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

Conceptually, the Axiomatic Equation says:

E_m * c = hc/l = h/l (e_om_o)^1/2 = (1 - g)c^2= (B_m)c^2 = E_energy

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' = E_m * c = hc/l (m_proton) = h/l (e_om_o)^1/2 * (1/m_proton) = f(E'/E)(1_m- g)c^2 = f(E'/E)[mc^2 - (G^2 m/p^2)] = f(E'/E)(B_m)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/p^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

However, there is still another justification for this Energy to magnetic field relationship, where E = (Bm)c^2:

Using the original E = mc^2, and introducing a new value for mass = m, we have a new way to express Energy = E. The new concept is that the atom is a product of outside energy and a superstrong gravity in its nucleus which results in a balance of these two forces that are the basic atom. However, the balance is not total, and hence there is a remainder force. For the magnetic force, the positive and negative inside the atom cancel to zero, but there is a remainder which is the atom's magnetic potential force.

Therefore, by this reasoning (not current usage in physics, where the atom is a product of a positive nucleus and negative electron shell, which is also true) the mass of E = mc^2 can be defined as a magnetic component of m = (zero mass) + Bm. The result is that E/c^2 = m can be rewritten as E/c^2 = 0+ Bm , which is equal to E = (Bm)c^2, which by substituting Bm (as per above) leads to E= Em/(e_om_o)^1/2 = Em * c = (Bm)c^2 ...so Energy equals Electric force times photon velocity, or the resulting atom's magnetic flux density times c^2.

How hc/l = (m-g)c^2 = E was derived:
The approach to solving for light lambda is one of interrelating inverse opposites, so that any number will have a fraction inverse which when multiplied together will always equal to one. This inverse number sequence is an infinite sequence, all always offset equally to infinity both as one and whole digits to infinity, and their inverse fractions below one to zero, so that infinite numbers are represented equally on both sides of one. (Please note this is not the same as expressing infinity as a summation of positive and negative numbers on either side of zero. Theoretically, the expression of this, in effect, would be represented by "zero x infinity = one", for illustration purposes only.) Using this approach allows for the rewriting of E=mc^2 , with m=1, as a function of inverse proportions, whereby we get of necessity: 1/c^2 x E = 1 = m. However, this is an incomplete algorithm, as it applies to mass. What is missing is some gravitational "g" factor of mass, which can be expressed as a negative value from mass, i.e., mass = m-g. The reason being is that the gravitational constant "g" is missing from mass to complete its value as "1", and therefore must be accounted for. Therefore, the result is that the algorithm may be rewritten as E/c^2 = (m-g), which is also E/c^2+ g = m = 1. (Please note "g" is not "G", for the two have a separate relationship, as will be shown below.)

Using substitution, we then substitute E for an expression that will allow us to solve the needed lambda, which was calculated as follows:

If we substitute the value of E with the high energy of mass and momentum, we get: pc = [E^2-m^2c^4]^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/l , (see referenced URL above), where 'l' is wavelength, and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = ch/l. This then further reduces whereby (1/c^2 x ch/l) + g = m, which then becomes: h/cl + g = m. This is the algorithm necessary for solving "l", e.m. mass lambda.

Using h/cl_m + g = m, with m=1, we can solve "l", which works out as:

By using Planck's constant "h" of 6.626 x 10^-34, and using "c" as 3 x 10^8 m/s, and "g" as 5.9x10^-39, with m=1, the resulting mass wavelength (lambda times mass) is the same value as ~(1.322e-15 m.s) (1.67e-27), or approx. 2.2e-42 m.kg.s. , where l = 1.32e-15 m.s. for proton mass.

This calculation of "l" at first may not seem relevant, but as we will see later it leads to a new way of seeing how energy and gravity interact. Keeping in mind that solutions to equations equal to one require of necessity that the upper and lower parts of a fraction be equal, this lends us a way of solving for "g" in other "l" environments, with interesting results. This calculation method can be illustrated as per above:

h/cl + g = m

[(6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)x(2.2087x10^-42)] + (5.9x10^-39) = 1, which further computes as: [(6.626x10^-34)/(~6.62606x10^-34)] + (5.9x10^-39) = 1.

A simple application of h/cl + g = m: The length of mass l now gives a way to manipulate the other variables in the equation. Please note there are two constants: m = 1, and c.
Taking the following values to compute the algorithm:

h=6.626x10^-34 (constant, may be variable)
c=3x10^8 m/s (constant)
l_m=~2.2087x10^-42 m.s (a mass lambda variable)
g=5.9x10^-39 (dimensionless, proton to proton, variable)
m=1 (constant)

Using h/cl + g = m , and mass l as a variable where the wavelength is stretched to where it cycles once over the distance traveled at c, which is essentially near cl=~1, then solving for "g" we get the following results: [(6.626x10^-34)/ (~1)] + (g) = 1, whereby g=1-(6.6x10^-34), or approaching "1" (which incidentally approaches the Strong Force value = 1). If cl = 0, then g=1, of necessity, which is maximum gravity.

This is significant, as will be seen later, because where there is no e.m. energy interaction, gravity grows to its maximum value. In effect, what you would expect to find in a galactic black hole center is a negation of light, since there the gravity constant is at its maximum. However, importantly, this is not G, but rather "g" which equals "one".

Newton's Gravity "G" as a function of the gravitational constant "g":
Starting with our basic E = mc2, which is a given, with but gravity missing, so that it becomes as per above: E/c^2 = m-g, where "g" is a small gravity dimensionless constant of 10^-39 (which is a gravity-electromagnetic energy relationship). Taking this reasoning further, that "g" is a function of mass "m" as E/c^2, we get:

E = (m-g) c^2, which further multiplies out to:

E = (mc^2) - (gc^2), so that we get: -gc^2 = ~E - (~mc^2).

In effect, gravitational constant times light squared equals E-energy minus its resulting mass-energy, which is the gravity potential of the mass. This is another way of saying what the gravity potential of a mass, given an energy environment, will manifest as "G", which is the Newtonian value of gravity, which is not the same as "g", which denotes a "gravitational state" of the atom related to its energy state. G is a macro force resulting from its aggregate of g states per atom.

Now, if we see Newton's gravity G not as a singular force but expressed as a product of two interacting forces, which are the forces of the two masses of G, the product of which is G^2, we then can make gc^2 equal to G^2. This is how the atomic gravity constant "g" translates into macro-gravity "G":

G^2 = ~gc^2

Now, G = 6.67x10^-11, approximately, and g = 5.9x10^-39, approx. When putting these together, with c = 3x10^8, approx., we get the following, so that:

~(6.67x10^-11)^2 = ~ (5.9x10^-39) x ~(9x10^16), so that:
G^2= approx. (53.1x10^-23), or by taking the square root we get a rough approximate:

G = ~2.3x10^-11 (times "pi" ~3.14, which implies p is built into G) =~7.22x10^-11, is relatively close to our G = 6.67x10^-11 estimate in our solar cosmic region.

G^2/p^2 = gc^2 is therefore the conversion equation for g. Or more correctly:

G^2 (m)^2 = g (m) c^2 p^2, which simplifies into:

G^2 * m = g c^2 p^2

where G=6.67x10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2 (Newton's G)
g=~5x10^-39 (proton to proton gravitational constant)
c=3x10^8 m.s^-1
m = 1 dimensionless, kg/kg implied
pi(p)=3.14...

When you multiply it out and take the square root of G^2, you come up with approx. G = 6.67x10^-11 (m^3.kg^-1.s^-2).

By using this equation, we can now calculate Newton's Gravity constant, a variable-constant, for any energy density region of space, which can be rewritten as g = G^2 / c^2p^2, which substituting into Axiomatic's (1-g)c^2 = E, we get:

E = (1-g)c^2 = (1 - [G^2*m/c^2p^2])c^2, multiplied out:

E = (1)c^2 - G^2*m/p^2 Hence, we can add to Axiomatic Equation:

E = mc^2 - (G^2*1/p^2), where m =1 kg.

