Does Gravity Zero-Point Energy Explain Spin? -Jaszz

Humancafe's Bulletin Boards: The New PeoplesBook FORUMS: Does Gravity Zero-Point Energy Explain Spin? -Jaszz

Ivan A. on Friday, July 2, 2004 - 11:46 pm:


Abstract: If gravity is in inverse proportion to the energy present where it is being measured, as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation, then it should stand to reason that the closer we are to an energy generating star, such as our Sun, the less gravity per mass density should be present; conversely, the further we are from a star, the greater should be the gravity density for bodies located there. There should be a way to understand this at some 'zero point' in space at distances from this radiant source, in that the gravity to energy relationship should be different for each. However, this difference is distance related, and not different within each band of space surrounding the radiant body, so that the zero point values of gravity, or energy, should be consistent within each band equidistant from such an energy source. This would mean that Zero Point Gravity is equal within the rings around a star, but increasing with distance from the star. Now, this is a conceptual model only, and at present, I do not have the mathematical model to describe it. Below, this model is described in greater detail, including how this Zero Point gravity is related to its energy relationship, or ZPH, and may account for planetary spin. The mathematical expressions, based on the Axiomatic Equation, can be developed later.

Zero Point Gravity: The idea of a zero point energy of the vacuum of space is still new, and little understood. One example of this force is the Casimir force, where space vacuum has some intrinsic energy locked in it. The concept presented here is based on that this space vacuum energy is in fact the measured level of gravity at that zero point, or Zero Point Gravity, ZPG. The reason this force is so weak on Earth, and in the band of space where Earth travels around the Sun, is that we are located fairly close to our radiant star, and thus experience relatively little gravity here. We measure its intensity in Newton's G, which is approximately G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2. If this ZPG were measured around the orbit of Saturn, for example, it should register a higher reading, let's guestimate G(Saturn) = G e-9 Nm^2, for example, though I do not know this number is correct. Conversely, G(Venus) = G e-14, and Mercury's would be lower still, while Pluto's would be extremely high, i.e., G(Pluto) = G e-5 Nm^2, and out in the cold of space, higher still. These are arbitrarily picked numbers to illustrate how the ZPG would change depending upon where, or in what orbital band, it was measured. The mathematics would have to be worked out later, once we have a better understanding of these planetary compositions and mass.

This model of variable zero point gravity readings leads to an interesting possibility: that gravity radiates from a hot star not linearly, or in some steady progression, but may actually radiate in rings. This image of rings is in part inspired by the rings of the gas giants, such as Saturn and Jupiter, but also it makes sense in the way energy seems to be distributed in space. It is never totally evenly distributed, but seems to follow some sort of chaotic pattern, possibly even based on harmonic principles. From the harmonic ratios of electron shells, to the harmonics of spirals, to even a possible harmonic ratios distribution of the planets of our solar system, there seems to be a pattern of how energy obeys some sort of distribution pattern which at first glance appears chaotic, but upon further examination may be actually harmonic. (I reference the fine work of Ray Tomes, "Harmonics, Music, Pythagoras and the Universe", where this concept is explored further.) Even the so-called cosmic-microwave-background is not evenly distributed, so chaotic distribution is more the norm. The point is that ZPG may be distributed in rings around the Sun, much as the rings of Saturn or Jupiter are distributed, within bands radiating from the gravity source. (Note also that as ZPG gets greater from the Sun, planets gather more gaseous atmosphere, since the gravity density is greater there.) What both the planetary distributions and gas giant ring distributions may have in common, is that they are bands of rings rather than uniformly smooth. As we study the data returned from the Cassini-Huygens around Saturn, we should get a better clue of how this distribution works. That same distribution pattern should also work out for ZPG patterns around any large body, especially hot bodies, and in particular for radiant stars.

(Please note this has nothing to do with how gravity is effective at a distance, in the inverse square law manner, but how zero-point-gravity affects the mass in the zone where it orbits the Sun, though there may be the same relationship on how ZPG and ZPH are distributed at a distance from a radiant hot star.)

Zero Point Heat: The same principle should apply to the distributions of energy around a radiant stellar body, or any hot body, including the gas giants. The proportions of 'heat' found in the space vacuum should likewise show distribution patterns, so that the greater heat closer to the Sun is not distributed uniformly smoothly in the rings of ZPG around it. Rather, ZPH should exhibit chaotic anomalies, so that if it were measured the distance in a straight line from the Sun, there should be inconsistencies. This same ZPH should also register around any hot body, where the interior temperature of the planet or moon is greater than the space vacuum temperature there. I am using heat and temperature euphemistically, because this is an energy with which we are still little familiar. It may be relative to lambda of the electromagnetic energy radiated, for the full spectrum from radio waves to gamma rays. However, it may also be relative to the power of this energy, its Wattage, or its Joules per second. The concept presented here is that this energy manifests as temperature, such as could be measured from the molecular excitation it generates. Therefore, ZPH would be a measure of both the interior temperature of a hot body, as well as the declining bands, or rings, of temperature radiating at distances from the body.

Zero Point Spin: This same reasoning may apply to why the planetary bodies, and their moons, exhibit the spin they do. If we postulate that spin is a function of gravity, meaning that gravity exerts a centripetal force on the body, then all bodies should exhibit spin based on their mass. However, this is not the case, so no meaningful pattern emerges. Earth's moon spins once per revolution, whereas Venus spins very slowly backwards, and the gas giants have immense spin. How can this be explained? What we may be witnessing is an interaction between ZPG and ZPH, where the two live side by side in the space vacuum and affect all matter present there. The result of this interaction shows up as spin. This is a strange and novel idea as a byproduct of the Axiomatic Equation's new physics.

This strange new idea is based on how ZPG determines of any physical body in space in relation to its gravity potential within that band; the same ZPH relationship exists between that body's interior heat and the energy of the space vacuum where it is in orbit. For example, Mercury's orbit is very close to the Sun, so its ZPH band is very hot. Thus, if its interior heat is different from its orbit's ZPH, it will exhibit spin in relation to that heat differential. Therefore, if the heat inside Mercury is the same as its ZPH value, then it would in effect show no spin, showing the same face to the Sun (which it does not). If this interior heat is greater, then it will have spin; conversely if it were lower, which it most likely is not, then it would spin in reverse. Venus, which a hot interior but not hot enough to compete with its orbital ZPH, spins very slowly, but backwards. In fact, though Venus has a hot surface, it may have a relatively 'cool' interior, if so. The Moon has essentially no spin (except once around its orbital) and is locked in on Earth's gravity, so the interior energy and its ZPH are equal. This means the moon has no distinct interior heat in relation to the space vacuum heat energy where it orbits; the two are equal. Earth's interior heat is greater than its ZPH, so that it exhibits the spin we know, one revolution in about twenty four hours. Mars has a slightly lower interior energy (than Earth's) in relation to its local ZPH, so it spins slightly slower. Jupiter and the other gas giants seem to exhibit very high spin, comparatively, in fractions of an Earth day, which would indicate a very high interior heat in relation to the orbital band ZPH where they are located. One must remember that the gas giants inhabit very cold ZPH bands of space, so any interior heat will generate spin. Pluto, inhabiting a very cold ZPH zone, nevertheless has some spin to it, indicating it has some interior heat in excess of the ZPH there. This is a pattern of spin that should become more understandable as we are able to measure the zero-point-heat of the space vacuum, and the anomalies of the patterns of distribution of ZPH, whether chaotic or harmonic, should exhibit these anomalies in how the planetary bodies spin.

Conversely, ZPG should be inverse to ZPH per the Axiomatic Equation, so that as we exit the solar system, ZPH drops off dramatically, and ZPG rises commensurately. ZPH may be a function of the Axiomatic E = hc/l = (m-g)c^2, where for a lower E, there is a greater g. (Note 'g' is a proton-to-proton gravitational constant, measured here on Earth as g = ~5.9e-39, for m = 1 kg/kg, which converts into Newton's G by multiplying it by c^2, as G^2/pi^2 = gc^2, approximately.) So in the rings of gravity that radiate (not gravity waves) linearly from our radiant star, or any hot body, there will be some inverse proportion of gravity and energy, so that ZPH and ZPG will be linked. How these two then interact with any physical body's interior heat will then determine its spin. This planetary spin should not be affected by the size of its mass, since it is a constant relationship between ZPH and interior heat, no matter what the planetary mass is. In fact, we may not know the planetary mass at a distance, since it is also affected by the ZPG band where it is in orbit.

Conclusion: Why did we not know this already? Why has this interaction between ZPG and ZPH and interior planetary heat and spin not been discovered from all our astronomical observations, or our space probes? In part, it was because we were looking in the wrong places for what is gravity. The relativistic mathematical model became our sought after answer, but it only told part of the story, and was wrong because it assumed Newton's G to be universally constant. More importantly, we failed to notice different G in our observations because it is all relative. What happens to the distant planets also happens to their neighborhing moons, so we could not tell their gravity density was different from ours. The Pioneer 10 and 11 distant space crafts gave us the first clue. As they left the solar system, they entered greater ZPG bands, and thus took on more inertial mass and began accelerating (gravitating) towards the Sun, slowing them down. Saturn's moon Phoebe gave us the second clue, since its mass as determined by its size and composition and orbital velocity do not compute; it appears to be heavier than it should be, so astronomers are forced to add rock to this all ice body, to increase its mass. The fact that Phoebe has high spin only illustrates how cold the ZPH is in that region, where the interior temperature of ice is 'hot' enough to give it spin. It will be interesting to get close to Pluto and Charon to see what their composition is made of, very likely ice also, though likely colder than Phoebe, and in a very cold ZPH band. The larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn will also be affected by the ZPH generated by those large hot bodies, so their spin readings will be contingent not only on the ZPH of the Sun, but also of their parent planets. (Note, if Phoebe were in orbit closer to Saturn, it would have a lower spin, since Saturn's ZPH would more closely balance with its interior heat.) The further from the planet, depending upon the interior 'heat', the greater the spin; the closer in, the slower. Another clue is being offered by the patterns of rings around Saturn, now being studied by Cassini: the rings are stratified, possibly exhibiting the ZPG to ZPH bands relationships of Saturn's environment. The distant bodies, such as asteroids and iceballs in orbit around the Sun, may or may not exhibit spin, depending upon their interior heat to ZPH relationships where they are located. It should be remembered that some of these have extremely elliptical orbits, which means they transit from low ZPH, and high ZPG, into high ZPH and low ZPG as they approach the Sun. Hence, as they approach the inner planets, their spin should reverse from what they experienced far out in space. If they are balanced in their orbits, their spin should be captured by the nearest large body, in effect have no internally generated spin, much like our Moon. Very close to the Sun, Mercury's ZPG is very low, with a very high ZPH, and with a slightly elliptical orbit, these values interact so that the planet has spin, but its orbital velocity is also affected, where it 'accelerates' at the perihelion; this is because its gravity density lightens, lower ZPG, as it approaches the Sun. One should suspect that the inverse square law applies to both ZPG and ZPH, so that as one approaches the hot star, the E value of ZPH increases exponentially, while ZPG decreases in inverse proportion. If so, then Mercury's spin should slow slightly as it enters its perihelion, and accelerate spin slightly at its aphelion. Thus, conservation of energy is preserved.

This leaves the Sun itself. What happens there? How is the star of a planetary system different from the rest of the system?

Any hot body will have a convergence of energy at its center. It is at that center that the ZPH to interior heat interact, so that what happens in the center is counterbalanced by the zero-point-energy of the space it inhabits. In the case of the Sun, or any radiant star able to produce light of at least the orange visible range, also the frequency of its photoelectric effect (approximately 10e15 Hz), gravity, or its ZPG factor, is moderated by this energy produced. (Below that range of energy, the star remains an extinguished or failed star, a so-called neutron star.) This interaction between ZPH and ZPG is therefore balanced on the external skin of the star, so that its surface represents the first ring of its energy-gravity band; this surface area is where the high interior heat of the star and its low gravity band equalize. ZPG = ZPH on the star surface in such a way that they stabilize there. Not considering other forces, such as the star's powerful magnetic fields, this is where the star's spin is determined, which is fluid in that the equator rotates faster than near the poles. If there were no other factors, this balance of ZPG and ZPH would cause the star to have no spin. However, the interior is rich in spin, which is what powers the outermost layer of the star, so it appears to have spin.

The other result of the convergence of all its energy on its center is that all lambda there cancel, which is true for any hot body, including planets. What this means is there, the gravity, or ZPG is at its maximum, per the Axiomatic. This in effect creates a mini or micro black hole, where maximum gravity exists. Because this it is of such a small radius, and because it immediately interacts with the fluid mass of the interior body, generating heat and spin, this mini black hole is invisible to us. We cannot measure it, since it is covered by all the mass of the body surrounding it, where it equalizes as the hot body's angular momentum of spin, so the force is used up. This mini-micro black hole may also be the source of the hot body's electric and magnetic fields, now attributed to spin. In fact the two are inexhorably linked, but for a different reason than now supposed. The root cause of the magnetic field is its interior mini black hole, and not its spin, though spin results. Beyond the surface, we then enter the dominant ZPG and ZPH surrounding it in the rings of gravity and heat. On the more massive gas giants, this has a real effect on the surrounding moons and belt rings, whereas on the smaller inner planets, it is virtually totally dominated by the Sun. In the Sun itself, this interaction is totally self contained at the surface.

In conclusion, I believe that the Zero Point forces of heat and gravity in the space vacuum are extremely important, and warrant detailed study. For the present, we are mostly ignorant of their existence, since we judge the universe by what we know of Earth. As we get more space exploration data, we should see these patterns of forces and their interaction more clearly, as described above, and the mathematical expression should follow easily. However, without true data on interior planetary temperatures, their mass, or how the bands of ZPG and ZPH are distributed in the solar system, it remains for now only a conceptual best guess, but worthy of future study.

One more note: Why does a neutron star have such a high spin, to the order of hundreds of revolutions per second? One answer may be that it inhabits a very cold ZPH in space, since its energy potential is below the threshold, or cut-off frequency, of how energy interacts with the strong gravity of the space-vacuum. It cannot modify this intense primordial gravity. Therefore, because there is still energy locked inside this failed star, it converges on the center, creates a very powerful interior mini black hole, and thus has tremendous spin.

Ivan D. Alexander

Costa Mesa, California, USA

CAVEAT!! None of this is in any physics books or currently accepted theory. DO NOT USE these ideas in your school work.

By MStransky on Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 10:50 am:

Getting your email for some input has geared my passion again.

"Does any of this jive with my new idea of ZPH and ZPG? I can imagine how
frustrating it must be to find correlation between metric volume and spin, but I
think it can be done! Spin is what is left over from the ZPG and ZPH
interactions, to conserve energy and momentum.

Yes I think there is something. The Idea of looking for multi orbits and Zero G has made me go mad at times, But as jam hads asked about G and his thoughts how F=F and was not listen to very clearly by many. I thought about it as well.
Take orbits and Mass spin, if V^2*r=R^2*a when you take G and M and F out of the Equation.
Ok Humour me on this,
May it be that we can then find Zero G is about how far from a Star(Sol) for V to equal 0 meters(or less than 1m/s) per sec. and also how come closer orbits are unstable, like Mercuary.
I am computing some numbers to see if our understanding of spin is overlooked by the means of how Mass is effected by it spin. say mathmatically your distance is 10 units away from the sun. But it is really is 10.02 units from the sun, but the planet has a high spin rate. Does the spin rate effect it like a Gyrosphere causing it to have less mass due to its spin. Or as in Jupiters case or Saturns, the Bodies that orbit the M1 seem to show that... Well lets say, We know the distance of Jup. or Saturn from the sun. and bing that the high spin of Jupiter (Lessens the Satitc wieght, or F).
Cut to the chase.
is it possiable that. a Static body no spin to hold a certin distnce from a sun in an orbit. BUT if that body was to have spin, causes a gryosphere effect which would not have a Static body, but a active body spin, Due to the spin the mass would by less with that new lesser mass the new orbit would have to be closer or faster than its static value.
On the Other hand if you had a mass Unit of 4, and a fast spin rate but, stopped the spin, would that same body have more mass measured in F if so than the V of the orbit must increase or the distance must increase.
The same would hold true with the density of a planet due to what its total flexing of Volmeteric radius is really streched due to spin throwing off our idea of how truely dense some planetary makeup is.

I am very Happy with the ZPG and ZGH thoughts you posted and copied me in and email. I will have to send you an update on my spread sheet, about the Orbits spin and stuff again, Its been months since we talked, but you just jogged my passion again.

