This thread is a summus of ideas generated thus far by the TOE threads. I envision more work on this, but post the paper that describes work done to date, with references to our earlier discussions.

Ivan

ALGORITHMS:
Using the basic (0 x infinity) = 1 , model for TOE, let us apply known quantities to this general formula, and let us further assume that "m" is equivalent to "1", and that the photon "fo" is set as a function of the speed of light, at "1/c2". The infiniton "I" is still unknown.

This would translate (0 x infinity) = 1 into the basic model [ fo x I = m ].

Now, if we take photon energy to be set here at the "zero", and thus "1/c2" [or the inverse of the speed of light squared], and the "infinity" value set at "E", to represent the infiniton, which is as yet undefined, then we can easily see that this coincides with the famous E=mc2. Or, to put it differently: 1/c2 x E = m, which is how we structured the algorithm above.

Now, the "E" value is what needs to be determined to satisfy this equation, not as only an equation of "electromagnetic energy", which E=mc2 describes, but also as an equation that incorporates the gravity energies of G, the universal gravity constant, and of the still unknown "infiniton" strong force. So this is where it stands thus far, to convert what is essentially a formula of energy-only into a formula that incorporates the Strong Force of nuclear gravity as the infiniton, or "I".

However, to satisfy the condition stated above that gravity, the G constant, is a left over product of the (fo x I = m) interaction, then I would subtract it from the result of m. Therefore, I would restate the basic formula above as follows:
1/c2 x E = m-g

where "-g" takes the place of "G" since it is not a primary force but merely "left over" from the interaction within the atom (which is shown as negative because it is what is "missing" from the atom). Now, we could be further illustrated by showing that "E" within the equation is replaced with "mc2", so that we have [1/c2 x mc2 = m (-g)], which then (by bringing 1/c2 over to m) breaks down to mc2=mc2, which is =E.

So we are thus left with the formula: 1/c2 x I = m-g, for now... and we are looking for a value of "E" which expresses and approximates the Strong Force of "I".

For more info on TOE see: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html


Using ordinary language, we have taken the idea of an infinitesimal 'zero' interacting with an 'infinite' force to equal a unity of 'one'. This was first expressed as (zero x infinity = 1), which was then substituted with a value for the photon, as 1/c2, or one divided by the speed of light squared, and some value for what I called the 'infiniton' which is a very large 'strong force', which if expressed within the E=mc2 equation with m=1, yields 1/c2 x 1 x c2 = 1, which is a truism. We then further substituted c2 with some 'unknown' value and added the weak force of gravity, with gravity being the left over byproduct of this interaction, to complete the 'little TOE', so that bringing over the g, it now looks like this: 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m.
If we set m = 1, as per our original definition of mass equal to a unity, then the equation becomes:

1/c2 x E(?) + g = m = 1, where it now stands.

So in ordinary language, we are interacting the photon, as represented by 1/c2, and the infiniton, as still undefined, to equal mass.

Now, if we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum, we get:
pc = [E^2-m2c4]1/2, where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c2 ). This breaks down into pc ~ E, which at a velocity as a fraction of c becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see referenced URL above), where 'w' is wavelength (I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally: E = ch/w.

So now we have a possible value for E(?) above. I'm not totally happy with this because it does not seem to fit into the mental image I have of the infiniton, but let's take it to the next step to see where it goes. So if we substitute the E value in 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m above, the we get: [1/c2 x ch/w] + g = m. This is then further simplified by multiplying out 'c' into: h/cw + g = m.

LIGHT PHOTON WAVELENGTH FOR TOE

I have worked out the math for the TOE as I had posited in the above posts, and have computed what is the wavelength of the photons to satisfy the algorithm derived from E=mc2, as being approximately 2.2087 x 10^-42 m. !!!!. By using Planck's constant "h" of 6.626 x 10^-34, and using "C" as 3 x 10^8 m/s, I come up with the photon wavelength [to satisfy the TOE formula of (h/cw) + g = 1 = m] as "w" is 2.2087 x 10^-42 m.

This is an extremely small wavelength, if you consider that visible light has a wavelength of approximately 6 x 10^-7 m, and microwaves are about 3 x 10^-2 m, and FM radio is about 3 m (or 10 feet long), then you can appreciate how small the energy wavelength must be to satisfy the algorithm (as it works out restating Einstein's famous formula with the philosophical concept of zero x infinity = One). But this is the "magic" photonic light wavelength, for our solar system, that neutralizes the extremely powerful gravity force within the atom, which is far greater than the so called Strong force. (It may be that this deep force works out to be approximately x10^39(+or-) times mass as measured on Earth, but I don't know yet.) I suspect we would find this same deep gravity in a black hole star, if such exists. Deep space would not be quite this heavy, however, for it receives a great deal of diffused light from all the solar and galaxy sources spread through the cosmos.

BLACK HOLE STAR ALGORITHM:

This is an addendum to the above post figuring the wavelength necessary to satisfy E=mc^2 in our solar system.

In having rewritten this famous formula as E/c^2=m, we then substituted the E with pc=hc/w, which yields the formula now expressed as (1/c^2 ) x (hc/w) = m, (where w is wavelength and h is Planck's constant, m is mass, c is light speed ), which further reduces to h/cw=m. We than added in the remainder g as the gravitation difference from this force, which is expressed as 10^-39, to complete the atom's unit of 1=m. So the complete algorithm now looks like this: h/cw + g = m =1. This is the basic algorithm of this TOE as derived from E=mc^2.

Now, we then take the following values to compute the algorithm:

h=6.626x10^-34
c=3x10^8 m/s
w=2.2087x10^-42 m, which is also (1x10^50 Hz), an extremely high number!
g=10^-39
m=1

So the resulting values as per the algorithm above become:

[(6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)x(2.2087x10^-42)] + (10^-39) = 1, which further computes to be: [(6.626x10^-34)/(6.6261x10^-34)] + (10^-39) = 1.

These are the normal values of the TOE algorithm for mass and gravity in the vicinity of our solar system, where gravity is a very weak force. But look at what happens if you redshift light to the max, by stretching it out the light wavelength from its extreme frequency to be nearly equal to the distance light travels in one second, i.e., w=0.333x10^8 m. Then you get:

(3x10^8 m/s)@(.0333x10^8 m) = ~1; (however, what this represents really is = 1 (w), since the wave and the distance are equal); so that now the denominator of (h/cw) becomes approximately (~) equal to 1, so that TOE looks like this: h/~1 + g = m=1.

However, if the value of cw is 1, and the numerator h remains Planck's constant, then for the equation to remain equal to one, which is the atomic unit, this means the g constant would have to increase to a level of [1 - (10^-39)], which means, for all practical purposes, it comes in value very close to being 1. (And that is significant also because it so happens that the so called Strong force = 1.)

So if the photon energy is stretched out to being such as a light wave multiplied by its velocity equals 1, in essence a flat wave, then the resulting gravity, which is the remainder force, grows to be almost equal to 1. So, if g=10^-39 in our solar system, out where the light wave is stretched out to where it is equal to 1w/s, then the gravity reaches a maximum value of nearly 1, which is (1x10^39) times greater than the gravity we experience in our solar system. (This is the result of (10^-39)x(10^39)=1.)

Think what this means! If light is stretched out to where in essence it no longer has a wavelength, since it cycles as fast as it travels to be equal to itself, then it ceases to exist, and there is maximum gravity, according to this TOE algorithm. This, I declare, is the gravity to be found inside a Black Hole star. (It is also coincidence that the present convention in physics has the atomic Strong force equal to 1.)

So now we have another clue: Light inside a Black Hole star has no frequency.

In theory, if it were possible to see light coming from the other side of a Black Hole, it would disappear when it reached it, for its wavelength would be negated into nothingness so that it ceases to be light. However, there is no known way of doing this, since one would expect that the "gravitational lens" around the galaxy's Black Hole would bend most of it around so that it would escape from falling in. Though there will be light lost inside the Black Hole, we will not be able to see it.

Therefore, this is the second clue to test TOE's algorithm as here posited, that light disappears when its frequency is stretched to a value of 1. The first is that gravity intensifies when out in deep space away from a star or galaxy system. I should note here that the gravity intensity effect of being away from a star system will be smaller, whereas being away from a galaxy system the effect will be greater, since the galaxy's photonic energy would still dominate in between the star systems which are part of it. I would also guess that outside the galaxy, this gravity intensity would still be moderated by the photonic energy released by the billions of galaxies in the cosmos, so even there the gravitational strength will never reach Black Hole proportions. The question remaining then is why Black Holes? How do they come into being? What is it about them that flattens out the light wave to being neutralized of its ability to form mass?

It would seem obvious that at light wavelengths greater than 2.2087x10^-42, but less than 1, the gravity would be greater than what we experience on Earth, but less than what is total Gravity in the Black Hole star. By the same reasoning, light wavelength shorter than experienced in our solar system, i.e., of greater frequency, would also mean the Gravity force would be commensurately less. But how do you achieve this?

The last question: Is our sun capable of producing photonic light only at the starting range of 10x^-42 ? Are there stars that produce either greater or lesser light waves? So here is a third possible clue: Are there stars which produce light waves starting at wavelengths different from those of our sun?

However, since we cannot measure energy waves below those of gamma rays, which are about (3x10^-10) , we are left in the dark. But it can also mean this universe is one hell of a mathematician!

Theoretical Propulsion based on new TOE:

If we could theorize that light and gravity are interactive, supposing this is actually so, then why could this interactive force not be used for propulsion? The unknowns are still many. For example, at what light wave frequency does the atom's deep gravity respond? Why do atoms become agitated when exposed to light energy? Is the existing atom already in such equilibrium that there is no way to influence it further, or not? But if so, at what point does this equilibrium shift? Can this possible shift in the atom's equilibrium be used as a force, one that moves the atom? Why is an electron given off when a photon is absorbed by the atom, and reabsorbed when the photon is released? These are the questions going through my mind. So many 'whys'!

According to this TOE, I see the atom as a manifestation of forces that interact, which in turn activates forces that energize it. There is probably no such thing as an atom at rest, even at zero Kelvin. There is always an energy/activity relationship within the atom, and subsequently molecules, and then matter. Given enough energy, the atoms separate, or sublimate, or even break apart as in a nuclear reaction. So there is much within the atom that is highly energetic, for if not, then it reverts back to being what it was before its creation, a miniature black hole. This is how my mind sees it. The questions that keep coming up, again assuming this is some approximation of what actually happens in the atom, is then: What part does light energy frequency play in this activity?

