jupiter's solar radiance = 50.5 W/m^2, G = 7.24E-11, M = 1.99E+30 (Sun), so the equation works out as: E = Sol radiance x GM/2 = 0.335E+22, which adjusted by a factor of 10^+6 gives us: E = 0.335E=+16 J, which is pretty close to how it was figured out before. Of course, none of this explains why this works as a surrogate way to figure planetary Energy, and so I still don't know why. But the implications are pretty neat!

Ivan

WHICH GRAVITY MAKES BETTER SENSE?

A. NEWTON-EINSTEIN'S "CONSTANT" G:

1. "Action at a distance" mystery force.
2. Geometry dependent explanation of cause and effect of G.
3. Mass at astronomical distances determined with constant G.
4. Inertial mass is universally the same, per "equivalence" of universal G.
5. Complex relativistic geometry for modern gravity theory using tensors, metrics, and sets theory.
6. Proton mass is invariant, so inertial mass is invariable.
7. Fantastic cosmology where massive solar masses collapse to form black holes and neutron stars, expanding universe, Big Bang creationism, imbalanced universe.
8. Conservation of momentum and energy makes no new energy possible.
9. Occam's razor cuts itself to shreds.


B. ALEXANDER'S "PROPORTIONAL" G:

1. "Proportional nuclear strong force" modified by EM radiant energy.
2. Energy dependent cause and effect of G.
3. Mass at astronomical distances determined with variable G.
4. Inertial mass is proportional to G, a variable per equivalence principle.
5. Simple algebra showing how gravity is EM energy dependent of star radiance.
6. Proton mass is inversely proportional to radiant energy of star system, so a variable.
7. Simple cosmology where galactic black holes are a necessity, neutron stars are "failed" cold stars, and the universe is infinite and totally balanced.
8. New energy source based on modified EM radiance where "negative mass energy" is possible.
9. Occam's razor is clean.

... which one makes more sense to you? ... I know how I'd vote, but needs empirical evidence to clinch it in place. Pioneers Anomaly is only the first clue.

Ivan

Ivan:

Suggestion. Have your math reviewed by one of your local Math Professor buds at the University in Town. Then, submit it to a number of top-notch players, like Stephen Hawk, et al. (Don't waste your time on Jay Leno or Letterman.):)

Point: It's time to go about building a REAL productive critical dialog with some of the key players who can make a difference. (I've given you my inputs and feedback...pointed you to explore spinor dynamics; but hey...I'm a sales engineer with a BSEE--I sell lasers and VOIP equipment to companies--what the hell do I know?) It's time for you to get your math into a formally presentable/acceptable form...and venture out. (I can help in realms such as marketing, PR, publicity, identifying/targeting the right network of key players in your specific niche. My first suggestion is...find one or more or your most likely allies, sympathetic to your view.) Let me know how I can help.:)G-man

IS IT (physics debate) MERELY A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION?


Cross-post from BAD Astronomy Bulletin Board: Advice for ATM theory supporters.

Not all new ideas are good ideas, but they are good ideas if they stimulate more thought.

'Lunatik'

Atomic Mass, Gravity, and Pioneers Anomaly

This is a Physics Forum where the full text to "Atomic Mass" may be viewed. Please note the lambda symbol was lost, so it appears as "l" though the text. Followup posts, if any, to this forum should be visible from this page: http://physics.nad.ru/engboard/messages/1569.html

Ivan

Science or Pseudo-science?

As posted on BABB.

ADDENDUM: Science or pseudo-science?

Fram wrote Feb. 24, 2005:

---

Quote:

They (science) don't go off on a wild goose chase. They don't tend to only see the evidence in favour of their idea while ignoring the anomalies, but they don't throw away their theories with the first anomalies either. And that is what you ask us (or them) to do, while refusing to do it yourself.

---

Real simple here…

I’d like to throw out G for not only QM but also for general and specific relativity. I’ve struggle with gravity, as expressed in textbooks for nearly twenty years. That, of course, could be due to one educator who tried to use the bucket full of water example (centrifugal force) to explain how we are glued to terra forma?????

The long and short of my issues with standard Newtonian Gravity (by my estimation) are an unnecessary variable that even Einstein made (wrong) allowances for throughout his self-doubting, best ideas.

Is anybody with me?

The key to a unified theory is to toss out this struggle; and think only on the warping of Space-time that has been clearly observed and can easily be expressed by the standard bed sheet expression of this higher dimension.

