The story of an architect, Agepytus, in Pharaoh Amenhotep III's court and his queen Tiye, who falls in love with him. They had known each other as friends since childhood, and later as lovers through their whole lives, though the High Priest Aye used their love and frustrated it for his own selfish reasons, in his schemes to ultimately become Pharaoh. The story takes us into that fabulous world of ancient Egypt c.3400 years ago, when in full glory Amenhotep III's reign of grand temple and empire building was the world then, still evident in Egypt's great wonders today. In the story the secret of the pyramids is unlocked.

On the Isle of Iona was an early Christian monastery founded by Saint Columba where was penned the beautifully illuminated Book of Kells, as it is known today. The abbot Father Cellarch commissioned Aeden and fellow monks to illustrate this magnificent book for their sister abbey in Durrow, Ireland. During the time of the first Viking invasions in the 9th century there were also kings who valued Christianity and helped the abbeys survive. One such Viking king was Blachmach, whose beautiful daugher Osla was left at Iona for safekeeping from the raiding sea wolves. Osla and Aedan develop a fine friendship at the abbey, while work is being done on the Four Gospels. During these attacks the Book of John is completed in a setting of stress and love, and accusations of murder, to bring our two star crossed lovers closer together, to save the abbey and found a new kingdom.

This is the first book of a trilogy about Earth's contact, soon to be realized, with a sister world of Ka'andana, where their destiny is intertwined with ours. Paul is the first 'scout' to experience life on our world, as he is to follow in the path of the Dream, a civilizational belief system on his world, which brings him in contact with Sanaa, a beautiful Ethiopian woman with whom he falls in love. They must flee from those who would capture them, which directs them into India and a Himalayan monastery, where Sanaa is captured and taken by government agents. Paul is distressed but finds an inner strength of peace while in the presence of Mananam, a blind monk at the monastery, and sets out to save Sanaa, who is taken to Paris. He finds her, but is now in danger of being medically 'examined' because they know he is from another world. The Dream unfolds in mysterious ways as they 'merge' together two worlds.

The screen play adapted from this story can be viewed here: Dreamer of Dreams

Sanaa is taken to Ka'andana where she encounters a very advanced culture and technology. There she gives birth to her daughter, Maya, who is precocious in the ways of her new world, and together they become immersed in the subtle subterfuge of obstacles presented by Morz, a disgraced star ship commander. Maya and Sanaa escape to the renegade cave dwelling people of the Sanctuary who eschew modern technology, and the Dream, to right the wrongs of their world, and become entangled in an upcoming androids war. With the help of Seth, another star ship commander, who becomes Maya's adoptive father, they disentangle machinations by Morz, which involves also future Earth, to bring back peace to Ka'andana.

Maya's father, Paul, is lost and captured in the Amazon when his small scout ship goes down, so Maya who is now older, and her mother Sanaa set out to rescue him. With the help of another space traveling race, the Ebh'ans, and Earth adventurers Bates, an American, and Josie an Amazon Indian, and a small boy Carlos, they find Paul in a prison labor gang in Amazonia felling trees, with whom they all escape. But the return is complicated by sensitive equipment, and perhaps alien bodies, hidden at a government installation in norther New Mexico, where they must go to retrieve what they can. With the help of an Apache, Roy, they find what they are looking for under a mesa on the Apache reservation. Maya and Carlos become friends and make a promise in the Amazon before she returns to her world.

This is a short novel about a black man imprisoned in a Nazi labor camp and his little notebook, which he kept hidden under his barracks mattress and in which he recorded assiduously the terrible trials of camp life. It is written in a post-modern style with the voice of Olgha, also a camp prisoner, and Giammai, who calls her Kostia, in their dual voices of pain and fleeting hopes, even love, of their knowing each other and the other prisoners. As they strive to survive hunger and punishments, and ever present death, we glimpse through their eyes this terrible travesty against innocent human beings, especially when they tried to save the children from death.

Ipi is a young Kumeyaay Indian of the southern California desert, whose people summered in the Laguna mountains but wintered in the Anza-Borrego desert until about the time of the Spanish Missions, when their population was drastically reduced by disease. This is Ipi's story of coming into manhood, observing the traditions of his people and especially befriended by the shaman leader of the clan, Tapawaye. Their encounter with the Mission changed Ipi's life.

This is a three part philosophical development of the idea of 'interrelationship' and how this seminal idea of structure of the universe applies to our human identity, with ramifications for our future development as a fully conscious human species who 'have the mind'. The second and third parts of the book deal with spiritual values of a universe that is 'conscious' of itself.

[Please see "Anisotropic kg/kg mass" (posted Mar. 2, 2008) for explanation why kg'/g must be adjusted on the right side to balance the Axiomatic Equation, which necessitates a 'variable' kilograms per variable-G, in order to conserve Equivalence. The Axiomatic Equation must read:

E' = hc/ (l)(proton m) = [1(kg'/kg) - (g')pi^2] c^2

to balance both sides.]

Addendum: [a] There may be a lower, gentler MOND for our solar system, as described per this post: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3497#POST3497

[b] Boltzmann Constant may have a variable G component relative to Earth's black body average temperature, as posted here: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3173#POST3173 and http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3172#POST3172 - This G value could perhaps be tested on the ISS, where it should read >6.67E-11 and <7.239E-11, if Earth's interior heat is a factor on Newton's G. (posted 8/01/07)

I'm posting this paper here just for fun , since it will never be published. I'm too radical even for the radicals. Most people of mainstream physics, especially modern physics, look upon it with horror. How could Newton's (universal constant) G vary by such a large magnitude, of 1G per 1AU, they ask? I'm surprised they haven't held up a cross to me, since my idea is so blasphemous, maybe even evil! Mostly, they run like scalded cats at the sight of what these numbers represent, or ignore me, close my threads on discussion forums, etc. I'm used to it, so not bothered anymore. Yet, the numbers work out, though the results are bold, far bolder than the gentlemanly M.O.N.D. as posited by Milgrom. That's the price I must pay, that the idea remains without peers. So I list this paper here for the record, never posted before, and likely never to be published in any astronomy or physics journal. I leave it as it is, odd that it may be, my magnum opus on gravity, until we test for G inertia in the outer solar system. "Investigation of the Gravitational Potential Dependence of the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium" (2007), Ferrel, Congoz, Lapierre, Mguyen, et al.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0708.0569F

[Edited April 21, 2008, to correct order of magnitude error in original.]