The other thought you had I would agree that something is there when closer to a sun and temperature. Given the Fact no one has come straight out to say G is this... the only thing we have done is understanding how it is measured. I still believe we need to look at it not so directly, like in the finding years ago on the opposit hole flow of electrons in a wire, but they found it was easier to measure the electron flow with a meter. So it than gave them an equal value of hole flow in the opposit dirctions of the current flow.
So when talking about Gravity in order the gain and energy something must be given up. So I ask, " if Gravity flows in one Direction, whats going in the opposit direction!?" Some times the answers may be the sum of all the other actions around it.

Thank you Ivan you stirred me up again!!!
I will post so again with a clearer picture and some values to play with on my above thought, either it be for me or against me, but at lest by then we wont have to go down the same road twice.

CAVEAT!! None of this is in any physics books or currently accepted theory. DO NOT USE these ideas in your school work.

By MStransky on Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 01:00 pm:

OK about the Bands a month ago I was kicking this around, what I did was take 1/G as a so called velocity.
Take the Suns R^2*a and the same with Jupiters
in excel format
The Suns R^2*a under columb A and paste it about 100 rows down. Then on columb B Take the 1/G number and each row below it divide the ^2 value by 2 like such [=SQRT((B1^2)/2)]. Then take columb C and have it as =A/b^2 to give you a distances. You will note that that b columb is a distance from the Main Mass, while the C columb is the velocity aruond the main mass. as you get about 100 rows of plotted graph values what you will notice is that all the major planets around the sun and the Moons around Jupiter fall about 52% to 63% of the most gravity at the source mass to the farthest distance when elocity becomes less then 1 meter per sec.
It intrigues me that the orbits & Velocities of all the major m2's fall about 50%-70% of the M1's k Factor. almost minimum to maximum of the Masses k factor in relation to its m2's.
I would like to compare the Rings around the Planets as much as where the ort cloud falls on such a measurement. Would this be as Bands you see? or are you thinking of more indiviual Bands of orbit measurment, where they fall into?
I did a crude one of the earth and Moon and the moon was at 68% of the earths total span.

This so far holds true with all the planets I did. would that % of 50 - 70% ring any bells with your ideas as Stabel threasholds, where when a planet is found at the inner or outer limits of the Span? This window I would call a stable window of a Stable orbit which would hold for millions of years, if there was an orbit closer and/or father away from the Mass span G window, well maybe a million years ago but thats why its not there now, (A little humour):)

I may sound Vauge but these Spans of Bands which I am looking at from just the V^2*r equal 1 back to R^2*a , the same odds values I am trying to put a finger on the Spin of a body and how much it might effect its Mean density to show truthfully about its mass. If there is an anomoloy with corolating data given to us for what we only have gathered, I hope the new data may lead to some percived mis-comprehension of what we thought about the makeups of saturn or its moons and their orbits, If I am right I believe Saturn to be a bit more dense then they have thought, and we will know as more data comes in from the Orbits of there moons.

By Ivan A. on Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 06:41 pm:

Saturn's Rings

This article at offers additional clues for gravity variations. In particular:

"Saturn's moons might also play a role. They perturb particles in the rings by creating 'density waves' of gravity spotted by Voyager 2 in 1981 and in other new observations by Cassini. A moon inside a ring pulls outward as it orbits, for example, causing particles to clump together. The density waves could be locations where more water resides... but it's not clear yet if that's the case." (italics mine)

I suspect this above is still a little confused, but it shows there are anomalies to consider, especially since the inner rings are more rocky than the outer rings, which are more ice. The density distribution goes outwards, from low ZPG to higher ZPG.

If we postulate a "level playing field" for Saturn's rings, then this density distribution may offer us one more clue. For some reason, heavier materials congregate closer in to the planet, while lighter materials further away.

* * *

Michael, glad to hear you're working on these problems again. Let's see what we can find out!


By MStransky on Friday, July 9, 2004 - 01:29 pm:

yes, I agree What I have contested was that they assume that with any M1 like Saturn, Jupiter or Sol, with all of their m2's V^2*r are equal among any of the bodies around the same M1. So it that it may, WELL I have seen an anomoly with that math. Considering that the "Math" should place the bodies at a certin posistion, and yet they find it +/- a % of error. That is the point I am trying to unravel.
I have seen if you take all the "KNOWN" math point where bodies should be by the math, and the differance with where they really are +/- by an anomoly amount, that amount gets greater with the Spin, AND known density, And other character make ups of the m2's profile.
If I am able to take any m2 and countculate a +/- of deviation of is mass because of it Character proflie, and if it matches in accordance with the +/- error of is orbit placement of the known Math we use. Then I would be certin that we have ground to stand on how the perception of any given MASS value alone, can not give percise calculations to other true profiles, of any M1 or m2. I believe the Math we have is true, but the way we exstraplate the values to make them fit the needs of todays research. Where as they say our data is .4% error from the data we gathered, based on Orbit, Time and Distance. But I am taking that .4% and finding that from that .2-.3% of the error is following the Spin amount, Mass, and profile of the m2.
"Humor-" If you pick a basket of apples and weight them, and subtract the basket. They say we have 5.1 lbs. of apples, and a +/- of .2 Lbs of error from dirt, stems, leaves.
Most people would say who cares its apples, what point are you trying to make? I would agree if it was just apples, but by the time the company buys each basket and washes them, then sells 10,000 basket of apples. They wonder what ever happend to the 230 basket of apples.
I hope that my point is taken, if we do the math to get any given value, and we can not back trace it, then it is not good enough. (not saying our equations are wrong, but we are missing many anomolies that are occuring)
Ivan, I must say I am happy to see we are getting new data on saturn and its moons, which I am wondering how far the pevious data ERROR Check and updated, then the pressumed first thought ideas of them. I believe they with find Saturn to be a bit more dense then they think, but not by much.
And you added about the moons and the rings being perturbed by the moons. That being based on the ZPG and ZPH. I will run with you on this one, since the slow deteriation of the mathmatical slope of (k) V^2*r is not linear at all but a curve which is somewhat a straight line in math, but when you place the bodies where they belong they curve off of that line. And that is why the math does not work backwards, So something is being over looked, and only a few people are asking what happend to the missing baskets of apples!
(you seen the exaggrated execl plot of the curves I sent you? That was just an excelerrated graph of the given data. They should all be striaght lines but you see they deveate from being a stright line. Give me a few days So I can clean up my sheet and send you a copy of it, and that it is not to large.

By Ivan A. on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 12:29 pm:



Then I would be certin that we have ground to stand on how the perception of any given MASS value alone, can not give percise calculations to other true profiles, of any M1 or m2. I believe the Math we have is true, but the way we exstraplate the values to make them fit the needs of todays research. Where as they say our data is .4% error from the data we gathered, based on Orbit, Time and Distance. But I am taking that .4% and finding that from that .2-.3% of the error is following the Spin amount, Mass, and profile of the m2.

Michael, this MASS value is what has to be reconsidered all over again for all distant astronomical objects. Saturn, and all the gas giants, should act as if they are more gravity density rich. The math is true, I'm sure, but the distant readings are made to fit the math, as you also pointed out. So when we get more correct readings, the math will start to look funny, by the 'bushel' full. I think we should continue looking for clues of gravi-density of moons, rings, comets, brown stars, etc., and other anomalies of how mass, spin, elliptical orbits, behave in different ZPG and ZPH environments. As you say, where 'the math doesn't work backwards', we should look for more data to get correct readings. Thanks for sending the tables you put together thus far, and look forward to seeing more.

Remembering that it may be theory that drives a search for data, but that data in the end drives the theory; we should look for more reports coming from distant space observational data, Voyagers, Pioneers, Cassini, and nearer to home, Gravity Probe-B, Mercury launch 2005, etc., as well as what keeps coming from Hubble, Chandra, SETI, all linked Earthbased telescopes, and put it all together. Out of all that data 'noise' should start to show a pattern that makes sense, regarding zero point energy and gravity.

By J____ on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 08:13 pm:

MStransky, Ivan,

MStransky wrote: "I hope that my point is taken, if we do the math to get any given value, and we can not back trace it, then it is not good enough. (not saying our equations are wrong, but we are missing many anomolies that are occuring)."

The anomolies are occurring because of one factor ... that factor being ... what once was called aether, but denied by Einstein as existing or factual; however, in direct reference many times, Einstein declared ... for light to propagate, it must have something against which to propagate within.

When working gravity, by omitting what was proven to be aether drift, every formulation based on Einsteinian theory will be incorrect ... which leads us to the present bad science being taught to students at every level of academia.


By mstransky on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 11:42 pm:

J_____ Thank you for that input,

One thought of mine, though I am not sure if the argument of aether drift can be used with my example, or if it can then good! or maybe a new name to label it?! or to discribe it better in terms.

Just as we can bend light, or fight the good fight on speeding or slowing down time. which all come down to says like. "Super nove we see happand many million years ago!" or " the Gravitation lens effect of seeing a star located behind a galaxey, but do to the light being bent, lest us see how gravity bends light from a distant star"

Ok take all that,
point 1)-- now if one was to take Half a circle, Draw object one at one end and object two at the other end, and say that the circles circumfrance was the path of light which it took to get to use around a Gravitational (center, anomoly, or which ever label Strong or weak).

point 2)-- Even if it is not that stong of a bend, but a Slight curve/arc from the straight path to get to us. from distant objects. the ACTUAL distance would be shorter than the path of the arc, in terms of a striaght line.

So my opion would be that the data we get from distance stars could be a stretch of the truth, by Straight distance, Light wave readings at diffrent levels, and so on with more OUT OF THIS WORLD this we are seeing.

But understand me, The data is great, better than nothing, but the data we get from more and more distant objects, I tend to take them with some great care. And that drift in space due to the bending of the data as it gets to us, may also be what the great scientist before us precieved as a/the "drift Idea" they first brouhgt into the discussions in the beginning.


By J____ on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 03:25 am:

MStransky, Ivan,

Please see new thread ...

Making Sense Using Honest Physics


By MStransky on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:25 pm:

Ivan, Let us talk hypothetically, If the Bands of ZPG and ZPH, As you were explaining, let me see if I can put it into lay terms or please correct me on the idea, if I am incorrect.

As a stellar heat source, body like the sun, will emitted or give of an opposing force (like stellar wind), which would offset the attraction of force between the two bodies as in attraction?

Second question was the Idea that the bands of "Density" get less or greater the closer you are to a source?

Reason I asked for further explanations- I was pondering the Idea that space it self is NOT VIOD and FORMLESS. If the solar wind can push comet tails and Radiation belts, then in like manner I would agree that the Source Heat given off by a source is indeed overcoming the gravitational attraction of the two bodies.
SECOND- I tried something not ethical in mathematics, and tried to find the Density of space between two bodies, When I was finished running them a crossed the data, It looks as if space gets THICKER/DENSER the closer to a body. The farther away you get shows it to be less dense.

Given this thought of a fan, as you are closer to the HEAT SOURCE/FAN the Volume or pressure of the Force would be stronger. If one was to have a brick, tissue, and feather. Once the force is on the brick would stay where it is, and the tissue and feather would be at a greater distance and stop, once the force of the source cannot push the objects any further away. Like how the rings around the gas giants, and If the same with the sun. (IF ANYONE would like Gravity in the example, tilt the floor going towards the fan, the fan would be the Energy source)

Third- If this is true, and the Force is stronger closer to a source, and it being more dense in space (NOT BY MUCH, BUT a Difference) Then that Opposing force would be stronger to Give off a stronger (Energy Force) and as you gets farther away, and density of space gets thinner, the (energy Force) would show a significant drop in (energy Push?) But in the same respect that the same distance there is also less Gravity attraction to the source as such a great distance.

Am I agreeing with you? Am I over lapping the Idea with you?

(Ivan I have updated that sheet further if you would like a copy of it, with this in it?)

By Mstransky on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:59 pm:

O Ivan I just completed my other number
or better written as 2.79251e-10

I know in passed forums I never put (Units) in which became a big issue, but I have Learned to add them.
Surface Gravity(m/s2) = Mean Density(kg/m3)*Radius(meters)*2.79251e-10

Earth example I like to take KNOWN facts say like [Surface Grav @ 9.798(m/s2)] / [mean Radius 6371000(meters)]*[2.79251e-10] = [5507.2604(kg/m3)]

Note: if you have any of the two values Mass, surface g, Radius, density, you can pretty much get to the other and more values.

But check this out that number divided by G = 4.186666667 then Divided by 2 equals 2.0933333333

Now take the
(4.18666666667 + 2.09333333333)/2 = "Pi"
CAVEAT!! None of this is in any physics books or currently accepted theory. DO NOT USE these ideas in your school work.

By Ivan A. on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 01:57 pm:


Surface Gravity(m/s2) = Mean Density(kg/m3) Radius(meters)*2.79251e-10

Earth example I like to take KNOWN facts say like [Surface Grav @ 9.798(m/s2)] / [mean Radius 6371000(meters)]*[2.79251e-10] = [5507.2604(kg m3)]

That's pretty good Michael! So you have a 'multiplier' number for converting gravity into density? If I recognize the above, Earth's mean density is something like 5.5 grams per cubic centimeter?

About your earlier post,


As a stellar heat source, body like the sun, will emitted or give of an opposing force (like stellar wind), which would offset the attraction of force between the two bodies as in attraction?

Second question was the Idea that the bands of "Density" get less or greater the closer you are to a source?

... that has to do with the inverse proportions of proximity to a star heat generating system.

What the
Axiomatic Equation theorizes is that the closer we are to a hot source, like a hot star, the less 'gravity density' exists per volume of mass, right down to the atomic level. The farther from a hot star, the lower the heat and greater the gravity density per volume of mass.

Think of an atom formed with C^2 energy compacted on a very deep gravity point in space + (positive charged), so that the resulting shell - (negative charged) gives us the parameters of this atom's size, weight, etc. Now, near a star, there is more pressure of c^2, and far from a star, there is less. The result is that atoms near a star have strong -electron shells, weak +centers; whereas far from a star, weak -electron shells, stronger +centers. So here's the trick: high stellar heat, strong -electron shell, weak +positive center, equals weak gravity density per atom; low star heat, strong +positive center, weak -electron shell, equals strong gravity density per atom. This means the 'atomic weight' would then be greater or lesser than what we measure it on Earth. More ZPG, gravity per mass density, the greater the weight, etc. However, we have not yet confirmed, except anecdotally, so pure conjecture for now.

So what the Axiomatic says is that under these circumstances, the gravity force for each such atom is either greater or lesser, depending upon the inverse of the amount of energy received from the hot star, or ZPH (zero point heat) per atom. If the ZPH is low, then inversely, the ZPG (zero point gravity) per atom is greater. By the time we get to the gas giants, like Jupiter and Saturn, we are already in a fairly low ZPH, higher ZPG environment, hence the giants have 'heavy' gas atmospheres around them. Closer to the Sun, the planets are smaller, with less atomospheres, since their gravity density per mass is lower than farther out, and are bobbing around in their orbits close to their hot star. Very far away, past Pluto, or even better past the galaxy rim, ZPH is extremely low, so that ZPG should exhibit very high gravity per volume of mass: i.e., Dark matter!

:-)) chuckles

Well, that's the theory in a nutshell 'atomshell', so hope it makes a little bit more sense. But it is only theory for now.

I still have to study the spreads you sent, so will do so.

mstransky on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 09:11 pm:

Ivan, Thank you, yes I understand exactly what you mean know about a common balance point between ZPG and ZPH. In relation to a density having been expanded by heat, thus reducing its atomic G strength.

This was my point on "other previous website forums which I tried to explain a common balance of density and radius. of those two which are inversely proportional to each other, under the value of the bodies surface gravity, or of its mass.

Back to the ZPG and ZPH, I would like to run the numbers on that on a spreadsheet and see if we can come up with anything. Like the same way I did any stellar bodies that we know.
I am curious that with any star, could the mean density reflect a proportion to its Radius and Temp. or mean temp. Something like that.

ON THE SPIN ISSUE I have come up with four different formulas that reflect Gauss to the spin, density, radius, and surface g or GM, and other constants here is the values given and found.
Gauss R#^3 m2 Name My Values found

*Its been a while, but I do remeber you emailing me one time on your ratio to spin values a while back, and in the like manner explianing the same close proportional values*

Note that the profiles of each planet follow the same like trend to the given data, and another pit fall is due to the gauss reading and data for each planet was taken at different location distances from each expedition, which then does not give the public a good proportion data to work with. That some are from out in space, and some from flybys near its poles?

So when better data is given to work with, then the formula can be worked out. And also if they find out that Neptune gives off a stronger field then Saturn or Uranus, Then I will know I have something.