I suspect that the universe has created all the atoms it needs. What I mean by this is that the potential for filling up those little miniature black holes has already taken place. Why would the universe have a myriad zillion gazillion black holes that then filled with light to become atoms? Don't know. But they are here, all filled in nicely with light to make them into units of mass, atoms. So then, all that exists does, and new matter is not created, to our knowledge. But of the matter that exists, all is in motion. This is important, that motion exists either because matter is ejected from solar sources, or due to the pull of gravity, or because it is bumped by more matter. This last, that matter is bumped, is how we use propulsion today. All our mechanisms are due to force applied either mechanically or electromagnetically to cause motion. As the propeller spins, it bumps against the atoms of water or air. A billiard ball moves when the energy from another billiard ball strikes it, and thus exchanges its force into the one that is struck, so that it now moves. Inside a rocket motor, the molecules ejected under the force of the explosion pushes on the walls of the engine. But the motion inside an electric motor is already different, for it is due to the electromagnetic field activation's movement from one pole to its opposite pole, so that motion results. Magnets create motion without bumping. Also, when I rub a plastic wand, it creates motion by satisfying the electromagnetic/static force when a piece of paper is lifted. So we already have means of creating motion using forces other than being bumped, but what happens that causes this other kind of motion?

Gravity induced motion is, according to this TOE, due to the pull by one gravitational field on another. If gravity is the unsatisfied portion of deep gravity within the atom, it wants to combine with the unsatisfied deep gravity of another atom. Hence, when light energy interacts with the deep force within the atom, it does not satisfy it completely, and something is left over, which becomes the gravity we observe. However, what if there was a way to satisfy this gravity deficit with more light? Can we alter how atoms attract gravitationally by either adding more light energy, or subtracting it somehow? Would a kind of light energy shield make the atoms 'heavier', whereas an overabundance of light energy make them 'lighter'? And if so, then would this not of necessity create an alteration to the normal motion we presently observe? For example, if I apply this light energy from a given direction, as opposed to any other direction, would it not result in motion? This is what is so enticing about this idea, that we can duplicate motion internally, within the atom, rather than bumping against it. I suspect we already do this, though we do not think of it this way, when we use electric motors, or magnets, or as evidenced by the pull of static electricity.

So we may be already using the principle of affecting the atom from within, when we use electromagnetic forces. It is already evident as motion when mass is drawn gravitationally, though we have not found any way to control this. But now may exist a theoretical possibility of affecting mass internally, in the same way gravity affects it, by manipulating the energy the atom absorbs. Think of the molecular activity within a common household microwave oven. Of course, we only use this to heat food, but the energy that excites the atoms, that which heats them up, is a light energy form, though in the microwave range and not visible to the eye. It is this kind of energy I suspect affects the atom from within, that which is of the very short wave range, though we also know long waves, such as infrared, also affect the atoms. So what should we be looking for?

I think we need to better understand how the various wavelengths of energy affect atoms. This is research that is ongoing, especially as it applies to laser light. But it is not focussed on atomic motion, rather on the photon itself. If we were to focus on how these photons interact within the atom, I think we may come one step closer to being able to duplicate a gravitational variant. And if we do this, then we are on our way to a new form of propulsion, not by bumping into things, but by moving them from within their atomic structure. And that would be a giant leap forward for science, as well as for how human beings travel in the future.

GRAVITY VARIANCE TEST

I think I figured out a way to test if there is an increase of gravity outside the solar system. It came to me intuitively, but when I did the math, it worked. If gravity for the same equal mass increases, then the spin velocity increases with it. I did this by using the formula for rotational spin and force:

F (centripetal) = mv^2/r (see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf )

then I also reworked this equation for v, rotational velocity:

v = (Fr/m)^1/2 , which is square root of Fr/m.

If I took an example, say m = 1, r = 5, v = 10, then my result is F = 20.

Now, if I kept mass the same, radius the same, but increased Force, for example:

F1 = 1 = 20
F2 = 1.1 = 22
F3 = 1.2 = 24 etc.

The results I get from figuring out spin velocity are, as per above:

v1 = 10
v2 = 10.49
v3 = 10.95 etc.

What does this mean? It means that if Gravity is not constant, except as described within a star system, but that by leaving the star system it begins to increase, meaning F increases, so that there is increased centripetal force on the body, then spin increases with it. The space probes being very small and not massive, this effect will be minute, but even an increase of one millimeter per day would bear this out.

Therefore, here we have a very simple test for whether or not gravity is constant outside the solar system. If our deep space probes begin to spin more as they go past Pluto, then here is our answer, that gravity is increasing. Something worth watching for, I would think.

WHY THERE ARE BLACK HOLES:

When you think of all the events taking place at the center of a spiral galaxy, given the algorithm above, the Black Hole center is almost a given.

A list of the events at the galaxy center: First, you have the axis of spin, which in itself has no centrifugal or centripetal force, so it is neutral. Second, you have all the residual gravity from all the stars in the arms of the spiral converging on the center axis, so there they are bunched up from all directions of the spiral wheel, like spokes converging on the center. Third, you have the gyroscopic event, where the energy of the spinning galaxy is transferred as torque up the axis, so there is precession force there. Fourth, and this is the most interesting one, you have all that light energy converging on this one spot at the center, so that all the electromagnetic waves of all frequencies, from all the billions of stars, converge on the axis of the galaxy.

Now, this last is important, because it will employ the TOE as presented above, as the cause for the near infinite gravity there.

What happens to waves when they meet? Do they not either cancel out or amplify? I suggest that the electromagnetic waves coming in from all directions of the galaxy spiral arms converge at the axis, so there they either amplify each other, or negate each other. So you have the phenomenon where some waves are taking on huge amplitudes, which likely are thrown out into space along the axis, while others waves flatten out completely. The waves that get thrown out should show up as some form of axial energy perpendicular to the spiral arms of the galaxy. But the waves that flatten out become responsible for a gravitational increase which, to hold together such a large spinning mass, increases to those infinite like proportions of a super Strong force. So, thus, the galaxy is a self contained, electromagnetic and gravitational system, that holds together in perpetuity as the forces that would implode it are counterbalanced by the forces that would tear it apart. And this is why there are black hole stars at the center of spiral galaxies.

It would take a super computer to demonstrate all these forces at work, but I do think it is doable, and it will show up. In TOE as presented, the photon energy wavelengths being flattened, as per h/wc + g = m, then create maximum gravity at the center: the Black Hole from which no light can escape, because there it is totally neutralized and gravity intensified to the max.

By Ivan A. on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:26 pm:
"BLACK HOLE" KITCHEN EXPERIMENT:

Looking up at our Milky Way galaxy inspired me to try a kitchen experiment in physics to simulate wave energy from around a galaxy. The goal was to see what happens to energy waves coming together from a circumference into the center, same as would happen to light energy coming from around the galactic spiral into its center.

I filled a round black bowl with water and applied against the rim a vibrating device to stimulate waves in the water. (I chose black so as to more easily see the waves against the dark background.) As expected, the rim was teeming with energy waves, which uniformly radiated in perfect concentric circles towards the center of the bowl. There, to my pleasant surprise, the waves came together into a nipple that stood out, as I expected in my mind's eye. This demonstrated how the waves bunched up at the center, coming uniformly from all directions of the perimeter, so that they canceled out to rise above the surface in amplitude. Surprisingly, there were not waves returning from the center, so that all were absorbed there.

Taking these results into the cosmos, it would seem that the radiating energy from all the stars of a galaxy, radiating inward towards the galactic center, and outwards towards the rim where they dissipate into space, would cause a bunching up of wave energy at the center, where they cancel out. This would therefore express itself either as flattened out waves, or waves of greater amplitude. Based on the gravity effect of photon energy waves when they are stretched out, or flattened, the result should be an increase in gravity at the center of the galaxy. (See post above, TOE-3: By Ivan A. on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 07:47 pm: WHY THERE ARE BLACK HOLES; also Aug. 15, Black Hole Algorithm.) The high amplitude waves would represent a deflected energy that would be perpendicular to the galactic spiral, but ineffectual on the circumference of the galactic wheel. What then results is that the light energy waves at the galactic center are neutralized and thus cease to function as the energy wavelength needed to simulate mass. With this failure to simulate mass, the galactic center reverts back to the primordial force of gravity in its most intense form, thus resulting in what is theorized as being a Black Hole.

[Please note the "Gravity Variance Test" equation (posted above, 8/25/02) for centripetal force, F = mv^2/r, may be used to calculate a galactic black hole’s gravitational force (F), if it could be estimated as to total galactic mass (m), and radius (r), and spiral velocity (v).]

The kitchen experiment yields the desired results to bear this theory out, but to be truly pure, it would need to be performed in a totally spherical bowl, which I did not have, so that all the waves generated come into the center from all areas of the circumference. I settled for the experiment as performed because I figured the water surface simulated the flattened spiral of a galaxy, such as the Milky Way in which we live.

GRAVITY BUBBLES?

I've been reading "Theories of Everything" (John D. Barrow) with limited enthusiasm, since it is a rehash of all written prior to it (1991) and hinges on BBT, which makes it immediately a candidate for the "Reject!" bin. However, while plodding through it, my mind did have some interesting diversions into what may be happening far out in space. Here is what it looks like...

Imagine that all of space is made up of a positively charged gravity which is superdense, super heavy, like the kind you find in neutron stars or black holes. Now imagine that within this infinite sea of superdensepositivegravity are islands of energy, stars and galaxies, that radiate electromagnetic waves (which are both plus and minus by definition), and that these waves modify the affected space around them to some point of mutual cancellation (where it becomes deep space again), and that inside these light islands the superdensegravity is modified into a much lighter version of itself, which is negatively charged. Now imagine that these islands of light gravity within the dense gravity of space move about (not BBT and redshift defined expanding universe, which is bull), so that they are more or less evenly spaced away from each other though clumped in areas as well. In effect, it is a near random distribution of light islands of gravity within a sea of dense gravity. Because the light islands have a negative charge, they tend to repel each other, so this appears almost to be a push gravity. However, it is not push gravity, unless one considers that light gravity bubbles within a dense gravity medium of space might have these bubbles repel each other; but this is bubble gravity with a charge. So this would be why galaxies and stars do not collide on a regular basis, though they can, especially if their black hole centers attract each other enough to do so, as they pass each other within the superdenseplusgravity medium.

HARMONY OF ATOMS AND PARTICLES.