[Note: the SI units for G^2*m = gc^2pi^2 do not balance out, so at present this equation an unknown quantity. One possibility is that g is an 'electro-gravitic' expression where volts apply, but no final solution has yet been found. For the Axiomatic Equation, g is in kg/s. Please see post below, THINKING ON GRAVITY G, May 26, 2004, for more on this.]

Please note if g=1, such as at a galactic black hole where all light lambda cancels, using the above equation, then Black Hole gravity G (max) = 3x10^8, which is another value of c. In effect, within the event horizon, where G^2=c^2, zero light energy = total Gravity. (Pi drops out from this equation because it effectively has no radius.) The conclusion is therefore that Newton's G becomes very great in a Blackhole, where total maximum gravity equals Energy.

The Axiomatic Equation of Gravity and Energy: A unified theory equation.

Why Em*c = E, or "electric field times light speed equals Energy":

If momentum p = E/c, and p = m*c, where m is electron mass, then it follows that:

E/c = mc, which is the same as E = mc^2. We also know that E = hc/l, where l is lambda, which is the electromagnetic wavelength, which then means that if we take E = hc/l and divide it by c, we get E/c = h/l, which is once again p. So thus far, for momentum, we have:

p = E/c = mc = h/l = (in terms of Em?)

I have a question mark because I think momentum p can also be derived from Maxwell's equation of electric field and magnetic flux: Em/Bm = c. With p = mc, I think I can show that Em*p = Em*m*c = E.

We know we rewrite Em/Bm = c, as Em = Bm*c, so that Bm expressed in T is in SI Base Units kg s^2 A^-1. But if A^-1 is the same as 1/A = 1/kg s^2, then Bm is really kg s^2 /A, which is kg s^2 / kg s^2, which is "one", or (mass fraction) kg/kg =1. So, in terms of SI Base Units, Bm*c is "similar" to one times lightspeed, which is equal to an electric field: Em = (1)c, so that per this reasoning, Em/1 = Em = c.

Now, if pc = E, then substituting the c with Em, we get p*Em = E, true at least in terms of SI Base Units, which then can be rewritten as: Em = E/p. Now, if p = m*c, then we can rewrite this as: Em = E/ m*c. To solve for E, it becomes: E = Em * m*c.

What does all this mean? It means that my Axiomatic Equation was missing "m" in the first part. The correct equation should have been:

Em*m*c = hc/l = mc^2 = E, which in words is:

"Electric field times mass, times lightspeed, equals Energy." However, in my original Em*c, the mass is missing because in the Axiomatic Equation, mass is always m=1, sot that the corrected version would still read: Em*1*c = E, which gets back again to how I originally wrote it: Em*c = E.

The only exception to this is for the magnetic mass, where dual charges cancels out except for a positive remainder Bm, so that it becomes m=0, to become: Em*1*c = hc/l = (0+Bm)c^2 = ~mc^2. I also rewrote mc^2, since m=1, as 1*c^2. Then I took out the proton gravitational constant g from the mass, so that it became: (1-g)c^2.

So the whole equation would now read, with the corrected mass:

Em*1m*c = hc/l * 1/m_proton = (0m+Bm)c^2 = (1m-g)c^2 = Energy = ~90 petajoules

(Incidentally, 9x10^16 Joules, or 90 petajoules, works out for E=mc^2 when m =1, so another reason I chose "mass equals one", as an axiom.)

[ONE KILOGRAM VS. PROTON MASS, as per Axiomatic Equation.

The unified equation for gravity and energy says, in part:

hc/l = mc^2 = E = 90 petajoules

However, for this result to be correct, hc/l would have to be raised by one kilogram (proton mass 1.67e-27 times its inverse of 5.99e28 to equal m = 1 kg.), since m=1 in mc^2 is equal to 1 kg., so that we would have hc/l (m) = mc^2. Therefore, this relationship can work either way, where mass = 1 hydrogen atom, but the result is a small fraction of 90 petajoules, or m = 1 kg/kg., where the result is as above.

These are reflections on how this Axiomatic Equation may be used both ways, either for mass as one kilogram, which was how I believe it was used in Einstein's original, so the total Energy = 90 petajoules; or it can be used as mass is one hydrogen atom, in which case the total Energy is very small, but this does not change the formula.

The same would apply to the latter part of the formula where the gravitational constant, ~5e-39, is subtracted from mass, viz. (1-g)c^2 = E, either as a gravitational "multiplier" of the gravitational constant of one kilogram, or as a function of what is substracted from one hydrogen atom's mass. The only difference is in how Energy is then measured, either totalling 90 petajoules, or a fraction of that. What this equation does is unify the various relationships between mass, electromagnetic energy, and gravity into an equation of Energy, showing how these components interact to become the matter of the observable universe. The values we then ascribe to this equation become a function of how we wish to measure it, provided it is adjusted for mass and remains consistent with the rest of the equation.

If, for example, the mass of the proton is chosen, m = 1.67e-27, then the resulting Energy would be:

E_proton = (m - g)c^2 = (1.67e-27 - 5e-39)9e16 = ~1.5e-10

which solving for lambda: hc/l = ~1.5e-10, so that l_proton = ~1.32e-15 meters, which would be the electromagnetic wavelength for the proton mass of a hydrogen atom, if this is true.

(It appears that the original E = mc^2 was calculated at 90 petajoules as being Total Energy for mass = 1 kg/kg.)

Just reflections here, thinking out loud with a rough sketch, not a definitive proof. What I wish to illustrate is that the Axiomatic Equation is adjustable for the mass being considered within the gravitational field where it is being measured, as kg/kg, so that if mass is one kilogram, then the original is as stated, with the gravitational constant being g = 5e-39 times one kilogram.]

Conclusions: Gravity is not a universal constant, but rather a variable-constant in relation to the energy output of the star where it is being measured. The greater the energy density, the lower gravity, so that Pluto's gravity per mass should be greater than Mercury's, though we still do not know this and must await our probes getting there. This unified equation says that electric force times lightspeed is Energy, and that (g), which ranges from near zero to its maximum of one, is inversely proportional to (Bm), in relation to the E density of any given star system. The development of this concept of the interrelationship between energy and mass and gravity leads one to think of mass as no more than the interaction of light energy, in all its electromagnetic spectrums, and raw gravity, as being what results in mass, which is then capable of either a low or high gravity force depending upon the energy environment in which it is manifest. This is a theory outside Special and General Relativity, as these are already built in, since the universe is already relativistic, if gravity is not a constant, which simplifies physics greatly. In its raw unmodified form gravity is intense and is equivalent to what manifests either in black holes, or in the nucleus of the atom. If so, we may be able to recreate this interaction artificially.

A New Form of Energy? An extrapolation of these ideas is that if gravity and energy are interrelated, then there may exist a new form of kinetic energy for us to tap into at some future time. For example, gravity acts as a catalyst for motion, which any child learns when it falls. It would be interesting to imagine that someday we could learn to manipulate this catalyst in ways presently unimagined. For example, a simple kitchen experiment can demonstrate how lambda wavelengths cancel out by applying any vibrating device to the rim of a bowl of water, and watch the waves converge on the center, to either disappear or rise up in a single nipple there. This is not so far removed from the image of a black hole galaxy center where the energy converging there (from the billions of stars of its spiral arms) to radiate out the spiral axis (nipple) as electric energy (mass times lightspeed), or otherwise disappears (is cancelled) at the center (in a Feynman manner, where photons separate into positive and negative values). If we could find a way to duplicate this canceled energy, we might be able to duplicate the tremendous force of gravity that is re-released back into its primordial form, and use this powerful force to propel a vessel. The natural tendency of the vessel's mass, if off center, would be to move towards that gravity point, so that all the molecules would accelerate in unison instantaneously, which would likely yield the pleasant result of not feeling the motion. Unlike our present ships which are powered by being pushed with kinetic energy, these ships would be pulled by gravity instead, uniformly from within. If gravity and energy are related, then a new inexhaustible accelerative energy can be used to propel future crafts at immense velocities now unimagined. That we experience so little gravity on our planet, and in our solar system, is perhaps no more than a function of the abundance of light generated by our star. But far out in deep space, where this light is much diffused and stretched, the environment may be radically different. Gravity per mass should be greater in the cosmic reaches of cold space than here on Earth, which may be why the universe is held together by a theorized "black matter". It may also explain why distant cosmic light red shifts in this great gravity. If so, Big Bang becomes what? Welcome to the new physics.