I am still re-computing different ways to the above Given data to see if it works out closer, as I get bored, or dumbfounded I will set up a ZPG and ZPN sheet and play with it as well.

By mstransky on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 09:39 pm:

Ivan, I gave it some thought on the ZPG and ZPH, what I need is a VALUE to reflect a common point,
For example in the state of a liquid, say for argument it has a mass of 4, when colder as a soild it becomes more dense, but smaller, but still has the same mass. And when it becomes a gas it is less dense, still having its mass, but volumne has become greater.
What would be a good unit to use as a common mean density in the stellar aspect? what would be a given value at its least and greatest values, then I could come up with a relation to ZPH or ZPG, in a way to show its inverse property. if so this would also work with my spin formula idea, relating to Gravity density and spin guass.

I was thinking maybe Hydrogen?^3 meters

but then again you know how todays physics relates everything to the density of H2O, or Earth ratios, I kind of dislike that method of the univers being sized up to the Earth?!?

By Ivan A. on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:26 pm:



What would be a good unit to use as a common mean density in the stellar aspect? what would be a given value at its least and greatest values, then I could come up with a relation to ZPH or ZPG, in a way to show its inverse property. if so this would also work with my spin formula idea, relating to Gravity density and spin guass.

I was thinking maybe Hydrogen?^3 meters

but then again you know how todays physics relates everything to the density of H2O, or Earth ratios, I kind of dislike that method of the univers being sized up to the Earth?!?

Me too, too much Earthcentrism. The mass will not change where measured within its band of ZPG and ZPH, though the volume will, so mean density is an unknown except theoretically as taken from a planet or star in toto. That same mass density taken for another planet within another band of gravity and heat will then have a different mean density again. But at present, do not know how to define what a mean density would be... except to give it the cubic meters value.

We'll have to work with whatever measures exist for now, though the mass of distant bodies may be off, I suspect.

By J____ on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 05:42 pm:


I venture to say the existing density data used for earth is not only misleading ... my bet is it is highly inaccurate...!


By Ivan A. on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 01:17 am:


I would agree with you, though I have no way to back up the claim that our current estimates for planetary mass and density are wrong.

There are several factors to consider, such as planetary temperature, magnetic structure, interior spin vs. exterior spin (ie. plate tectonics), orbital chaos anomalies, elliptic, and planetary density. To inpute a metallic core to me is a copout, which tells me we don't understand Earth's interior. Seismic waves deflect off the interior, at some distance from the center, in an unexplained manner, as if the Earth were hollow. Uranium decay is not enough to account for the great interior heat of the planet. Spin for billions of years is too much to ask of momentum conservation without it slowing down to a standstill. Iron core? Why? Because of magnetic field, or because the planet's density needs to balance with its orbital velocity? And why should heavy metals sink to the core? Would it not be better if they sank to some equilibrium gravity point part way to the center of the planet? Perhaps the planet really is hollow, since spin gives it centrifugal force outwards, along with the gravity attraction of the rest of the mass of the planet from its center. And how hot is it down there? Any way to know?

So too many questions to come up with reasonable answers, never mind a theory. I think if we work with what we know and go backwards, starting with surface spin, we might be able to arrive at some meaningful numbers of mass and density. That's what Michael Stransky is looking at presently.


By MStransky on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 02:43 am:


I would like to add in this as well to you above questions, Why does the Earth flip its poles every 10,000-20,000 years. (So why are we not having a rover look at any of the other planetary factures of their plate movement, to see if other planets have the same cycle! No we dream ideas up to have FACE when asked, and teach those ideas, then to say I will look into it when the availability comes to do so.
There may be bigger things at play here like gravity/magnetic Harmonics at play. Only time will tell.
It is a sad thing for us to be in a boat going 10 knots by the gauge and say "MY SCIENIFIC SPEED READER IS ACURATE!!! and be blue in the face saying it is correct. Then take the few people who ask" how come you got here so much sooner or later?" - [Drift of the water]

My Point is we only have the grasp of looking at our instrument gauges to read the measurements that they show at the time given.

For example One technician reads he has 24 DC volts on these to wires from a transformer, he thought he would just grab the wire, but to his SHOCK it was floating on 208 volts ac.


I care less for the one time reading data, For example, We have plotted the orbits for years now, I would be more happy to except the days of orbits, (then the actual km/s) or how about the rounded off distances? 4,700,000,000,000 because after the 7 thats 49,999,999,999 That is still Big value of Gained/missing distance or mass, for which ever unit you work with.

So like in many ways when computed equations are done backwards, the values can be off quite a lot, some have lost mass, some people have gained mass, and now their are more teaching schools on missing matter, dark matter, Time dilations, missing time, and so on with "out of this world stuff" as the consturtion of a time machine.

Ivan, J___ just a little joke here..

Too many teachers and scholars, and not enough scientists and instruments to go around.

By J____ on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 02:53 am:

Ivan, Mstransky,

I have tried to go backwards, and it doesn’t seem any better than pure guessing. The problem is multifarious to the extent numbers used reach beyond oblivion and escape into infinity where they disappear into the sludge.

Maybe the following link is worth reading since I have not made up my mind if I can swallow the info……


By mstransky on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:42 am:

J___, You hit the nail on the head. That is what few people are, them that are perfectionist have found. Those people who have a desire to know WHY! and how things work, and not just taught.
It is like this you have 3 children which look at a clock, one takes it for granted that it keeps time ~24hrs a day. Then there are those who will think a running hempster on a wheel keeps the time. At last the few people which want to take the clock apart and measure all the gears if it can be done.

Back to the Numbers,
1.) what would be nice is if JPL would post the absolute DATA numbers it has on the web site for people like you and me.
2.) with those numbers, they must show a (geneology tree of answers) as to WHAT VALUES derived which new canculated answers.
3.) because as you said
"numbers used reach beyond oblivion and escape into infinity where they disappear into the sludge."-J___
that is the problem we agree with each other, Yes if the earth is 6371000 Re/km fine when I do canculations backwards I get bogas numbers like 6371972km * 2 = a diameters larger then what is hear on Earth. So if our Scientist are taking what they are taught and use rounded of numbers, then find missing or lost mass, and teach an intire school course on it. THAT is BAD, and I dont mean the teaching, but the standinging on grounds of rounded of numbers.

4.) if an when JPL ever post The numbers the got from the data before rounding it off. THAT WOULD lead to people be able to see the true numbers. If I sell you a basket of 120 apples, looks like 120 apples, but when you count them you are short.
If you are short 10 apples, you would be mad and feel like a fool that you believed 110 apples could equal 120 apples. and all the todays teaching is "well the numbers are close enough!" then when you point out a problem, they tell you go back to school or get an education."

J___, Ivan I think JPL should post data fact sheets for all, and also post the data for the researcher, because if not, then we have all be short changed on our ideas of the univers, which will lead to a crooked measuring stick, distoring our concept of the truth!

By J____ on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 12:55 pm:

MStranski, Ivan,

I honestly do not believe there is a data set that has been validated by multiple sources...! If so, it is deeply hidden in archives somewhere, someplace, where it is not accessible to idiots like apparently at least we three appear to be to the Einsteinian/Minkowski camp. What methinks has happened the several leading institutions that essentially control research funding have become another religion ... do it our way or perish...! The worse place to try and find something is the National Laboratory at Las Alamos.....

When there click on Astronomy to get

and then click on

ADS: The NASA Astrophysics Data System

Where you learn the database is housed on Harvard servers…!

You would at least think the database would be housed on NASA or JPL servers…!

Now you are there … try to find something in that 4 million document sucker!

I believe there is a consortium of institutions and agencies that are in fact no better than religions that tells us … do it our way or perish……….


By mstransky on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 03:31 pm:

you got me looking for better data (more resolution. So far I have only found this site
over the fact sheets from
the first link seems to have more data go down to meters of the planetary radius and +/- error% then just rounded off the the Km. like the second link.

I will wind up re doing my spread sheet to the more (Resolution) data.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:32 am:

Thanks Michael, I looked up the fact sheets on the planets and found the inradiating solar energy numbers have some value, as a possible gage of ZPH, while the black body temperatures of the planets have some value as indicative of the planet's interior heat. The spin numbers line up more or less as I expect them, given the temps and solar inradiating, but have not yet worked out the actual relationships that are meaningful. In part, the problem is using non related measures, such as Kelvins and Watts, to make comparrisons, so direct relationships don't make sense. However, I did note that Venus was cooler than Earth, and that it rides in a band of zero point heat much hotter than Earth's. We know Venus has a very slow retrospin, while Earth has a fairly high positive spin. This is as I would expect, that Venus's spin should be slower than Earth's, but can't justify why retro. Also Mercury has a very slow spin, hotter black body than Earth's, but riding in a sea of very hot ZPH close to the Sun, so it still spins slowly, like once very 58 days. So not yet worked it out.

I used your table of computations to access spin velocity, mass density, but have not yet worked it out. Also, how would this then compute for Mercury and Mars, Jupiter and all the gas giants, and finally for the very cold bodies in the very cold space far from the Sun? I noticed the inradiating for Saturn, for example, is very small, while the planet's blackbody heat is quite large, if these readings are correct, so not surprised by Saturn's very high spin, though its planetary density is very low... so still thinking.

J___, I looked in on the LANL pages for data, and indeed, there's a lot to choose from. Remember that modern physics is a cabalistic private club, so it is not designed to be easy to access, nor to understand, since the mystery of the voices (of priests) from behind the stone gods must not be revealed.


By mstransky on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 07:16 am:

Ivan try,

pasting this in your browser bar it will open hyper terminal

once you are in type the name of the planet then the number ID that shows like "Earth" or "Sol" then you will see the number id for them like 399 is earth type "399" then it will give the latest info of jpl data, with out most of it rounded off. I think it is the latest data I am not sure but the dates of update are in the upper part of the window. NOTE: it uses hyper terminal to get in, and is not the easyest to navigate, but the data is fairly good to use.

I hope this helps J___ as well.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 05:49 pm:

JPL's Planets: Physical Data

Thanks for this reference Michael, it has some good data to work with. For example, look at the Equatorial gravity readings, see how some of the gas giants, Saturn and Uranus, are very close to Earth's and Venus. How can this be? Mars is similar to Mercury, while Jupiter is very high, followed by Neptune. Pluto is extremely small, if this is correct. However, since I think we are wrong on our calculations of planetary mass, something else is at work here. Also planetary density is very similar for the inner planets but drops off considerably for the gas giants, while Pluto's is merely a guess, not to mention the planet's radius is in doubt also.

My take on all this is that we simply don't understand what it going on here. If gravity density per atomic weight is a variable, weaker near the Sun and stronger far away, then by using a constant Newton's G we are getting bad readings for mass and gravity out there. We can't tell we're wrong because we are using assumptions that make it look right, that G is everywhere equal. If electromagnetic energy, and heat, cancel at a planet's core, then gravity in the core is very great, near maximum, and what happens is all surrounding matter is heated by immense interior spin to a greater or lesser degree. In the gas giants, it is immense, causing the outer layers to spin along with it; in the small rocky planets, this spin is confined to the planets's hot centers, but this translates into planetary spin of the cool outer crusts. If so, then planet radius or mass are less important in determining interior heat and spin than the relative position of the planet in its solar orbit, where the relationship between inrdadiating heat from the Sun drops off with distance and interior black-body heat becomes more dominant. This contrast of outer and inner heat then is responsible for spin. Ditto for gravity measures, where the planet's gravity density is greater farther from the Sun. The reason the gas giants can form is because the molecules there are condensed through greater gravity, a larger G, than here on Earth. By measuring atomic weight only in Earth's gravity we are getting bad readings for the distant planets. It will be very important in the future to get a better fix of planetary composition to arrive at more meaningful mass, rather than using orbital velocity as now done. Outside the solar system gravity should be very great in the cold of space.

Is space-vacuum an aether? Yes, in a manner of speaking, in that the zero-point-gravity of space acts as a medium for all the other energies passing through it. Far out in space gravity is strong enough to bind molecules so that interstellar gases can condense into massive proto-stars, where some will ignite into actual stars. This is the universe I envision, which makes a great deal more sense then what is believed now in astrophysics, and which explains many more interstellar anomalies, i.e., dark matter.

J___, Michael,

Let's keep chipping away at this, but the Axiomatic Equation predicts a universe where gravity density for matter is a variable in inverse proportion to the stellar energy output where it is measured. Keep spinning this stuff until it makes sense, because in the end it will.


By MStransky on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:48 pm:

PLEASE FORGIVE ME OF MY OUT BRUST AND BEHAVIOR on this one, I HAVE REASON to IF IVAN can recall a thread way back when. when I was trodden under foot for even suggesting a correction to some educated people, which Ivan told them as well not to slam others, so for myself and Iv__. Not sure if you remember that heated topic about black holes I had with that other N.A.S.# employee on that other thread site?

Independent - 2 hours ago
The most famous living scientist yesterday admitted he would have to pay the price for recanting one of his theories about black holes.

"There is no baby universe branching off as I once thought," Prof Hawking admitted yesterday. "I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans but if information is preserved there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other univers(s). If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like."

Here the Mighty men take something simple as a dark star mass, and for over thirty 30years stuff like this gets taught. parrelel univers, and and other out of this world ideas, but as I said on "THAT Other post how much of the stuff is feed back into space from it. But since I had no degree, I was told to go get an education?

Well I am happy, the mud in my face disappeared, got sucked off my face into their WormHOLE and appeared on their face(s). Joke-LoL

Well I am glad, that I have been standing on his shoulders, all this time! This will be the only time that I will, and have the time to gloat!! End of Pointing fingers back at them to RETHINK-THIER OWN PERSONAL-EDUCATION! and mannar of Slugging out those who wish to see things in a different view.


Ivan if you must delete this post I made, I understand

By J____ on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:12 pm:


Good for you...! I once asked the great Hawking if he could prove his theories - he refused to answer the question.

Hawking is no better than Einstein, and so far as both of them ... they would together fit on the little toe of Johann Wilhelm Möbius.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:59 pm:


MStransky: I HAVE REASON to IF IVAN can recall a thread way back when. when I was trodden under foot for even suggesting a correction to some educated people, which Ivan told them as well not to slam others, so for myself and Iv__. Not sure if you remember that heated topic about black holes I had with that other N.A.S.# employee on that other thread site?

Yes, I remember the times we wrote on the Space-Talk forums and got heat for not towing the common rope of nonsense everyone else towed. Well, the time of reckoning is coming, when even
"Black holes turned 'inside out'" will be shown to fall short of the truth. Black holes do not destroy anything, though they may be very successful as cosmic 'recyclers' producing the proto-matter to seed future stars and planets.

I am not against Hawking, nor Einstein, for their very fine thinking, though in the end it may yet prove wrong. What I am against is their theorizations being raised to the level of incomprehensible pseudo-science religions.

No deletions or additions necessary, for in the end the truth will out.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:05 pm:


J___,: Hawking is no better than Einstein, and so far as both of them ... they would together fit on the little toe of Johann Wilhelm Möbius.

They'll have to rewrite the encyclopedia Hawking didn't get anyway, at least the astrophysics part of it, so no great loss to him.

Can the future now be known with certainty, since knowledge is not lost down the black hole? No, of course not, though some living things who think about it will continue to insist the 'deterministic' philosophies anyway. In fact, we as living things are the deterministic future of the universe, since it is our sometimes creatively unpredictable actions that redefine the future as other than it would have been on its own without us. So... let's redefine how we see the future of the cosmos with some real science. This is the chance of a lifetime!


mstransky on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:19 pm:

I am not against them as persons either, just some of the thoery (dreaming) of the far fetched ideas that they create so far away from us. Those ideas people dream up into theories, which are so Great in size, or so small we can not read them, or ever be able to build the instruments to prove them correct or wrong. Which then makes those ideas a safe haven from attack, then those who will oppose the teaching they recieved (AND paid alot of money for it) those do not wish to feel as a fool, or to find out these ideas also lead to the foundations of quantum thinking and other ideas, which is just making random numbers fit, and to except a radom number, as if thats what it was going to happen anyway. What is next?, stringtuam mechanics? and yet our physics that we can touch or see has not been accounted for in whole as of yet.

BACK to SPIN, I thought about and experiment to build a THING on a benchtop which might hold some truth to Planetary gyro magenatism, and the effects of heat or cold. I will think a bit more what materials will be need and stuff to do the experiment. I talk with a few very educated people at my site and thought it is possiable to to it on a bench top, Well I will have to see what I have and make room for it at home in my shop.