Below is the link to an excellent paper by Ray Tomes, titled "Harmonic Theory: Atoms and Particles", dated 1 Dec. 1994:

http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt109.htm

In the article, which shows the harmonic relations between particles mass, as well as particles and nucleus mass, Mr. Tomes writes:

"To see this from a harmonics perspective, it is necessary to not see a nucleus as made of baryons, but to see it as a frequency which is so many times a baryon. It is also some number of times a variety of other particles, including an electron. These relationships are important, and if it were not for the existence of charge, I would say that some nuclei are as fundamental as a proton. I am trying to have people see that all these things are oscillations, and that a small number of sub-atomic particles are NOT the building blocks of the universe."

He then goes on to say: "The relationship electron x 68 = 34.76 Mev x 27 = proton indicates the possible existence of a particle mass 34.76 Mev. No such particle has ever been detected to my knowledge."

I would add my idea to this, that there may be some harmonic ratio between photonic light energy wavelength/frequencies and the particle mass/atomic mass relationships, which bring the two fields of inquiry together. The goal of this inquiry is to find the relationships that cause light to modify mass and gravity.

In the TOE as presented above, all cosmic reality is a super dense heavy Gravity, such as approximates the Strong Force within the nucleus, or the supergravity within a Black Hole, which is the "medium" within which photonic energy of all frequencies act as "modifiers" to this medium so that the atomic mass values, and thus gravity values, are stabilized within star and galactic systems, though not so in deep space where gravity would be expected to be of greater density. This is based on the TOE algorithm: h/cw + g = m = 1 (h=Planck's constant, c=light speed, w=light wavelength, g=gravitational constant, m=mass), and may explain the illusive "dark matter" plaguing astrophysics. (The missing mass of dark matter would be the higher density gravity of deep space, if such is proven.) From this theory we can surmise that the initial light wavelength for our star, the Sun, is 2.2087 x 10^-42 m, and thus from this results the relatively "light" gravity inside our solar system, which is g=10^-39. This may not be true for other stars, so that their relative gravity constants may be different, depending upon what light frequencies they generate. If so, g may have different values for different star systems, or galaxies. This would also explain the very "heavy" gravity around neutron stars, those which have cooled to where the energy generated by them is of longer wavelength than those of more active stars, and thus not as able to modify the Gravity medium. This explains their more dense gravity. It also explains why there is total Gravity within Black Holes, since there light frequencies are totally flattened out and have no modifying effect on atomic mass. This is where the TOE stands at present. What is sought after is "how" these light wavelength frequencies affect the internal composition/electromagnetic interactions within the atom, which is the topic of our next search. Harmonic theory may play a part in this search, in particular as it interrelates to electromagnetism and the 1/137 relationship of electron to proton, or 1/alpha.

Any thoughts on these harmonic relationships within the atom mass may lead us to where we need to go.

ELECTRON "HARMONICS" FOR HYDROGEN ©
by Ivan Alexander

Gentlemen, I think I got it. I did the calculations for relative electromagnetic energy wavelengths "w" (I don't have a lambda key) for the quantum shells of a Hydrogen atom. The ratios, derived from dividing the wavelength of the higher shell by the shell immediately below it, approximate Pythagorean harmonics, in reverse order, so that the largest number is for when the electron jumps from shell 5 to 4, which approximates the harmonic ratio of 2, "do"; (for lower shells, 3, 2, 1, the ratio results exceed 2); and the lowest approximates 1.33, "4/3", which is "fa" as it jumps from 12 to 11. I did not find it coming all the way down to 1, though it tends that way. Below are the calculations as derived from "Hydrogen energies and spectrum" on the Hyperphysics page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c4 , which has a calculator built in.

Music harmonics as derived by Pythagoras, as shown by Ray Tomes in his paper "Harmonics, Music, Pythagoras and the Universe": http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~ray.tomes/alex.htm :

do= 1
re= 9/8 = 1.125
mi= 5/4 = 1.25
fa= 4/3 = 1.333
so= 3/2 = 1.5
la= 5/3 = 1.666
ti= 15/8 = 1.875
do= 2

Electron shells, "n", in declining order (n2-n1), and their lambda wavelengths "w" in nanometers "nm", all for atomic number "1":

n2-n1 = (12-11) = 69034 nm (i.e., 6.9034 x 10^-5 m), or 4.35 x 10^13 Hz.
* = (11-10) = 52506 (5.2506 x 10^-5 m)
* = 10-9 = 38848 (3.8848 x 10^-5 m)
* = 9-8 = 27788
* = 8-7 = 19051
* = 7-6 = 12365 (1.2365 x 10^-5 m)
* = 6-5 = 7456 (7.456 x 10^-6 m) Note the waves are getting smaller.
* = 5-4 = 4050 (4.050 x 10^-6 m)
* = 4-3 = 1875
* = 3-2 = 656 (6.56 x 10^-7 m) The energy waves get smaller still, as we approach nucleus.
* = 2-1 = 122 (1.22 x 10^-7 m) Very high frequency here, 2.459 x 10^15 Hz!!
(I suspect that if we were to calculate the 1-0 shell's energy, it would be much higher still.)

Okay, so now we know what the transition "lambda wavelengths" are for each electron jump to a lower shell. Now, if you divide each of these wavelengths by the lower shell's, successively, you will get ratios which look like this:

(3-2)/(2-1) = 5.38 (i.e., 656 divided by 122)
(4-3)/3-2) = 2.86
(5-4)/(4/3) = 2.16 vs 2 (Pythagoras)
(6-5)/(5-4) = 1.84 vs 1.875
(7-6)/(6-5) = 1.66 vs 1.666
(8-7)/(7-6) = 1.54 vs 1.5
(9-8)/(8-7) = 1.46 vs. 1.5
(10-9)/(9-8) = 1.40 vs ?? (i.e., 7/5 on fifth's scale)
(11-10)/(10-9)= 1.35 vs. 1.333
(12-11)/(11-10)= 1.31 vs 1.333

Of course, the same applies for the quantum energy ratios, expressed as "eV", for the above shells, since they are relative to the energy wavelengths.

So here above are some ratios, as highlighted, that closely match the harmonic musical scale, though not a perfect fit. It could be that either the numbers calculated as wavelengths have some margin of error in them, or that the harmonic scale is too pure for reality. Remember the ancient Greeks loved the perfection of forms and ideas, and so some of their ratios, alas, may not be so perfect after all, at least not in this reality. However, there is obviously some sort of relationship between quantum energy and harmonics. If you were to continue this exercise for progressively higher electron shells, you would find that the ratios tend towards the number "1", which is "do" all over again.

So what does this mean? Is the universe, or God, a musician? Does God sing, and we spring into being? Interesting, but this above now dove tails nicely into the other algorithm of our TOE, as an expression of light energy, in all of its frequencies, thus is an interactive force within the atom. So this means that (h/cw) + g = m, plays out inside the atom in such a way that the electron shells follow some pattern of harmonic relationships. This means that the value of mass, "m", is relative to the energy received, though for it to be equal to "1", it needs a much smaller wavelength than expressed above, with a much higher frequency, which we calculated as 10^50 Hz, or as approximately: w = 2.2087x10^-42 m.

I owe a debt to the excellent work done by Ray Tomes in figuring out the above, since my inspiration to look for these ratios came from his paper titled "Harmonic Theory: Atoms and Particles" at: http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt109.htm as well as the at the Hyperphysics Group, page titled "Quantum Harmonic Oscillator: Wavefunctions" at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc5.html , for these pages, and their related links, gave me an insight of what to look for. I think I found it, since there is a harmonic relationship between electron shells in the atom.

No doubt I am not the first to discover these relationships, but to date I have not found them written anywhere else.

Questions remain, as to what the other values represent in terms of harmonics. Regrettably, I could not calculate n2-n1 as 1-0, since the system did not allow for it. But I am sure the number as a ratio of (2-1)/(1-0) would be extremely large, since the wavelength would be of much higher energy, and thus of an extremely small magnitude in nanometers. The other question would be if this same type of ratio applies to more complex atoms within the elements periodic table? Also, would these ratios hold if we were in a more energetic star, or one that is less energetic, i.e., a blue dwarf as opposed to a neutron star? Lastly, I wonder if the scale ratio of 1.40 has musical qualities? For that matter, would it be the same for 2.86 and 5.38, that they too are harmonic notes? But that is not the issue, for what interests me here is that the universe has a built in harmonic scale in how it allocates the energy within the atom.

Now what remains is to put all this together into a comprehensive Theory of Everything, or a final TOE, keeping in mind that Gravity is both a medium within which photonic light operates to create mass, as it interacts with the super dense gravity within a potential atom, and that Gravity is also a residual force from this interaction, for which evidence we need to find. That is where we are now.

137, as a 1/2 product of hydrogen atom harmonics?

This is a curiosity, that if you multiply natural harmonics of hydrogen electron shells (i.e., 1.33, 1.4, 1.5, 1.66, 1.84, 2.1 ), and then multiply the result, which is approximately 17.9, by the harmonic ratios of the second and first electron shells of the hydrogen atom, which are approx. 2.86 and 5.38, you get the result of 275, which if halved, becomes 137.5.

You may recognize the number 137 as being part of the dimensionless constant of electromagnetic force coupling, which is 1/137. This is a number which appears naturally in the equations for many electromagnetic phenomenon, where "E photon" times "photon wave lambda" = hc = 137.

See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

"This coupling constant is also called the 'fine structure constant' since it shows up in the description of the fine structure of atomic spectra." -- Hyperphysics.

But why is the product of the harmonic ratios "double" the constant? Don't know... but it is intriguing.

WHY THE MATH WORKS: for (h/cw) + g = mass =1.

Not using the numeric values, but rewriting it in terms of units of measure only, it looks like this:

(Please note that " * " is "multiplied by")

h (in units)= m^2*kg*s^-2 ...Planck's constant
c = m*s ...light speed, as meters per second
w = m s ...lambda wavelength, as meters (also per light distance in one second)
m = kg ...mass, as kilograms
g = ? (I'll leave this one out for now)

So you get, as per equation above:

[(m^2*kg*s^-2)/(m*s)*(m*s)] + g = kg

Multiplying and cancelling out we get:

[m^2*kg*s^-2]/m^2*s^2] + g = kg

then further:

[kg(m^2)/s^2]/(m^2*s^2) +g = kg

Now, m^2 cancel out, leaving:

(kg/s^2/s^2) + g = kg

Now, s^2 cancel out, leaving:

kg (+g) = kg

So this is how the units used cancel out and become equal to mass as kg.

I have not spent as much time as I wish on your paper yet, having only just returned from England and being a bit jet lagged. However you are reinventing Prince Louis De Broglie’s work ( http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/ and many others) relating mass to equivalent wavelength. You do however have to get the values in compatible units, and indeed you have. And yes the wavelength of a large mass is indeed very short, and the associated frequency very high.