Final Remarks: The Axiomatic Equation as worked out in the above is derived from existing stock physics equations with interpretation given from the mathematical results, where no real explanation is possible until all these expected variable values are tested by observations. The mystery behind this unified theory equation will become more resolved when we discover that gravity is not the universal constant now believed, and that gravity and electromagnetic energy are interactive in the vicinity of the energy of stars. The absence of such energy allows space to return to its natural state, which is pure gravity. Should all this prove true, the sub-values of magnetism and electric force, unifying Quantum physics and macro-physics, will likely yield us a better understanding how works our universe. Does this mean space-time Relativity is irrelevant? Nothing is "irrelevant", in the final analysis. If gravity proves to be a variable-constant, however, there will be no need to use space-time Relativity to stretch gravity into a universal constant. The mathematics of space-time may yet prove useful when we can travel at or above light speed. And when we do harness this new energy, the future will open for us technology of an inexhaustible, limitless accelerative force that will propel our future motors and spacecraft, ultimately to take us to the distant reaches of the galaxy.

August 27, 2003 Costa Mesa, CA. USA

[Edited 11/19/2004: f(E) = f(E'/E), so that the right side of the equation, f(E'/E)[1-f(g')pi^2]c^2, balances with the left side. --IDA]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT:

THE FOUR FORCES: Gravity is not an electromagnetic like force.

Per the New Physics, the Atom, as it is shaped by an interaction between a very strong gravitational nucleus and electromagnetic shell, per the Axiomatic Equation, where the proton to proton gravitational constant force, g, ranges from near zero to one, or from very weak to maximum (which can be translated into Newton's G through: G^2 = g c^2 pi^2), is a basic unit of mass which gives us all the matter of the universe exhibiting gravitational force. This resulting interaction inside the atom has a dual charge, with a (positive) proton and (negative) electron shell, moderated by balanced charge (neutral) neutrons. The weak force and electromagnetic force have a common denominator in that they are both modifiers of the very strong gravity inside the nucleus and the space between the nucleus and the electron shell. Because this space is inherently unstable, the weak force manifests to counterbalance where the strong gravity shows up as atomic decay, seemingly spontaneously and thus probabilistically, from our observations. Therefore, these Four Forces are in fact only Two: Gravity and Electromagnetic Energy. Their interactions then give us the other two forces of weak and strong force, which are subsets of the original two. The strong force has by convention a value of "1", which per the Axiomatic Equation is the same as the maximum "g" of the nucleus. This is how the equation was configured, so that both the strong force and g have a value of one, which is also the value of total mass, the total product of the electromagnetic and gravity interaction. So that, if I were to put it into a chart form, it would be:

GRAVITY

Strong Force

Gravity

ELECTROMAGNETIC

Electromagnetic Force

Weak Force

From this perspective, the four forces are made up of only two interacting forces, not complementary but opposed. Both share similarity via the inverse square law, but their characteristics are otherwise different. Gravity cannot be shielded, only be released, theoretically by canceling all wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, per the new physics. Electromagnetic force can be modified by opposing charge, shielded, and manipulated. To manipulate gravity should be the next big breakthrough in physics, when this new theory of the four forces is better understood. This should be the next goal, to cancel electromagnetic energy at all wavelengths produced by our local star, so that gravity could once again be recreated in its pure form, a Casimir like force, or perhaps better as ZPF. Even if this point of canceled energy is infinitesimally small, the gravity force should prove extremely powerful, and usable as a new energy source to power future motors and space craft. Because gravity is an inexhaustible force, unlike electromagnetic energy, it does not answer to the conservation of energy law, is tireless, and infinite. It may yet prove, per this new theory, that gravity is the natural state of space in the universe, whereby when measured far from any energy producing star, or any galaxy, it will prove to be much greater per mass than as measured here in Earth, or within any inner orbits of hot stars. The exception to this would be neutron stars, or other cool stars, where the gravity per mass within the inner orbits would also prove stronger than here. In strong gravity space, the proton to progon "g" would be much greater than the ~5e-39 measured here. Black holes are an entirely different phenomenon from neutron stars, virtually unrelated except in where a neutron star seeds the center of a loose and chaotically arranged galaxy of stars, for this would then convert into a center on which all the radiating electromagnetic energy of surrounding stars cancels, which then creates a black hole at the center, which will eventually shape the galaxy into a common spiral one.

This is how the new physics of the Axiomatic Equation plays out, that there are only two forces, and that they are interactive because they are opposing forces. Gravity is not an electromagnetic like force. Other than to show how forces may interact, it is impossible to unify two opposing forces into one, by definition.

Copyright 2003, all rights reserved
____________________________________________________________________

Please see the posts below for the process on how this Unified Theory and the Axiomatic Equation had been derived from their mathematical relations. Many errors will be encountered, but were left as is for the record of how the Axiomatic was derived.

AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS (FOR THE NEW PHYSICS)

E_m • c = hc/l = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 =(B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy ®

(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/(e_om_o)^1/2, see Electric and Magnetic Constants

if by substituting E_m/c = B_m, see: Electromagnetic Wave Equation we have:

B_m=E(e_om_o)^1/2, then we can say:

E/c²=E_m(e_om_o)^1/2 is its magnetic constant B_m,

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

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

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

E=c²[E_m(e_om_o)]^1/2 which becomes:

E=E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2,

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

E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2=(m-g)/(e_om_o)

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

E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2=h/cl/(e_om_o)

which is simplified into:

E_m/(e_om_o)^1/2=h/cl(e_om_o),

and thus, by multiplying it out:

E_m = h(e_om_o)^1/2/cl(e_om_o),

which equals:

E_m^. c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (m-g)c² = E_energy ...if m=1

(where l= electromagnetic wavelength, h=Planck's constant 6.626e^-34, and g=gravitational constant (5.9e^-39 in our solar region), for m=1)

or E_m^. c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (m+B_m)c² = E_energy ... if m=0

(where B_m= magnetic potential, for m=0)

Or to put it all together:

\ E_m • c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 =(B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy ®

which is an equation incorporating electric energy, lightspeed, Planck's constant, photon wave lambda, electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, magnetic potential, the gravity constant, mass, and lightspeed squared... which is all º E=mc².

* * *

To solve for Gravity: G²=gc²p², as Newton Gravity G (implies G has p function, with result of g vs. G closest for c=2.76e⁸ m/s).

To solve for Electric permittivity:
E_electric=B_magnetic(e_om_o)^-1/2

To solve for Magnetic potential:
B_magnetic=E_electric(e_om_o)^1/2.

NEXT CHALLENGE: UNIVERSAL DIMENSIONAL UNITS

E_m • c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 =(B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy

If the above Axiomatic Equation is true, then the next challenge will be to convert it all into the same basic dimensional units, so that amperes, electron volts, Joules, Newtons, can be unified to be expressed universally into their energy equivalents either in kilograms (which is a function of gravity), meters per second (a function of photon light), or Hertz (a function of EM energy lambda), or into...(?)

The Fundamental Physical Constants to be worked with are:

c: Speed of light in vacuum: 2.99792458 x 10⁸ m/s
h: Planck constant: 6.6260755 x 10^-34 J^.s
(also expressed as [m^2.kg^.s^-2]^.s)
g: Gravitation constant: 5.9 x 10^-39 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2
(also as Newton's G = 6.67259 x 10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2)
e_o: Electric permittivity in vacuum: 8.854187817 x 10^-12 F/m
m_o: Magnetic Permeability of vacuum: 4p x 10^-7 N/A²

where g, h, B_m, and E_m may be variable-constants depending upon the EM wave l and velocity of c.

Mass is always m = 1, which can be expressed in kilograms as kg/kg, a function of gravity (i.e., m^3.kg^-1.s^-2) when the meters-cubed and per seconds-squared are dropped, or m = 0, when positive and negative charges cancel.

l: EM lambda: expressed in m (per second, but can also be in Hertz)

So this is the Challenge, to convert all of the above into universal units, such as the SI base units.