Please show me otherwise!

I would not go so far as to through out G. Like Einstien, I believe that G is at best a too simplified an expression.

G in my opinion represents a multi-dimentional force that is poorly understood at present.

I not that that Sir Issac Himself was exploring the concept of multi-dimentionality but was unable to break the code on all of its multi-dimentional aspects.

He did explore multi dimensional theory in his geometry work. He was critized because he could never find a common principal behind it.

Yes, but please indulge my ignorance for a moment. At what point and in what observable example do waves act as particles?? I am not sure that they do aside from observances using the Newtonian G.

Do waves bend due to Gravity? I think not! It is only the space time fabric, which unifies quantam mechanics and cosmology.

The definition of gravity leads one to beleive in a magnetism of sorts, but acts nothing like the magnetism we know and are able to observe.

The more I understand relativity, the more I want to scrap the old equations all together. What could be discovered?

I have some other questions for any gurus who would care to answer, and a few more comments.

Cosmology... the universe presently in an expansion state, does anyone know if there is a center??? Geometrically it is possible that all galaxies in the universe are expanding at all points at equal relativity to one another, but has this been observed as such, or have we mapped a centerpoint. The focus of the residual x-rays... is the background noise focused (equally audible) from Earth's location, or from anywhere equally???

When observing 'red-shift' do any of you have any difficulty using observable light as the standard, when light is one of the major variables to consider???

Tp throw away G, and create a new variable... Perhaps the new correct value will only be found if we embrace the fact of dark matter... if only as a means to an end. Perhaps using this fabric, we can find a consistant G that will work in all mechanics, allowing us to eventually put away the fourth dimension for the sake of 'physical' science.

As a means to a provable end and a unified theory, it is worth, I think, pretending there is Dark Matter making it all work.

Back in the equations from the missing masses, using Dark Matter, and the variable will someday be corrected.

My simple mind, Thanks for reading
Scott A. Myers
scott@massillonweb.com

Heck!!! call it gravity if you insist!

I have to add,

I think there is dark matter to use in a proportian-ality to mass relationship somehow, or maybe it will have nothing to do with the amount of space that is filled, but bear with me a moment.

Can anyone produce this experiment?

Suspend two particles, one mass larger than the other proportioned in like manor to say... the Earth and the Sun. They will have to be suspended magnetically, I think, so they will have to be made of suspendable material of course.

Create a vacume to suspend the two objects within, and observe. Will we then be able to actually witness a (magnetism) force drawing the two bodies together??

I think so. The atom, is 99.99% what? Space, right? A vacume right?

Can anyone try something like this and report their findings?

Hi Scott, thanks for fine thoughts, and Welcome!

On Cosmology, the expansion state we perceive from cosmic light redshift may be more "optical illusion" than fact, so the Big Bang scenario might prove a fine fiction, if so. Geometrically, I think the universe is "infinite", whatever that means, so every point within infinity is equally its center, an idea early on presented by the philosopher Giordano Bruno. (They burned him at the stake for this and other ideas, like the transmigration of souls, back in Rome 1600.) So if there was no explosive sudden expansion of billions of galaxies (within the very short span of 13.7 billion years ± ), then no visible center will appear to us, meaning light redshifted from any direction will not appear any more skewed than from any other direction, and ditto for cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). So where does this leave us with cosmic light redshift? In how the cosmology unfolds from many pages on this and other forums, light might be redshifting naturally while passing through the great vast 'empty' dimensions of temporal space, so by the time it reaches us here on Earth, it had already shifted towards the red side of the spectrum. However, this is not to be confused with the so-called "tired light" theory, where photon interaction with space get bounced around while losing momentum, rather it may have more to do with passing through the cold dark regions of vast inter-galactic space (like the 99.9% space inside the atom) where the indigenous gravitational field is much greater than what we experience in Earth's vicinity. This is something we will eventually need to test for, to see if gravity is truly a universal constant as now believed, or perhaps universally more like so-called "dark matter", where the exception to this is the very weak gravity around the inner solar systems of hot radiant stars. Or as Edward says above, G may be a "multi-dimensional" force, though we don't really know yet. Some of this is also discussed in the E = 9E+16 J thread (where atomic mass is redefined), or the related Axiomatic Equation thread, kind of hard to follow, alas. But, and this is the "if-but" question, if light is redshifted for universal deep space great-dark-gravity matter, then there may in fact not be any expansion at all, other than the usual wiggles of galaxies colliding, merging, separating, just like everything else in real life. And if so, then General Relativity and its derived theories will need to be modified or discarded.