Your wavelength (in meters) w=h/p where h is in Joule seconds and p is Kg m / s (mass times velocity of light), hence for a 1 kilogram mass the wavelength is close to 2e-42 m, as you find. This is why bricks don’t manifest visible interference patterns – they would be too small to see :-).

The equivalent frequency is about 1.5e50 Hz, again as you find, with no surprises. This is outside the range of convenient observation.

There are no surprises in your correct calculations, except perhaps that the numbers are in regimes not common in everyday experience. Physics is sometime like that. The real usefulness of these concepts, although they are also exactly correct for classical masses (of the order of worldly experience) is for particles in the atomic range and below, where the numbers get reasonable. For example the electron with a rest mass of 9.1e-28 g can be accelerated through a few hundred or thousand volts to make an electron microscope, because its wavelength becomes shorter than that of light, and hence gives higher resolution.

With respect to your alleged finding of ‘coincidences’ between quantum mechanics and music, invoking Pythagorean (he was a numerologist!) philosophies, is no more than the curiously beautiful properties of the sequence of real numbers, in which the definition of reality in our Universe is firmly rooted. Everything follows from the sequence of numbers, which itself is created by imagining the existence of any entity (ONE) and adding another (ONE+ONE=TWO) and so on to infinity (Hilbert, Cantor and transfinite numbers notwithstanding).

Hope this is helpful or at least interesting. --Anthony.

(My friend Nelson, a chemist, later added to the TOE:)

"The difficulty in achieving a TOE isn't mathematical, it's conceptual.

Chemistry wasn't understood with the concept of an atom--we still didn't
know what made atoms different. Only when we had the structure of atoms
(electrons, protons and neutrons) could we understand chemistry.

The same thing happened with all electromagnetic phenomena when Maxwell
figured out the interrelationships between the electric and magnetic fields.
Two fields, four equations--the electromagnetic TOE.

Particle physics got TOEed with quarks. 4 quarks, 3 leptons, 3 neutrinos and
we've got all the particles.

So a successful TOE must by necessity be fundamental. What's fundamental to
the basic particles, electrodynamics, and gravity? That's the question.

As far as physical constants go they serve two purposes: to define a
relationship in terms of dimensional units (length, time, mass etc.) and
provide a numerical amount--a measure. The numerical amount will change
depending on the units of measure used. There are units of measure such that
all the physical constants are reduced to 1. These are called the Planck
units--they bring all the physical constants to unity. So C, h, G and so on
are all 1 when using Planck units.

> [1/c2 x (p2c2 + (mc2)2)1/2 + (cm3/g/s2)] = m

If you want a fundamental mass unit (fundamental to gravity, quantum
mechanics, electrodynamics and everything else to which mass can be applied)
you can derive it thusly:

m=(hc/G)^1/2 It's the Planck mass unit. To see more:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkm

Is there a single structure underlying all physical phenomena? Many think
so, thus the search goes on. The one thing that hasn't been examined in any
meaningful way is space itself. Is there a structure to space? Many think
so. That'd make for an easy TOE."

Nelson
zink@newmex.com

Hi Claude,

Very interesting comments on EM wave theory and the four forces.

RE "There is something dreadfully errant in present understanding of wave theory. Maybe with further programming Omegatron Dynamics can produce the answer I am looking for."

I look forward to seeing more of Omegatron Dynamics. Thinking "outside the box", I would propose the following: Atoms formed where gravity/space vacuum/ether had (and still have) positive charge. Now, this is a bold concept, but what it means is that EM, which are bipolar, interacted with positive charged supergravity points, resulting in a vortex of existence modified by the electromagnetic waves, which stabilized the positive charge with negative charged particles, electrons, to make an atom. If so, then atoms are points in space where the cosmic primordial gravity, which is super strong, is the proton/neutron nucleus of the atom; and the electrons are the resulting harmonic shells which modify this nucleus into a unit of atomic mass. Why "harmonic"? Because the universe works that way: God sings and atoms dance.

The resulting four forces: Strong force, electromagnetic force, weak force, and gravity, are all derived from this positive/negative interaction between the nucleus deep gravity and electromagnetic photon energy. Of these, strong force and weak force are neutralized at very close range, so they cancel out to zero (in and of themselves almost immediately); electromagnetic and gravity both leak out of the atom, so they extend to infinity. Now, remember that all this started with the rewriting of E=mc2 as a function of zero x infinity = 1 = atom mass, with cosmic gravity observed as a very weak residual force. And what do we have again? Zero/strong-weak forces X infinity/em-gravity = mass. Like Yogi Bera said, it's deja vu all over again!

h/cl + g = m = (unity) 1.

This is significant because it incorporates a world that is at once relativistic (c), quantum mechanical (h), gravitational (g), and de Broglie wavelike (l); all of which combine into an expression of TOE based on the interaction of energy and gravity to equal mass, with an atomic residual gravity which we know as a Gravitational constant (variable constant) in relation to c and l.

This is exemplified by calculating the following Gravity-Densities for the planets: DELTA GRAVITY (Planet's vs. Earth's)/PLANETARY MASS (in Kgs.) = GRAVITY DENSITY RATIO (in relation to surrounding energy-gravity region):

The Small Rocky Planets:

Earth: (1)/5.94e24 kg = 0.168
Mercury: (1/2.6)/33e24 kg = 0.01166 (very low ratio)
Venus: (1/1.105)/4.87e24 kg = 0.2269
Mars: (1/2.6)/0.69e24kg = 0.5989
Gas Giants: See Below.
Pluto: (1/15)/0.0013e24 kg = 51.28 (a very high ratio!)

The Gas Giants:

Jupiter: (2.53)/1900e^24 kg = 0.00133
Saturn: (1.066)/568e^24 kg = 0.0112
Uranus: (0.904)/86.8e^24 kg = 0.01042
Neptune: (1.129)/102e^24 kg = 0.0107

Please note that the inverse of these ratios yields a more intuitive reading, i.e., Earth=5.9, Merc=85.7, Venu=4.4, Mars=1.67, Plut=0.19. This shows the contrast between Mercury, very high energy-density ratio, and Pluto, with a very low energy-density.
The Gas Giants have inverse ratios: Jupit=752, Satur=526, Uran=95, Neptu=93.5.

PLANETARY SPIN, continued:

I think we have Spin!

Below are listed the relationships between Gravity-Density ratios (as a factor of relative planetary mass, vs. Earth's, to the energy density of the planet's orbit fields, as calculated above) and interior planetary heat, which becomes a Spin-Ratio. This spin-ratio (SR) is calculated by dividing relative gravity (to Earth's) by planetary mass (then converted into their inverse for easier reading):

Rocky planets:

Earth: 0.16 =>> Spin Ratio = 5.9
Mercury: 0.0116 =>> SR = 85.7
Venus: 0.2269 =>> SR = 4.4
Mars: 0.5989 =>> SR = 1.67
Pluto: 51.28 =>> SR = 0.19

Gas Giants:

Jupiter: 0.00133 =>> SR = 752
Saturn: 0.0112 =>> SR = 526
Uranus: 0.01042 =>> SR = 95
Neptune: 0.0107 =>> SR = 93.5

Sun: 0.000014 =>> SR = 71,428
----------------------------------------------------
Now, what these computations of SR seem to represent is a relationship between the planet's interior heat and the energy level of the space within which the planet has its orbit around the Sun. This relationship is more pronounced for hot planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, medium hot planets such as Earth or Venus, and cool planets, such as Mars, and most of all Pluto. The hotter the planet in relation to its space medium energy (as generated by our Sun) the greater the spin. The relative rotation in relation to SR are:


Earth: Spin Ratio = 5.9 =>>Revolution = 1
Mercury: SR = 85.7 =>> Rev = 58.6 Earth days
Venus: SR = 4.4 =>> Rev = ? approx 243 Earth days (retro)?
Mars: SR = 1.67 =>> Rev = 1.03 Earth days
Pluto: SR = 0.19 =>> Rev = 6.3 Earth days

These rotation ratios are different for the gas giants, which tend to be hot, and fast:

Jupiter: SR = 752 =>> Rev = 0.41 Earth days
Saturn: SR = 526 =>> Rev = 0.45 ""
Uranus: SR = 95 =>> Rev = 0.72 ""
Neptune: SR = 93.5 =>> Rev = 0.67 ""

So it becomes apparent that the "hot" gas giants rotate faster than the rocky planets. This could be understood as the interior heat is great in relation to the energy density of the space around them, which (according to h/cl+g=m) would indicate a greater energy differential resulting in a greater spin. The rocky planets are not as uniform, since Mercury with a very high SR floats in a very high energy environment close to the Sun, whereas Pluto, with a small SR, floats in an energy poor environment far from the Sun. Earth and Mars are in a medium energy environment with their relative interior heat, so their spins are relatively close to each other. Our Moon has a very low spin, being a cold body. Venus is an enigma, possibly a reather "cool" planet in a hot energy density; Pluto is way out there, so acts more like a large trapped comet. By contrast, the Sun has spin that is off the charts, since it is its own generator of energy, though its outer heliosphere may be compared to a planet's surface with a spin of 24.5 days. Therefore, by this reasoning, the further a planet is from the Sun's energy, the greater its interior heat differential, the greater the spin; the closer in to the Sun, it would take a greater heat differential to increase spin, so that Mercury results in a slower spin though it has high heat. Earth is in the middle.

Question: Can these SR numbers (if our planetary mass measures are correct) be used to estimate interior heat of planets as a function of their relative spin?

Ivan

By Ivan A. on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 11:11 am:

PLANETARY MAGNETISM, random thoughts:

In the above, I listed some calculations of what I call Spin Ratios (SR) for the planets. What became apparent in readings on planetary magnetism is that there seems to be some correlation between SR and Magnetic intensity, as measure by the Dipole Moment. Here is how these look:

Rocky planets:

Earth: Spin Ratio = 5.9 =>> Dipole M = 7.8e^15 (Tm^3)
Mercury: SR = 85.7 =>> DM = 3e^12
Venus: SR = 4.4(?) =>> DM = 8e^10
Mars: SR = 1.67 =>> DM = 1e^11
Pluto: SR = 0.19 =>> DM = ??

Gas Giants:

Jupiter: SR = 752 =>> DM = 1.56e^20 (very high!)
Saturn: SR = 526 =>> DM = 4.72e^18
Uranus: SR = 95 =>> DM = 3.83e^17
Neptune: SR = 93.5 =>> DM = 2.16e^17

Sun: SR = 71,428 =>> DM = ???