By mstransky on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:28 pm:

Ivan I might be taking a leap on this one but, here is a thought. Take a baseball, through it away from you with a back spin, and it falls to the ground faster due to aero dynamics. Through the ball again with a forward spin and it tends to go farther.
Now with looking at the data with saturn slowing down by 6 minutes to its day spin, made me think about something far fetched. and I have to touch a point with planetary magnetic feilds. The solar wind causes a force enough to bend the feilds faceing the sun POWER OUT PUT. could it be possiable that the velocity of a planet in its orbit path have a slight drag into its direction while the tail end of a planets magnetic flield get an equal thrust to its tail end giving its loss back to it. It is like the planets Velocity is equal to its Distance, and the spin is equal to its magnetic paddle wheel effect @ its distance of Heat give of by the sun.
I do not want to go nuts with this thought, but if it might be a possiablity that when saturn is getting closer to its approarch to the Sun. would show a decrease in spin (due to forward drag of angle approch), AND higher orbit velocity, AND closer distance to the sun. IF saturn then starts to get farther away from the sun in its distance of orbit, AND velocity orbit spd decreases, AND IF that "magentic paddle wheel effect" of the solar wind induces a force to give back some momentive spin back to its tailing edge as a boost back, from its forward drag into the wind?
I dont know!
BUT YOU WOULD have to consider-

That would raise some thought about mercury's spin rotation? Do you know if merc. spin slows down on its approch towards its closet point to the sun, at it highest orbital velocity. then if merc. then speeds up in it thrust outward away from the distance to the sun.

even though merc. mag feild is small, but the enrgy output closer to the sun is very much greater then out by us or even lees at the outer planets? would that energy output be so great to effect the small faild that merc has?

BUT YOU WOULD have to consider-

It would also raise question on like Venus, it has a opposite rotation then the other planets and barely no magnetic field. Have they found out if venus orbit is decaying? becuase its rotation is like a back spin on the ball?

Idea for thought? I just brain stromed this Idea thinking about ZPH and ZPG magnetic freilds and the new data about earth and saturns rotational days slowing down?

There is no data to even look at this that i know of, or even any resolution to its spin rates through out the oribt path of any planet!

I will have to think about this some more.
The small amount would be to hard to look for like Saturns spin decreasing by 6 min in I think 24 years? and earths decreasing by 30 secs a year, I think that is correct as well? or is it 30 secs a leap year?


By mstransky on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:34 pm:

Sorry I fought got to add in that ZPH and ZPG with my Magnetic Gauss, spin, into that collective thought. Hey tell me if I am wrong or something points to or away from this idea.

By mstransky on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:54 pm:

Becuase here is something that science can not blow off. If a force has an effect (like bending magnetic fields due to solar wind) it must have an equal oppisit effect. I think that will be in the solar wind, inverse to Gravity and orbit velocity^2*distance, and that the push of solar wind must be measurable on and mass, or its total F value in F=GMm/r^2. there has to be some kind of equation in it that this Heat/wind out put is in the equation. Becuase if we see it happen with the comet tails blow back and it has to make one think, in Heat/wind out put has to have some sort of relation to a MASS Gravity pull effect! HOW MUCH ENERGY @ what distance can push back how much MASS?

By J____ on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 03:43 am:


Without adding a factor that most modern physicists reject ... a real space medium ... methinks physical science will continue to wallow in the abyss first dug by Einstein with Relativity and Special Relativity, and then further deepened by Fr. George Lemaitre in 1927.

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

Please study the information
Dayton Miller

Undoubtedly the leaders of change to existing theory will be amateurs like us, Ivan, you, me, and the true renegades of modern physics and astrophysics … Halton Arp comes to mind, who has long fought the establishment based on his observations of redshift, plus his sound knowledge of the work of Edward Hubble (the Hubble Constant has become a joke…!).


By mstransky on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 11:42 am:

J___, thank you I enjoyed it and mainly the closing argument.

"The fact that the present-day situation is totally opposite of my example is a testament to the intensely political nature of modern science, and how major theories often develop into belief-systems, which demand the automatic suppression of any new finding which might undermine the faith and "popular wisdom" of politically-dominant groups of academics. And that "wisdom" today is: Space is empty and immobile, and the universe is dead. I submit, these are unproven, and even disproven assertions, challenged in large measure by Dayton Miller's exceptional work on the ether drift. "

I truely believe, that Miller was looking at something, his data does so something, Second he exposed his data to the So thought outside interferance of direct sunlight, temperature and the data followed modern sciences automatic suppression of his experiment. Then he also removed those same effects and still had the same general results, but in a small amount.
Well of course if his readings where a by product of the direct exposure.

I will read and make a further comment to this as well.

Ivan, J___
On my above statments
1. do they have merc. spin speeding up and slowing down in it orbit?
2. was saturns orbit closet or further away during this reading than voyegers?
3. is venus orbit degrading?
4. How about a formula for densityHEAToutput from the source has how much oppossing force to a mass at what distance?

I mean hey, they can canculate the smallest orbit or reading of an electron, or force of it. But they cannot measure the opposing force of heatWINDdensity blowoff? Strange that they dont even want to touch this subject, but they claim to what to make solar wind sails to travel near the speed of light. So their has to be some kind of drift (maybe not eather drift) But somekind of HeatDensityDrift associated with that design of solar sails, but if they did it would give LIFE back to millers findings.

Thank you Mike

By mstransky on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 09:23 pm:

I am still looking for answers to my last questions but i found some old ones.

Does other planets change their polarities?
"Red and Blue stripes on Mars record an ancient Martian magnetic field which changed its polarity."
"The sun has a strong magnetic field that reverses polarity every 11 years creating the sunspot cycle."
So the question I will still look for is thier a Harmonic?

on Magnetics I liked this link

But here is the kicker with all those sites, They all give the same data that venus does have a magnetic weak feild ~.00004 times less than earths
BUT JPL or NASA does not Display ANY INFORMATION on there fact sheets, or even the Horizons Hyperterminal link!

Still looking into SPIN...

Ivan here is a link...
It used the same round about thoughts as with my Idea of a gauss formula. But this has age of the bodies in the formula? Who is to say how old it is? or the way the formula is written, their is to many man assumtions to effect the outcome of the answer to minipulate the outcome.

Still looking into SPIN...


By mstransky on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 09:55 pm:

DISREGUARD the last link-
Ivan here is a link...
It used the same round about thoughts as with my Idea of a gauss formula. But this has age of the bodies in the formula? Who is to say how old it is? or the way the formula is written, their is to many man assumtions to effect the outcome of the answer to minipulate the outcome.

This is not a physics link at all, my mistake!!!

By J____ on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 02:15 am:

mstransky, Ivan, Everyone,

Ponder this....

Michael, methinks where you want to go must begin with a more basic approach that encompasses a space-medium to work with. Where I am going with this is not my work, but work that I have verified solid as compiled by a very close and dear friend, who like us is presently engaged in a concentrated effort to force modern science to quit teaching theory as fact.

Forget all the 100 + basic particles - Since science has been chasing The Standard Model ... Einstein/Minkowski ... Fr. George Lemaitre’ and his Big Bang Theory, physics started moving into the world of virtual nonsense in order to force fit The Standard Model into a status of fact, which has become revered dogma much like that practiced by religions.

I am very well versed in the works of Nikola Tesla, who in all likelihood understood the phenomena of Force Field Theory better than any living human being living or dead, and it has everything to do with Zero-Point-Energy, and Zero-Point-Gravity. But we have a serious problem if we use the Standard Model as presently defined, and ensconced by the before named underpinnings of it. As early as 1891 Tesla had posited the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy, which could be harnessed at any location within it, and used the concept of a luminiferous ether to describe and define the source, existence and construction of matter.

I am not so much concerned with anything but the basics, yet from the basics come three very necessary ingredients … ZPE … ZPG … ZPH, of which are a significant part of the mechanism that continuously rebuilds the universe precisely as we observe it without the usual resorting to changing constants, virtual nonsense, and physical facts’ manipulations in order to force fit what is observable reality into the existing Standard Model Theory.

Until Einstein discarded the physical medium that comprises what the Standard Model today espouses as Space-Time, a physical medium was deemed necessary within what was then physical world academia, and accepted as realistic. Today that is not the case, and it is not likely to change until enough evidence is gathered to successfully attack the Einstein/Minkowski/ Lemaitre Standard Model. The only way to successfully attack it will be by using Einstein/Minkowski/Lemaitre source material, which is not so readily available; moreover, much of it is hidden in archives that are very difficult to locate.

To accomplish this attack a point of common contact must be established. Ivan has this forum available, and if he is willing to allow it, I will make available a source computer online to act as the repository for documents that use formal calculus formulations, and can be used as an informational source for an ongoing concerted effort to undermine the Existing Standard Model, and replace it with a complete Unified Physical Theory, which overcomes existing shortfalls of modern physics, cosmology, and astronomy.

Methinks we can expect the help of Halton Arp, James DeMeo, Maurice Allais, Michael Lewis, Tsolkas Christos, Ronald R. Hatch, John Kierein, Ardeshir Mehta, Paul Marmet, and hopefully others will join us as the movement begins to make inroads.


By Ivan A. on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:14 pm:

Hi J___, Michael,

Sorry for late reply, but been engaged this past weekend so just catching up. Great thoughts guys!

Keep in mind that my idea is a derivative of how worked out the
Axiomatic Equation, crude that it is, so I am only following a string of ideas, which seem to point to an interaction between a passive universal force of gravity and an active universal force of electromagnetic energy. These two primary forces then are modified depending upon the energy production in any star system, so that the more energy produced, the more it overcomes gravity, so that in Earth's region it is the very weakly interacting leftover force as described by Newton's G constant, i.e., G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2kg^-2, which is then applied in G = GMm/r^2 for our understanding of gravity. But this gravity is a misnomer, since in its true raw form, it is very great, more like what we get from 'Dark Matter'. So this is the basis for my thinking on spin, gravity, and electromagnetic activity in the universe. Does the space-vacuum have an 'aether'? I suspect it does, though I am not clear on how this works yet. As J___, pointed out, there may be excellent theories on the aether which had been purposely ignored by modern physics. One possibility, a mental model I have, is that the aether is actually how raw force gravity attracts the flow of electromagnetic energy from a source. What this means is that once a photon is released, it is 'drawn' away from the energy source into the space-vacuum's raw gravity indefinitely, so that it theoretically can travel to infinity in a straight line, unless it is intercepted. Traveling through this 'medium' of gravity will eventually redshift it over great distances, though at close range its effect is what we see, electromagnetic waves radiating away from an energy source at lightspeed velocity, v = c. By thinking of it this way, the ZPG, ZPH, ZPE, are all functions of this interaction between a passive gravity force and its active countervailing modifying force of electromagnetic energy. This in a nutshell is the universe. How different this is from the Standard Model, General Relativity, the Big Bang model, etc. They are universes apart!

J___, I haven't read the Dayton Miller report, but will as soon as I can. As Einstein had said, if Miller's findings are correct, then scratch the theory of relativity, for all that remains is 'inertia and gravity' as modified by electromagnetic energy. That is precisely what Zero-point-energy is all about. I lean towards Einstein having to scratch his, especially when "experimentum summus judex" will prove him wrong.

Micheal, I see where you're going with the baseball spin analogy, though this is more of a mental model than actually planetary spin, since aerodynamics spin is a physical medium affecting the ball's trajectory, to either send it up or down in relation to Earth's gravity. Not sure how the solar wind or electromagnetic fields affect planetary spin, at this time, so need to think of it some more. I suspect the planetary spins may have more to do with how the two forces, passive gravity as expressed in ZPG, and active energy as expressed in ZPH, interact on any orbital plane. Due to conservation of momentum, there may be a slight speeding up of the planet's orbital velocity as its ZPG related 'inertia' drops off closer to the Sun, its perihelion, and thus its spin should slow slightly. Vice versa at its aphelion, farthest from the Sun, where its inertia is higher in the slightly greater ZPG, so its spin should actually speed up slightly. We're talking about minute differences, perhaps seconds per year type, so not easy to measure. I think Venus is an anomaly all around, where its spin is very slow retrograde, and may be slowing down, with almost no magnetic field. By my model, this would be accounted for by the near equivalence balance between ZPG and ZPH in Venushian orbital plane. Mercury's spin should slow slightly at its perihelion and accelerate slightly at its aphelion, though I had not seen measured evidence of this. This is just how my model would work out. Earth should experience the same thing. Remember we are dealing with very massive bodies, whole planets, so these differences may be very small, but should be evident if the theory is right.

So what happens to modern physics if these new ideas, as first derived from the Axiomatic, are correct? Per Einstein's words: "they would lead to a significantly different theory." Maybe Nicholas Tesla was already onto this different theory, but he got drowned out by the very vocal chorus of Einstein supporters, so it stopped when he died. So "carpe diem", let's take back the day, and pick up where he left off and put physics back on track. I suspect when we better understand this, it will all make so much more sense. Then, and only then, would I go for my Ph.D.. in Physics. Otherwise, it would be a waste, like mastering Ptolemeic cycles just as Copernicus and Kepler were developing their new ideas, and Galileo was being threatened with excommunication, or Bruno burned at the stake. Yet, how many young minds are being forced into the nonsense modern physics has become to get their Ph.D.? Carpe diem!

Keep up the good thoughts, Ivan

By mstransky on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:15 pm:


I have the understanding of what is looked for in ZPH and ZPG by Ivan's definition. Could you describe the ZPE, I would think you are saying it is a zero point energy? where ZPH is in balance with ZPG, like a proportion?

If not can you please correct me!

I wanted to email you but your name is not hi-lighted.


By Ivan A. on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 04:54 pm:


RE Zero-point-energy, see
Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations: A New Rosetta Stone of Physics?

also An Introduction to Zero-Point Energy

These might help you understand it better. Though I still find Zero-point-energy murky, what it says is the universe is full of energy at every 'zero point' of the space-vacuum.

By J____ on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 10:01 pm:

Ivan, Michael,

Me thinks Einstein/Minkowski/Lemaitre model is scratched...!

Dayton Miller, James DeMeo

Ivan .... Can we work out a forum on your site, and house documentation on my site whereas the forumulations required can be iterated using proper fonts...? If agreeable with you ... email me....!

Michael ... email coming at you....!


By MStransky on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 07:17 pm:

Ivan, J___,

This was the place I once worked at, until the RHIC project was complete. I left to secure a job on the outside 3 months before the completion, becuase 3000 people to build it, only 300 to operate it. So I left before the 2700 people took all the jobs on the outside.
But all in all, Book mark it, they have some very good research and data posted from time to time.

By mstransky on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 07:18 pm:


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 08:08 pm:

Thanks Michael for access to these links:

Dipolar-shaped Magnetic Field

Magnetic Moment and Angular Monentum

Observations of Magnetic Fields/Inside and outside Solar System

J___, Michael, and all,

Just some very fun pages to look at, by Jacques P. Vallee (Canadian), in relation to what we're talking about here.

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:29 pm:

WHERE ARE WE IN ALL THIS? --a Speculation Only for now.

The fundamental idea is that Gravity is a passive universal force, much greater than what is registered on Earth, where G = ~6.67e-11 Nm^2kg^-2; and the other modifying force is Electromagnetic Energy, represented by E = ~mc^2. These two interact in the space-vacuum so that maximum Gravity = maximum Energy: G^2 = c^2, where G = (gc^2)^1/2 * pi, or at g = 1 (maximum), max G = ~3e8 Nm^2kg^-2. It is this maximum Gravity (black hole gravity) that is then modified by E to become the very weak gravity experienced on Earth, perhaps greater for the outlying planets, and lesser for Venus and Mercury.

By using the Axiomatic Equation we are able to arrive at what the G is for any given level of E. The basis for this relationship is the DeBroglie-Einstein equation:

E = hf = ~mc^2, which per the Axiomatic becomes:

E = hc/l(mproton) = (1-g)c^2,

where mass is m = 1 (kg/kg), and proton mass is (mproton) = 1.67e-27 kg., which balances both sides of the equation. The gravitational coupling constant for proton is g = ~5.9e-39 (dimensionless, but may also be expressed in volts when used with the gravitational conversion equation: G^2 = gc^2pi^2).

Invoking the inverse square law for photon energy generated by our local star, the Sun, we can then apply the above against the irradiating energy at given distances from the Sun to get a reading as to the energy density at any orbital distance. If this works out, then it would mean that the Gravity density varies with distance, not necessarily in the inverse square law for gravity, but in relation to the distance from the hot star generating the energy. If this works out, still to be computed, then we should see orbital bands of gravity density increasing in intensity the further we are from the Sun, ie, very weak for Mercury and very strong for Pluto, which might account for why the gas giants are structured the way they are, and why the small rocky planets close to the Sun are the way they are. This theory should also yield some explanation for why planetary spin is the way it is, perhaps a function of interior black-body heat and the energy density of their respective orbits. However, this too is only a guess and not yet worked out mathematically.