Ivan

If 1 x 1 = 1
then 1/2 x 2 = 1
or 1/4 x 4 = 1
and 1/8 x 8 = 1 etc...
or formally [1/n x n = 1], where the ‘n’ gets larger and larger until it approaches ‘infinity’.
Thus, where does this leave us? We eventually get: 1/’infinity’ x ‘infinity’ = 1.

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a ‘basic common denominator’ into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression.

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 "p" 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 [ p 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 "inifiniton" 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 p x I 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.

And I posit the algorithm to express the interaction between photonic light and super gravity with:

h/cw + g = m = 1 , where h is Planck's constant, c is light velocity, w is lambda wavelength, g is the gravitation constant, and m is mass, which is all set to equal one; so that the interaction between light and super gravity is modified by the gates of electrons and exchange of energy, so the end result is mass, the basic building block of universal reality.

Remember that G, in my TOE, is only a left over force, what's left from the EM and SuperGrav interaction, which creates mass. In our corner of the universe, G appears to be constant, because the level of EM here is constant, but go beyond the solar system where there is less photon light, and gravity intensifies, which means any object beyond Pluto starts to weigh more, the further it goes, the more mass it gets. This will be so until it reaches another sun system, then its mass will lighten again, as more photons are present. Well, that's my intuitive bet, supported by my rather odd math, which adds up to having an infinite like force, the photon (zero mass), interact with another infinite like force, super gravity (infinite mass). Whether or not the photon has mass is irrelevant in this case. It's in their ability to modify each other that matters.

"Mystery force tugs distant probes."
Some more food for thought, if not conclusive evidence, yet.

Here is a BBC Sci/Tech article, May 15, 2001, on deep space gravity which may give a clue to what I mentioned above, that gravity is not a constant everywhere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1332000/1332368.stm
Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_168000/168410.stmThis may not explain my thesis on gravity, but it does show that there are still unknowns about this force. Gravity has also shown not to be constant everywhere on Earth, so some places pull more on us than others, but I suspect for reasons of mass rather than photonics. See gravity map at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1668000/1668872.stm

LIGHT PHOTON WAVELENGTH FOR TOE

Dear Friends, fellow TOE seekers,

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.
… One of the spin offs from this is that as the photon energy decreases, or downshifts to a redshifted longer wave, it increases the (C x w) portion of the equation, whin in turn would increase the gravitational constant. If so, then instead of "g" being approx = 5.6 x 10^-39, it would upshift to a higher number... maybe.

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 6 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.

1. Music harmonics as derived by Pythagoras, as shown by Ray Tomes in his paper "Harmonics, Pythagoras, Music and the Universe": http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/alex-ha.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

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 !!
(I suspect that if we were to caculate the 1-0 shell's energy, it would be much higher still.)

3. 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.

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. The g factor is still a problem, since the number used, 10^-39, is a dimensionless constant (which I do not know what it means!).

"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.

ATOMUS SUMMUS ET UNIVERSUS:
A new interpretation of the known physics and cosmology. ©

By Ivan D. Alexander

THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS, NOT FINAL THEORY!

Abstract: This paper endeavors to show that there is a more streamlined way to understand the astrophysics of how cosmic electromagnetic energy interacts with a (postulated) supergravity that is the primordial stuff of our universe, which results in an atom. This new theory of the atom is based on rewriting Einstein's famous formula for energy and mass, using Planck's constant, whereby gravity as we know it becomes a residual force. To solve the necessary lambda wavelength of E=mc^2, the equation was rewritten as h/cl + g = m = 1; which in its solution indicates gravity is a constant only within the parameters of a constant energy source, such as our sun or any star, but is likely a variable-constant away from such an energy source. This theory also explains the why of "black holes" at galactic spirals, and offers an alternative explanation for light redshift over great cosmic distances, and may give us a better understanding of so-called "dark matter". Atomus Summus also offers a new way to understand the planets and gas giants in our solar system.


E=mc^2. This is the basic premise on which this new interpretation of the atom is based, which leads into a new Theory of Everything (TOE) combining the four known forces of Strong Force, Electromagnetic Force, Weak Force, and Gravity.
…So we are back to the beginning, where zero times infinity equals one. This is the fundamental philosophical basis of this theory on the atom, as the Atomus Summus, a universal Theory of Everything, captured by the expression h/cl+ g = m = 1.

Conclusion. No doubt there is still much work to be done on this. However, if this proves to be verifiably correct, the ramifications are immense. Gravity would now no longer be seen as some outside force of the atom, but as its actual byproduct of the interaction between light energy and the supergravity force that defines the atom's central core…

GRAVITY IS ?

Within the structure of the atom as defined by E=mc^2, (which became E/c^2 + g = m), g = 5.9X10^-39, as a gravitational constant. This was how gravitation was defined within Atomus Summus through the rewritten equation of "energy vs gravity" expressed as h/cw + g = m = 1, where "w" is lambda wavelength of e.m. energy. In solving this wave lambda for the gravitational state of our solar region, w=2.2087X10^-42 meters, yields the "g" above. But what does this mean? What is the Gravity function "G" as a constant "g"?