What this shows at a glance is that there is a relationship between relative spin and magnetism, which may be the main reason why the "dynamo theory" of planetary magnetism has such appeal. Also obvious is that the ratios of spin to magnetism are more in tune with the gas giants, less so with rocky planets, which may be explained by the gas giants being in a cooler "gravity density" field away from the Sun, whereas the smaller planets are closer in within a "hot" field; the two fields may in fact have different energy dynamics. However, there may be another reason, given the new concept of "gravity density" within an "energy density", that the magnetic fields are products of the mini black hole present within any body radiating internal heat or radioactive decay energy, since these in cancelling out the wave lambda at their centers create conditions for such a super massive center. The more heat vs gravity density differential, the geater the min-black-hole, hence spin. Can it be that this mini-black-hole effect generates a magnetic field? For example, why else would there be a magnetic field emanating from the galactic center, since the "dynamo" effect could not operate there? Certainly not a nickel iron core! So instead this leaves open an opportunity to see planetary, and solar and galactic, magnetic fields, as a function of super gravity, which would also open the door for seeing it this way inside an atom.

The studies on cosmic magnetism are many and often fraught with controversial and fancy ideas, which lead to a kind of intellectual "noise", but it is all very interesting, if not totally puzzling. Any ideas on what causes this kind of magnetism? Could the electrons ejected from black hole centers along their axis be responsible in some way? Opening the doors for new thoughts...


Ivan

Some Magnetic pages:
http://www.aip.de/~cfendt/jet_t.html
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-trimble.pdf
http://www.earthsci.ucl.ac.uk/research/planetaryweb/student/work/magrev/summary.htm
http://www.earthsci.ucl.ac.uk/research/planetaryweb/student/work/magrev/magtoc.htm

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 11:07 pm:

SR/GR RESOURCE LINKS

SPECIAL RELATIVITY

GENERAL RELATIVITY

Gravitational Redshift

"Special relativity also explains the behavior of fast-traveling particle, including the fact that fast-traveling unstable particles appear decay more slowly than identical particles traveling more slowly."

This quote from the above link on Special Relativity may hold the key to the whole universe. It is because of this redshift that Dr. Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 can be rewritten as E/c^2=m-g, where g=gravitational constant 5.9e-39, c=light speed 2.999e8, m=mass; which can further be rewritten (by substituting E with hc/l), into h/cl+g=m, where m=A=1. By rewriting it this way, we can compute that to satisfy Einstein's (mass = energy) equation the value of l=~2.2e-42 meters; and where classical gravitational G can be derived from G^2=gc^2, for all lambda of electromagnetic energy, so that the great gravity of neutron stars becomes a function of g, and total gravity of galactic blackholes, where g=1 converts into G=c, so no light can escape.

This, in a word, is the New Physics (per Atomus Summus as developed on the Humancafe Forum), which yields a new way of seeing cosmic radiation redshifting, so that light reaching us from great distance is redshifted by the great gravity it must transverse in the cold lambda of deep space, which also accounts for why atomic clocks tick more slowly through gravity, or at high velocities, and why the universe is not expanding as currently believed. Time at high velocities, or through gravitational fields, is not slowed, but the clock measuring time is slowed; and if this is so, then the Big Bang never happened. The universe is not defined by space-time dimensions, but rather is defined by space-gravity dimensions, though their mathematical expressions approximate each other, so that it is not Time that is the variable dimension, but it is Gravity instead. The atom is the unified expression of super-gravity interacting with energy to create mass, with a remainder force g, which translates into the gravity G we experience.

* * *

This above completes the inquiry into Relations between Energy and Gravity, which of necessity leads to a Foundation for a Theory of Everything, here called the New Physics. The above SR/GR links provide excellent cross-references for further investigation and study, since the actual values as computed here may need to be adjusted for more correct results. My special thanks to Scienceworld and Hyperphysics, for their excellent resources, which even a layman as myself can use to understand what is.


Ivan D. Alexander

Editor, Humancafe.com

Hello Ivan;
I read your theory and find it to be clearly absurd. 0 X anything is 0.
Infinity X anything is Infinity. In mathmatics 1 X anything is itself
(anything) Your adding nothing to everything and surmising meaning. Nothing
and everything is equal to wholeness? I already know that!!! This theory
your trying to find is part of the dualistic nature of reality. It would be
better to spend your energy on more important matters... Making ourselves
aware (conscious)of our own divinity/spirituality. Good luck! ~ Mark.

* * * *

Hi MarK, you are most right that multiplying any number by zero or infinity is absurd. However, you must remember that infinity includes ALL the numbers from one to infinity and their inverse from one to zero, expressed as fractions. So this law of inverse yields any number multiplied by its inverse is always one. For example: 100 x 1/100 = 1, or 1 million x 1/1 million = 1, or 1 trillion x 1/1trillion = 1, or then again 1 gazillion x 1/1gazillion = 1. So if you stretch the gazillion to infinity, its inverse fraction is zero, and hence you get "zero x infinity = 1". This by the way is not common practice, and it had never been proven mathematically to be so, though some have tried to prove it. However, conceptually, as a philosophical idea, it can work, which is what I did in rewriting Einstein's E=mc2 as 1/c2 x E = 1 = m. In effect, I used the inverse law to come up with one, and then said that gravity is the remainder force from this interaction between light and supergravity. When you work out the math, depending upon the light photon electromagnetic wavelength, gravity changes. In our solar system, because the light from the sun is constant, gravity is likewise a constant.

But the real proof lies in observation. And that will not be known, as per my theory, until we can discover that gravity is not a constant, as we now believe, but is a variable constant, so that it would be different for different star systems, such as neutron stars or black holes, and also different out in deep space beyond the solar system, or more so beyond our galaxy. There was a lot written on Humancafe's Forum in the entries titled "Theory of Everything" on this, but it would be tedious to read it all, so I summarized in my paper title "Atomus Sumus et Universus". If gravity does prove to be a variable, then my theory falls into place. If that is never discovered, then my theory kind of falls apart. So this is an important feature. Only time will tell. But I like the discovery that electron shells are in harmonic ratios, so as I said in the paper, God sings and atoms dance.

Take care, let's see if we can find some time to get together.

Ciao for now, Ivan

Is there really such a thing as "infinity"?

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html

"Sometimes you will see a statement like "one divided by infinity = zero". This does not really mean what it seems to say. You are not really dividing 1 by infinity. Instead, it is a statement about sequences. What it means is that if a sequence a1,a2,a3, . . .converges to infinity, then the sequence of reciprocals 1/a1,1/a2,1/a3 . . . converges to zero."
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html#2

This is incase anyone had any questions on how "infinity" was used in the above algorithm for TOE.

Ivan

Is this a BLACK HOLE in the making?

Crab Nebula's inner ring of power, from BBC news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/460567.stm

Also from CNN news, the Star that ate Manhattan:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/09/19/crab.nebula/index.html

Once the pulsar's disks accrete into a spiral, there may be enough energy coming into the center to power a black hole galactic core, per TOE above, so wavelength lambda is stretched out. Note how the electromagnetic energy gets thrown out along the axis, as predicted by wave amplitude in an extreme gravity hole, would also account for hyper-fast spin of the star.

Ivan

Hi All,

In all fairness, I should mention I discussed this issue with my physicist/attorney friend Bill, and he pointed out to me that the equation does not work, since I was using "g" as a dimensionless constant, which cannot be used in conjunction with "m". However, seeing it his way then leads to complications with Einstein's equation.

My reply to him in an email was as follows:

---

Quote:

Hi Bill, so good to see you this afternoon. And I truly appreciate the time you took to explain the [m] = [m] factors in the equation, as I had rewritten E=mc^2, using Plank's constant, to become h/cw = m. (w is wave length lambda). The reason I had allowed myself the leisure to include gravity, g, in the equation was because I thought of it as a dimensionless constant. When I checked with a chemist friend of mine, he said that it was allowed to use dimensionless constants, so I did. However, as you point out, this is not so, and thus I am left with a lopsided equation where g is left unaccounted for. What to do?

I thought about this on my drive home, and wondered if gravity can also be expressed as a "kg" force within the "one-second" of lambda and light speed? That was one possibility, though not likely. The other is that g is left out of the equation, but then this leaves a hole where lambda is concerned. When I worked out the math for E=mc^2 and calculated wave length lambda, I got approximately 2.2 x 10^-42m (10^50Hz). However, what about the equation if the wave length is different? This is the puzzle, because if our star puts out this energy for our solar system, do all the stars put out the same wavelength in all other systems too? Difficult to know since, to my knowledge, we have not yet been able to measure lambda so small, frequency that high. So we are kind of in the dark about this. However, if different stars put out different frequencies, according to the algorithm above, the E=mc^2 stops working. So you can see why this is a dilemma for me!

So if the rewritten equation of "energy = mass" is complete, as E/c^2=m, then there is no further to do, unless frequencies, such as in neutron stars, are different, for then the equation "fails". (Smile!) But if it proves that gravity is a left over product of how energy interacts with ... what?... within the atom to make it a unit of mass, then the equation has a missing component to become complete. This is what I tried to fill-in with g, because it seems to fit. But I don't know how to make it fit, since it is not a unit of mass? But think of it conceptually, if mass is complete on the right side of the equation, but incomplete on the left (because of lambda being something other than 2.2 x 10^-42m), then how do we fill in the missing part? I saw this as a most interesting puzzle, so took a leap of faith (against accepted practice in present physics), and came up with the algorithm including g. The result of this algorithm is that for different lambda, we get different values of g. Now, this has not been demonstrated to be true, but if it were, then we'd be on to something, I would think. And if this proved to be true, which it has not, then physics would have to rethink what gravity actually is, that perhaps it is no more than a left over byproduct of how is constructed the atom. (For example, in a black hole at a galactic center, the wavelength lambda stretches out to nearly =1, so that g grows to be nearly =1 also, i.e., maximum force).

Think of this: If mass is a function of energy, then why not include gravity as part of this function? But we both know this cannot be, since gravity is not expressed in units of mass. So the question remains, not that it cannot be, but how can it be? How can gravity be rewritten as a unit of mass? This could be crucial to make E=mc^2 work for all lambda (or else we have to adjust h and c) to keep the equation intact.

---

JANUS-FACED COSMOLOGY, by Robert L. Oldershaw

http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/JANUS.HTM

All is told not with finality, nor with cosmic certainty, but rather with healthy skepticism for any "final theory", for this may be closer to the truth. -- Ivan

Ivan,

Remember what I told you - Planck's Constant is a pipe-dream; equations lie to you, and gravity is gravity.