So this all means the following, where we are at present: Mass has a variable gravity density in inverse proportion to the Sun's electromagnetic energy density for the orbit where it is measured. If so, then any mass traveling from the inner solar system out to the outer solar system should take on gravity density, or inertia, and given a constant momentum, they should slow in velocity. This is believed to have been observed for the Pioneer space crafts traveling in opposite directions out of the solar system, though no explanation in current physics can account for it. It is presently believed Gravity is a universal constant, but this may be false, for it may be a variable-constant depending upon where the mass is in relation to any hot star. It would also imply that any star unable to generate sufficient energy will remain a so-called neutron star with very great gravity.

So this is the theory as it stands currently, given the Axiomatic Equation. The next quest is to find a meaningful way to incorporate distance and solar irradiation with planetary behavior and spin. Mercury may in fact not be any denser than the other rocky planets, but its location is in a very low gravity density region close to the Sun, and hence its internal density may behave as if it were "heavier" by contrast, appearing more metallic than rocky; conversely, Pluto may be no more than an all ice body located in a very dense gravity region, so that it acts as if it were heavier, or rocky. These are for now speculations at best, but they are the direction of my next search.


So this is the next quest, to find the ratios of in-irradiating energy from the Sun to the planets, taking Earth as a base of 1. I use this base unit of 1 because this is the ratio of lumincity to gravity ratio we are familiar with, which yields Newton's G. This ratio should increase closer to the Sun, more for Venus and still more for Mercury and into the Sun, and decrease to less than 1 for planets further away from the Sun than Earth. I will further assume, as one of my basic premises, that this ratio value will be "zero" at the Sun's surface, where its photosphere/chromosphere is exactly where the zeropoint gravity and zeropoint energy equal, so that they balance out within the star's gravity and its energy output on the surface. Note the Sun's luminocity is ~10e24 J/s (vs. E = ~9e16 J/s, or Watts, for the Axiomatic). I would also assume Newton's gravitational formula F = GMm/r^2 works inversely for any star, so that gravity is greater going into the Sun (but decreasing away from the Sun in the usual inverse square law). The fact the Sun has "spin" would then be of necessity for other internal factors, such as the churning of its interior; this interior churning may be due to a theorized (per Stephen Hawking-?) mini-black hole at its core, which also account for why the exterior spin is faster at the equator vs. the poles. The Sun's center would support a mini-black-hole if the Axiomatic Equation is correct, since all ambient energy from its circumference would cancel all lambda wavelengths there. If so, then any hot star is at its maximum gravity in the center and at zeropoint balance on the surface... only a guess for now.

It may then be theoretically possible to apply this ratio against the planet's interior black-body radiation of heat (Kelvin temps.) to establish spin. Because Venus has the slowest relative spin (approx. -1.08 times its orbit period of 224.7 days), I would use Venus as a base for spin-ratios, though only a supposition at present. Mercury's spin is slow (~58 Earth days), so its internal heat should be considered "cool" in relation to its very great in-radiating solar heat. The Earth's 24 hour spin would then be indicative of a relatively "hot" black-body internal heat to its orbital in-irradiating energy. Earth is a volcanically hot planet, with a hot inner core, and spins one day in ~24 hours. Mars is a volcanically "cool" planet, so though further from the Sun, its spin is akin to that of Earth's. What should show is that the further a planet is from the Sun, in the colder regions of space, the faster they should spin in relation to their internal black-body heat, however this too is only a supposition. The magnetic moment for each planet should then register as a function of that spin, though it may or may not be responsible for that spin, as presently theorized, but this too is still unknown. Therefore, this is the next stage of my quest, to find how the planetary spin reads in relation to the gravitic and energy density readings in their respective orbits. Give me some time to work this out... but this is how the theory looks.

Please note, should this yield in principle the results I am looking for, there will be a name for it: "JASZZ" spin ---with the named parties permission, of course. Though, at present, I do not know how to do this.

(JASZZ spin = J__, Alexander, Stransky, zeropoint zone spin.)

Let's get to work, see if we can figure it out, and all that Jaszz!


By mstransky on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 12:36 pm:


Hold that thought I am brain storming.
Think of these laws on the side in your head
Tesla, inverse- Square law, Heat, and electron flow.

Ok solar wind has been measured at 6 gm/cm^3 and if this is a way to look at it. If any object gives up a certain amount of electrons its charge will attract other charges at different levels. Not necessarily at a charge of 0 and 10 or 100 and 0, but more like the sum of a masses charge.

If the sun gives of an electron sum charge by losses it in the form of radiation and heat or light, which ever the case. That same charge could be reaching out in the form of static lines of force creating a pull.

inverse square law- if the charge leaving a heat source has a density of 6 gm/cm^3 at a given distance like the earth, would that density charge also fall under the inverse square law as being like 2gm/cm^3 as less and less the further it expanded.

Know if the sun is like a tetriod magnetic field, and the magnetic lines of force are in a circular path like the orbits, then would the given energy of heat given off at the equator, left hand thumb rule. Which as the sun spin rotates leads the charge of given off heat mass. And at its poles would be more excited when they have an energy mass leave off into the path of a magnetic pole. The orbit magnetic path would be greater, and thus what has been seen like x-rays leaving the poles of some stars and bodies.

Another thought if an orbiting body comes closer in its orbit to the sun the greater density charge of the area it has to pass through.

So from this...

All planets have black body radiation, or signals from it own make up. Will the signal reflect how much charge is given of in the form of energy or heat? I do know planets can be measured at 3-10 meter signals, and some take it as a light wave.

I will draw this out in a pictorial, and some of the other things I emailed you on with Magnetism that their maybe two signals I was looking at that may explain way magnetic lines do not collapse, and some other things as well. I will have a few days to do this when I am on the road.

But I would tend to believe that a stronger radiation sum of energy near the source could be inversely measured, by a proportional distance. Because if there is a force that the sun gives off to effect the smaller bodies that same force has to be explained with Jupiter’s and its moons. And right down to the attraction of the earth and moon.

I am tending to think on how Tesla has explained how everything is a charge, it may not be as an out right electric voltage, but a charge of the sum of electrons, protons, in the masses entirety.

I hope I was able to put those thoughts into good enough words, but the drawings I will do I will scan them and email you both. I will have a few days to do many of them while I am on the road.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 09:52 pm:

Hi Michael, J___,

At the moment I am struggling with making sense of numbers, taking: irradiating W/m^2 times distance in meters times kinetic Energy for a gram of mass in Earth's orbit, and I come up with a fairly close approximation of 90 petajoules, which is the value for E = mc^2. But not totally satisfied with this yet, so still working on it.

Now, does black body radiation act like other energy, or gravity , with the inverse square law? I am told by my reputable friends that it does. The only exception I would make is that from the perspective of Perspective itself, we see things linearly, as if the image was at d/d^2, so that railroad tracks don't curve off into the distance but appear as narrowing straight lines. I suspect that the values I am looking for in Jaszz is like that, more linear, but don't know yet. So still working on it...

The Sun's radiation is still something of an enigma to astrophysics, as in
Sun Spikes: Solar Quakes Fuel Hot Tendrils in the article. So much electro power in nuclear fusion that it's enough to make your hair stand up!

Still thinking, and frustrated with calculations, but we'll get that Jaszz yet.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:04 pm:

JASZZ SPIN -- phase 1: Orbital Energy-Luminosity in Joules per second.

The goal here is to establish a relationship of orbital energy, as luminosity of solar irradiating energy times its distance from the Sun, as a function of kinetic energy to compute the total Orbital Energy for any given planetary orbit. To illustrate this I will use Earth's orbit for starters. Using the numbers found at Nasa Planetary Fact Sheet to calculate the orbital energy values I need. Here is the first sample:

EARTH: (solar irradiance W/m^2) (distance in meters) (orbital kinetic energy) = Orbital Energy

Orbital kinetic energy is expressed as: E(k) = 1/2 m v^2, where m=1 gram.

(Note: orbital kinetic energy is expressed in kilometers rather than meters, so the distance was adjusted down by a factor of 1000, from meters to kilometers.)

Values taken from Nasa, Earth:

Solar irradiance: 1367.6 W/m^2
mean distance from Sun: 149.6e9 meters (149.6e6 km)
mean orbital velocity: 29.78 km/s

(1367.6) (149.6e9) = 204592.96e9 = 2.046e14 W/m

E(k) = (1/2) (1g) (29.78)^2 = (1/2)(1)(886.85) = 443.4 m^^-2 (Joules)

(note that W/m is the same as J/s/m)

Multiplying: 2.04e14 W/m * 443.4 J = 907.2e14 J/s/m = 9.07e16 J/s/m, or Watts/meter.

Now, why is this interesting? I find this interesting because the result is fairly close to the Energy represented in Einstein's E=mc^2, which is 90 petajoules (9e16 J). The difference here is that this energy is also Joules per meter, as well as per second, so that something is different. Whether by coincidence of because it means something, the relative total energy of Earth's orbital location, taking both its orbital kinetic energy per gram and its solar irradiating energy per meter squared, yields a value which approximates the value we give to the Einstein Energy function. Is this any good? Eh... beh... don't really know. But it looks to me like E = 9e16 Joules is the ZPH (zeropoint heat) reading for Earth, ie., this is the energy level found in all our atomic structures here.

I suspect this is a good number, and that what it represents is the total orbital energy for our planet vs. the solar energy output where the planet orbits. Think of it as an 'energy soup' of ZPH where we travel, and now this begins to look like something. What I should find, when I do the calculations for the other planets, is that the inner planets towards the Sun should tend towards a higher orbital energy reading, towards the Sun's total luminosity (10e24 Joules = maximum ZPH), and those planets further away from us, the other way towards the gas giants, should yield orbital energy values that are lower than here, tending towards less than 9e16 Joules... but that is still a guess. What it also may mean, if it proves correct, is that the Energy levels of planets within this 'gravity-energy soup' declines with distance from the Sun. Now this, I must admit, was a surprise to me, since I assumed the energy levels would remain constant. On thinking about it, it seems to make sense that they are not, since the difference for lower ZPH is greater ZPG, or greater gravity readings as energy readings decline, per the Axiomatic Equation.

What I will be looking for next is, if Planck's constant is constant (6.626e-34) and c is constant, and l is constant (1.32e-15), then when E rises, proton mass (mp) should decline, and with it in like manner should decline the proton gravitational coupling constant g. Once we figure g, then we can convert it into Newton's G (via G^2 = gc^2pi^2) for each planetary orbit. (On Earth, this G works out out to approx. G = ~7e-11 Nm^2, per this conversion.) If E decreases, for the planets more distant from the Sun, then G should rise.

The BIG questions is: why didn't we see this before? But it's all relative, isn't it? So planetary or lunar bodies in different Gs acted as if they were all in the same G in relation to each other. Of course, if so, then we had planetary mass figured all wrong.

So this is the first step towards Jaszz spin, though we're still a good distance away.


By Ivan A. on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:30 am:

JASZZ SPIN -- phase 2: The Planets Orbital Energy-Luminosity in Joules per second, and how E = mc^3 on the surface area of the Sun.

The next phase for establishing a relationship of orbital energy, as luminosity of solar irradiation times distance from the Sun, and modified by the kinetic energy of gravitationally induced orbital velocity will take us to the Energy values for the inner planets, Venus and Mercury. We will also look at how the Sun measures up. (In "phase 3" we will swing out to the outer planets, all the way to Pluto.)

Please bear in mind that these are rough algorithmic sketches, so they may not be totally accurate and would need to be further refined with actual observations and measurements of their consequent gravity values, or their respective ZPG, zero-point-gravity, as it relates to ZPH, their equivalent zero-point-heat expressed here in Joules per second. At this point we still do not have the instruments necessary to measure gravity at a distance, so must send probes there to find out. Because these measurements for planets nearest us will exhibit very small variations in gravity from Earth's G, it will be difficult but it should be doable.

Repeating the same as done for Earth, using the planetary data found at
Nasa Planetary Fact Sheet of solar irradiance in W/m^2, distance from the Sun in meters, and mean orbital velocity to find the kinetic energy per gram:

VENUS: (solar irradiance W/m^2) (solar distance in meters) (orbital kinetic energy) = Orbital Energy

Orbital kinetic energy is expressed as: E(k) = 1/2 m v^2, where m=1 gram.

Venus irradiance = 2613.9 W/m^2
mean distance = 108.2e9 meters
mean orbital velocity = 35 km/s

(2613.9) (108.2e9) = 282824e9 = 2.83e14 W/m

E(k) = (1/2)(1 gram)(35)^2 = 612.5 Joules, which multiplied out is:

2.83e14 * 612.5 = 1733.4e14 = 17.33e16 J/s/m or W/m.

Please note this is nearly double (1.93) the E value for Earth's E = 9e16 W/m, so that Venus rides an orbital energy field that is twice as hot as Earth's. It can also be epxressed as E(Venus) = 1.733e17 W/m.


Mercury irradiance = 9126.6 W/m^2
mean orbital distance = 57.9e9 meters
mean orbital velocity = 48.9 km/s

(9126.6)(57.91e9) = 528430e9 = 5.285e14 W/m

E(k) = (1/2)(1 g)(47.87)^2 = 1145.8 J multiplied out,

5.284e14 * 1145.8 = 6055e14 = 60.5e16 W/m

Note this is seven times E for Earth (x6.72), can be also expressed as E(Merc) = 6.05e17 W/m.

The only other heavenly body closer to the Sun than Mercury is our star itself:

(10e24) (1) = 10e24 Joules

E(k) = (1/2)(1 gram)(0) = 0, so that other than the Sun's orbit around the galaxy, and its spin, it has no orbital velocity for itself. This leaves the Sun's total Energy as only what it radiates at the photosphere, where E = 10e24, which I believe is approximately 6000 Kelvin, though the corona has millions of degrees Kelvin, so not certain about this.

* * * * *

How does this affect E = hc/l(mp) = (1-g)c^2 of the Axiomatic Equation?

Obviously this violates the E = mc^2 rule, where E = 9e16 Joules. However, that is how we measure in on Earth, where we take mass = 1 (kg) to be how this E value is computed. Now we are looking at something different for the inner planets and the Sun:

Earth: E = (1)c^2 * 1
Venus: E = (1) c^2 * 1.93
Mercury: E = (1)c^2 * 6.72
Sun: E = 10e24 = (1)c^2 * c

And this last, E = mc^3 is the ultimate value of Energy for our local star? Possibly, but because there is still much confusion over temperatures of star surfaces, we may not know it.

Because we measure everything in terms of Earth's Energy, we had assumed that c^2 was the ultimate energy reading for mass. Now we can see that this was only a Terracentric reading, where planet Earth is valued as "1", and that the inner planets have values greater than "1" but less than "c". If we take c^3 as being an expression of three dimensional energy, then our Sun is a complete energy machine within its own confines of its photosphere. That is the universal maximum reading for Energy, where it is three dimensionally defined as mass. We will later see that at E = mc^3, gravity is zero, which is the zero-point-gravity on the Sun's surface where its inner energy balances with its overall mass, so that for each molecule on the photosphere, gravity does not exist. I suspect that past the chromosphere, gravity once again exists, but in a very weak form that gets progressively stronger as we gain distance from the star. By the time we are at Earth's orbital, gravity takes on the Newton's G we are all familiar with, G =6.67e-11 Nm^2.

What does this mean for other stars in the universe? is E = mc^3 the ultimate possible reading for Energy? My suspicion is that yes, that is as high as it can get, for to go beyond that, where gravity becomes less than zero, the star explodes. The same can be said for the red giants, where there luminosity is below c^3, so that they begin to behave more like very hot planets with some reading multiple of E = mc^2. For so-called neutron stars, the energy level cannot even reach c^2, and very likely remains at E = c or below, in which case it has only gravity and very little energy, except for very high spin kinetic energy. By this reasoning, very hot stars, like our Sun, are always at the E = mc^3 maximum power generating capacity. We who live on Earth are within its c^2 region, having some distance from the star, so that we occupy that sweet spot where gravity is relatively weak and the planet rides in an energy sea that does not boil away our water or freeze it solid. I would call the E = mc^2 * 1 the Life Zone. I suspect every star in the universe has this Life Zone, whether or not a planet formed there to manifest it. The more I understand of this universe, the more convinced I am that it is very intelligently put together. If so, then virtually every star will have a Life Zone planet where life can exist. I do not know yet why this is so, but suspect we will eventually understand why there is a very good reason for it. Earth happens to be one of those planets, where c^2 * 1 is the Life Zone.

