Wintermute11, and all,

Not for me to force anyone to agree with me, either they do or they don't. I suspect most don't, so leave I leave it at that, until we get confirmation that gravity is not a universal constant. Then, the equation may be reexamined, and perhaps even vindicated, by fact.

As it stands now, it is only a lovely curiosity, which combines five algorithmic functions into a unified string of equations, so that any two functions can be equalled to find the values needed. It would also appear that lambda is the controlling element here, so that each star, or deep space, should have a lambda signature which defines what its Energy will be, as well as what the other variable-constants will be. By this reasoning, different stars or galaxies will have different dominant energy functions, which would also mean that even Planck's constant, 6.626e-34, is only a Sun/Earth specific constant, along with gravity, and which may be different somewhere else. Per this axiomatic equation, only lightspeed and mass are constants. So if this proves right in the end, we will have an important tool with which to measure these variables in relation to the local energy source, or lack thereof.

Naturally, if this equation proves correct, it changes what we now understand as physics, especially the physics of cosmology. We might even have to rewrite some school books. It would thus mean that space itself has energy, and that this energy may someday be tapped into in a kind of applied "casimir" force manner. Should this happen, we would have an energy source that is inherently universal and exponential, so that to use this, as opposed to using electromagnetic energy, would let us harness continuously accelerating thrust, or more correctly, pull. That is why this equation is potentially so important. But for now, let it be an interesting curiosity, a toy (one that most kids will step on!), and be amused by its obvious insanity. If it is genius, surely it is not mine!

So I rest curious, and amused.

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.

Radrook,

In fact, both magnetism and gravity answer to the inverse square law, and both stretch to infinity. The reason a metal paper clip will be picked up by a magnet is because of its close proximity to it, maybe a centimeter or two. But above that, the Earth's gravity wins again, and the paper clip stays firmly planted on the desk. I also know this to be fact because when my fridge magnets are more than a fraction of a centimeter away, they fall off!

My equation's thesis is that these relationships are not universally uniform, so that there may be a different magnetism to gravity effect on another star, for example, if the star's energy output is different from our sun's. By that same reasoning, the gravity in deep space would be greater than it magnetic equivalent, so that out there, the paper clip may stay firmly planted on the same desk even when a magnet is only a fraction of a centimeter away. Of course, out in space, it is all relative, since if there is no planetary body on which to rest the desk, the example makes no sense. However, spin and other factors of matter attraction would indicate heavier gravity there, and perhaps lower magnetism. Anyway, something to think about.

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.

Wintermute11, and all,

I wish to thank you for the feedback on my contentious equation for Energy. I posted it here on this forum as a kind of trial balloon, to see how others might respond. Needless to say, the response has not been overly supportive. So for now I would tuck it away into the hatband and leave it for a future when we find evidence of gravitational variability in space. Until then, like a good detective, I will continue to search for evidence, either mathematical or physical observation.


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

Em / Bm = c equation,

which can also be expressed as:

Em = Bm * c = h / L,

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

This also means that Bm = h /L /c = h /Lc = ~1, as it does in the original, as it computes out:

Em x 2.998e8 m.s-1 = 6.626e-34 m2.kg.s-1 x 2.998e8 m.s-1 / 2.2087e-42 m.s = (Bm) 8.99e16 m2.s-2 = (1 - 5.9e-39 kg.s-1) x 8.99e16 m2.s-2 = ~8.99e16 m2.kg.s-3 = Energy, in Joules per second, or Watts.

So all that is missing:

Electric force = Em = ~2.998e8 m.kg.s-2, which is Joules per meter, or the Newton force, and:

Magnetic potential = Bm = ~1 x kg.s-1, which is Newtons per meter per second, or Joules per meter squared per second, to complete the dimensional values for the equation.

Em. c = h/L(eomo)1/2 = (Bm)c2 = (1-g)c2 = E energy

... which is all ... E = mc2.


Don't know if this helps none, but really cannot think of any more ways to explain it. It may be that in saying "magnetic potential" I am throwing it off, and that it should read "magnetic permeability" instead. But these are technicalities easily fixed, not so with the basic premises which lead to the conclusion, which can be fixed only with real observation and the known physics, or observationally from a new physics. That this equation challenges the known physics is a given, not to discard what is known, but to leave open possibility that some things will need to be updated, should the equation prove true.

Thanks again to all,

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.