Good luck!

Ivan

ONE SMALL STEP ... work in progress...

I believe the above Challenge can be approached with the knowns, and then to solve for the universal dimensions unknown:

The known dimensional values:

h = m^2.kg^.s^-1, also J^.s, or (m^2.kg^.s^-2.s)
c = m^.s^-1
l = m^.s
mass = kg/kg = 1

From these we can construct:

hc/l = (m^2.kg^.s^-1)(m^.s^-1)/m^.s

...which is the same as h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 in the Axiomatic Equation, so that by canceling and multiplying we get:

hc/l = m^2.kg^.s^-3, which therefore gives us a value that is also J/s, Joules per second, and equal to W, or Watts' power radiant flux.

Therefore, this is our operative equation for all the others, so that we can now look for functions of those unknown to us: (E_m^.c), (B_m)c², and (1-g)c²

These should now follow:

E_m^.c = (m^.kg^.s^-2)(m^.s^-1), so that E_m = m^.kg^.s^-2, which is Joules per meter, which is also the Newton force.

(B_m)c² = (kg^.s^-1)(m^2.s^-2), so that B_m = kg^.s^-1, which is Newton per meter per second, or Joules per meter squared per second.

(1-g)c² = (kg^.s^-1)(m^2.s^-2), in which (kg/kg - g) is Newtons per meter per second.

So that for the Axiomatic Equation:

E_m^.c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy = m^2.kg^.s^-3,

...which means that Energy is an expression of the power radiant flux Watt, W, which is also J/s, Joules per second, all expressed in the universal dimensions of meters, kilograms, and time.


Ivan

... am I getting it right? If it is, we should be able to plug in numbers and make it work.

...ONE GIANT UNIFIED STEP FOR _______ ?

While jogging the ridges of Williams Canyon under a hot California sun, my two wolf-dogs and I racing the horseflies (all agreed the flies won), it occurred to me that we already had everything we needed to complete the Axiomatic Equation, including the numeric values. With values for lightspeed, lambda, and Planck's constant, and knowing the universal dimensional units, the rest is easy.

Here is how it looks:

Since c = 1/(e_om_o)^1/2 = 2.998e⁸ m^.s^-1, then:

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

(Please bear in mind that kilograms are a function of gravity force, an abreviation of "m^3.kg^-1.s^-2" into "kg".)

So all that is missing:

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

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

(Ps: Please note that the Magnetic potential constant of the Axiomatic Equation is not the same as Magnetic force. The relationship between the two is that B_magnetic= A/m = m^-1.kg.s^-2 is an expression of (m.s) EM lambda, to become B_m = kg.s^-1 value of the Magnetic constant.)

Therefore, for our solar region of space, these are the values that tie together the Axiomatic Equation into a relationship of Electric force, light lambda, Planck's constant, lightspeed, Magnetic potential, and Gravity.

Cold reason, a more masculine trait (or curse), may have created the equation, but there is something in the hot sun that brings about the blessing of feminine intuition, and that is how it all came together for me. There are only two forces, Gravity and Energy, and all else, including the self canceling strong and weak forces, is ancillary to these. In effect, we have here what is beginning to look an awful lot like a Unified Field theory. But its application is not yet, and if the gods saw fit to give Promethaeus fire, a light energy source we had been using since that ancient time of legend, then what future legend lay in our use of darkness, of the gravity we may now be able to tame? This is the great work that still needs to be done, to tame gravity through the canceling of fire, of light energy, in all its lambda. And if we can tame this universally present, and very intense force, Gravity, then a whole new world opens up for us, not only of space travel and exploration, but of a new energy source for us here on Earth.

Fantasy or fact? Is this right? We will not know until we discover whether or not gravity is a universal constant, as Newton and Einstein and their successors of modern physics theorized, or it is a variable-constant, as the Axiomatic Equation theorizes, inversely proportional to the abundance of energy in any given region of space. This, really this, is still the great unknown.

I suspect it will be the latter, and though the math may work, until this is known, it is mere speculation, which says Einstein's famous formula was right on (but only missing a constant). The truth is out there, and once we find it, the thinning branch of Modern Physics will have to give way to the more robust limb of a New Physics. If so, then funding will inexorably shift from current research to the new physics research. Then, and only then, can we move forward into our future destiny as humankind. We may be at the start of a great journey. But to get there, we must first obey the new Prime Directive, that we stop killing one another, that we learn to interact with one another through a process of agreements rather than coercions. Only then, when we become conscious of Who we are as free human beings, will our great Universe open up its secrets, and like a living eye over its children, will it cast its brilliant light with new knowledge upon us.

This may be all because of the new Axiomatic Equation:

E_m^. c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy ©

I thank all of you for your kind attention,

Ivan

Habeas Mentem

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

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

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

2. E = hc / l,

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

3. E = E_m /(e_om_o)^1/2 ...really!

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

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

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

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

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

4. E = E_m * c = hc/l (by substituting c = 1/(e_om_o)^1/2 ) = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = mc^2, all equal as Energy.

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

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

5. E_energy = E_m * c = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (1-g)c^2 = B_m * c^2 .

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

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

* * * * *

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

Ivan

ADDENDUM, it's about Time:

I should note that all measure values in the above Axiomatic Equation are per second, so that even mass, here expressed in kilograms, is nevertheless per second. This could be interpreted as the Equation having a continuous time function expressing Energy as Joules, which in being also per second to become Watts, is always in the process of becoming, an event through time. So time is not an additional coordinate in space time, but rather is an algebraic component of the equation.

The Equation, thus understood, never stands still, but is always incorporating into itself the passage of Time.

Ivan

RE the Axiomatic Equation:

I think I can see where the problem rests with this equation, and why people have trouble with it. It's in the:

E * c = E portion of the equation.

We know Em/Bm = c, so that Em/c = Bm, and if both sides are multiplied by c^2, we get:

Em * c = (Bm)c^2, as the Axiomatic Equation says.

However, why should this be equal to E? How do we know that Electric force times speed of light equals Energy?

If we can show this, then I think we had better start to measure gravity on Pluto, because it will be "heavier" mass than here on Earth.

Ivan

RE above, RE Axiomatic Equation:

I think the problem with this equation is its conclusion, not its structure, so that all who oppose it do so on a principle that it does not coincide with the known physics, which it should not.

If E_m/B_m = c is a good function, then it follows that B_m * c = E_m, which has been at the root of the problem where:

E_m * c = E_energy

But there is no mystery here, since it only means that an electron accelerated to light speed becomes energy, very simple. And vice versa, energy is broken down into mass and gravity and magnetic force. Truly elegant and simple, so that (B_m)c^2 = E is no more a mystery than all the rest of the equation, since in the original, B_m * c = E_m, is only a reflection of this accelerated to lightspeed c, to meet the conditions of what the equations says: It says, in simple terms, that in accelerating an electron to light speed, it turns into pure energy, which is then broken out according to the equation in how interrelate Planck's constant, photon lambda, light speed, which result in mass minus gravity and plus magnetic potential force. Simply that and no more. Of course, these further then break down into other useful component equations, per the known physics. The only difference is that the Axiomatic Equation now explains the gravity to electromagnetic relationship for a star system or deep space. Otherwise, it rolls back into the known physics from which it came.

So if there is opposition to how the equation was written, let it be expressed not in terms of what the equation says, or generalities, but where the structure is faulty. To date, other than criticize it in whole, no one has shown where the error is.

For reference, I list these Magnetic and Electric Power links:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genwir3.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ev.html
-compliments of Hyperphysics.

In final analysis, the only difference between the Axiomatic Equation and the known physics is that Gravity is NOT a universal constant, but inversely proportional to the level of Energy in the environment where it is measured. Period.

Ivan

E = mc² makes sense, even with atomic mass already at v = c.

