Good call Wintermute11!

You are right to point out some of my failings, of which there are many.

RE "In his theory of General Relativity Einstein describes gravity not strong and weak forces."

Indeed, this is my error, in that I should have said "Quantum Mechanics" instead. I cannot substantiate others' claims, however, so do not know if these forces are valid or not, only that they had come under criticism, a suspicion that they may be superfluous to true understanding of physics, once it is truly understood.

RE "G2 = gc2 pi2"... this is the product of a million monkeys on a keyboard?.. I have no idea why these numbers play out, though as you point out, the dimensional values don't equate. I am aware of this, and have no further comment at this time.

RE "g = 5.9e-39", I had referenced the Hyperphysics page at:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html
which I believe have some illustrations to better explain. I did not dream this up, though it is not common usage as I understand it.

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

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

I do not know if today's modern physics is correct or not, and rather suspect that there is still great room to challenge conventional thinking, or what had been handed down to us for the past 100 years. If it were not so, then there would not be so many challenges to it today. But it offends the mind to think that physics, as it is taught in either Relativity or Quantum, is beyond normal understanding. The last time this happened was with Ptolemeic astronomy where cycles within cycles proved why the Earth is at the center of the solar system. So there is always room to question, to offer, to think, and to not be cowed by anyone's rigid ideas of what physics is about. That others had found fault with today's understanding should not be taken as an affront, but rather examined in the light within which it is offered, that there may be things we still do not know. And if so, then what we have come to understand thus far may need to be expanded further, or discarded. The truth will eventually emerge, for that is what good science is about.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers! C2

[Edited by Coppernicus2 on 07/23/03 at 04:11]
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

Spoken like a gentleman. Even though I disagree with you and may think you are completely insane.

I still haven't found where you came up with 5.9e-39. I looked at that page again and didn't find any reference to it, or the "G2 = gc2 pi2" reference.

Even they who are certifiably insane may imagine themselves sane... and vice versa.

The real question: Is the math as posited any good? And if it is, shouldn't we be looking for something we had never found, or even thought of finding? Is Gravity truly a universal force, or is it a locale-specific-variable force?

That is the question.

C2
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

No, your math is not any good. It doesn't make any sense. Particularly since you cannot say where you came up with some of the equations and numbers.

Consider this...
magnetism is a superb exaple of science in action, yet it is still so under explained. Everyone takes it as understood the fact that it attracts iron and its substrates,yet consider gravity as a simple magnetic field that not only attracts iron but other composite elementts including organic compounds. the problem is that we have yet to recoginise the other 'magnetic properties' of other mineral substances within the earth that make up the global magnetisms we call gravity. EG wood magnets etc.?

Wintermute11,

I updated the above post re the gravity constant I used in my "faulty" equation. It can be found at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

-for your info. Hope this makes more sense than before, though to date (other than disagreeing with my basic premises) I have yet to find out where the math fails.

Later, C2

Swashy,

Very good point, that magnetism is little understood, though it is universal. I suspect every atom has a magnetic component, even if it does not act like a bar magnet.
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

Gentlemen,

I've been working on this some more, so here is my effort at communicating something that makes so much sense to me, but to no one else! Sorry can't reproduce here the math notations, but I hope this is an easier read than before.

Cheers! C2
-------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

2. E = hc / L,

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

3. E = Em /(eomo)^1/2 ...really!

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

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

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

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

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

4. E = Em * c = hc/L (by substituting c = 1/(eomo)^1/2 ) = h/L(eomo)^1/2 = mc^2, all equal as Energy.

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

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

5. E energy = Em * c = h/L(eomo)^1/2 = (1-g)c^2 = Bm * c^2 .

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

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

* * * * *

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

(please refer to post at: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?84/108.html for clearer math notations)
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

I admire your tenacity and attempts to show irrefutable proof via math, but your math is still incorrect.

quote:

---

m = (zero mass) + Bm

---

Thanks for the quick feedback, Wintermute11.

In questioning the value of magnetic mass as being put at zero, you bring up a very important point, one over which I myself have agonized. Bm, as I understand this equation to read, is a magnetic potential, similar to work potential, which means it has to then be converted into a usable function. You will find Magnetic Potential Energy described at:
http://hyperphyscis.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magpot.html
and also at Magnetic Properties of Solids at:
http://hyperphyscis.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/magpr.html
where you will find the paramagnetic and diamagnetic properties described. All atoms have electrons, so all atoms exhibit some magnetic field, though mostly these electron generated magnetic moments are canceled out. You might also look at Magnetic Field Strength H at:
http://hyperphyscis.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfield.html
where B is described. As you can see, the units used can be Amperes/meter. If I understand this correctly, an ampere is also a force at a distance expressed in Newton's per meter, so that A/m = N/m^2. Now this brings the units of measure back into the meters, grams, and time function.

Regarding your question on how can mass be zero? Shouldn't it be in kilograms?

Firstly, kilograms, or grams, are a function of gravity, so that these are measured in terms of Earth's gravity, which means they are subject to the m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 function, except that we drop the meters and seconds and give it short hand: kg.

Second, in our everyday usage, we think of mass as weight and substance. But that is taking it from our physical experience perspective, like when a billiard ball jumps off the table and hits us in the head, we know it has mass. Mass as a function of gravity is another thing, since it has weight, as expressed by W = mg. And mass as a function of magnetism is still another, since there it either has stability or not. If there is magnetic stability, then the mass has close to zero magnetic susceptibility, which is how I envisioned m = zero, which is not always the case, since some mass will not be zero (which means the equation would have different computational results). That same zero mass, however, has a relative permeability (for paramagnetic and diamagnetic materials) of close to one. So this makes sense in how the equation plays out, that Bm = ~1, when mass = 0. For gravity mass, however, there we get m =1 and g =~close to zero (or 5.9e-39 as I selected).

You must understand that I am trying to find interpretation for what the math says, since I am not really sure that I understand magnetism and electricity well enough to explain it. However, the math is derived from stock equation off the shelf, so I did not make this up myself, but merely reorganized what had been lying around all this time. Then, once the equation is laid out, it becomes a matter of trying to understand what it means in the real world, as I tried explaining above. About the only thing I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence is that gravity will prove to be a variable dependent upon the local star energy source, where it will be stronger for mass in low energy stars, like neutron stars, and weaker for mass in high energy stars, like our own.

Does this explain equation #3 better? Ask if there are still questions, because I think the equation is correct, mathematically, though not sure totally what it means. This is why I asked for critique of the math, and not the physics. But that's okay! I'm glad for the challenge.

C2


__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

I'm not trying to insult you, but before you try to solve the mysteries of the universe, you should thoroughly study basic introductory physics. I don't mean looking at equations on a website and trying to find meaning in them. Read an intro physics text book, and solve the problems and questions. Understand the concepts behind the math before you try to use the math to prove your theory. Most of your assumptions are incorrect and would easily be fixed if you built a good foundation of knowledge before continuing onto something more advanced.

One of your statements was incorrect and the first couple chapters of any high school physics book would correct it.

quote:

---

we think of mass as weight and substance...Mass as a function of gravity is another thing, since it has weight, as expressed by W = mg

---