We know of Gravity on Earth, and in the measurable heavens, by the function:

G = 6.673 X 10^-11 m^3 s^-2 kg^-1 in terms of metric units and approximate gravitational constant, which is not the same as "g" above.

"G" is what gravity becomes in our immediate environment, whereas "g" is what remains as a gravitational constant of the function interacting energy and gravity within the atom. But "g" can now be understood as a function relative to energy "w", which is a variable throughout the cosmos, thought it may remain relatively fixed within a star system, because that is how that star emits its electromagnetic rays into its system. This is how the system then balances out, so that the remainder force of gravity, which is a very strong force, becomes negated into a very weak force, such as we experience here on our planet.

So there is a more meaningful way to write out the "energy vs gravity" equation as such:

h/cw = m - g, or better as: h/cw - m = - g, which formally becomes:

-g = h/cw - 1, remembering that m=1, so that "g" becomes a function of "w" lambda.

GRAVITY IS STRANGER THAN FICTION?

A funny thing came into my head while on my way to New York, that ENERGY = MATTER + GRAVITY, which made me look out the window on the white clouds below and azure blue sky above, and wonder... Where am I? Somewhere over the Texas Panhandle, I thought.

The way this showed up algorithmically was like this:

E = mc2, which we all know, but gravity was missing, so that it became E/C^2 = m-g, where "g" is a small gravity dimensionless constant of 10^-39, which is a gravity-electromagnetism relationship.
This formula then rewrites as:

E = (m-g) C^2, which further multiplies out to:
E = (mc^2) - (gc^2), so that we get:
-gc^2 = E - mc^2.

Now it take a leap to see the next relationship, but it looks like this:

G^2 = gc^2, so that the small gravity constant "g"translates into macro-gravity "G".

Now, G = 10^-11, approximately, and
g = 10^-39, approx. When putting these together, with c = 10^8, we get the following:

G^2 = gc^2, so that,
(10^11)^2 = (10^-39) x (10^8)^2,
G^2 = 10^-39 x 10^16 = 10^-23

Now take the square root and you get approximately 10^-11, which is G.

AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS OF THE NEW PHYSICS:

Em o c = h/l(eomo)1/2 = (Bm)c2 = f(E)(1-g)c2 = Eenergy ©
(Please see Axiomatic Equation - revised for updated, as of January 23, 2004, and November 19, 2004.)

Dear Friends,

Below is the 'work in progress' draft of the work done over the past year resulting from all the discussions and ideas on a Theory of Everything, dating back to Feb. 23, 2002, to "Atomus Summus" in the Archived Forums, to the New Forums, to now.
…Inquiry into the Relations between Energy and Gravity, relative to E=mc2, with Axiomatic Equations, as a Foundation for a Theory of Everything and the New Physics.

By Ivan D. Alexander ©

Abstract: The search in physics for an algorithmic method of incorporating electromagnetism, the weak and strong force, and gravity into a comprehensive theory of everything has been an illusive holy grail since the days of Albert Einstein, with limited success. This paper will show how it is possible to envision energy and gravity as interactive forces relative to each other, starting with a foundation of E=mc2, and ending with why black holes at galactic centers negate all light. This is achieved through solving Einstein's famous mass-energy formula's necessary electromagnetic lambda wavelength. This solution was achieved by rewriting the formula as h/c ? + g = m, whereby h=Plank's constant, c=light velocity, ?=lambda of e.m. wavelength, g=dimensionless gravitational constant (5.9x10-39), m=1 (which represents the unity of interacting forces); so that m= 1= one hydrogen atom. The result of this inquiry will show that Gravity, such as we know here as G=6.67x10-11, is a variable-constant dependent upon the solar energy environment within which it is measured, whereby G will be a lower value inside a star, but of greater value out in deep inter-stellar space. In final analysis, it all reduces to the Axiomatic Equation:
Em o c = h/?(?o?o)1/2 = (Bm)c2 = f(E)(1-f(g))c2 = Eenergy ®

f(E) = f(E'/E), a function of total planetary orbital Energy divided by Earth's total Energy of 90 petajoules/second.

f(g) is a function of proton gravitational constant, which is:

f(g') = [(Protonm)' * g] / (Protonm), where g=5.9e-39 for Earth's E, and g' is a ratio derived from E'.

Random Notes on Spin, as it applies to a neutron star.

Dear J___,
Here are some ideas on how to figure the spin of something like a neutron star. I would use the Crab Nebula as an example. There is information on this pulsar cum neutron star at:

Chandra X-ray Observatory
Cosmiverse Reference Library

I figure that if we can calculate (guesstimate) the "g" factor, as per "Atomus Summus-2" as a gravitational constant, using G to calculate this, we may be able to guesstimate the value of the neutron star's Mass, though this would be, of necessity by this system, only as a function of m=1, which is mass figured as a fraction of absolute mass. The results are interesting, however.