* * * * * *

GRAVITY: Proton mass and the gravitional coupling constant for inner planets.

What happens to gravity in the inner planets which have energy at levels greater than Earth's "1" reading? Using the Axiomatic Equation, we get the following:

E = hc/l(mp) = (1-g)c^2 * (?)

If we assume for Planck's constant to be the same everywhere, and for l to be the same, and lightspeed to be the same, then the variables will be proton mass (mp), and the gravitational constant g. Mass is always m = 1.

Planck's constant = 6.626e-34 m^^-1
mass = 1 (always) the mass fraction kg/kg
l = 1.322e-15 meters
c = 3e8 m.s^-1

then the equations with constants reads as:

E = (6.626e-34)(3e8)/ (1.322e-15) ((mp) = (1-g) (9e16) * 1.93

VENUS: where E = 17.33e16 W/m, the resulting values are:

17.33e16 = (19.878e-26)/ (1.322e-15)(mp) = (1-g) 17.33e16

which works out to be: proton mass (mp) = 8.676e-28 kg.

(Please note this mass is less than the proton mass on Earth, which is 1.67e-27 kg.)

With knowing the ratio of Venus mass to Earth's mass, we can estimate the proton gravitational coupling counstant g:

(Earth's) g = 5.9e-39 * (Venus/Earth proton mass ratio) 0.5195 = 3.06e-39 = Venus gravity constant.

Converting this into Newton's G means: G^2 = gc^pi^2 = G^2 = (3.06e-39)(9e16)(9.87) = 271.82e-23 = 27.1e-24 = ~G^2 (approximation only)

taking the square root: Venus G = ~5.206e-12 Nm^2 (vs. Earth's G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2), which is gravity weaker than on Earth.

MERCURY, to repeat the above:

E (Mercury) = 60.55e16
Mercury's proton mass (mp) = 2.48e-28 kg (which is lower mass than Venus's)
Mercury's gravitational constant = 0.1485 * 5.9e-39 = 8.76e-40
Newton's G for Mercury = ~2.79e-13 Nm^2, which is weaker than Venus's gravity.

Let's do Mars, our closest neighbor since we're here, and worry about the gas giants next time:


Mars solar irradiation = 589.2 W/m^2
mean orbital distance = 227.9e9 meters
mean orbital velocity = 24.13 km/s

E (Mars) = 3.9e16 J/s/m
Mars proton mass (mp) = 3.86e-27 kg
Mars's gravitational constant = 2.31* 5.9e-39 = 1.36e-38 (larger than Earth's g)
Newton's G for Mars = ~1.096e-10 Nm^2, which is greater than Earth's G.

Of course, you may have already guessed, but it should take less fuel to get off Mercury than presently estimated, and conversely more fuel to get off Mars. This is all because the probes would take on the planet's molecular G when they get there, hence mass inertia gets affected.

* * * *

Like I said above, these are rough sketches, but they are meant to illustrate how this ZPG/ZPH interaction affects planetary gravity. What puzzles me is that if these small gravity variations exist, then why have we not detected them before, since we have had spacecraft flying there? Or were these adjustments so small that the onboard jets were able to correct whatever trajectoral error occurred? I'd love to find out if NASA had to fudge a little to get to where they had never been before.

Of course, we are still a long way off from figuring planetary spin, and all that Jaszz.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 04:44 am:

JASZZ SPIN phase 3: The outer planets's total orbital energy and gravity constants.

It may becoming more apparent that the lower gravity constants for the inner planets may also have some affect on how they are put together as physical bodies. For example, if the gravitational proton coupling constant is lower, it might also mean that more volatile molecules will have greater difficulty holding together, so that gases will escape more readily and what remains are denser materials. Conversely, for the outer planets, where this gravitational constant should be greater, gases should more easily be trapped. Hence, it should not be surprising to find the gas giants there. This same reason may also be why Saturn's rings will show greater density closer to the planet, muddy with heavier elements, and lighter towards the edges of the ring, where they are lighter with more water. This, of course, would then mean that Saturn will have a mini-energy generating capability radiating this energy on the space surrounding it. However, I am jumping ahead, so let's first work out the numbers for the gas giants, and Pluto, in the same way they were worked out for the inner planets to see if this theory of a variable zero-point energy and gravity remains consistent as we move away further from the Sun.

ORBITAL ENERGY FOR THE GAS GIANTS: Using the same equations as before, multiplying solar irradiation times distance from the Sun, and then times the orbital kinetic energy for one gram of mass, we arrive at the total orbital energy:


Jupiter solar irradiance: 50.50 W/m^2
mean distance from Sun: 778.57e9 meters
mean orbital velocity: 13.07 km/s

(50.50)(778.57) = 39317.78e9 = 0.39318e14 W/m

E(k) = (1/2))1gram)(13.07)^2 = 85.41 J, multiplied out:

Jupiter orbital Energy = 0.3932e14 * 85.41 = 33.58e14 =

E (Jupiter) = 0.335e16 J/s/m

(Jupiter's E is much lower than Earth's E = 9e16)

The proton mass and gravitational constants are, per Axiomatic Equation:

0.335e16 = (19.878e-26)/ (1.322e-15)(mp) = (1-g) 0.335e16

which works out to be: proton mass (mp) = 4.49e-26 kg

(This is a much higher mass than Earth's 1.67e-27 kg)

With knowing the ratio of Jupiter proton mass to Earth's mass, we can estimate the proton gravitational coupling counstant g:

(Earth's) g = 5.9e-39 * (Jupiter/Earth proton mass ratio) 26.89 = 1.586e-37

Jupiter gravity constant: g = 1.586e-37

Converting this into Newton's G means: G^2 = gc^pi^2 = G^2 = (1.586e-37)(9e16)(9.87) = 140.93e-21 = 14.93e-20
(approximation only), so taking square root:

Jupiter G = ~3.86e-10 Nm^2, which is much greater gravity than Earth's G = 6.67e-11)


Saturn solar irradiance: 14.9 W.m^2
mean distance from Sun: 1433e9 meters
mean orbital velocity: 9.69 km/s

E (Saturn) = 0.1004e16 J/s/m
Saturn proton mass (mp) = 1.498e-25 kg
Saturn's gravitational constant = 89.7* 5.9e-39 = 5.29e-37
Newton's Saturn G = ~6.85e-10 Nm^2


Uranus solar irradiance: 3.71 W/m^2
mean solar distance: 2872.5e9 meters
meean orbital velocity: 6.81 km/s

E (Uranus) = 0.0247e16 J/s/m
Uranus proton mass (mp) = 6.1e-25 kg
Uranus's gravitational constant = 365* 5.9e-39 = 2.153e-36
Newton's Uranus G = ~1.38e-9 Nm^2


Neptune solar irradiance: 1.51 W/m^2
mean solar distance: 4495e9 meters
mean orbital velocity: 5.43 km/s

E (Neptune) = 0.01e16 J/s/m
Neptune proton mass = 1.5e-24 kg
Neptune's gravitational constant = 5.3e-36
Newton's Neptune G = ~2.17e-9 Nm^2

I feel those Gs growing! Now, since we're way out there, let's do Pluto as well.


Pluto solar irradiance: 0.89 W/m^2
mean solar distance: ~5869e9 meters (very elliptical orbit)
mean orbit velocity: 4.72 km/s

E (Pluto) = 0.0058e16 J/s/m
Pluto proton mass = 2.58e-24 kg
Pluto's gravitational constant = 9.11e-36
Newton's Pluto G = ~2.84e-9 Nm^2.

* * * * *

So what does this all do to the GM in gravity F = GMm/r^2 for the outer planets? Surprisingly, very little from our point of view on Earth. Because the space probes are the small m, their effect is very small, though not negligible if their inerial mass increases. The greater effects are for the GM values, though for higher G it necessitates a lower M. So in this way we had the planetary masses wrong. This may mean that mass for the outer planets is lower than we had previously calculated, though we had no way of knowing this. It is also surprising that the Cassini-Huygen space craft around Saturn had not noticed this in its behavior or instrumentation. Or else we are not being told the whole story by NASA, since in this article,
Inside the Giants: Puzzling Differences in Jupiter and Saturn it says: "Gravity measurements of Saturn by the Cassini spacecraft, especially if it is allowed to operate beyond the four years of the planned primary mission, could improve understanding of its deep mysteries." So they are looking at something. Otherwise, since the GM estimates offset their internal errors, no one was the wiser, and we were flying under false pretense. However, we should be impressed with the fact that gravity beyond Jupiter/Saturn seems to settle in the G = ~10e-9 Nm^2 range and changes very little with distance. It seems as if when we get very far from the Sun and very little light reaches there, the gravity constant flattens out.

Next, let's collect all this data and see if we can find some corolation to these calculations and planetary spin, vis a vis planetary internal heat... and all that Jaszz.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:04 pm:

JASZZ SPIN phase 4: Tables of planet Orbital Energy, proton mass, Newton's G constant.

Orbital Energy Proton mass Newton's G

10e24 J (zero) kg (zero) Nm^2

Please note these above figures for the Sun do not imply it has no gravity, which we know is very great, but merely that the molecules on the Sun's surface in its hottest regions, where E = mc^3 Joules, inhabit a zone where their proton mass is zero, and thus carry a Newton's G value of zero. At any distance from that hot region, their mass and G will increase in proportion to the E values as Energy decreases, per the chart below. The Axiomatic Equation was used to arrive at the proton mass and Newton's G values.

60.55e16 J 2.48e-28 kg 2.79e-13 Nm^2

17.33e16 J 8.67e-28 kg 5.20e-12 Nm^2

9.0e16 J 1.67e-27 kg 6.67e-11 Mn^2

3.66e16 J 3.86e-27 kg 1.096e-10 Nm^2

0.335e16 J 4.49e-26 kg 3.86e-10 Nm^2

0.1004e16J 1.498e-25kg 6.85e-10 Nm^2

0.0247e16J 6.1e-25 kg 1.38e-9 Nm^2

0.01e16 J 1.5e-24 kg 2.17e-9 Nm^2

0.006e16 J 2.58e-24 kg 2.84e-9 Nm^2

If we take Venus as our base, since it has the slowest spin (-1.08, as a ratio of spin to annual orbit, almost =1) then we will need to find a ratio of Venus's orbital E to that of the other planets. Using that ratio, as adjusted for each planet, we may possibly find an E value that could be applied against the planet's internal heat, its black-body Kelvin temperature, to see if any kind of spin can be determined. This is the goal, to find a ratio of spin that approximates what the planets are doing. We are assuming the planet black-body heat readings are more or less correct.

Venus has spin of virtually "zero", where it spins -1.08 per its orbital year, which means it spins once on itself in orbit.

In the next phase 5, we will test for methodology of planetary spin.


(edited 8/1/04)
Ivan A. on Sunday, August 1, 2004 - 05:17 pm:

JASZZ SPIN phase 5: Test Methodology for Planetary Spin, as black-body K temperature is applied against the planet's orbital Energy:

Please note: This below is just a test case, in search of how planetary spin relates to planetary black-body heat within the planet's orbital Energy zone. The goal is to find the closest approximations that reflect this spin, using the NASA's data available for planetary black-body interior heat in Kelvin. Though these relationships may not be exact, they should approximate their respective planet spins, though need to be adjusted. I will assume that Earth's data is most accurate, being our home planet, but that the black-body heat of other planets may be suspect, since they were estimated at a distance. Our base planet for near zero spin will be Venus, which has an orbital spin retro of -1.08 times per its orbital year. For our purposes here, though this is not an exact zero, Venus will be treated as having "zero" spin.

In testing this methodology for planetary spin, we should first see how it applies to the planets's K versus their total orbital Energy:

Mercury: 442.5 K/ 60.55e16 J = 7.308e-16 (K/ E)
Venus: 231.7 K/ 17.33e16 J = 13.37e-16 (K heat to E ratio, which is "zero" spin)
Earth: 254.3 K/ 9e16 J = 28.26e-16 (K/E)
Mars: 210.1 K/3.86e16 J = 54.43e-16 (K/E)

Now, to the gas giants which are fairly hot planets in the very cold E of their orbital Energy:

Jupiter: 110 K/ 0.335e16 J = 329.36e-16 (K/E)
Saturn: 81.1K/ 0.1004e16 J = 807.8e-16 (K/E)
Uranus: 58.1 K/ 0.0247e16 J = 2352.23e-16 (K/E)
Neptune: 46.6 K/ 0.01e16 J = 4660e-16 (K/E)

Pluto: ~37.5 K/ 0.006e16 J = 6250e-16 (K/E)

Now, all these need to be adjusted for Venus's zero spin, so divide each by Venus's ratio =13.37e-16:

Mercury: 7.308e-16 (K/ E)/ 13.37e-16 = 0.546
Venus: 13.37e-16 (K heat to E ratio, which is "zero" spin) = 1
Earth: 28.26e-16 (K/E) / 13.37e-16 = 2.114
Mars: 54.43e-16 (K/E)/ 13.337e-16 = 4.07

Jupiter: 325.36e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 24.56**
Saturn: 807.8e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 60.42**
Uranus: 2352.23e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 175.92**
Neptune: 4660e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 348.5**

Pluto: 6250e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 467.5**

**(Please note these values jump dramatically for Jupiter and beyond, which may imply that in the very cold zeropoint orbital Energy zones the planetary heat generates its own orbital Energy, ZPH, in addition to its solar energy received. However, this is only a supposition.)

These adjusted spins ratios are still to be adjusted for the relative temperature of the planet's K to Venus's K, our base planet. To do this, we will divide each planet's K energy by Venus's K, and take the differential multiplied by the spin ratios:

Mercury: 7.308e-16 (K/ E)/ 13.37e-16 = 0.546 x (442.5K/231.7K=1.91) = 1.043
Venus: 13.37e-16 (K heat to E ratio, which is "zero" spin) = 1 (231.7/231.7) = 1 (remains one spin per orbital, but may be <1 slightly)
Earth: 28.26e-16 (K/E) / 13.37e-16 = 2.114 x (254.3/231.7=1.098) = 2.316
Mars: 54.43e-16 (K/E)/ 13.337e-16 = 4.07 x (210.1/231.7=0.907) = 3.69 (?)

Jupiter: 325.36e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 24.36 x (110/231.7=0.475) = 11.67 (too low?) ...may be planet generates ZPH, or K too low?
Saturn: 807.8e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 60.42 x (81.1/231.7=0.35) = 21.15 (?)
Uranus: 2352.23e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 175.92 x (58.2/231.7=0.25) = 44.18 (too high?)
Neptune: 4660e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 348.5 x (46.6/231.7=0.202) = 70.27 (much too high?)

Pluto: 6250e-16 (K/E)/ 13.37e-16 = 467.5 x (~37.5/231.7=0.162) = 75.66 (much much too high?) be adjusted, K much too high?

I'm not happy with these results, but will leave them such as they are for further study. Obviously some sort of divisor is called for, since there is a steady progression in the values, but though they fail to reflect actual planetary spin they will remain such for now.

* * * * *
TABLE: Planetary black-body Kelvin, Spin-Ratio, Divisor-(??), Planetary Spin:

Kelvin temp. Spin Ratio Divisor-? Spin days/Earth day

442 K 1.043 ?? 58.8

231.7 K 1-<1 1 + 244

254.3 K 2.316 ??? 1

210.1 K 3.69 ??? 1.03

110 K 11.67 ???? 0.415

81.10 K 21.15 ???? 0.445

58.10 K 44.18 ???? 0.718

46.6 K 70.27 ???? 0.673

37.5 K? 75.66? ????? 6.3

* * * * * *

This is a sample test case of methodology for figuring planetary spin as it relates to its internal black-body temperature, its Kelvin, and the Energy zone E within which it resides, the ZPH (zero-point-heat) zone. As stated above, it is possible the planets in the very cold space regions of the gas giants generate their own ZPH, so that though the numbers for spin get larger for them, they would need to be adjusted downwards for the local ZPH those planets generate. Otherwise, the spin numbers are simply too high, especially for Pluto where spin exceeds the gas giants, which is not so (Pluto spins about once every 6.3 Earth days.) But the principle methodology shows how spin is relative to internal planetary heat in relation to its ZPH, or total orbital Energy, as defined by solar irradiation times distance from the Sun and multiplied by orbital kinetic energy.