The Axiomatic Equations says:

E_m * c = hc/l = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (b_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy º E = mc²

This means, therefore, that electric force, which like light is always at v = c, if taken to the next level of c brings it up to the level of E, and with it atomic mass traveling at c. Mass, either zero magnetic mass or one value of atomic mass, needs to be brought up to c again to become c squared, which is E. This may further be interpreted as: atomic mass traveling at c does not gain infinite mass, as currently believed, but maintains its atomic integrity, and becomes an electric force, whereby mc = E_m. By the same reason, atomic mass would dissolve into pure energy at c², such as happens in a galactic black hole, where G² = c² = E.

Another consideration is the electron jets shooting out the axis of galactic black holes. If per Feynman, photon light absorbed there does so at c² velocity where equal to E, then the separation of positive and negative values of light get both absorbed by black hole gravity, the negative value, and spit out the axis, the positive value. It could be, a guess, that black holes create atomic mass in the form of ionized hydrogen atoms, positive value, which shoot out at near light speed, v=mc, which is electric force, and which may account for the magnetic energy surrounding those black hole jets. This may be how the universe seeds itself with atomic mass, which then combines with energy to form hydrogen atoms with an electron shell. This may be the first step in how stars in their life cycle form matter, which becomes dispersed as the known elements when they die.

Can't explain more than this for now, but that's how it "feels" right. Once we find gravity is not a universal constant, we can engage engineering work to solve how we can cancel all e.m. lambda to recreate the great gravity force of deep space inside a vessel, and travel at speeds now unimagined. Will have to walk the dogs at Williams Canyon some more to get clearer picture. K

Ivan

PETAJOULES?

I get a kick out of physics, because it had been made more complicated than it needs to be. Why 'petajoules', when simple Joules will do? The rest energy of E=mc2 is approximately 90 petajoules, which works out to be very close to the Axiomatic Equation's value for Energy, which is approx. 8.99x19^16 Joules/second, or Watts. Incase anyone missed it, 90 petajoules is 9x10^16 Joules.

See Wikipedia Energy for more.

ELECTRON'S MOMENTUM

From Axiomatic Equation, Methodology:

---

Quote:

If we substitute the value of E with the high energy of mass and momentum, we get: pc = [E2-m2c4]1/2, where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at:
Hyperphysics Quantum). 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/ l, (see referenced URL above), where 'l' is wavelength, and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E =(c)(h/l) , or finally: E = ch/ l.

---

---

Quote:

E_m * c = hc/l = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = (1-g)c² = E_energy ®^*

---

MAXWELL'S & AXIOMATIC, continued:

We know pc = E

and we know E_m/B_m = c

so that we may surmize, per the above Axiomatic Equation that E_m * c = E, that we can also rewrite this as:

E_m * E_m/B_m = E

which means, of necessity, that electric force squared divided by magnetic flux equals Energy, or:

E_m^2/ B_m = E.

Now, if B_m = ~1, or approaching one, as it does in the Axiomatic, then pc = ~c^2 = ~E_m^2 = E, which means the universe's energy is essentially electric force times itself, moderated by its magnetic force. And also which is light times itself, which is Energy. In all, it is all light versus darkness (of space), or gravity.

This universe is beginning to make sense to me!

Ivan

AXIOMATIC EQUATION REVISITED: Breaking out the parts of the whole.

E_m* c = hc/l = h/l(e_om_o)^1/2 = (B_m)c² = f(E'/E)(1-g)c² = E_energy = ~8.99e16 Watts (which is approx. ~90 petawtts, or ~90 petajoules per second)

Definition of terms:

E_m * c = electron's electric force, expressed in Newtons, at light speed = approx. 2.998e8 m.kg.s^-2 times light speed 2.998 m.s^-1 = ~8.99e16 Watts = E

hc/l = Planck's constant times light speed divided by DeBroglie wavelength, also E = hf = (6.626e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1)(2.998e8 m.s^-1) / ~(2.2087 e-42 m.s) = ~8.99e16 Watts = E

(B_m)c² = magnetic flux, of mass zero, expressed in kilograms per second, at light speed squared = (~1 kg.s^-1) (8.99e16 m^2.s^-2) = ~8.99e16 Watts = E

(1-g)c² = mass equal to one, minus its gravitational constant, times light speed squared = (1- 5.9e-39 kg.s^-1) (8.99e16 m^2.s^-2) = ~8.99e16 Watts = E

f(E) = f(E'/E), a function of Energy, where E' = total planetary orbital Energy, and E = Earth's total orbital Energy of 90 petajoules/second, to modify mass=1 minus its proton g, times c^2. [Edited 11/16/04]

Clarification:

The whole equation is worked out in energy Watts, rather than the customary Joules. The reasoning is that Watts better describes the potential power Energy, which is a counterpoised force to Gravity. Gravity in Earth's region is extremely weak, but when all energy is absent it once again becomes total, where total Energy becomes total Gravity, as the equation describes. Gravity, as a potential work force, is better described as Energy per second, by this reasoning.

This is not the known physics as currently understood, where the atom is a product of Bohr's positive nucleus and a negatively charged electron shell. Here the atom is a product of its strong nucleus force with a value of one, which is in fact a gravitational like force, as it is modified by electromagnetic energy to become one unit of mass, where mass is always m = 1. The remainder force of gravity, here expressed as g, not Newton's G, is then a variable inversely proportional to the energy received by this unit of mass. The variables are electric force, inputted, Planck's constant, DeBroglie wavelength, magnetic flux, resulting, gravity remainder, and total Energy, all which go into making an atom. The constants are therefore lightspeed c, 2.998e⁸ m/s, and mass, m =1. This does not disprove the Bohr model, merely redefines it as a product of very strong gravity and its opposed electromagnetic energy, which results in the atom with positive and negative charges, as currently theorized, to equal Energy. The equation predicts that in low energy environments, such as on the edge of our solar system, or in deep space, the gravity per mass, and hence inertia, will be greater than here on Earth. The g value holds a star system together, but if it is too low, or zero, it breaks apart.

This equation is not yet complete, however, for there may be an energy density factor to be considered, which if so should make for another value of E to be identified. For now, it would appear that 'energy density' is a variable controled by 'electric force' (E_m) generated by the local star, or galaxy. Where there is no electromagnetic energy, where it is canceled, the atom dissolves back into its nucleus force, to become once again pure strong force, which is maximum gravity. If this force can be contained, it may become a usable form of energy. This theory is derived from a rewriting of the basic Energy to Energy relationships:

hc/l = mc² where g is subtracted from mass, and Maxwell's:

E_m / B_m = c, where c = 1/(e_om_o)^1/2, times light speed c.


Ivan

POSTSCRIPT, to Axiomatic Equation Revisited:

If G^2 = gc^2pi^2, then it can be rewritten as:

g = G^2 / c^2 pi^2, which substituting into Axiomatic's* (1-g)c^2 = E, we get:

E = (1-g)c^2 = (1 - [G^2/c^2 pi^2])c^2, multiplied out:

E = (m) c^2 - G^2/pi^2

so that with Newton's G, we have one more component to the Axiomatic Equation, which works out to be E = [(1)(~9x10^16)] - (4.5x10^-22), with m=1, or kg.s^-1 as per original, we again come close to 8.99x10^16 m^2.kg.s^-3, or approx. 90 petawatts, or Joules per second. (To make the SI units work out for this equation, one needs to impute mass as kg.s^-1 times the pi.)

*[Please note that this E = (1-g)c^2 was derived from E=(m-g)c^2, which perhaps should have been better expressed as E=(m-g(m))c^2, where m=1. This would signify Energy is lightspeed squared times mass, minus its very small remainder mass, which is the proton gravitational constant. In the final, E=(1-g)c^2, the m dropped out.]

Ivan

RANDOM THOUGHT ON CM = E^1/2, the square root of Energy.


If Em electric force is equal to one, what happens?

If Em = 1, then Em*c = c, or Energy is approx. = E^1/2

and h/l = c, and (Bm)c = 1

then also [(1-g)c^2]/c = 1, which multiplied out becomes

1/c - gc = 1

Therefore, Em = 1 = [-gc = (1- 1/c)] = [-g = 1/c - 1/c^2]

What does this mean? Only a possibility, when Em = 1, is that resulting -g = ~1/c, total Energy is only the square root of itself, i.e., E^1/2 = ~3x10^8 Joules. This E^1/2 may be a threshold level of energy before it crashes into a blackhole level of g =1, and E = zero.