Taking as a basis G^2=gc^2, and using G as 6.67x10^-11 as Earth's gravity, taking further the generally accepted idea that the solar mass of the Crab Nebula neutron star is approximately 100 billion (10^11) times the gravity as measured of our Sun's (so that G of the neutron star is approx. = 6.67x10^-11 times 10^11 = 6.67x10^0), we can then calculate Mass as follows:

(6.67x10^0)^2 = g (3x10^8)^2 which then becomes

g=4.94x10^-14

(This "g" is therefore much more powerful as a gravitational constant than the g=10^-39, which is the constant for our region of solar energy.)…

AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS (FOR THE NEW PHYSICS)

Em o c = hc/ l ( = h/l (eomo)1/2 =(Bm)c2 = (1-g)c2 = Eenergy ®

(as developed on Atomus Summus-2)


If E=mc2 is true, and

if E/c2=h/cl =m-g is an expression of its gravitational constant, with g=5.9e-39 (see Gravity coupling constant) and

with c=1/(?o?o)1/2, see Electric and Magnetic Constants

if by substituting Em/c = Bm, see: Electromagnetic Wave Equation we have:

Bm=E(?o?o)1/2, then we can say:

E/c2=Em(?o?o)1/2 is its magnetic constant Bm,

then of necessity, if c2=1/(?o?o), we can say:

c2(m-g)=c2(h/c?)=E, and with substituting c2 we get:

(m-g)/?o?o=h/cl /?o?o=E, which is also as per above:

E=c2[Em(?o?o)]1/2 which becomes:

E=Em/(?o?o)1/2,

which with E=(m-g)/(?o?o), together they become:

Em/(?o?o)1/2=(m-g)/(?o?o)

which, because (m-g)=h/cl, we end up with:

Em/(?o?o)1/2=h/cl /(?o?o)

which is simplified into:

Em/(?o?o)1/2=h/cl (?o?o),

and thus, by multiplying it out:

Em = h(?o?o)1/2/cl (?o?o),

which equals:

Em. c = h/l(eomo)1/2 = (m-g)c2 = Eenergy ...if m=1

SOME MEMORABLE CONCEPTS FROM TOE OF THE NEW PHYSICS

-Gravity is not a universal constant, but it is a variable-constant

-Gravity is inversely proportional to energy output of local star, or galaxy

-Electro-gravity is an oxymoron, they are mutually exclusive

-"Time" is a notch on a stick (it has no physical dimension)

-Inverse proportions multiplied together always equal "one"

-The atom is the essential building block of the universe

-Harmonic relationships are endemic to how the universe is built

-The four basic forces of physics, TOE, are only two: Energy and Gravity

-The "Axiomatic Equation" is open ended, Energy always resulting in Watts (Power)

-Gravitons do not exist

-Energy is always broken out into positive and negative charges, which cancel when possible, or repel when not (we do not know why)

-There are only two constants, "c" and "m", all else is variable

-Pluto's gravity per mass is greater than Mercury's (we still do not know this)

-Canceling all light lambda gives us total gravity (a future energy source)

-Gravity is a continuous force, never exhaustible

-Light redshifts through denser gravity of deep space

-Light and gravity are universally present throughout all of space

-Energy always travels in a P-wave (S-wave is a Cartesian coordinate invention)

-All mass has lightspeed velocity in space (in relation to light traveling away from it) and is never infinite

These above are the new concepts of the New Physics. Some are yet to be discovered, so speculative, others are already known. The universe is built of a most simple interaction, in that it interacts with its opposites. The end result is an atom from which leak the remainder forces of gravity and magnetism, in inverse proportions.

A UNIFIED THEORY of Gravity and Energy: The Axiomatic Equation ©

Conceptually, the Axiomatic Equation says:

Em * c = hc/l/l= h/l/l (eomo)^1/2 = (1 - g)c^2= (Bm)c^2 = Eenergy

This in its simplicity and elegance is a pure expression of energy and gravity resulting in mass, where mass equals a unity of one, m = 1. If we use mass as proton mass, 1.67e-27 kg, the resulting E = 1.5e-10 Joules/second, or Watts.

REVISED, work in progress: However, because by convention we use kilograms for mass, where mass here as m = 1, kg/kg, and gravity proportional G has a kilogram component, so it needs to be rewritten as follows, where E = 90 petajoules:

E' = Em * c = hc/l (mproton) = h/l(eomo)^1/2 * (1/mproton) = f(E'/E)(1m- g)c^2 = f(E'/E)[mc^2 - (G^2 m/p^2)] = f(E'/E)(Bm)c^2 = E Energy © = 9e16 m^2.kg.s^-3 = Joules/seconds = Watts, (Earth only) where mass (m) is proton mass 1.67e-27 kg (multiplied by its inverse 5.99e28 to become m = 1, kilogram per kilogram) to result in total E = 90 petajoules, per second.

[Note: f(E) = f(E'/E) = a function of planetary total orbital Energy, E', divided by Earth's total Energy, E = 90 petajoules/second. E'= solar irradiance (W/m^2) times distance (in meters) times total planet orbital Energy (KE = 1/2 mv^2), where m =1, a template only, to yield E = 90 petajoules/second for Earth's orbital Energy. Earth's E' = E'/E = 1.]

I'm not totally happy with this revision, so needs more work to balance out the equation further. Subsequently dropped the Watts, Joules per second, so E' reads now in Joules, but still troubled by (1-g) function for mass minus the proton gravitational constant, since mass = 1 kg/kg. Specifically, this function: f(E'/E)[mc^2 - (G^2 m/?^2)] needs better definition of what the function f(E'/E) actually means.

In its final form, the equation should balance out in Joules, where E' is adjusted for mass minus proton gravitational constant for each orbital Energy at distance from star. Could Planck's constant h be also a variable? Don't have answers for now. - IDA, June 19, 2005

where it is understood f(g') = [(Protonm)' * g] / (Protonm)

G * m = (G^2 * m)^1/2 = ~(mc^2)^1/2*pi - [hc/l(mproton)]^1/2*pi = ~(mc^2)^1/2*pi - (Em*c)^1/2*pi = ~(mc^2)^1/2*pi - E^1/2*pi = ..., which is the G in the F = Gm/r^2 equivalent of E. (For illustration only, see post below, June 1, 2004, for how this equation for G was derived, not exact.) the more direct gravity relationship using the Axiomatic is this:

Gravity equation:

G^2/pi^2 = [hc/l(proton mass)]- c^2 = -gc^2, where in taking the square root we get Newton's G.

By Ivan D. Alexander.