What about JASZZ Spin? The problem with solving spin within E zones lies with using Kelvin for planetary interior heat, as it applies against Joules Energy of the planet's orbit. These are two different forms of measuring, so the compatibility may be lacking, and we do not have the means at present to correct for this. So the best case was to use K anyway, and see where it goes. At present, it can be taken no further, since we still do not know whether or not planets generate their own ZPH in their orbits when very far from solar energy. I will leave this for now as a curiosity only, subject to further investigations.

Thank you for your time and attention. The truth will out in the end.

"Experimentum summus judex."


(Edited 8/2/04, adjusted temp K for Jupiter; 8/6/04.)
By Ivan A. on Sunday, August 1, 2004 - 10:06 pm:


Saturn's rings: I find the fact that Saturn, the great gas giant that is in a greater G constant area than Jupiter, is very fascinating. If it really has greater G, it is more compressed than Jupiter, which also has enough G to become a gas giant, but more loosely held together. (The small rocky planets closer to the Sun are in a lower G orbital area so cannot hold onto gas the way the giants do.) But the most important thing is Saturn's rings. There are many of them, and they range from 'dirty' rings close to the planet, i.e. rocky, to icy rings on the periphery. If Saturn is hot enough to generate its own orbital Energy, in the way the Sun does, then it makes sense that the rings would be the way they are. The 'hotter' region close to the planet is too volatile to hold much more than 'heavier' mass, while further out only the more volatile mass, ice, is held in place by the greater G readings out there, away from the hot planet. This would also be true to some degree for Jupiter, but should be also true for the other gas giants Uranus and Neptune, though they are smaller. Remember that heavy stuff falls into the planet's gravity but is counterbalanced by greater G further out, the more volatile materials then act as if they were heavier, but they lose this 'heaviness' once they get too close to the hot planet. So, because of the way the rings are, Saturn may very well be a 'hot' planet creating its own orbital Energy for its moons, in the same way the Sun creates orbital Energy for its planets. So the colder space, the greater the G out there experienced by each molecule. What have we got very far from the Sun? Pluto, an ice body planet.

Elliptical orbits: What happens in elliptical orbits? The new physics, as expressed in the Axiomatic Equation, would say that the perihelion is gravitationally, and energy wise, different from the aphelion. In the perihelion, gravity G is less, velocity is greater and possibly spin is slowed slightly. In the aphelion, G is greater, velocity is slower, inertial mass is greater, and spin may accelerate slightly. We do not see this from Earth, but our elliptical is very shallow. Comets may experience it more, but their internal heat is determined by external space conditions, so their spin may not be affected. We should see this spin variation phenomenon in Mercury, or Neptune, planets that have greater ellipticals. It should also show up in Pluto, but perhaps with a very low internal heat, the spin may not be affected, since its black-body heat is nearly same to its space-vacuum heat. However, there is no doubt as to planetary velocity, since it clearly accelerates in the perihelion, where G, as ZPG, is lower and ZPH greater, for each molecule of the planet; vice versa for the aphelion. Comets do the same.

Spin: I had tried working out the spin ratios in Jaszz above, but did not come up with meaningful numbers except to describe fairly consistently how Newton's G increases with distance from the Sun. The spin ratios show progression, but more than I would have expected, so must leave it for now as being affected by some other function of which I am still ignorant. I suspect the gas giants generate their own ZPH, but don't know this yet. Or perhaps there is some sliding scale of energy of which I am not aware for the great distance of space (this was how I passed Physics in highschool!), so we may find this at some future time. I am only a thinker, and not a scientist or physicist, so will leave the hard work to someone else. In time, it will all make sense, but I am fairly certain I am on the right track: The Universe is an interplay of passive great gravity and electromagnetic energy, and all we see is how this energy had modified the gravity for each atom, so the remainder is its inertial mass.

Concluding thoughts: What does it all mean? It means I'm way out on a limb on all this, having developed these ideas independently from various sources of information available to me. Having read much of today's modern physics, with some counterintuitive understanding, I was left thinking how humorous it had all become, like some chaos theory of physics gone wild, its theory getting wilder and wilder with each turn of the screw. Thank you Dr. Einstein for the humor! Yet, I don't expect my cosmology to be comprehensible to most physicists living today, though it may be more understandable in the future when we get more information from space. The universe is a very well put together system, much simpler than the convoluted modern physics theorized today, and much more intuitively understandable. The secret to our universe is that we live in a charmed existence dominated by electromagnetic energy, so gravity, which is a passive background very powerful force, is kept at bay. Thus, we live in a sweet spot of reality as long as the stars shine and the galaxy keeps a tight reign on its central black hole which holds all this together. We had discovered fire millions of year ago, and now discovered electricity much more recently. However, the circle will not be closed until we learn to tame the latent background force of gravity, for then we will use that as well, and go where we had never dreamed of going before. It is doable. All we have to do is self cancel out all electromagnetic energy, and the rest is history.

Ivan D. Alexander

By G-man767 on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 08:56 pm:

Great thread. Some really outstanding posts. A quick cosmology question:
According to current knowledge, what is the theoretic volume of the universe?
What do the equations look like, depending on the various geometric assumptions?
Can anyone recommend a site(s) on this? G-man

By J____ on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 09:35 pm:


Depending on which camp you belong to - just guess and your guess will be as good as the best physicists in the world.

See, they can only guess the same as you, and odds are your guess will even be more accurat than yours ... that is, if you do not corrupt it with numbers


By Ivan A. on Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 04:12 pm:


Given the new physics per the Axiomatic Equation, there may be reason to believe the Sun has a mini-black hole as its core, since all the hot energy in the solar globe self-cancels at its central core. If this should be true, still an unknown, then it would make sense the greater energy escaping the solar globe would be out its axis of spin, where very hot gamma rays would concentrate on the poles, and radiate out into space there. This has not been observed, to my knowledge, but it should be discovered in time, if so. Such hot energy would 'lighten' any mass found above the pole regions more than the same mass along the orbital plane, since the poles are more energetic than the circumference, on a relative basis. This would mean that matter, molecules, and atoms on the polar regions, being of lesser gravitic density, would migrate naturally towards the orbital plane where they become more gravitic, 'heavier' with inertia as measured by the 'Newton's G' consant would be greater. The result would be a concentration of mass on the solar system's orbital plane, with a near absense of matter above the upper and lower regions of the solar system plane. This would explain not only why there are orbital planes for stars, but for galaxies as well, especially given we know the galaxies are held together by a massive black hole.

I am basing this above speculative theory of orbital planes in part on's
"Version of Most Powerful Explosions Found", where the senior science writer, Robert Roy Britt, says:

"In recent years, however, observations have linked gamma-ray bursts to the formation of black holes immediately after supernova events, the explosive ends to massive stars' lives. The gamma rays shoot out in two opposing jets along the rotation axis of the black hole."

This leads to the possibility that when stars go nova, they are momentarily exposing their mini-black hole core before they collapse further into dwarfs or possibly neutron stars, so called. The spin off is gamma rays shooting out both ends of the star axis.

By similar reasoning, the so called 'dark matter' of the universe may be no more than molecules in cold space where star energy is lacking, so their gravitic density is very great; however, such matter would never be found around a hot star, especially near their poles. Dark matter should only be found around neutron stars, or in hot gas clouds which had not yet ignited and far from star energy. Once ignited, however, a star's orbital plane is formed automatically as it axially radiates more energy, especially gamma rays out its axis, than around it perimeter, so all mass settles in that orbital plane. This is where planets will reside, where inertial mass is greater, on the orbital plane.

This is an idea as adjunct to Jaszz spin, where the spin itself is a function of planetary interior heat versus the Energy available in its orbital plane.

Ivan A. on Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 01:14 am:

JASZZ SPIN, phase 6: ZPH and Spin Ratios, the Final Element:

Let us recap what had been done thus far, though we had not reached a conclusion. In advance, I think a conclusive ratio for spin based on planetary black-body heat and orbital Energy is doable. So this is the final phase where we will seek that element that will complete the relationships we are seeking.

The zero-point-energy, or ZPH, had been computed above in 'phase 4', where the relationship between orbital Energy and Newton's Gravity constant G was established, so that a steady progression for zero-point-gravity, or ZPG, was shown. The inverse of this progression for ZPG is its ZPH, which is where planetary spin is determined. Please note that I will use the same approach as in 'phase 5', where the Spin Ratio was established, though the final 'divisor/multiplier' effecting spin was missing. Here, in words, is how the relationships figured to date:

"Planetary Kelvin heat divided by planetary orbital Energy (to establish raw ratio between the two); divided by the ratio of Venus Kelvin to Venus orbital Energy (to establish Venus as a base with "zero" spin); which was multiplied by the Planetary Kelvin over Venus Kelvin (to establish a common measure of black-body temperatures in relation to zero-spin); which yields the Spin Ratio (SR as per 'phase 5' above)."

In equation form, the above looks like this, where P = planet, E = orbital Energy, for either the planet 'p' or Venus 'v', and K = Kelvin:

(Kp / Ep) ÷ (Kv / Ev) x (Kp / Kv) = SR

Now, these were the values we were left with to date (SR as per the table below). What we are looking for is the relationship that will match the SR with planetary spin, taking Earth's 1 spin per day as a basis. For this we will need to adjust it further, since the "zero" spin basis was Venus, and not Earth. In words:
"Spin Ratio divided by the ratio of planet's full orbital days divided by Earth's orbital days (365); this value is divided by the planetary spin (expressed in Earth days); which yields a ZPH factor.

Let me explain why I call this a 'ZPH factor'. It is because it will be this differential between what the ratios yield and what the actual spins become. Of necessity, this will imply that planets, especially if they are 'hot' planets, will generate this kind of zero-point-heat for their internal environment (to which any moons it has will respond in like manner planets respond to their solar ZPH), though this value will be very small, and as yet inconclusive as to its true meaning. So this is a planetary ratio only, not to be confused with Energy as such. In equation form it becomes:

SR / (Porbital days / 365) ÷ Pspin = ZPHplanet

Planetary spin is divided by Earth's 365 in order to bring it in line with Earth's spin of 1 day, so that all planets's spins will be as a multiple, or fraction, of Earth days.

In this manner, all the planets are now aligned both in terms of Venus, which has an essentially "zero" spin (though this will be adjust for the 245 days of spin versus 244 days of orbit), and then further adjusted for Earth's 365 orbital period, so that all planetary spin is established in Earth days. The complication for this equation started with relating Kelvin temperatures to Watts per meter squared, and now further complicated by taking Venus and Earth's relationship, thus the equation looks the way it does. Now, taking SR values from table below, let us compute Spin Ratio in terms of Venus into actual Earth spin days, which yields ZPH:
MERCURY: 1.043 / (88/365) ÷ 58.8 = 0.0736 ZPH
VENUS: 0.996 / (244/365) ÷ 244 = 0.006 ZPH
EARTH: 2.316 / (365/365) ÷ 1 = 2.316 ZPH
MARS: 3.69 / 1.81 ÷ 1.03 = 1.973 ZPH

What this means is that if ZPH tends towards zero, it is fairly balanced in terms of its interior heat and exterior solar energy. The higher ZPH, the greater is the planet's interior heat to its orbital energy environment, as it is expressed by solar irradiance. So Earth and Mars are relatively 'hot' planets, both with good spin, though of different temperatures since they inhabit different energy regions (Mars's is cooler than Earth's); whereas Mercury is cooler, slower spin, in relation to its solar irradiance; and Venus is almost totally balanced within its solar energy environment, hence almost no spin. Now, let us turn to the gas giants:
JUPITER: 11.67 / (4329/365) ÷ 0.415 = 2.371 ZPH
SATURN: 21.15 / 29.46 ÷ 0.445 = 1.613 ZPH
URANUS: 44.18 / 84 ÷ 0.718 = 0.732 ZPH
NEPTUNE: 70.27 / 165 ÷ 0.673 = 0.633 ZPH

PLUTO: ~75.66 / 248 ÷ 6.3 = ~0.0484 ZPH

Notice how 'hot' the gas giants are, especially Jupiter and Saturn, where they more approximate the internal heat ratio to orbital relative solar irradiance of Earth and Mars, and hence have fairly high spins. Pluto's internal temperature may be higher than estimated, since it has a higher relative spin, so that the resulting SR is off. The gas giants's Kelvin temperatures may be understimated as well, since their relative spins are greater than the SR results above.

We cannot be sure these spin ratios are totally accurate, since they depend on the black-body heat of the planets, such as they are now measured, and may be off. However, though accuracy is not assured, there is a clear relationship between planetary spin and the planet's heat to solar irradiance at its orbit, so that the greater the ZPH factor, the greater the spin. Though this may appear wild speculation at this point, these higher ZPH readings may also mean that these 'hotter' planets radiate outwards energy in a similar fashion of our hot star, in that they affect the orbital energies and spin factors of their respective moons. For example, internally cool moons close to a hot planet should have virtually no spin, while those farther away from the ZPH energy should exhibit greater spin. The exception would be moons close to hot planets that also have their own interior heat, so that they would spin accordingly. Hot ZPH planets should also exhibit some other forms of energy, whether magnetic fields or radiation belts, but this may not be always so, since this internal heat may actually be caused not by nuclear decay, as now assumed, but by a very small mini-black hole at their cores. These mini-black holes would radiate energy out their poles, if so, and should be measurable. Though Mars is not a volcanically active planet, it has dormant volcanoes, still it does nevertheless possess enough heat to cause a higher spin; if it did not, then it would have spin of nearly zero. Mars is a smaller planet than Earth, and it does have a small magnetic field as well. Earth has a relatively high magnetic field, whereas Venus and Mercury, being ZPH 'cool planets', have very small magnetic fields.

Now, back to the ZPH factor for the table below. If we multiply planetary spin (in Earth days) times ZPH times the orbital-period (relative to Earth's, divided by 365), we should come out with SR, the planet's original Spin Ratio.

Pspin x ZPH x (Porbital days / 365) = SR

Kelvin temp. Spin Ratio Spin days/Earth day ZPH SR

442 K 1.043 58.8 0.0736

231.7 K 0.996 245 0.006

254.3 K 2.316 -1- 2.316

210.1 K 3.69 1.03 1.973

110 K 11.67 0.415 2.371

81.10 K 21.15 0.445 1.613

58.10 K 44.18 0.718 0.732

46.6 K 70.27 0.673 0.633

~37.5 K 75.66 6.3 0.0484

Remembering that the new ZPH SR (far right column) is a product of both solar and planet ZPH, and planet spin ratios relative to Earth's 1 day, the numbers serve as an illustration of how planetary spin is related to the ratio of the planet's black-body heat and its orbital Energy. (This Energy is its Watts/m^2 solar irradiance, times distance from the Sun in meter, times its orbital kinetic energy, as developed in 'phase 2' above.) In effect, though the equation is complex, having to adjust for Venus "zero" spin as our base, and for Earth's 1 day spin as a measure of planetary spin, the relationships do point to some factor of how planets spin in our solar system.

What it also means, per force, is that mass, density, planetary radius, are secondary factors when it comes to spin. What really controls spin is a planet's internal heat versus the heat, or ZPH, of the orbit it inhabits. All the other factors the planet's dimensions affect are the resulting surface gravity, total mass, gravitational mass, etc., but not how it spins (though spin is a function of ZPG). This, of course, is a totally new way of looking at it, since it means that all the other dimensional factors must submit to something bigger, in the same way a planet's orbital velocity must submit to something bigger, where it accelerates or decelerates in its elliptical. And because this points to planets generating their own internal heat, their planetary ZPH, this spin is faster than otherwise would have happened. If the planet cools subsequently, its spin should also. Cold bodies, relative to their solar irradiance ZPH where it is equal to ZPG, do not spin, except once on their orbit. What is surprising, to me at least, is that Venus by this criterion is a 'cold' body, though lead melts on its surface, because of its proximity to the Sun; equally surprising is that Mercury or Pluto have any spin at all.

This is the Final Element of the planetary Spin Ratio, its internally generated ZPH, which will then radiate around the planet and affect its moons. I think we have JASZZ.

I hope I had been faithful in my computations, though only a rough estimate for now, and as its author humbly submit this work for further study.

Ivan D. Alexander

Addendum: As a postscript, I would like to say that in looking at other extrasolar planets, we seem to discover only very large giants, often close to the star. However, it should be evident that only such stars which exhibit orbital wobble will be seen at this time, given our instruments, and that stars that have normal planets around them will exhibit very little wobble. Thus, we are looking at the wrong thing, since it should be evident, in the way the Axiomatic Equation works, that all stars should have planets, and that most of them should be similar to our solar system.