Again, you need to read a basic physics text book. The "E" in your first equation does not represent the same "E" as in your second equation. In E/B=c, E is electric field in Volts per meter. In E=hc/L, E is energy in Joules. You can't substitute one for the other because they do not represent the same thing. You need to understand what these equations represent before you try using them to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Wintermute11,

You obviously know more physics than I do, not having been a student for many years, nay decades! So help me out here.

As I understand the SI Base Units, Joules are in Newtons times meters: J = N*m, and Amperes are in Newtons per meter: A = N/m, so that in the Axiomatic Equation, Em is an Electric value (not E = Energy), which works out to be in Joules per meter, which is also the Newton force. Now, am I correct in saying that if (per my equation) Em = J/m = N (m.kg.s^-2), and Amperes in Newtons is A = N/m, then Em can also be expressed in Joules, or Newtons, or Amperes?

It's all electromagnetic energy! Why should the fact that we use different units of measure change that? There is always convertibility to universal units. This should not be a big problem. Why should the energy going into h/cL be different from the energy going into Em/Bm =c? They're ALL energy. (Please note I am careful not to confuse Em and E energy.) Perhaps this alone is why physics books, especially at the elementary levels, should be changed, so that these are no longer such a mystery. If we use different measures, they MUST in the end all convert back into universal units, or else it is bunk.

Now, electron volts are expressed in Joules. Electric current is expressed in Amperes (Joules per meters squared), which is also a function in Joules. I do not know why this should be a major problem, since all these values are convertible into meters, kilograms, and time, as they should to be universal. The way the equation works out, Em is in Joules per meter. However, Em is NOT equal to E, the two are related only as the equation allows, which is: Em * c = E, as per my post above.

The final Energy value of E is: m^2.kg.s^-3, which is Joules per second, or Watts.

I hope this makes more sense, but I am not as well versed in this as you are, so will need your help on some of this. The fact that the equation works out into the units it does is merely a function of how the components come together mathematically. But they are ALL energy.

C2

For reference, if anyone would like to check the above:
SI Base Units: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
__________________
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.

In physics, we use mathematics as a language. Every equation can be stated in English, but we use mathematics because it's much more difficult to get lost in semantics and to be misunderstood. Not one of the equations or units you just quoted were correct.

It's as if you're trying to speak a language like Spanish by just randomly throwing out menu items from Taco Bell, expecting all of us to understand that you're quoting the complete works of William Shakespeare. When somebody explains to you that you just ordered a chicken fajita, you proudly claim that the menu just hasn't caught up to your interpretation, and that we will soon see that it is in fact the complete works of William Shakespeare.

If you're going to try to use the language of mathematics to prove and explain your theories, you need to learn how to properly speak the language first.

Wintermute11,

RE "Not one of the equations or units you just quoted were correct."

I copied all of the units off the government page referenced above on SI Base Units. You might like to contact them and correct their errors, if you think they are totally wrong.

Okay, here's another curiosity:

c = Em/Bm = 1/(eomo)^1/2 = (E/m)^1/2 = EL/h = 2.998e^8 m.s^-1 = ???

So what have we here? Is this "alphabet soup"? Or is it simply how beautiful and elegant is our universe? Do you really know, even in today's centennial year of Relativity? Is it not all electromagnetic energy expressed as light speed? Or will we have to wait for history to be our judge?

The Romantic poets believed Truth = Beauty, and Beauty = Truth. I have no problem with the prior, but have doubts about the latter. In fact, Beauty, like camouflage, may have a way of deceiving. Is the Axiomatic Equation true? I don't know.... Physics is not all knowing, so sometimes it is just like that, beautiful, but a curiostiy where some is still unknown. I am glad to let history be the judge.

All the best of luck to you.

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.

Radrook,

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your engaging thoughts.

C2


__________________
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 matter what we may think about it, the final equation = Survival.

Ever eat a lavish meal spread in a dream? Did you wake up full, and then skipped breakfast? Reality is real, or we die.



[Edited by Coppernicus2 on 08/01/03 at 02:57]
__________________
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.

Evolution of humans as a conscious species means we must dream, and believe, and speculate, and risk error. None may take that away from us without damaging our humanity, even if what we are dreaming risks failure. It is Who we are. That is the legacy given to us by our universe, that we must dream same as It Dreams and join in with its Life, Creation, God, Infinity, Consciousness... and in final summation (small "s") Wo-Man, Dolphin, Elephant, Raven, Wolf-Dog, Horse, Octopus, Whale, Toucan, or cousins in the simian world... perhaps down to the most elemental life and bacteria. How do we measure what is sleep, what is dreaming?

C2

[Edited by Coppernicus2 on 08/09/03 at 01:18]
__________________
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.