Abstract: This is not physics as currently understood. The Axiomatic Equation is made up of functions from Maxwell's, Planck's, DeBroglie's, Einstein's, and Newton's equations. The paper will show how it is possible to envision energy and gravity as interactive forces relative to each other, starting with a foundation of E=mc^2, and ending with why gravity is not a universal constant. It will also show why neutron stars exist, what is the so-called dark matter, and why black holes at galactic centers negate all light. This is achieved through solving Einstein's famous mass-energy formula's necessary electromagnetic lambda wavelength. This solution was achieved by rewriting the formula as h/c? + g = m, whereby h=Planck's constant, c=light velocity, ?=lambda of e.m. wavelength, g=a dimensionless gravitational constant (5.9x10^-39), m=1, which represents one hydrogen atom of mass, dimensionless with kg/kg implied. The result will show that Gravity, such as we know here as G=6.67x10^11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2, is a variable-constant dependent upon the solar energy environment within which it is measured. The 'variable' constant Newton's G may be inversely proportional to the Energy received from our local star, the Sun.

The Axiomatic Equation is a simple mathematical formula which models how this interaction of two opposed forces of Energy results in an atom with measurable remainders of magnetic and gravitational energy…

MOMENTUM, and gravitational mass.

We know from common experience momentum as that which keeps going until stopped. It is what Newton formulated in his theory of inertia, where a mass at rest will stay so until force is applied to it, thus giving it velocity, and keep that velocity until another force is applied to modify its motion. The mass times velocity is what is now called 'momentum' = p, expressed mathematically as: p = mv.

DeBroglie also defined momentum in his wavelength relationship for the photon, which is expressed mathematically as lambda: l = h/p, where h is Planck's constant. He then translated this function into a relationship for electron particles, which are known to have mass. The mass of a photon is still debated, however the same function applies to both, meaning the photon acts as a 'particle' as if it had mass. The David-Germer experiment showed that the electron exhibits the same as DeBroglie's, so that l = h/(mv), if expressed in non-relativistic terms. (Please note 'relativity', as defined by Einstein-Lorenz, is treated here as a purely 'observational' technique, non-transferable into the actuality of the workings of physics in the real world.) This same function is also expressed as ? = hc/pc, where pc = E for the photon, where E = 1 eV by convention. The linkage between the momentum of kinetic energy of matter and the electromagnetic wavelength of the energy of particles is shown using a 'relativistic' equation: E = mc^2 = KE + moc^2, so that the relativistic kinetic energy is expressed as: pc = (KE^2 + 2KEmoc^2)1/2, which at extreme relativistic velocities, E >> moc^2, so that pc ~ E. Thus, at a relativistic speed a fraction of the speed of light, momentum is calculated simply as v/c = pc/E, where as v = c, => pc = E.

This form of definition for momentum leads one to think of it as a relative constant, meaning that for whatever energy is applied to create this momentum, it will thus remain as a constant velocity, until this energy changes. Under normal circumstances in our immediate vicinity of space, this energy is always constant for any given momentum, so that momentum for mass always yields the same relative velocity. However, if we go away from our immediate Earth environment, say far out into space beyond the solar system, the energy levels there may not be the same as here, but much diffused and weaker, so that the momentum to velocity relationships, and inertia, may be different. This way of thinking is currently not accepted, nor even theorized (to my knowledge), except in how reads the interpretation of the Axiomatic Equation. It would appear, from this 'new physics' equation, that if momentum is a constant, once established, an increase in inertia, or lengthening of wavelength energy (which also increases gravitational force per mass), then the velocity should slow, and vice versa. I believe this linkage between momentum and wavelength effect can be demonstrated with the function of the Axiomatic Equation which deals with it…

MASS FUNCTIONS, per the Axiomatic New Physics.

There is a fine point that needs to be understood in the New Physics, that Mass is not merely one value, but that it has multiple definitions dependent upon how mass is applied:

Mass is always equal to one as an a priori value: m = 1

This fundamental value is then broken down into sub definitions dependent upon how it is being measured:

Energy mass: E = (1-g)c^2, where m = (1-g)
Inertial mass: mi = 1 * g
Photoelectric cutoff mass: mp = 1 * 1/c, where lambda, L = ~5.2e-7 meters.

This last cutoff mass is where the star's electromagnetic energy ceases to modify mass so that inertial mass is at its maximum. Below this range of e.m. stellar output, gravity becomes total as in a black hole, where light lambda cancels.

The inertial mass in our solar region is very low, since g = ~5e-39.
This g is a function of the proton to proton gravitational force, which can be converted to Newton's gravitational constant G via the following equation:

(G^2*m^2)/pi^2 = g*m * c^2, where g = G^2*m/pi^2*c^2

Therefore, inertial mass and energy mass are not the same, for they answer to two different definitions. At the galactic center black hole, inertial mass is total, where g = 1, and energy mass is zero, where E = 0. This total inertial mass is the absolute value of the space-vacuum energy, not as a function of electromagnetic energy, but as a lack of it, where gravity is at its maximum. It is possible that this maximum space-vacuum energy, ZPF, will someday be duplicated and used to drive kinetic motors or motion.

THINKING ON GRAVITY G, a possible interpretation in Volts?
…
There was something that came up when I rewrote the above gravity conversion, by taking the square root of the equation (m = 1, stays same) as:

G*m = (g)^1/2 *c*pi

Now, the SI units became

(m^3.kg^-1.s^-2) kg = (g?) m.s^-1

which cancels the kg, so it leaves g as 'm^2.s^-1', not something immediately recognized, except that it might be a Volt expression... here's how:

If amperes are expressed in Newton's per meter (i.e., electron current is force 2e-7 newton's per meter, as per SI base units), then we can say:

A = N.m^-1
N = m.kg.s^-2, so that m cancels and
A = kg.s^-2

Volts are W/A so that W = J.s^-1 = m^2.kg.s^-3 which give us
V = W/A = m^2.kg.s^-3 / kg.s^-2, which simplifies into
V = m^2.s^-1

Now we can recognize m^2.s^-1 as an expression of Volts!