For mental experimental purposes, let's say that g at a very low energy level of Em = 1 is some minimum value of g = ~1/c, or ~3x10^-8. This would be much greater than ~5x10^-39 in our solar region, for example, where Em = ~c, but the absolute level g can reach in natural space before rising towards g = 1 (in a blackhole). Then multiplied out:

[1-(1/c)] * c = (c - 1) = nearly ~3x10^8 Joules, or approximately the square root of E. Using G^2 = gc^2p^2 conversion formula, this also works out to be approx. G = ~1.64x10^4 N.m^2 force, which is very great indeed, to a factor of 15 over that of Earth's G value. This could be the resulting gravity value of deep space very far from any energy source (only a guess), but still weaker than gravity within a black hole, which is G^2, or approx. G =3x10^8 N.m^2.

One more perspective from this zero-one gravitational constant scenario is that Newton's Gravity goes from maximum blackhole gravity to deep space gravity for electric force Em ranging from zero to one, where g ranges from one to 1/c; and also Newton's G ranges from extremely weak, such as on Earth, to very great, such as neutron stars, in Em ranges from lighspeed maximum to near one minimum. So there is some sort of inversality of electric force and gravity, as measured in space in relation to the electric energy present. How is this potentially useful? It may show us how much gravity we will have to contend with when we go into deep space far from any galaxy, or perhpas the gravity values within the atomic shell between the nucleus and electron. Only a random thought...

Ivan

this was very interesting....
Why isn't this stuff explained in school or at least on discovery channel. Much more interesting than looking at triangels and guessing how big they are

Dear Anon,

We will have to await proof first from deep space, to see how gravity is different there from here on Earth, and in our inner solar system. Should the above Axiomatic Equation's theory prove right, that gravity far our in space is greater than Newton's G in our vicinity of the Sun, then we can begin rewriting the known physics. Stay tuned... but for now, we're only looking for clues. If you have any that shows how gravity is non-constant in different energy environments, please let us know.

Thanks for posting, and keep studying all you can.

Ivan

ONE KILOGRAM VS. PROTON, as per Axiomatic Equation.

The unified equation for gravity and energy says, in part:

hc/l = mc^2 = E = 90 petajoules

However, for this result to be correct, hc/l would have to be raised by one kilogram (proton mass 1.67e-27 times its inverse of 5.99e28 to equal m = 1 kg.), since m=1 in mc^2 is equal to 1 kg., so that we would have hc/l (m) = mc^2. Therefore, this relationship can work either way, where mass = 1 hydrogen atom, but the result is a small fraction of 90 petajoules, or m = 1 kg., where the result is as above.

These are reflections on how this Axiomatic Equation may be used both ways, either for mass as one kilogram, which was how I believe it was used in Einstein's original, so the total Energy = 90 petajoules; or it can be used as mass is one hydrogen atom, in which case the total Energy is very small, but this does not change the formula.

The same would apply to the latter part of the formula where the gravitational constant, ~5e-39, is subtracted from mass, viz. (1-g)c^2 = E, either as a gravitational "multiplier" of the gravitational constant of one kilogram, or as a function of what is substracted from one hydrogen atom's mass. The only difference is in how Energy is then measured, either totalling 90 petajoules, or a fraction of that. What this equation does is unify the various relationships between mass, electromagnetic energy, and gravity into an equation of Energy, showing how these components interact to become the matter of the observable universe. The values we then ascribe to this equation become a function of how we wish to measure it, provided it is adjusted for mass and remains consistent with the rest of the equation.

If, for example, the mass of the proton is chosen, m = 1.67e-27, then the resulting Energy would be:

E_proton = (m - g)c^2 = (1.67e-27 - 5e-39)9e16 = ~1.5e-10

which solving for lambda: hc/l = ~1.5e-10, so that l_proton = ~1.3e-15 meters, which would be the electromagnetic wavelength for the proton mass of a hydrogen atom, if this is true.

(It appears that the original E = mc^2 was calculated at 90 petajoules as being Total Energy for mass = 1 kg.)

Just reflections here, thinking out loud with a rough sketch, not a definitive proof. What I wish to illustrate is that the Axiomatic Equation is adjustable for the mass being considered, so that if mass is one kilogram, then the original is as stated, with the gravitational constant being g = 5e-39 times one kilogram. If for a smaller unit of mass, then all units must be adjusted for the mass used. It would seem that for the mass of one hydrogen atom, the g would be significantly smaller than for one kilogram.

Ivan

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 l = 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 + m_oc^2, so that the relativistic kinetic energy is expressed as: pc = (KE^2 + 2KEm_oc^2)^1/2, which at extreme relativistic velocities, E >> m_oc^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.

If we take this equation function from the Axiomatic: hc/l(m) = (1-g)c^2, where mass = 1, and g = ~5e-39, a proton gravitational constant, (m) is proton mass, we can see how this works.

If p = mv, and p = h/l(m), where (m) is any given mass, then it follows that, given h/cl(m) = (1-g), per Axiomatic, that:

h/cl(m) = m-g, where m = 1= one atom.

Now, it works out that h = pl, so the above can be rewritten as:

pl/cl(m) = m-g, or p = (m-g)c, which is also: pc = (m-g)c^2 = E, for any particle of mass (m).

If we plug in the values: h = 6.6e-34, Planck's constant
(m)_prot = 1.67e-27, proton mass
l = 1.32e-15, wavelength (proton) to satisfy the Axiomatic Equation
c = 3e8
m_atom = 1, then we get:

p = mv = 5e-19, which is (m) 1.67e-27 times 3e8 (v=c), and
pl = 6.6e-34, which is Planck's.

We know from the Axiomatic Equation that h/cl(m) = 1-g, so that the result of the equation, if l is of a longer wavelength will result in a greater value for the denominator of the equation on the left. This means that as the wavelength stretches, or redshifts, then the right side of the equation grows in the value of g. And if g is increased, then the momentum being equal would of necessity slow velocity, since the g per mass is now greater, so that p = mv now has a larger value for m, and lower value for v. This theory can be verified by substituting longer wavelengths for l, which results on the left a value of lower numbers below one, in effect, greater values for g, as it is subtracted from one on the right. (Please note that wavelength here, as l, is an expression of what is the solar energy output affecting any region of space, whereby the E = mc^2 equation defines mass, as it is adjusted into E = hc/l(m) = (m-g)c^2.)

So by this reasoning, momentum p is a constant, both in the velocity of mass equation and in the deBroglie equation for wavelength. However, if the wavelength changes, then per the Axiomatic Equation, the momentum will still be constant, but the mass value, as measured in terms of the gravitational constant, will also change. This leads to the conclusion that the shorter the wavelength, the less the inertial mass, and vice versa, the longer the wavelength, the greater the inertial mass, as a function of g.

This would translate into observations of mass at distances either near or far from the Sun, or any star and galaxy. Nearer means higher wavelengths, and farther as longer wavelengths, albeit by very small proportions. If we take light to be a quantum factor, there may be some distance where this effect becomes observable in quantum states. One way to understand this is that for some distance, say from the Sun to the asteroid belt, there is one quantum wavelength operable, which is a higher wavelength, so that all the rocky planets within that realm have a given inertia value. Taken from Jupiter to Neptune, or the gas giants, there is another longer level of quantum light wavelength which yields a higher level of inertia. And from Pluto and the Kuiper belt of comets, and beyond, there is another lower quantum level of wavelengths, which means there the inertia for mass, higher g, is greater still. These levels, at such short cosmic distances, may vary by very little, but should be observable in how velocity slows as mass reaches those distances, but become still greater as we exit the solar system, say past the Oort cloud, and out into deep space, where inertia should be very great. By this reasoning, when we are very far from any star, or in the vicinity of low energy cold stars, such as brown dwarfs or neutron stars, we should experience very great gravitational constants, shifted higher by lower quantum levels of light wavelength, and thus, given that momentum is always equal for mass, the velocity out there should slow considerably, since out there g and inertial mass are very great.