Claude

Hi Claude,

Only thinking out loud, and you may be most right, but if Planck's constant is not a "pipe dream", but rather is true, and the TOE algorithm yields predictable results, then think what it means! So many astrophysical mysteries become explained at once, including cosmic redshift, galactic black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, hot body electromagnetic fields (which should not be), planetary harmonics, even why we like music. This would be quite a phenomenon indeed, if, and only if, it proves true that gravity is only a variable constant. That is a tough one to prove, but worth looking for.

One question that comes to mind is why is there an "event horizon" for black holes? Why doesn't the gravity swallow everything up instead? If the force within the galactic center is so great, then how do the stars in its proximity survive? I think the most logical answer is "spin", which is universal. By the TOE as presented, spin is also a function of gravity, the more gravity, the more spin. So it would make sense that the stars revolving about the black hole at the galaxy center have a much greater spin than those on the periphery. And in fact, you get this, and that's why the galaxy is a spiral, since the inner stars revolve faster than those on the outer edge. But why are there "spokes" where stars are missing? Don't know. But there is probably some simple explanation we had not yet thought of.

I think the same spin factor may be why Strong Force and Weak Force cancel out so quickly. Where there is spin, there is zero force, since the pulling force is canceled out by the centrifugal effect of spin, and at that zero force, all forces are canceled to zero. Ditto for the electrons in their shells, though one would think that the positive and negative forces which manifest within the atom would cancel out, but they don't. Why? Spin. In fact, thinking aloud again, spin may be the universal constant we all had been looking for.

For that matter, why is the moon where it is? Or Mars, or Jupiter? They are all occupying the level of zero gravity as regards the sun because of their spin, their revolutions around our star. And why doesn't the sun collapse of its own mass? Spin!

So to measure spin, in all aspects of universal structures, is what ties them all together as one. The stars on the edge of the "event horizon" can't fall in, because they counteract the force within the galactic center with their "spin" around it. You might notice how there are a great bunch of stars in that region, all counterbalancing the immense force at the galactic center. But remember, if gravity is a variable constant as a function of energy, then the stars near the galaxy center are highly energized, and thus lightened of their gravity effect, so that they essentially "float" in the deep gravity medium present there.

But then the question that comes up is: Why is there spin? Why do things spin in relation to the force they encounter? Why does the water spiral down the drain? Why are sea shells formed in a spiral? Why is there a "golden mean"? If you ever saw the film "Pi", you would know what minds like ours are going through, though happily at a less schizophrenic pace! Spin. Ask the Suffis!

Just thinkin' aloud-allowed.

Ivan

Ivan,

This is where we differ – You continue walking the path of conventional physics, and by doing so, you are trapped within the entrenched systematic errors with no escape. There is no answer to the event horizon question, remember, Einstein said – a singularity is not potentially possible within the framework of Relativity and Special Relativity. I rejected much of R and SR long ago, and I reject the notion other physicists/scientists know more about Relativity and Special Relativity than did the man who wrote both theories.

I am not sure that you understand centripetal force, or the implications of it – As the mass of an object increases, there is a point when the object will oscillate and those oscillations will happen prior to the formation of a black hole, which in effect denies a black hole can form. We can observe many remnants of such oscillations by looking at the super-novas, in particular, and the other resulting ‘nebulae’ readily dispersed throughout the universe.

Follows is a link that should help you understand centripetal force, its implications, and it is fun to play with! Read the instructions, and then you can do your thing to prove to self what happens when oscillations induced by centripetal force occur. Experiment using the ‘trace box’ checked to leave visible tracks of the circular history as you play.

C-Force

You also need to know a bit about what is out there in the universe, especially nebulae, so the next link will explain the various types. Pay particular attention to super-novas and to planetary nebulas. Of special interest, there is a link to the Crab Nebula (M-1), which is perhaps the only well-documented nebula in all of recorded history. You will find a link to it located between the Supernova Remnants, and the Dark Nebula explanations.

Nebulae

What I have learned is this: Few physicists ever look through a telescope, and only a very few astronomers are physicists; thus remember: The mighty Hubble has yet to record the view of a black hole! Why? If black holes exist – they would not be visible; moreover, a black hole would appear only as a huge ‘empty space,’ totally void of stars, and no such a place exists in all the images of the universe taken thus far. When you look beyond what appears to be the end of the universe, lo-behold, there always appears more stars, or more galaxies even further distant.

Claude

Hi Claude,

It seems galactic center gravitational strength is already calculated as I expressed above, though it is measured in "million solar masses" M.

Pls see: http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/supp/mdo.html

"The Schwarzschild radius is simply correlated to the mass of an object, as it is defined as that radius where the escape velocity from the mass equals light velocity; this means that it is proportional to the mass. The formal relation can be given as: R_S = 2.94 km * M [solar masses]".

Our Milky Way has a center with approximately 2 million solar masses, i.e., 2M.

Ivan

Thanks for the great links above!

Ivan,

I helped write the SEDS data- and previously listed the 17 candidates for black holes on this forum. I also have pictures of each of them, and each of them visibly display "ejection ports" which are not feasible or potentially possible in a black hole.

To be honest, we do not have the faintest idea of the number of objects in the "core" of the Milky Way.... We can't ever see through it in several regions of it!

Have you ever looked at a dark sky with a powerful telescope?

Claude

Claude,

Thanks for info, and SEDS is a reputable outfit, with great views and results. I had occasion to look into the heavens only on small telescopes, but not the likes of Palomar, or Kit Peak, or Mt. Wilson, though such would be quite a treat.

I remain open to receiving more data to keep working on a model that makes sense on many levels of understanding, both in physics and philosophy. I realize that the known physics is flawed, since it fails to explain so much, but then there is nothing else to work with, so it becomes an exercise in reconfiguring the known, and wait for the unknown to reveal itself. Hence the subtitle to "Atomus Summus": A New Interpretation of the Known Physics and Cosmology.

What appeals to me in the theory presented thus far is that it explains more than before, though to do this it requires a different point of view. This new point of view can be summed up simply that gravity is not some independent force spanning the cosmos, but rather is a function of electromagnetic energy applied against something we can only guess at, but which may be present where no eyes had gone before, the Black Hole.

Is any of this correct? Only the universe will tell, in time.

Ivan

Ivan,

Omegatron Dynamics has provided enough information for me to make the following statements….

The strong and weak forces are not pertinent outside the realm of particle physics-

Gravity and EM are the keys to formation of large masses-

EM is a residual force-

EM is polarized-

EM oscillates between + and –

Electromagnetic waves become electromagnetic fields-

Electromagnetic fields of charged ions when violently rotated cause mass to form-

Gravity is the result of violently rotated mass compaction and contraction-

Gravity cannot increase or decrease beyond specific density weight of total mass-

Gravity is not a wave-

Gravity is detectible only as a field-

If what I suspect is true, the world of physics is about to get a serious wake-up call for nobody has been able to come up with the unification formula. There is a good reason for that – Newton, Einstein, and number crunching physicists have it mostly all wrong!

This is where I elect to stop.

Claude

ATOMIC VARIABLES?

Hi Claude,

Thanks for sharing the info on Omegatron Dynamics. Your system also focuses on EM as being the dominant force of universal physics. For your system model, Gravity remains a universal constant, whereas in my model, G is a variable of EM output (of any given star system, or in the aggregate of any given galaxy).

Your point: "Electromagnetic fields of charged ions when violently rotated cause mass to form-", is especially of interest to me. How does it do this to form mass? The same for "Gravity is the result of violently rotated mass compaction and contraction-". How, by what mechanics?

* * * *
NASA space atomic clock super accurate, per CNN news:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/09/26/atomic.clock/index.html

The above article on atomic clocks brought to mind the possibility, not outside TOE, that perhaps changes in EM, such as results from high velocity near light speed, might also affect atomic activity within the clock, so that Einstein's prediction of slowing time at high speeds may be the result of slowing atomic activity within the clock. So, if so, then the slowing time is due to an atomic EM variable effect, and not space-time as now assumed. However, if so, on the return trip back to the original departure, would the process be reversed and hence the clock once again be in sync with Earth clocks? I don't have any mathematical or physics backup on this, so this is only an intuitive idea. Likewise, if a super accurate mechanical clock were to travel at great speeds, would it also show time dilation? I suspect that it would not. What do you think happens? Is the atomic clock in flight slower than that at rest? Is time dilation a valid theory, or a physics pipe-dream?

Any good thoughts on this?

Ivan

Ivan,

Clocks slow - when accelerated. The problem is not - durational change; instead, it is - changes within the clock's systems due to acceleration.

Claude

Hi J___, I read through John F. Donoghue's "Introduction to the Effective Field Theory Description of Gravity" (Dept. of Physics, U Mass, Amherst, Ma.,- 12/11/1995. See: http://www.physics.umass.edu/jdonoghue/ ), which is quite an impressive piece of work. However, it is totally contingent on "space curvature" theories, so if space is flattened out, the theory ends up with a problem, which was expressed in Section 10, pg. 22:

"The G.E.F.T (Gravitational Effective Field Theory) would not work in the neighborhood of a singularity (sic). Therefore we could have a reasonable calculation which works for some ordinary wavelengths but cannot be applied for "lambda => infinity" because of the presence of large curvature." -- http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024

(Note that this is similar to my postulating h/cw, where cw=1, so that lambda times frequency is one, if lambda is infinite, though the same effect is realized if the frequency is stretched out to be equal lambda, i.e., =1.)

But why complicate the universe? Nature likes to take the simplest route, and a flat universe, non expanding, non Big Bang, is much simpler than what we have created with our "Ptolomeic" loops and curvatures of space, as expressed by theories of Relativity. Why should space be curved? I think it is an example of accepting the resulting illusion of what is in fact a great simplicity: Space is space, and the curvatures we imagine are only products of how electromagnetic energy and supergravity interact, with a resulting gravity which we then experience. That these appear to interact in a "curved" fashion is but the result of the geometry we decided to give it. It does not have to be understood this way, and in fact I think it merely confuses what reality does. However, it does allow for some rather creative mathematics to get there!

In fact, curvature of space has nothing to do with the supergravity experienced at galactic centers. It is only a function of how lambda flattens out there, so that it loses its ability to modify the forces, and thus only supergravity is present. This is what we call the Black Holes. Redshift is no more than the modification of light as it passes through the gravity present between stars, which is of a greater force than we experience here, ie., the g constant is larger. And dark matter is the same, the product of a denser gravity out in space. Of course, this is not Gospel, only a speculation, and it will remain thus until there is evidence that gravity is different away from our solar system. That's the proof I need.