AXIOMATIC CUT-OFF FREQUENCY FOR GRAVITY?

Can there be a 'cut-off' frequency of light for gravity? This question occurred to me when I was considering using Em =1 as a way to figure momentum p:

If we take m = 1, so that (m-g) = (1-g), and Em = 1, then per the Axiomatic:

Em * c = (1-g)c^2 = E, we get:

1 * c = (1-g)c^2 = E, which dividing it all by c:

1 = mc = E/c. = p

Now, if we take mass (m-g), where m = 1, in some approximation of 1/c, it becomes:

(1-g) = ~1/c, per the Axiomatic:

E = hc/l (mp) = (1-g)c^2, substituting (1-g) = 1/c, we get:

E = (1/c)c^2 = hc/l (mp) = 3e8 Joules , so that now we can solve for ?:

3e8 m^2.kg.s^-2 = [(6.626e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1)(3e8 m.s-1)] / (l)(1.67e-27 kg/kg)

where l = 3.97e-7 meters, when mass is (m-g) = 1/c.

This value for lambda = 3.97e-7 meters, is also 397 nm, or 0.397 microns, or taken as hf =~3 eV as Quantum energy. In Hertz, it equals nearly 7.5^14 Hz, or visible light near orange. If our star could no longer put out light in this range or above (which for our star computes out per the Axiomatic as l = 1.3e-15 meters, or 10^23 Hz, above Gamma rays), our gravity would be very great, and our Sun would likely become a so-called neutron star.

ENERGY AND GRAVITY SLOPES, as computed using the Axiomatic Equation.
…(graph shown)…
Note how total orbital Energy, as computed in Jaszz 4 (7/31/04), is very steeply curved. The gravity 'constant' G is linear, with an upward slope, which was a real surprise to me. Note also how the gas giants total Energy flattens out, while for the inner planets it is steeply sloped upwards, with an elbow about Mars and the asteroid belt. All planet distances are in AUs. What does it mean?

THE G 'CONSTANT' PER AU DISTANCES, and the Pioneers Anomaly.

I calculated that Newton's G 'constant', so called, grows linearly with distance, as per the posts on "Does Gravity Zero-point Energy Explain Spin?", Oct. 4, 2004. In fact, it seems to grow linearly at the rate of about 7.3e-11 Nm^2kg^-2 for each AU (astronomical unit = ~150e9 meters), so that by the time it is at Saturn, for example, a distance of 9.5 AUs, it is already up to 68.5e-11 Nm^2kg^-2, slightly more than 10 times Earth's 6.67e-11.

Now watch what happens when you figure this out in meters rather than AUs. If one AU is approximately 150e6 km, or 150e9 meters, then dividing the growth rate of 7.3e-11/AU equals:

7.3e-11/ 150e9 m = 0.048667e-20, or = 4.8667e-22 G/m.

Here is where it gets interesting, though I cannot swear this is right. Take that growth value of ?G per meter and divide it by the G 'constant', which is:

4.8667e-22/ 6.67e-11 = 0.7297e-11 m.s^-2, which is also = ~7.3e-12 m/s^2, or in centimeters it becomes: ¶G/G = ~7.3e-8 cm.s^-2. (It should be ?G/G = ~7.3e-14 cm/s^2. See ERRATUM below, Oct. 31, 2004)

In taking this acceleration (towards the Sun) and doing the square root (inertial mass is increasing by same rate as G) then we get:

-a = ~2.7E-7 cm/s^2,

which is the rate at which the linear increase in G should slow the Pioneer distant probe.

Why is this last interesting? Because it comes in approximately within range of what was discovered by the people measuring the Pioneers's rate of acceleration (Anderson, Nieto, et al, at LANL) towards the Sun = ~8e-8 cm.s^-2.

ENERGY AND GRAVITY SLOPES, as computed using the Axiomatic Equation.

The graph below was plotted based on these computed values for total orbital Energy and resulting Newton's G 'constant', as per the Axiomatic Equation: (some early calculations on planetary energy. Also see Oct. 9, 2004, same page.)

HYPOTHETICAL ATOMIC MASS AS A GRAVITY AND ENERGY FUNCTION, PER THE AXIOMATIC EQUATION: With Implications for the Pioneers 10 & 11 Acceleration Anomalies.

By Ivan D. Alexander
Costa Mesa, CA USA

(Dated November 27, 2004, revised September 6, 2005)

Abstract: Mass is both a function of energy, as per Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2, and also a Quantum function of Planck's constant times c, divided by lambda ? times the proton mass, also known as the Planck-DeBroglie equation. It will be shown that in addition to these, mass is also a gravity function, as defined by the Axiomatic Equation, derived here, as an extension of the DeBroglie-Planck-Einstein equation; where the proton mass is a variable, leading to a proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant variable, which can then be computed into Newton's G gravity 'constant'. This Newton's G becomes a function of the Energy region where it is being measured, where for our solar system its delta G increases linearly at the rate of ~7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 per astronomical unit from the Sun, one AU = ~150E+9 meters. The hypothesis is that what happens to atomic mass at the quantum level is how it converts into Newton's G gravity at the macro level, per the Energy regions where G is measured.

SPIN RATIOS CURVE SOLVED:

Though calculations for planetary Spin Ratios vs. Kelvin heat and Energy are rough, there was a pattern that occurred with fair consistency which seems to put calculated SR and actual SR' (see chart below) within some sort of curve. This lead to 'shelve' it for a long time, until now. I think I solved what this curve represents. Taking the post of Sept. 25, 2004, above:

Quote:

CALCULATED PLANETARY (ZPH) SPIN RATIOS VS. ACTUAL SPIN, with Gravity.