If so, then the question would remain: Does pl = h also respond to this quantum shift of light over great distances, as it redshifts away from its solar source? (We know that light passing through gravitational field will redshift.) My guess is that yes, Planck's constant may in fact prove to ve a variable constant too. Given this, it would mean that momentum, a constant, given longer l, would result in a higher value for Planck's h. In effect, for higher wavelengths of light, if h is constant, momentum p would have to decrease, which it cannot do by this reasoning. This is of necessity, since per the Axiomatic Equation, the function on the left can never equal more than one, or g becomes zero, which means that inertia would cease to exist; it would also mean that with gravitational value of zero, mass would fly apart, which does not happen. In fact, the opposite should happen, where inertia for longer wavelengths of light should become greater. However, we will not know this until we can observe mass slowing in its velocity as it travels away from the solar system. If we can find that comets slow, or de-precess, as they return to the distant reaches of the solar system, say out to the Oort cloud, then we would have our needed proof. This proof would then show that the velocity, in p = mv, would slow as m increased in inertial mass, as a function of its gravitational mass.

Ivan

ZERO POINT FIELD - ZPF

"...what we regard as the (inertial) mass of the particle is, according to deBroglie's proposal, simply the vibrational energy (divided by c^2), of a localized oscilating field (most likely electromagnetic field)..." - Hunter.

This very telling sentence on inertial mass as a function of vibrational energy relative to the deBroglie-Einstein equations: hf = mc^2, which yields the Compton wavelength, is from a paper by Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda titled: "On the Relation between a zero-point-field-induced inertial effect and the Einstein-de Broglie formula", Physics letters, 2000. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9906084

In its simplest (non-relativistic) form, the left equation is the reality of:

hc/l , and the right side is Einstein's: m_oc² as 'bookeeping', so that if divided by c^2, we get:

h/cl = m , in which the rest mass is merely mass in its own frame.

This dovetails nicely into the Axiomatic Equation as derived on these boards, though ZPF per se was never discussed at length. It seems that there may be a relationship between 'rest mass' and 'inertial mass' per the equations above. The particle I had chosen to work with is the proton, though it may also be true for the neutron.

I should note that if there is a gravitational to electromagentic inverse relationship operable, as per the Axiomatic, then inertial mass m as a function of the gravitational variable-constant g, as predicted by ZPF and deBroglie-Eisintein's, is a given.

If this is true, the Compton wavelength relationship to momentum may also indicate that the natural frequency of a particle at 'rest mass' is already operating as if it were traveling in space at light c.

Therefore, if p = mv, and v = c, then p = mc, whereby pc = E, so that Energy is E = mc^2. If so, then ZPF is the energy that makes mv = mc ...???

Ivan

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: m_i = 1 * g
Photoelectric cutoff mass: m_p = 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.

The converse of inertial mass is magnetic mass, expressed as a function of the magnetic dipole moment:

(B_m) c^2 = (1-g) c^2 = E, whereby the magnetic mass will increase as inertial mass decreases, and vice versa, by the values produced by this equation, as they are inversely proportional.

On the Gravity needs rethinking post, Mar. 16-17, 2004, there is a question whether the far side bulge of lunar tides may have a magnetic-electrostatic component to it. Based upon these valuations of inertial mass and magnetic mass, this is still a possibility, though not yet worked out.

Ivan

ZERO = 1/N, where N =>> INFINITY??

This is a new possible definition for Zero, not as a symbol of nothingness, since such a thing may never exist, but as a symbol of a decreasing fraction tending towards nothingness. Such a fraction, of near absolute Zero, is usable. Since 1/n * n = 1, then if 1/n , with n => infinity, equals zero, can we safely say: "zero * infinity = 1"?

We may yet need to use this kind of multiplication or division by zero in the future.

(see Space-Talk Astrophysics forum for more of this discussion: http: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=2396 )

What is Zero?

(Inquiry in progress, not a proof, nor a definition.)

I think the definition for Zero is a kind of yes or no question:

Can we say that one divided by an increasing number which as it approaches infinity is simultaneously the same number that approaches zero?

And the answer is...?

If yes, then when this number gets to infinity, is its inverse also at zero?
If no, then what is zero? Is it really a number? Or is it a convenience that is undefined?

Of course, if this definition for zero is yes, then we now have a way to add and subtract from infinity, by factoring in (+ or -) n, and (+ or -) 1/n, ( if n =>> infinity, and 1/n =>> zero) we get:

(zero - 1/n) * (infinity + n) = (1*1) - (1 * n/n) -(1* 1/n) = -1/n
(zero -n) * (infinity + 1/n) = (1*1) - (1 * n/n) - (1 * n) = - n

or (zero + 1/n) * (infinity - n) = 1 + (-1 * n/n) + (1* 1/n) = + 1/n
(zero + n) * (infinity - 1/n) = 1 - n/n + n = + n

... but this is a math we haven't invented yet.... not even sure I understand it either!

(...work in progress...) -- Ivan

DANGERS OF AN "AXIOMATIC DRIVE" ENGINE

If there was to be an engine designed on the principles of the Axiomatic Equation, that the canceling of all lambda in a vacuum would lead to the re-energizing the zero point energy in that vacuum, which is pure gravity, there may be a danger in this new source of power, because of the tremendous magnetic energy released.

Should this prove true, the energy contained within the vacuum vessel, if this pure gravity point is at its center, would likely recreate a powerful magnetic field running through the axis of the vacuum. If this engine vacuum container were place at the top of the ship, and another like it at the bottom, there could be a reusable current of electricity generated around the axis between these two engine containers, which could be stored into some form of capacitor. The basic energy that powers the Axiomatic Equation is electricity, with the resulting effect of recreating mass and gravity, which these can be converted into kinetic energy. So this upper and lower engine placement can be positioned such as to give the current generated a pathway between the two engines, completing the energy loop, so that very little energy would need to be used to keep itself going. This could lead to a danger, however.

If the containment of this electric energy loop should be disturbed by some outside force throwing it off balance, an off balance that cannot be countered through kinetic motion, it might create a kind of lightning bolt within the vessel. The disturbed electric current would come loose and strike all within the vessel, in effect frying all the electronic equipment and occupants within. This would be most distressful, since the vessel would then likely cease to operate as designed, and fail.

Therefore, if inadequately shielded from such an occurrence, the vessel would lose its ability to maneuver, and in the process burn or otherwise injure the occupants, and possibly kill them. The gravitational point energy generated by this Axiomatic Drive technique would be extremely powerful, even if only a small amount of energy is used to create this zero point gravity. Once this zero point gravity is recreated, it takes on a sustainable force of its own. This gravity could then be manipulated to create motion by shifting the mass within the vessel, either through a heavy liquid or in how the ship's mass is distributed, to control direction and velocity. The more mass offset from the center, the greater the counter opposite movement of kinetic motion would result.

Nevertheless, there is a real danger: if there is some external effect that causes the zero point Axiomatic energy to be thrown off center, because it is so strong magnetically, it could have a dangerous lightening side effect within the vessel and its occupants. This is just a precaution should anyone attempt to recreate this energy system, for it can be dangerous.

Ivan

THEORY VS. REALITY

It had been approximately two years since the first questions were asked in these forums under a Theory of Everything that led to the Axiomatic Equations above, first formulated about a year ago. For now, it is theory only, which cannot be confirmed until such time that gravity indeed proves to be greater in the energy poor regions of deep space than in Earth's environment. The other proof would be to build an experimental model of what the theory suggests, that by canceling all electromagnetic lambda, such as happens at the center of equally converging light, that the gravity of that zero point is once again reasserted. Should this prove feasible experimentally, theory would have stepped over into reality. That is the next step.

Ivan

THINKING ON GRAVITY G, a possible interpretation in Volts?

In my original above, I wrote:

---

Quote:

G^2 (m)^2 = g (m) c^2 pi^2, which simplifies into:

G^2 * m = g c^2 pi^2

where G=6.67x10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2 (Newton's G)
g=~5x10^-39 (proton to proton gravitational constant)
c=3x10^8 m.s^-1
m = 1 dimensionless, kg implied
pi=3.14...