Here is a link to another interesting proposal to search for why the Pioneers are behaving oddly anonymously in the outer solar system, which may be a variable-gravity related event:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624984.700

I suspect "space-time" may in the end turn out to be a mathematical related artifact, to replace the old "aether" idea. But more likely space is a gravity loaded affair, relational only in that it is perhaps a relative G, where time is a constant but gravity and lightspeed are variables. Don't know for now, however, so need to find evidence first.

Cheers, Ivan

Ivan,

I concur with your thoughts on space and time. The concept of the "aether has been around for a long time. My thougthts on the subject is that gravity is far more complex than simple constant as expressed by Newton and that gravity and light speed are likely to turn out to be variables rather than constants.

Sir Issac continued to probe the subject latter in life and and engaged in a number of experiments inlcuding alchemy and trying to find a code in the bible to explain the nature of space or in my terms the "fabric of the universe".

Sir Issac's investigations in this area have only recently come to light and offer some insite into one of the greatest minds the human race has ever produced

I have include an quote from {http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/74,http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/74} on this issue

(Newton) looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood.

He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia.

He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty—just as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibnitz.

By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate.

He did read the riddle of the heavens. And he believed that by the same powers of his introspective imagination he would read the riddle of the Godhead, the riddle of past and future events divinely fore-ordained, the riddle of the elements and their constitution from an original undifferentiated first matter, the riddle of health and of immortality. All would be revealed to him if only he could persevere to the end, uninterrupted, by himself, no one coming into the room, reading, copying, testing—all by himself, no interruption for God’s sake, no disclosure, no discordant breakings in or criticism, with fear and shrinking as he assailed these half-ordained, half-forbidden things, creeping back into the bosom of the Godhead as into his mother’s womb.

“Voyaging through strange seas of thought alone,” not as Charles Lamb, “a fellow who believed nothing unless it was as clear as the three sides of a triangle.”

Now I note that great mathmaticians and geometrists like Sir Issac had a tendency to be very secretive and that he had a habit of encrypting his most important work. It was a way of protecting his work in an era where there were no laws protecting intellectual property. I also notee Da Vinci did a similar thing by writing backwards.

In a seperate mater there has been speculation that Sir Issac when in charge of the mint coded mathmetical theorems into the Brittish Currency and other things under his control when he was in charge, like he encrypted his calculus. Intersesting to see what else turns up over the course of time as we explore the thoguths of the early greats of geomtery and mathmatics and his actions during his lifetime

ISOTROPIC UNIVERSE, and cosmic light redshift.

If my calculations are correct, using two separate methodologies (one derived today at Axiomatic Equation, see July 10, 2005 (and earlier derived on same page) posts June 19, 2005; Mar. 30, 2005; and June 3, 2004), to derive the gravitational value of G in 99.99% of deep space, then what does it mean for the "homogeneous and isotropic" universe postulated by Einstein's General Relativity? In both cases, the numbers worked out for G to be about five orders of magnitude greater than our Earth based G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2, both fairly close at ~1.0E-6 Nm^2 kg^-2. But what does gravity 100,000 times greater than we know here for most of deep space mean? Are what we know as the laws of physics here on Earth, and in our near solar system, invalid through the other 99.99% of space? And does it invalidate cosmic isotropy?