Thanks for sharing the Donoghue's paper with me.

All the best, as always, Ivan

RED GIANTS, NEUTRON STARS, AND BLACK HOLES

I suspect that if the "Atomus Summus" is right, that gravity is an absence of electromagnetic wave activity, then red giants are a natural result of this interaction. When the star cools, it puts out less energy, and thus the wavelengths gathered at the star's center, where they cancel out, are also less powerful. If so, then the mini black hole at the star's center, resulting from the flattened waves there as they cancel each other out, is also less active, resulting in a lower gravity reading. The star expands because of this, and its spin should slow markedly. At some point, it either explodes as the gravity fails to hold it together, or it collapses in on itself to become a neutron star. The neutron star should spin much faster, as its gravity now becomes much greater than before. This is derived from the equation: F (centripetal) = mv^2/r (see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf ) , where F=G. If there is a very large mass of surrounding stars, such as in a galaxy, then the center should generate a very massive black hole with powerful gravity holding the whole spiral complex together. However, it may not be "black" necessarily, but could be surrounded by a vast complex of super luminous stars, in effect, mimicking the energy generating mass of a single star around its mini black hole at the center. All this fits neatly into how h/cw + g = m plays out. I should also point out that if any mass should find its way into the center of a mini or maxi black hole, it will spin so wildly as to strip itself of all electrons and revert back to what the primordial stuff of the universe is all about, a super strong gravity.

This is only work in progress, as my mind sees it, but it is worth noting that the evidence we need to find may yet bear these ideas out. For now, however, we're just waiting for evidence of the variability of gravity in space.

Ivan

MORE ON "BLACK HOLE" CORES

CNN.com/Science & Space: "Black hole outbursts look 'faster than light'":
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/03/black.holes/index.html

Mini "black hole" at Earth's core?
BBC News: "Quakes reveal 'core within a core'": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2290551.stm

These above articles once again point to "hot body" center radiation as being a key component of wavelength energy being canceled there (remember the water bowl kitchen 'black hole' experiment), thus no longer modifying mass and reverting to the deep gravity effect in the absence of photonic energy. Of course, current science is totally puzzled by all these reported effects. Think of planets, like Earth, as hot body masses, radiating both photons and neutrinos from radioactive decay into their centers, and the rationale for gravity density at the core begins to make sense. Dense gravity centers then account for planetary spin, same as solar and galactic spin. Whether or not Earth's core is nickel iron or not is immaterial, since the cause for the forces that propel the planet's spin are from another cause. In fact, it may be that the Earth's core is empty, a bubble of nothing, devoid of matter and filled only with pure mass. This might explain why the seismic waves directed at the core behave the way they do.

Fishing at a bottomless hole,

Ivan

HUNTING DOWN A NEUTRINO

Here is a link that gives some info on the neutrino's mass: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-262297,00.html , where the neutrino average mass is computed as 1.8x10^-36kg.

Another paper titled "A new approach to neutrino and WIMP detection using telecom-grade electroni and fiber-optic components": arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0105015 (which is a download PDF file).

Some items of interest are that neutrinos may be the best candidates for the missing "black matter" of the universe, though it is computed to account for only about 20% thus far. Also of interest is that when a neutrino interacts with plasma it creates a violent shock wave with extremely hot temperatures, as explained on page 2.

Lastly, it seems the neutrino has a wavelength equal to about the size of our planet, which is why it is able to pass through so much mass without intereference. From an online text on electromagnetic fields, Ch. 4, http://www.theoryofeverything.com/TableofContents.htm/ : "Note that in the resonance model's interpretation, the oscillation length of 2x10^21 wavelengths would vary inversely with neutrino energy. In contrast, if the oscillations are caused by neutrino mass, then the oscillation length will vary directly with energy." It goes on to say that this has not yet been proven experimentally.

If so, then the neutrino may not be the candidate looked for to interact with the "infiniton" mass within the atom, since it would go right past it. According to the algorithm of Atomus Summus, the wavelength is extremely small, which also may not yet have been identified experimentally by science. However, in Ch. 3, of the same text, on "Mass, Gravity, and Cosmological Implications", it says that "the gravitational force would be 4x10^42 times the electromagnetic force", which is an inverse number not far removed from 2.2087x10^-42m wavelength needed to satisfy the E=mc^2 equation. It means that the two cancel out into some value of single integer, what I suspect is the atom, except that in the TOE above, E=mc^2 is still missing gravity. So I have rewritten it as h/cw+g=m instead. This I believe captures in fact what happens when electromagnetic energy creates mass, with a left over product which is gravity. (I should note the idea of a left over product is quite feasible in our universe, as all interactions have some such product, or waste, either in the form of heat, or spin, or radiation, or waste matter in all biological processes. It's only natural!)

Hunting it down some more...

Ivan

DARK MATTER CONSIDERED

This is from the same text as above, Ch. 3: http://www.theoryofeverything.com/TableofContents.htm/ , on the topic of Dark Matter.

"3-VI. DARK MATTER
Based on a number of astronomical observations, a general consensus has formed that as much as 90% of the mass of the universe does not radiate sufficient light to be detected from Earth. It is called dark matter. Some of the most dramatic pieces of evidence for dark matter are observations of the rotational velocities of interstellar gas clouds in spiral galaxies. These clouds do not move in accordance with Kepler's Law. This could only occur if the law of gravitation were to fail at galactic distances, or if there were a massive distribution of unseen matter surrounding the galactic disks. Most cosmologists prefer the idea of dark matter."

Of course, this is laughable reasoning, as far as TOE is concerned, and a case of finding shadows in the dark. Rather, it works out much better, and simpler, to view "dark matter" as no more than the increased gravitational force when out in deep space away from an energy source. Furthermore, it is questionable if the total Mass of the universe can be computed with any level of accuracy, since it is contingent on BBT, which is absurd. The reason galactic dust clouds behave the way they do is because they are torn between the gravitational pull of galaxies and the deep space gravity that is away from them.

Deep in the well...

Ivan

Resonance and standing waves, Lesson 4, The Physics Classroom:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l4d.html

Atomic Harmonics?

The above link explains why harmonic frequency occur, as standing waves or their equivalent in moving waves.

If matter is in fact a standing wave, as photon electromagnetic waves resonate around a nuclear super force, then it stands to reason that the electron shells will manifest within the harmonic ratios that they do, since that is where the waves appear "standing" in their shells. Neils Bohr was right that there are orbits, but not in the sense that electrons revolve around the nucleus like planets. Rather, they occupy these shells and are active there as standing waves at quantum harmonic frequencies. I think De Broglie's electromagnet waves as matter make more sense here.

This way of seeing things further reinforces TOE as h/cw+g=m, where the photon wavelengths influencing electrons are defined by the first shell. The expected result is that the first shell's energy necessary to rise above the "infiniton" nucleus would equal the wavelength lambda that results from the equation, which is w=2.2087x10^-42 meters. If this proves true, then we have one more piece of evidence we need. Further study would be warranted here, and it would appear that our star the sun starts the wave spectrum with that w lambda. There may be star systems where the starting lambda is either higher or lower, so that mass in those systems would exhibit a different gravitational constant g, either lower or higher. The answer will lie in how that first electron shell is created. If it cannot be created at all, then you get maximum gravity, which is what happens in a black hole. Or if the first shell is at a higher harmonic level than exhibited by hydrogen atoms in our system, then the surrounding gravity would be greater. Something to consider as evidence comes in from deep space and far cosmic bodies, especially cosmic dust.

Still fishing at the bottomless well,

Ivan

Unknown manuscript of Nicola Tesla.


Introduction.


This manuscript has been allowed to me by my acquaintance. During his stay in USA he bought an old fire-helmet, which was on sale in the streets of New-York. There was an old writing-book inside this helmet. The writing-book had thin and partially burned covers producing the smell of mould. All its yellowed sheets were full of notes written by ink faded under the influence of time. Somewhere, the ink has lost its color so deeply that the letters could barely be guessed right on the yellowed paper. And in some places, large parts of the text have been completely spoiled by water having changed into the white ink-stains. In addition, all the sheets have been burnt on the edges and some words have been lost irretrievably. I have got a computer and therefore, it did not make great difficulty to translate the manuscript. Right after the manuscript was translated I understood that it belongs to famous inventor Nicola Tesla who lived and worked in USA. There has been a lot of work done to put the translated text into final form. The one who dealt with translator computer software would understand me entirely. I had many problems arisen from the lost words and sentences. I could never understand many minor but, probably, very important details of the manuscript. I hope this manuscript will slightly open some mysteries of history and the universe.


Part 1. You are wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether does exist!


They say much about the Einstein’s theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether’s opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson – Morli who made the attempts to detect the Earth’s movement relatively to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn’t mean the ether’s non-existence. I always was based upon the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success. What the ether is and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected this matter seriously long and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about does the ether exist or not are the result of wrong interpretation the ether’s properties. The ether has always been presented as aeriform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense is a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeriform but the material world is an aeriform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether’s existence. Good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should be rather named as universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena as gravitation. We can also feel ether’s reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it due to certain reasons became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is to be rough. The ether tries to return itself to the initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material world substance obstruct this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water can not be able to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into the ether. Once it have come out from the ether - and so it will go into the ether. Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether can not remain in fixed-bed state around material bodies and when certain circumstances there will be ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason of failure of Maykelson – Morli experiment. In order to understand it let’s carry the experiment over water environment. Try to imagine that our boat is twirled within a huge whirlpool. We will try to detect water motion relatively to the boat. We will not find out any movement as the speed of the boat will be equal to the rate of water movement. In our imagination let’s replace the boat by the Earth, and the whirlpool – by ether whirlwind, which revolves around the Sun. The example shows clearly that when being on the Earth one can not detect the Earth’s movement relatively to the ether as the rate of Earth’s movement will be equal to the rate of ether movement. In my researches I always adhere the principle that all nature phenomena show themselves equally whichever physical environment they would happen in. The waves exist in the water, air, ... and radios–waves and the light are the waves in the ether. Einstein’s assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let’s consider the speed of pass of the light. Einstein states that velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It’s correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether’s substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source. Having clarified what is the ether is I began to compare phenomena occurring in the water, air and ether. And here has an opportunity occurred to help me well in my researches. Once I saw to a sailor was smoking a pipe. He was exhaling smoke in the form of little rings. Smoke rings flied pretty far away before they get broken. Then I investigated this phenomena in the water. I took a metal jar and carved out a small vent on the one side and pulled on a thin leather on another side. I pour some ink into the jar and lowered it onto pool. When harsh hit of the leather ink-rings flied out of the jar crossing over all the pool and get broken having bumped into its wall that produced substantial motions of water at the pool’s wall. At the same time, the water in the pool kept being quiet. - “This method can be used to transfer energy”, …- I understand short what is the ball lightning and how to transfer energy within long range without using wires. Einstein tries to explain light movement when no ether environment by Plank quantum hypothesis. Will be Einstein able to explain ball lightning phenomena when non-existence of ether? It is no any possibility to explain the ball lightning phenomena without ether ! Based on these investigations I have constructed a generator, which could generate ether vortical rings, which I called as ether vortical objects. It was my achievement. I was in euphoria. It seemed to me like I can do everything. I promised the world not having completely studied this phenomena and took the severe punishment for that. I was not financed any more but what the most unpleasant thing was that I was not trusted any more. The Euphoria has changed to deep depression. And I dared to start my crazy experiment then.