When you multiply it out and take the square root of G^2, you come up with approx. G = 6.67x10^-11 (m^3.kg^-1.s^-2).

---

THE AXIOMATIC EQUATION FOR GRAVITY IN G

The Unified Theory of Gravity and Energy, the Axiomatic Equation, says:

Em * c = hc/l(m_proton) = (m - g)c^2 = (Bm)c^2 = mc^2 - (G^2*m/pi^2) = E

where E = ~90 petajoules.

By taking E = Energy, and
m_proton = proton mass =~1.67e-27 kg
h = Planck's constant = 6.626e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
Em = electric force
Bm = magnetic moment
l = e.m. lambda = ~1.32e-15 meters (for our Solar region)
m = kg/kg = 1 mass
c = lightspeed = ~3e8 m/s
g = proton to proton gravitational constant
G^2 = Newton's G squared

and if the conversion from the gravitational proton constant g into Newton's G is:

G^2 * m^2 = (g*m)(c^2)(pi^2), so that

G^2*m = gc^2 pi^2, then if m = kg/kg = 1, then

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

G = ~6.67e-11 Nm^2
g = ~5e-39, dimensionless, with kg implied,

which by substituting g, converts the Axiomatic above into G as follows:

(m - g)c^2 = (m - G^2*m /c^2 pi^2)c^2 = E, which is

mc^2 - G^2*m/pi^2 = E
E + G^2*m/pi^2 = mc^2
G^2*m/pi^2 = mc^2 - E
G^2*m = (mc^2)pi^2 - E*pi^2, and using the above Axiomatic we get:

G^2*m = (mc^2)pi^2 -[hc/l(m_proton)]pi^2 = (mc^2)pi^2 - [Em*c]pi^2 = (mc^2)pi^2 -(Bm)c^2 * pi^2 = (mc^2)pi^2 - E*pi^2

taking the square root for G, where m = kg/kg = 1:

G * m = (G^2 * m)^1/2 = (mc^2)^1/2*pi - [hc/l(m_proton)]^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.

* * *

This above greatly simplifies configuring G in any region of Em or l, since these then become inversely proportional to the electromagnetic energy intensity in any given region of space, so that G is a variable-constant, very weak near a hot star, and very great if far from stellar energy in the deep cold of intergalactic space. It also implies that in a black hole, where all lambda is canceled, G^2 = c^2, so that all light c is canceled by G.

If this is so, there is no need to think of black holes to be collapsed heavy stars, since they may be no more than where all ambient light from around the galaxy cancel on the axis, with resulting maximum gravity where all light is absorbed and broken down into its positive and negative charge. The negative is absorbed or canceled by the black hole, while the positive is pushed out the axis as very high speed positive ions. The great gravity G of the black hole is thus counterbalanced by the mass and angular momentum of the surrounding galaxy, while the positive ions re-seed space with proto-hydrogen atoms, what may become future matter of stars as it re-condenses in the very great gravity of deep space. The so-called 'dark matter' may in effect be no more than this very great gravity of deep space, and so-called 'dark energy' may be the positive charged repulsive effect of galaxies. However, this last may be in doubt, since space may not be expanding if the cosmic light redshift is due to the intense gravity of deep space regions, in which case the universe becomes infinite and in equilibrium.

Ivan D. Alexander

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 E_m =1 as a way to figure momentum p:

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

E_m * 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(m_p) = (1-g)c^2, substituting (1-g) = 1/c, we get:

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

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 10^15 Hz, or visible light near violet. 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.

This may be the 'cut-off' lambda where light energy no longer modifies the space-vacuum energy, so that greater gravity results, the kind expected in deep intergalactic space. However, we cannot know this at present. Though this may be one possible explanation for the existence of so-called 'dark matter', which is how all atoms and molecules in that deep space are affected by the very great gravity there, we will not know until we can get there.

How would this fit into the Photoelectric Effect, for example? If the cut-off gravity energy is at l = 397 nm, which is on the border of the visible light spectrum, violet near ultraviolet light, why does light of lower frequency than visible light in red, of longer than 700 nm, cease to eject electrons in a metal? Or is this only peculiar to our low inertia region, and it would take a much higher freqency to eject electrons in the high inertial regions of deep space? Perhaps there it will require 400 nm to have the same photoelectric cut-off effect? ... Don't know... something to ponder... If so, then deep space may be a very strange place indeed.

* * *
Further search revealed that the cut-off lambda for light in the photoelectric effect is approximately l = 0.6e-6 meters, which works out to be frequency of 0.5e15 cycles/second, Hertz, which is the range of orange light (see entry: 2-22-02). If so, then the universe is 'orange', since that is where it begins to affect both electrons and gravity. In fact, the two may be related, since below that frequency, gravity is dominant even at the electron level. That level is where E_m = 1 in the Axiomatic Equation. (edited 6-21-04)

Ivan

DOES LIGHT HAVE MASS?

(This was in answer to emails sent to me, as to whether or not light photons have mass, so that if three pounds of fissionable material were exploded in a nuclear annihilation, would the released light measured weigh three pounds, per E = mc^2, which is a valid point.)

Dear S___,

I think you bring up an interesting point, that three pounds of fissionable material exploded in a nuclear explosion converted to light would still weigh three pounds, as per E = mc^2. This would lead one to think that the resulting light is now three pounds. However, this brings up the question of what is 'mass'. In current theory, because Einstein's famous equation has no gravity component, unlike what the Axiomatic Equation, there is no room for mass to remain, and all the mass is converted into light, which then equals total Energy.

In my equation (see top), where I took the deBroglie quantum equation, E = hf, converted to E = hc/l, and matching it against Einstein's relativistic E = mc^2 (adjusted for proton mass so both sides kg. balance), I further adjusted mass to be always =1, and what remains as gravity is a very small component remainder, so that m = (1-g). This means that in a total atom, if it were totally complete, mass would always be one, and gravity zero, but since this process of atom formation is incomplete, a small remainder gives us what is left over from this atom formation, hence we experience gravity. Of course, I still do not know if this is correct, since it implies that gravity can be different in different energy environments, and we measure everything from Earth where Newton's G gravity is surely a constant. But if this new thinking should prove to be correct, once we find that Newton's G is a variable as theorized, then mass takes on a different meaning, since it is what is measured as the 'remainder' function of the atom, even if totally smashed.

Now, back to light. Does light have mass? We know electrons have mass, since that had been measured. We also know neutrinos have a very small mass. So light photons might also have some mass. However, it does not have to. The reason being is that the three pounds measured after an atomic annihilation is still the small remainder g of mass that is left over, though it had been destroyed. This remainder mass now reverts back to the atom's spacevacuum energy, where it came from in the first place, while the electromagnetic energy is once again liberated from the atom as light. What this does, almost by definition, is define the atom as a light and gravity unit, so that with sufficient light energy present, as produced by our local star, the center point of every atom is reduced from its strong force (which may be gravity in the extreme) to a very weak left over g component (multiplied by c^2 becomes Newton's G^2, as per the Equation) so that it gives us the 'mass' of the atom (as measured in Earth's gravity field in kilograms). So in this way, mass is conserved, but it is not converted to light, which still leaves open the question of whether or not light has mass, because the mass after an atomic annihilation is still the 'remainder gravity' from inside the atom. Well, that's how the new thinking goes, why I call it the 'new physics'.

That said, I don't know if this is true or not. If this same atom was measured far out in deep space where the sun's light is very weak, it might exhibit a comparatively greater G constant than here, but this is still an unknown. Meaning, if fissionable material is three pounds here, the same material volume might be four pounds farther out, let's say past Pluto. So, stay tuned... awaiting data from deep space, though our outer planet probes should already be showing this, if true. Pioneers slowing may be due to increasing inertial mass (more atomic gravity) as they leave the solar system (where there is less light energy), so with constant momentum (p=mv) they must slow... but don't know yet. But if it should prove true, then cosmic light redshift and so-called 'dark matter' start to fall into place.

Ivan