I think not, isotropy is still valid. But what it does mean is that most of the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a vastly different level than we had assumed. It means that the few atoms and molecules of the space "vacuum" are 100,000 times more massive then here, and hence light redshifts naturally as it passes through this greater gravity, as derived in today's work. Again, I don't know I have it right, but if it is, it changes cosmology in ways we had never figured before. For starters, there is no Doppler expansion of the universe. Redshift is a gravitational phenomenon, and we are looking isotropically in all directions at a universe that is homogeneous at a much greater G than what is experienced close to hot stars, or within galaxies. Second, if there is no expansion, then there never was the need for a Big Bang origin. What we are looking at is the universe as it is, except that it "appears" as if it were expanding per the Hubble Constant, and Einstein's General Relativity constant, because of this natural redshift. But it isn't, it merely is, and at some distant point, somewhere past 13 or 14 billion light years away, cosmic light had become so gravitationally redshifted we can no longer see it. Perhaps if we were located there at the margins, we could look into another 13 billion light years, but we don't know. It is neither static, nor accelerating, but our universe merely is, more steady state than anything else. By this, much of today's exotic cosmology is plain wrong. Third, the universe is a much more difficult place to travel with our current technology, which is essentially a kinetic push technology, because we will never accumulate enough power to get out there past the galaxy, if G is a hundred thousand times what it is here. The only way we could travel through this great G region, which is most of the cosmos, is to use gravity assist engines that can essentially "outrun" the intense gravity by using it, with velocities far in excess of anything we now imagine, and in excess of the light constant restriction given us by Einstein. In fact, just the opposite, because gravity is so intense out there, our velocities using an internal gravity assist engine would be greatly magnified, to where we will be able to travel (when the technology is developed, as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation) at velocities orders of magnitude above lightspeed. Lastly, we should not be ashamed if we had it wrong for the past hundred years, because we all have to take baby steps before we can run. But if this new vision of the universe is correct, we should be glad it is thus. This universe is infinitely old and infinitely large, and a far greater and richer place than the small constricted universe imagined to now. It is not only 13-14 billion years old, and not that many light years in any one direction, but vastly greater, to unimaginable dimensions. Also, the ideas of variable lengths and time are only observationally correct, when using light as the ruler of measure, but not in actuality. Time is what we define it to be, and length also. There is no esoteric astrophysical cosmology. It is really all pretty straightforward, and incredibly elegant because of it. We just happen to live in a light G "island" in space, same as all galaxies are "oasis" of light gravity within the very great isotropic homogeneous gravity of 99.99% of deep space.

I hope to continue working on these topics with better skills in the future, and make them more understandable. And if I am wrong, then I am wrong, no loss and no change. But if I am right, and these calculations eventually are proven correct, then our future cosmology will be not only simple to understand but potentially incredibly exciting, as we finally use that great force we had assumed to be merely so weak, that we can harness it to travel the stars.

Ivan

QUANTUM GRAVITY by Rolph Guthmann

This is an interesting idea tying together quantum and gravitational forces. Don't know if correct or not, but worth reading. More can be seen on link below, where a discussion dissects it rather well, though inconclusively.

(As posted on BABB, Against the Mainstream's "The Electromagnetic Paradox".)

Ivan

ISOTROPIC LAWS OF PHYSICS

It is presently believed that the laws of physics work isotropically throughout the universe, taken as a postulate. This must be assumed as true by definition, if "laws of physics" is to have its intended meaning. Should we find that it is not so, that laws of physics act differently for different regions of the universe, does not invalidate this premise. But it would mean that our laws of physics are incomplete, they would need to be redefined, so that they are isotropic universally. One such component of our laws of physics is gravity, where what is now believed, that Newton's G gravitational constant is universal, may need to be modified to allow for variability in different regions of space. Still, once this is identified and understood, formalized into equations that allow for such variability, and perhaps their spin offs on how electromagnetic energy acts in response to it, then the isotropic nature of our laws of physics will be once again reestablished. That is almost by definition, that we need to make our laws of physics universal if they are to be called "laws".

Ivan

Good reading here.

Checking back in... Thanks for the work on my questions. I'll be back to check in with the results of others, I have only questions, not answers!

For now I'm just a bill, living here on Capital Hill.

Maybe someday I could be a law!

Why m = 1, always:

The secret to why mass "m" is always equal to one: m = 1, is because when all gravitational effects are canceled out, all that remains is pure energy mass. This happens when gravity is zero, like the astronauts floating around in space, then all gravity is gone in that orbital condition, and m = 1. This is the same as in the Axiomatic's E = (1 - g)c^2, where m = (1-g), which means that when the gravitational function 'g' is zero, then m = 1, to become a total energy function only, with no gravitational energy remainder. Of course in the real universe, there is always some gravitational g remainder, so m is equal to one only in orbits, where all other forces are canceled out by gravitational equilibrium at orbital velocity.

The other reason, mathematical, why this works is that any number multiplied by its inverse fraction is equal to one (like n x 1/n = 1), with n from zero to n =>> infinity. Both ideas are related in E/c^2 = 1 (m).