I must admit that I had been puzzled for some time as to why the calculated spin ratios worked out in the Jaszz spin ratios for the planets of the solar system (see Jaszz spin 6 above, Aug. 7, 2004), the numbers came short for the outer planets and too high for the inner planets. Something was not right, though they tended in the right direction, so I had been curious about this ever since. Then it occurred to me, that in my calculations for spin ratios I had ignored the variable G involved…

GENERAL RELATIVITY IN A VARIABLE G UNIVERSE?

Einstein's field equation for gravity reads as:

Rab - (R/ 2) * gab + ?gab = (8?G/ c4) * Tab

where L is the cosmological constant
R is scalar curvature, Rab are Ricci curvature tensors
gab are the metric tensor components
Tab are stress-energy components of non-gravitational matter, energy and forces at a point in space-time
with G as the gravitational constant, c lightspeed constant, and ? as pi.

Looking at the above, should Newton's G gravitational 'proportional' prove to be a variable, rather than a universal constant, the above General Relativity equation would need to be revised. Here are some foreseen revisions:

1. G has a variable value dependent upon radiant energy where measured
2. L would have to be dropped if cosmic light redshifts naturally coming out of dense deep space gravity regions, so the universe's 'expansion' is an illusion.
3. tensor components may need to be revised
4. GRT extensions, such as 'blackholes', Schwarzschild metric, 'time travel', lightspeed limit to space travel, Big Bang, and 'wormholes', all would need to be revised or rejected…
It all works out much easier with the deBroglie-Einstein modified equation where G is an inverse function of E:

E = hc/ lproton m) = f(1-g)c^2

where E = 9E+16 Joules (on Earth, where G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2, and g is the proton gravitational constant, g = 5.9E-39)

You can find a calculator on for Compton wavelength, on Earth ? = 2.20867E-42 m, which when plugged in will show KE transferred to electron = 8.993858E+16 J. It was this Compton wavelength that was 'reinterpreted' into the electromagnetic equivalent for the proton in the Axiomatic Equation, per paper above. If G is found variable per this equation, the universe becomes much more simplified, more open to new discovery of gravity-powered space travel, and rather than an esoteric science revealed only to a few, it becomes inordinately understandable to everyone.

DEEP SPACE GRAVITY?

Taking an earlier post where I worked out the axiomatic 'cut off' wavelength at E = 3E+8 J, (per post above June 3, 2004), which approximates the orange range of light:

3E+8 m^2.kg.s^-2 = [(6.626e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1)(3e8 m.s-1)] / l (1.67e-27 kg/kg)

where l = 3.97e-7 meters, when mass is (m-g) = 1/c.

Now, if E = 3E+8 J, what is the proton mass m_p = ?

Assuming l is unknown, and m_p is unknown, then we get:

3E+8 J = 19.878E-26 / ?(m), so that

l (m) = 6.626E-34, which means there must be some value of equivalence for where ? and proton mass stabilize. This may be achieved if we retain the proton mass in Earth's region, (for computational purposes only), and then get the l for the 'cut off' E, which means l = 3.97e-7 meters, which itself approximates the 'cut off' wavelength in the photoelectric effect.

If this should prove to be so, then it probably is the effective wavelength of deep space, meaning that because there are so many forms of energy in deep space, from dark galaxies made of hot gasses to ambient radiant energy from all the galaxies, deep space may have a more constant G than the deltaG experienced close to any star.

A way to estimate it (intuitive, very rough guess) is to take the opposite tack, and to leave lambda same as we have it here, l = 1.32E-15 m, and then solve for proton mass:

E = 3E+8 J = hc/ (1.32E-15)(mp), so that proton mass = 5.02E-19 kg, which means the proton mass gravitational 'constant' becomes g = 1.777E-30,

and using the conversion equation for Newton's G:

G^2 = gc^2 pi^2

G^2 = (1.78E-30)(9E+16 J)(9.89) = 158.44E-14, which taking sqrt give us G = ~12.6E-7 N... (approx. ~1.3E-6 N..)

So G_s = ~ 1.3E-6 Nm^2 kg^2, as the approximate 'cut off' equivalent of deep space gravity, where it begins to 'flatten out' as a constant. I would guess it more a constant there because of all the ambient radiant energy of galaxies combined with the ambient plasma energy in deep space, such as found in 'dark matter' galaxies.

Energy equation per the Axiomatic:
…The value of Em for electric force is thus a variable, same as f(g), in proportion to E'/E, where the total Energy flux E' for any distance from a hot radiant star, in Joules, determines the resulting gravitational proportional for mass in situ.

This means that the full Axiomatic Equation, leaving out magnetic and space permitivity and permeability components, factoring in orbital Energy, should look like this:

f(E'/E) = E' = solar irradiance( -3) * 1/2 Rv^2 = Em*c = hc/ l(Protonm) = f(E'/E)(1-[f(g')pi^2]) c^2 = Energy in Joules

VARIABLE MASS IN VARIABLE G, PER EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE

This may be the most difficult thing to grasp, that the kilograms we use on Earth to measure inertial mass are not the same kilograms used to measure it elsewhere.

Take Saturn, for example, where the proton mass (m_pSat = ~1.5E-25 kg_Earth) is about 100 times greater than on Earth (m_pEarth = 1.67E-27 kg_Earth), in Earth kilograms. But Saturn's G (G_Sat = ~68.5E-11) is about 10 times that of Earth (G_Earth = 6.67E-11). So in terms of Saturn's G region, the proton mass there is about 10 times what it is on Earth, or equivalent to its G being 10 times greater than here, when measured in terms of Saturn's G and kg_Sat. This is a strange result, but the equivalence demands it.