Part 2. I will keep the secret of my invention until I die.


After my failures I became more self-restrained in making promises… During my work with ether vortical objects I understood that they behave not in that manner I thought before. It turned out that when vortical objects passed near metal objects they lost their energy and collapsed, sometimes exploding. Deep Earth layers have absorbed their energy as strongly as the metal did. So, I could transmit energy only within small distances. I paid an attention to the Moon then. If ether vortical objects are sent to the Moon, they will return back to the Earth very far from the transmitter, having been reflected from electrostatic field. As the hade is equal to the angle of reflection, then energy could be transmitted in very long distances, even to the other part of the Earth. I carried out several experiments transmitting the energy towards the Moon. The experiments discovered that the Earth is surrounded by electric field. This field kept destroying faint ether vortical objects. Ether vortical objects possessing big energy, burst through electric field of the Earth and extend at interplanetary space. And right here, the idea came to my mind that if I can create resonance system between the Earth and the Moon, then power of the transmitter may be very small while the energy derived out of this system could be considerable. Having made the calculations on how much energy can be derived I was surprised at it. The calculations showed that the energy derived from this system is enough to fully destroy a big city. For the first time at that moment I realized that my system could represent a danger for the mankind. However, I still greatly wanted to carry out my experiment. Secretly from everyone I began to thoroughly prepare my crazy experiment. First of all, I needed to select the place for my experiment. Arctic Zone did the best for it. There were no people there and I would injure nobody. But the calculation showed that with the Moon being at present position the ether vortical object can strike the Siberia, but people could live there. I went to the library and began to study the information concerning Siberia. The information was very small but, however, I saw that there are almost no people in Siberia. I should keep my experiment a deep secret otherwise, the consequences could prove to be very unpleasant for me and for all mankind. I always worry about one question : will my discoveries be for good of the people? Because it had been known for a long time that the people used all inventions to extirpate the similar ones. The fact that much of my equipment in my laboratory has been dismantled to that moment considerably contributed to keeping my secret. However, I could save the equipment I required for my experiment. I alone assembled a new transmitter out of this equipment and connected it up to the emitter. The experiment with such a big quantity of energy could be very dangerous. If I made a mistake in my calculations the energy of ether vortical object would strike astern. That’s why I was not in the laboratory but two miles aside it. The work of my installation has been operated by clockwork. The principle of the experiment was rather simple. In order to better understand its principle it is necessary to grasp first what are the ether vortical object and ball lightning. Basically, they are the same. The only difference is that the ball lightning is a visible ether object. Visibility of ball lightning is provided by fluorescence of charged air particles. It could be compared with ink coloring of water vortical particles in my experiment in the pool. In order to create resonant Earth – Moon system it was needed to create necessary concentration of charged particles between the Earth and the Moon. For that, I used a property of ether vortical objects to capture and transfer charged particles. The generator has emanated the ether vortical objects towards the Moon. When passing through electric field of the Earth ether vortical objects have captured charged particles within it. As electrostatic field of the Moon has the same polarity as an electric field of the Earth, the ether vortical objects have been reflected from it and this time, again returned to the Earth at another angle. After returning to the Earth the ether vortical objects have been reflected again by electric field of the Earth back to the Moon… That was the way, by which the Earth – Moon resonant system has been occupied by charged particles. When the required concentration of charge particles in resonant Earth – Moon system was achieved it has been energized itself at its own resonant frequency. The energy million times assisted by resonance properties of the system was being changed into ether vortical object of a huge power within electric field of the Earth. However, it was only my guesswork, and I didn’t know how it would be in reality. I remember very well the day of experiment. Estimated time came near. Minutes dragged on so slowly and seemed as they were years. I thought I would go crazy of this waiting. At last, the estimated time came and … nothing happened! Another five minutes passed but nothing unusual took place. Various theories took into my head: maybe clockwork hasn’t worked or the system hasn’t snapped into action, and maybe nothing must happen at all. I was on the verge of insanity. And suddenly … It seemed to me that the light has grown dark for a moment and strange feeling has been sensed throughout all my body - as if thousands of needles have been pierced into my body. Soon everything was over but there was unpleasant metallic after-taste left in my mouth. All my muscles have become relaxed and there was a buzzing in my head. I felt totally worn out. When I returned to my laboratory I found that it was practically intact, just there was a strong smell of burning in the air... And again, agonizing suspense has seized me, as I didn't know the results of my experiment. And only later on, having read about unusual phenomena in the newspapers I realized what a dreadful arm I have created. Of course, I expected that it would be a very heavy explosion. But, it has been not even an explosion - it has been a catastrophe! After that experiment I determined that I would keep the secret of my invention until I die. Of course, I knew that someone else could easily repeat this crazy experiment. But this would require the acknowledgement that the ether exists but our scientific world further and further moved away from the truth. I am even grateful to Einstein and others because through their erroneous theories they lead away the mankind from that dangerous path I followed. And, probably, this is their only merit. Perhaps, in about one hundred years when the reason prevails over the brute, my invention will serve for welfare of people.


Part 3. Flying machine.


My hypothesis that gravitation is a compression of material bodies by ether have been recently confirmed experimentally. When working with the generator of ether vortical objects I observed one very odd phenomena. When its turning on I could feel a wind blowing towards the generator. I decided to investigate this phenomena . I rolled up several newspapers and kindled and immediately extinguish them. There was a thick smoke coming from newspapers. With these reeky newspapers I went around the generator. The smoke came to the generator from any spot of laboratory. And the smoke disappeared near to generator. At first, I thought the reason relates to electrostatics. But having considered this phenomena I concluded: electrostatics could not be able to cause these phenomena in such a long distance from the generator. Then I supposed : - the Generator lessen the compression of ether through impact to the ether (gravity) ! I constructed big scales to make sure of it. One side of the scales was positioned over the generator. In order to exclude an electromagnetic influence of the generator the scales were made out of highly dried wood. In order to protect against electrostatic field of the generator the scales were worked up by graphite powder. After I accurately balanced the scales I turned on the generator. The side of scales that was over the generator began rapidly to go up. I turned on the generator. The scales went down. I turned off the generator. The scales went down and began to swing until it was fully balanced out. I loaded the scales with the ballast and changed its capacity and operating mode striving for its balance. After these experiments I planned to build a flying machine, which could fly not only in the air but within interplanetary space. Principle of operation of the flying machine is as follows: towards the flight direction compression of the ether is to become weaker by the generator installed in the flying machine. As the ether keeps to press with prior intensity from all other sides, then the flying machine began moving. Being within this flying machine you will not feel its speeding-up as the ether is not to hamper your movement. I had to abandon to create the flying machine. There were two reasons for it: first, I have no money to work veiled. But the main reason is that the great war began in Europe and I wouldn’t like my inventions as are killed ! When on earth will these madmen stop?


Postscript.


You read a brief version of manuscript of Nicola Tesla. This manuscript version aimed for the broad audience therefore there is no details understandable only for the specialists in it. You shouldn’t search for style similarity of Tesla’s entry with his other known documents in this manuscript version. You shouldn’t forget that this manuscript has been translated by computer, besides the state of the notebook was very bad. However, I tried to convey main point of Tesla’s notes utmost accurately. Unfortunately, there was a great damage through water effect of that manuscript passage where the generator of ether vortical objects was described. But, nevertheless, from those scrappy data I could understand the principle of work of this generator, however, there is a shortage of several details to have an entire representation. In Tesla’s manuscript there is an information about biological impact of metal rings to animate nature. There is a way of processing of metal wire by alternative current provided in this part of manuscript. After such processing the metal wire stranded into the circle is to kill microbes and protect people against diseases. I tried this method by myself. As a result, I didn’t get ill with flu during last two winters although I had a flu very often before. In unknown manuscript of Nicola Tesla there following phrase: - the light moves in straight lines, the ether – around the circle so the leaps arise hereby. – apparently, by this phrase Tesla tried to explain why the light moves by leaps. In modern physics this phenomena is called as quantum leap. Further in the manuscript there is an explanation of this phenomena but it is fuzzy a little. So I will present my reconstruction of the explanation of this phenomena out of conserved words and sentences. In order to better understand the reason of leap light movement let’s imagine the boat spinning within huge whirlpool. We will install the generator in this boat. As the rate of movement of external and internal areas of the whirlpool is different then the waves from the generator will move by leaps when passing these areas. The same phenomena we can observe with the light when it pass ether whirlwind. There is a description of the principle of getting energy using ether vortical objects in the manuscript. But it also was greatly damaged by the water. That’s why I will present my own reconstruction of the text. This reconstruction is based on separate words and phrases of unknown manuscript as well as on other publications of Nicola Tesla. Therefore, I can not guarantee exact coincidence of the manuscript text reconstruction to the original. To understand the method of receiving energy with use of ether vortical objects let’s imagine a huge bleb swimming in the water. This bleb is very stable as it is squeezed by the water from every quarter and it is influenced by the force of radial compression. How can we extract the energy out of this bleb? For this we have to break its stability. It can be done by water whirlwind or if the bleb’s side will be hit by water vortical ring. If using ether vortical object we carry out the same thing with any material body as the result we will get huge surge of energy. I will present an example: when ball lightning touches any object the result is a huge energy liberation and sometimes an explosion.

Mikhail Shapkin

putang ina kung sino amn ang makakabas nmito putang ina mo at sana ay mamatay ka na lam mo ba yon ang mga tao sa pilipinas ay wlang kwenta at walng silbi gaya ng nagbabasa nito.
Ang mga senador at gobyerno ng ating bansa ay walng kwenta pinababayaan nilang magnakaw ang mga opisyales ng ating bansa