Note that in Einstein's famous E = mc^2 the m is assumed as 1 kilogram of mass, so the answer to this equation is 90 petajoules, or E = 9E16 J. However, this masks the Equivalence Principle, because if m = 1, then you'd expect gravity to be at it's minimum by this definition; which is not the case. Rather, m is gravitationally defined as 1 kg on Earth, where g = 5.8E-39, and Newton's G is 6.67E-11 N/kg^2/s^2, so the Equivalence Principle is preservered. However, this masks the reality of mass, since it defines it not as an Energy function but as a gravitational one. And there is why Unification never happened. On the other hand, when m = 1, it means the amount of energy in this one kg/kg is complete, with no gravity remainder, if it were converted to pure Energy. Actually, this is something of a conundrum in Einstein's famous equation, because gravitationally, it violates the Equivalence Principle by treating gravitational-mass as one thing, and Energy-mass as another. It works better to assume m = 1 kg/kg, then this conundrum disappears. Unification is now possible, if gravitational-mass is opposed to Energy-mass.

BTW, as a friend of mine said to me recently, if G is not a universal constant, then a true unification theory of all the forces is possible, and likely. Incidentally, m = 1 is related to the Strong Force of g = 1, which times c^2 equals the total Energy of E, i.e., E = (1-g)c^2. When this happens (only inside a Black Hole where all ambient electromagnetic energy cancels, i.e., c^2 = 0) and g = 1, and E becomes zero. Then total gravity rules.

Not physics as we now know it, but as we will someday know it.

Ivan

E = MC^2 one hundred years later: Is that all there is?

This may yet remain the most misunderstood 'simple' equation, first theorized by J.J. Thomson - Olinto De Pretto, later adopted by Einstein, possibly with the help of his (first) wife, Mileva Maric. In fact, it is easily derived from momentum at light speed, where p = mc, and pc = E = mc^2... piece o' cake, easy as pi. The numeric answer is 90 petajoules, for 1 kg/kg mass (on Earth).

Today, they still think it is a simple radiation conversion of mass. Tsk tsk.

Ivan

As we sit here and ponder that question Ivan across this planet many societies are regressing from the world of pure mathmatics to a pesudo science of religon, magic and supersition largely because they can not grasp the complexity of the universe.

A case in point is the nation state of Iran which is raising a generation on cartoons of suicide bombers and terrorists that glorify that world view. Couple this to Tehran's recent actions to acquire nuclear weapons and purge of non-extrismist religous types and you see where they are heading.


As I wrestle with the concept of space time as it relates to geometry the more I understand why Dr. Nash and the other great geometrists down through the ages picked geometry. It is a pure subject where the proof is in black and white. Much like the truth. I suspect Einstein had the vision but needed insight to pull it together.
With De Pretti and Mileva Marics contributions he was able to develop that vision into a theory.

No great genius operates in a vacume, hence the old statement, "If I see so far it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".

I suspect one day that the contributions of De Pretti and Milveva Marics will be appropriately recognized.

Ed Chesky

E = mc^2 not Einstein's..?

This paper gives some reason for pause in hero worship. Granted, Relativity is a brilliant study of observational phenomena at near light velocity, but it is not more than that, an observational science. The universe is not relativistic if it is able to communicate within itself at above lightspeed, and perhaps instantaneously, so the v = c limitation, which in essence defines Special Relativity, does not exist. It is relevant to us humans, however, because to date we have no other source of energy that works at velocities greater than v = c. That is the Relativity contribution to science, and not how the universe or gravity work. Still, this does not detract from Albert's other brilliant works.

I'd note of special interest this by Poincare: (from the above paper by Herrmann):

“Poincar´e published in 1905 a note (followed by an extended memoir) on the dynamics of
the electron, containing the whole mathematics of special relativity” (14). Poincar´e makes
the following remarkable observation."

---

Quote:

If we accept the postulate of relativity [his postulate], we shall find that
among the laws of gravitation and the laws of electromagnetics there exists
a common number. It is the velocity of light. We shall find that it occurs in
all forces, of whatever origin, and it can only be explained in two ways: (1)
Either there exists nothing in the universe that is not of electromagnetic
origin; (2) or, this quantity, which is common to all physical phenomena,
appears only because it relates to our methods of measurement.

---

UNIFICATION is now possible:

See INFALLING posts from Oct. 1 - Nov. 23, 2005 at: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/145.html

There is discussed how light has momentum in p = mc. Mass is split in two: Energy-mass and gravitational-mass, per Equivalence Principle.

Ivan