The Axiomatic Equations says:

E' = hc/ l (m_p) = ~(1-[g pi^2])c^2

This consequently means that the left side of the Axiomatic Equation is of necessity in Earth based units for mass, while the right side the equation yields mass equivalence in terms of local G. I.e., G^2 = gc^2 pi^2, where the square root of g (proton to proton gravitational 'constant' for that region) is equivalent to local G 'kilograms', but the original as a proportion of the left side is still in Earth G, per equivalence, kilograms. If so, then local measures of mass are always in local G, per equivalence, but squared that amount in terms of Earth based G; conversely, the opposite effect is felt for the planets closer to the Sun. On Mercury, for example, G is about 40% of Earth's, but the proton mass is about 15% of Earth's proton mass.

This may incidentally also explain why Mercury is "pulled" along by the Sun's spin (moment of inertia) directly, precession, since its inertial mass is so low, while this same effect falls off dramatically with distance (per inverse square law) so that by the gas giants it is hardly felt. It would also mean that past the Oort cloud, where G is very great, the dynamics of mass equivalence of "dark matter" proportions affects orbits there, and still more so beyond the galaxy's G equivalence, where the inverse square law defaults to a linear proportion. Of course, all this will need to be measured in future observations to validate what the Axiomatic Equation projects. And if so, then the gas giants are a given, where a small interior rocky mass can hold vast atmospheres, or why tiny Pluto can have any atmosphere at all. It all has to do with the Equivalence Principle for inertial mass in a variable G…

LIGHT REDSHIFT DISTANCE TRAVELED AT 1 Z (in intergalactic medium), with implications for deep space gravity.

Question: What is the mass of the deep space "vacuum" at the distance light traveled to redshift 1z; and what is its effective deep space G?

From Answers.com it says one light-year is approximately D_ly = ~9.46E+15 meters. Though the spacevacuum is not entirely empty, let's assume light travels at c = 3E+8 m/s. How far would this light have to have traveled before it redshifted to 1 z? We know 1 + z = ~1 + (v/c) in non-relativistic terms (for v << c).

(1) Question of distance: If 1 z (where light is at 1% of lightspeed) is approximately 129.2 million light-years(*), then what is the distance traveled to reach delta 1 z? Can we multiply 129.2E+6 light years by the distance of one light-year? If so, then the distance is:

129.2E+6 l.y. * 9.46E+15 meters = 1222.2E+21 meters, or D_1z = 1.222E+24 meters.

This is quite a range of distance for light to travel in space to redshift 1 z. I do not know for sure if this is right or not (not sure how correct EvC Forum number is, and hard to find elsewhere), but it may be a useful number to figure something out, where light traveled 1.222E+24 meters at delta 1 z, where light has redshifted to only one percent of lightspeed c. If this is to be measured in AUs, where 1 AU = 1.5E+11 m, dividing gives us a distance for 1z of ~8.15E+12 AU, which is a lot! To put it into billions, it's roughtly 8,000 billion AUs, or 8,000 giga AUs, get redshift z = 1.

(2) Next question, number of atoms: How much space dust and gas, let's say primarily hydrogen, is there per one cubic meter stretched over that distance of D_1z = 1.222E+24 meters? Let's say that it is the conventional one atom per cubic centimeter, of which 99% is gas (of which 92% is hydrogen gas), and convert this to 100 atoms per meter. Now that meter distance for 1 z is 1.222E+24 m long, so the total volume of that long meter is 1.222E+26 atoms of (mostly) hydrogen per the distance of light traveling delta 1 z. Okay, so what does it mean?

(3) Question, mass of deep space atoms: If we have a reading on Earth (in Earth's 1 G gravity) of light "gravitational redshift" as ? ?/? = gh/c^2 = 1.136E-16 per kg (2.5E-15 divided by 22 meters)**, what would this same "gravitational redshift" be for space, where the volume density of the distance of 1 z is approximately 1.222E+26 hydrogen atoms?

We know hydrogen mass is m_h = 1.67E-27 kg, so multiply this by the interstellar volume of hydrogen, and you get the total mass per 1 z:

1.67E-27 kg * 1.222E+26 * = 2.04E-1 kg, which multiplied by gravitational-lightshift z, 1.136E-16 kg^-1 is:

2.04E-1 kg * 1.136E-16 kg^-1 = 2.318E-17

and we know gravity's G is 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. Now dividing, the interstellar volume of hydrogen mass times z, by the known G, and what do you get?

2.318E-17 / (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^2. (This is the G for the gross mass of that one cubic centimeter of interstellar medium, over distance of 1 z)

G-deep space, is the "gravitational G" for hydrogen gas over the distance of 1z. In effect, this is the amount of gravitational G needed to make light redshift delta 1 z.

The answer is: G-deep space = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

A VARIABLE MASS PER VARIALBE G HYPOTHESIS, AS A MODEL FOR THE ANOMALOUS ACCELERATION OF PIONEERS 10 AND 11 -- per the Equivalence Principle and the Axiomatic Equation.

By Ivan D. Alexander, Costa Mesa, CA USA

Abstract: The Pioneers Anomaly as measured shows a constant rate of acceleration towards the Sun at –a = ~8E-8 cm/s^2. This can be interpreted, in reverse order, as a gravitational phenomenon, whereby Newton’s ‘constant’ G is shown to grow at a steady rate to cause this anomalous acceleration; which shows ‘as if’ G is growing at approximately 1 G per AU. This same result can be achieved in a modified Quantum equation, here called the Axiomatic Equation©, where Newton’s G grows in inverse proportion to solar energy received at a distance from the Sun, at about 1 G per AU. The resu