* * * * * * *
(edited 9/26/04 & 10/8/04)
By Ivan A. on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 02:10 pm:

Dense Matter: Astronomers Peek inside Neutron Star gives us a strange vision of what these stars can do, like spin hundreds of times per second. Especially interesting is this quote:

"Strohmayer and Villarreal used a relationship between their star's spin rate -- 45 times per second -- and the Doppler shift of its emissions to determine its radius, then plugged that number into a mass-radius ratio already known for the object to generate the mass."

It's the "when plugged that number into a mass-radius ratio already known" that caught my eye, since it signals that we are using Doppler shift to figure radius based on some mathematically predetermined ratio-- which may be right or wrong -- don't know. Also, the spin for this neutron is a rather sluggish 45 times per second, which leads me to think it still has some electromagnetic energy to moderate spin; if there were no energy, its mass would condense further, giving us greater spin. This is opposite what happens to 'hot' planets, where greater interior heat means greater spin. Since neutron stars are below the 'cut-off energy' of gravity (approximately same wavelenght as photoelectric effect) and they have no other outside energy source, their spin decreases with higher heat, but increases with greater cold. In terms of the Axiomatic Equation, it takes electromagnetic energy to counteract the extreme gravity of mass devoid of light, such as found in cold gases in deep space, though none of this is yet confirmed observationally, so only a theory for now. Treating neutron stars like cold space mass makes more sense than treating them like collapsed stars. So the dynamics for the two, and that of the planets around hot stars, are very different from one another.

This article also mentions "quark stars" which appear to be very hot. Now, this I truly do not grok at all, since their temperatures appear to be extremely high, as opposed to a neutron star, and their composition is believed to be 'quarks', so truly mysterious. Per the Axiomatic Equation, extremely dense stars should be cool, not hot, and with very great gravity G for mass there, unless they are on their way to becoming 'blackholes', which happens only under the certain conditions of all perimeter light canceling on a point; or the star is about to re-ignite with the very high temps... So I remain confused here.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:49 pm:'s 14 Sept. 2004, post says that Dark Matter draws galaxies into collision:


"Scientists don't know what dark matter is, but they think most of the universe is made of the stuff, because there isn't enough regular matter to account for the gravity that binds galaxies. The dark matter is thought to be concentrated in long filaments. Where the filaments intersect, regular matter clumps and galaxy clusters form.
A Chandra survey of the Fornax galaxy cluster revealed a vast, swept-back cloud of hot gas near the center of the cluster. The hot gas cloud, which is several hundred thousand light years in length, is moving rapidly through a larger, less dense cloud of gas, astronomers suspect. Other observations suggest an unseen, large structure is collapsing and drawing everything toward a common center of gravity."

--see 14 Sept. 2004 at:

From the point of view of the Axiomatic, a different interpretation emerges: that the 'hot gas cloud' is in the process of collapsing on a central point where all the energy comes together to cancel all electromagnetic lambda there, thus in the process of forming a 'blackhole'. This should take relatively little time to form, which is the proto-galaxy in formation, maybe over a million years, with enough concentrated matter to cause star combustion and planet formation. Once there, it will then take billions of years to evolve into living planets, like Earth.

... forget the 'long fillaments' of Dark Matter, a fiction borne of misunderstanding the nature of gravity...
By Ivan A. on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 04:31 pm:


Body clocks 'hinder' space travel

In this BBC Science News article, it talks about how Mars's longer day, by 39 minutes, would hinder our natural body clock cycle, our 24 hours circadian rhythm, so that our long term stay there could be jeopardized. I agree, it could become difficult to adjust the body to the 25 hour day, or perhaps not, we'll have to find out.

On the other hand, and this is most speculative as a solution, we can increase Mars's spin by 39 minutes, so that it will be a 24 hour day. Now, I know this sounds loony, but think of what the new physics says, that if we increase a planet's heat, then we also increase its spin. HOW?!!!?? By sending an asteroid crashing into it.

Think of it this way: When Earth was young, it might have spun faster than today, and then slowed with time. Then an asteroid slams into the Yucatan Peninsula, and bingo, Earth's temperature is raised by the energy released. The spin off is that the planet's spin suddenly increases, per the Axiomatic Equation's derivative planet spin, and what was a longer day is now shorter, another factor to stress life then present. Some of the life dies off, certainly the dinosaurs could not adjust, added to the stress of climate changes, and the planet changed completely. It may have been a similar event that split up Pangea in the first place, so now our continents had drifted apart. But the theory here is that a planet's spin can be increased, if the energy level is raised. The best way to do this is to send a large asteroid into it, but not so big that it will split the planet, but only of large enough energy to increase spin by 39 minutes. I would recommend incrementally successive small hits, so we can measure their effect, and then raise it to the needed energy to raise spin sufficienty. Someday, in the very distant future, we may actually "terraform" Mars into a habitable planet, though... not yet.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 04:51 pm:

Push Gravity paper.

Not exactly gravity as I see it, though it does have some good points to consider.

In particular: "The increased gravitational field observed by Pioneer space probes outside the Solar System has now been confirmed by NASA. This cannot be explained by the Einstein or Newton theories, but it is explained by the push theory." However, I have not seen "increased gravitational field" outside the Solar System confirmed. Is Nasa holding out on this, perhaps to protect Einstein? Where's the news, this is big? Any references to this 'increased gravitational field'?

The other interest is: "The push theory of gravity would imply that the the gravitional field strength inside the Sun would be lower than predicted from the inverse square law." This is potentially big, though "push gravity" may not be the reason. The Axiomatic already predicts this, since the Sun has more energy (where E = mc^3 = 10^24 J, and g = ~0 for molecules on the corona, which fly off to become solar wind) than its surrounding space, though at present this inverse energy to gravity relationship is still an unknown in physics. As these molecules enter orbital space they take on more g, which translates into more G, depending upon where they are measured, as per Gravity Zero-point Energy.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 11:04 pm:

E = mc^3

This is not how everybody knows this, where the common way is E = mc^2. However, as shown in the post above, this is only how it reads on Earth, as Earth's total orbital Energy of 90 petajoules works out. In fact, it is missing something, namely a proton-to-proton (some say neutron-to-neutron, slightly different) gravitational coupling constant. Further, this constant called little g (~5.9e-39) is really more than a mere gravitational constant, because it also expresses the electromagnetic component of gravity, the two being inversely proportional per the Axiomatic Equation above.

This new expression, where the value is ~10e24 Joules, is where the little g drops out, so that at the Sun's hottest region, where this Energy registers, molecules there have virtually no gravitational constant, g = ~0, so that a great magno-electric force can propel these molecules off into the solar system, commonly known as the solar wind.

Why do I bring this up? It is because the Sun's immediate regions near the surface exhibit tremendous magnetic forces, which are variable and not consistently distributed around our star's orb. It appears, therefore, to act as if it were a 'repulsive' force there, hence the solar wind, but that may actually not be the case. What happens when g is nearly zero is inertial mass also drops down to nearly zero, and molecules can escape easily at the slightest prodding. But this super high magnetic energy around the Sun has another interesting characteristic.

The Axiomatic Equations also says: E = Em*c = Bm*c^2, so what happens when this value is E = mc^3? Of necessity, the electric force Em must be raised by c, so that it becomes E = mc^3 = Em*c^2. And what happens to the magnetic force Bm? It also must be raised by c, but something else happens: E = (Bm*c)*c^2. And why is this interesting to me? Because now Bm*c = Em, which is Maxwell's equation. This is what happens on the Sun. Our star generates electricity too!

Of course, none of this negates the Sun's great mass which exerts tremendous gravity on the solar system, though it should flatten the inverse square law as we get further away from it. See example above, post dated: 31 July, 2004, Jaszz Spin, where these Gravity vs. Energy values are worked out for the planets.

This is obviously all simple algebra, which a grade school student can understand, but in its simplicity is masked a very important concept: At the Sun's surface, where E = 10e24 J, and thus is also E = mc^3, (remembering that per the Axiomatic, m =1 always), at which little g = near zero, and solar particles fly off. But, something even greater is taking place: magnetism (Bm) is raised to the power of light c, so that it becomes the electric force Em, which means fundamentally at the Sun's surface maximum energy something different magneto-electric is taking place.

So we should not be surprised to find huge magnetic rings and electric flares taking place on the Sun, since this is merely another example of its total Energy, where E = mc^3.

However, the usual caveat applies, that none of this had been proven, is not accepted in today's physics, and remains contingent upon the Axiomatic Equation's prediction, that Newton's gravitational constant G is a variable inversely proportional to Energy, per the equation.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:57 pm:


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.

It would stand to reason that for planets beyond Earth, especially the gas giants, the gravity readings out there have been shown to climb (see Jaszz spin 4 above, July 31, 2004), while for the inner planets the gravity constant declines. Now, if zero-point gravity (ZPG) affects spin, then it would stand to reason that the inner planets would exhibit a lower spin, where G is low, in proportion to the outer planets, where gravity is progressively greater. This would mean that as gravity was greater in the outlying regions, the planetary spin should increase proportionately, so that the spin ratios computed should be greater than what resulted earlier. For the inner planets, it should likewise be lower. So I tested this hypothesis to see if true.

The way to test was to take Earth's spin ratio, which is 2.316 and divide it by Earth's daily spin, which is one. So for Earth, the base planet from which this puzzle is sought, the spin ratio remains the same, SR = 2.316. However, getting in close, for Mercury, the correct spin ratio, as a function of the planet's black body Kelvin heat and its orbital zero-point heat (ZPH) region, as calculated for its total orbital Energy, the correct spin ratio should be expressed as Earth's 2.316 divided by Mercury's orbital spin of 58.8 days. This division yields an actual SR' = 0.0394, which is lower then the calculated SR = 0.0736, or about half of the calculated. Mercury revolves around the Sun in a hotter region, which means it has a lower gravitational constant G for that region. When going out to Jupiter, for example, dividing 2.316 by Jupiter's Earth related spin of 0.418 days, the result is SR' = 5.541 vs. the calculated SR = 2.371, so that the actual SR' is over twice the calculated value SR. This would be as expected, since Jupiter's region is cooler, and its gravity G is greater. So I did a chart of all the planets, using Earth days as a base of one, with the actual SR' values as a ratio of Earth's SR divided by the planet's spin days, so that:

(Earth's ZPH SR 2.316) ÷ (planet's spin in Earth days) = actual SR'

Kelvin heat Planet spin Earth days calculated SR actual SR'

442K Mercury 58.8 0.0736 0.0394
231.7K Venus 245 0.006 0.0059
254.3K Earth -1- 2.316 2.316
210.1K Mars 1.03 1.973 2.248
110K Jupiter 0.415 2.371 5.541
81.1K Saturn 0.445 1.68 5.204
58.1K Uranus 0.718 0.732 3.226
46.6K Neptune 0.673 0.633 3.441
37.5K Pluto 6.3 0.0484 0.377

So what have we got? Mercury's actual SR' spin is about half of what had been calculated SR. Venus's SR' is a little too high, but remember Venus has a retro spin of 245 days vs. 244 day orbital, so it's almost flat, but backwards. Earth is Earth, normal for our G constant. Mars is almost right, since it is close to Earth's G region. Jupiter is nearly twice the actual spin SR' vs. calculated SR, but it is further out where there is already more G. Saturn is about three times. Uranus is nearly 4 and half times. Neptune is nearly 5 and half times, and Pluto is over 7 times the calculated SR. Wow! This is the direction it should take, since the gas giants in the outer region of the solar system reside in orbital ZPH that are much colder, and hence have greater gravitational constants G than here, or ZPG. As the G grows (see Jaszz spin 4 above, July 31,2004), then the spin ratios increase!

So the initial calculations done on SR had ignored gravity, but this was not correct, since gravity is an important component of spin, if for no other reason than that the planet's gravity centripetal forces causes spin. However, I have not yet worked out exactly how those relationships of gravity to spin work mathematically, well, not yet. Since there is a clear progression of increased spin as we go out into the solar system, certainly for the gas giants, then here is another indicator that the gravitational constant G out there is progressively greater than here, as shown. Pluto still remains an enigma, since its numbers should be closer to those of Neptune, since their paths cross in Pluto's highly elliptical orbit, though the interior heat may also be off, so the rest of it is off too... don't know.

So in summary, there is some sort of internal heat relationship of the planets relative to their solar heat zones in which they orbit, and that relationship is then further modified by the gravitational G of the region where they orbit, all together which accounts for the planet's spin. And if this is so, then the planets are spinning because of some interior engine that powers them, for billions of years. The actual spin is the correct number, of course, but the calculated spin worked out earlier shows how this relationship of interior heat versus solar heat works out, though incomplete. Now, to complete the story, we will need to find the mechanims that relates the variable gravitational G to planetary spin SR, so we get the real SR', or true Jaszz.

Still thinkin.... gettin close... but not yet.


Ps: One reason why the calculated spin is off from the actual spin of the planets may be because the Kelvin temperatures as measured in Earth's K values might not be the same for other planets. For example, Mercury's very hot solar region may halve the Earth's equivalent Kelvin value, while Jupiter's colder solar region may double Earth's equivalent K, and Pluto's very cold solar region may increase the Earth equivalent K value, relative to Pluto's cold space region, by more than seven fold. So planetary black-body internal heat, as expressed in Kelvin temperature, may have to be adjusted for the background orbital Energy within which the planet resides, adjusted down in inner planet orbits that are hotter than Earth's E, and adjusted up for the outer planets where planetary orbital Energy is lower. This is only an idea, not calculated to certainty, but it may be a likely place to look for why the computed spin ratio is on a curve to the actual spin ratio. -(edited Oct. 20, 2004)

By Ivan A. on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 11:15 pm:

I'm glad you asked!

I haven's heard the question yet, but I will anticipate it: "So what is the 'engine' that keeps planets spinning for billions of years?"

Why, it's gravity, of course!

What a wonderful resource, limiteless, tireless, inexhaustible, and it keeps on working for eternity. Well, let's tap into it! And the Axiomatic says we can. That's the beauty and the future of this new physics; much work to be done.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 01:14 am:


Michael, you're going to love this! J___, you may be amused by the numbers.

I was playing around with numbers seeking a way to understand the ZPH to ZPG ratios for the planets, mainly how this may affect their spin ratios, when I encountered gravity. It really happened by accident, since I had no design of find gravity from planetary mass and planetary spin, but here it how it happened.

I used the centripetal force equation: F = mv^2/R for Earth, and then thought to use this same centripetal F against the planet's mass. I don't know why I wanted to do this, but call it whim, so that the equation became:

m/F = m/ mv^2/ R this I then further broke it down to:

m/F = (m)*(1/m)*(1/v^2)*(1/R) which became, canceling out the m's (but keeping kg):

m/F = 1/v^2R

Thus I had a pure relationship without the mass involved, and only the planet's spin velocity and radius. Then I plugged in some numbers:

mass = 1 kg (5.97e24 kg/ 5.97e24 kg = 1, Earth related mass)
R = 6.3781e6 meters
v = 0.4692e3 m.s^-1 which squared is:
v^2 = 2.2015e5 m^2.s^-2

Now, here is what happens when the numbers are applied to m/F = 1/v^2R:

m/F = 1 kg/ (2.2015e5 m^2.s^-2 * 6.3781e6 m) multiplied out becomes:

m/F = 1 kg/1.404e12 m^3.s^-2 = 0.7122e^-12 m^^-1.s^-2 or in fact it is:

m/F = 7.122e^-11 (can you recognize this?) = ~Newton's G = 6.67e-11 Nm^^-2

Now, that was a surprise! These two are almost the same, off by about 0.45e^-11

But something occurred to me (which is the odd way my mind works) that made me remember the ZPH SR for Earth, from the above post = 2.316

Thinking that ZPH and ZPG are inversely proportional, I said, what if I inverted this ZPH SR number? Well, 1/2.316 = 0.4318.... and since this is a factor of the Earth's heat generating its own ZPG, I figured that it is also a factor of gravity, so that it really is 0.4318e^-11, which is the amount by which Earth's gravity is modified by its internally generated energy, which means it weakens it by this much.

So I subtracted: (m/F) - ZPH = 7.122e^-11 minus 0.4318e^-11 = 6.69e^-11 Nm^^-2

An that is very close to the measured G = 6.67e^-11 Nm^^-2 Surprised? I am!

So what does it mean? What is mass? It's a function of gravity, of course, since it's in kg. What is the Earth's centripetal force? It's a function of the planet's spin. So taking mass as a proportion of centripetal force leaves us with gravity, which is then further adjusted for the ZPH factor. Now, isn't that cool? What a neat coincidence indeed.

(I now recall Michael had worked out some equations before to do with spin and gravity, on the other thread "Does Modern physics really need Rethinking-2", so I will go back and review them again, but too tired now, gotta go to bed.)

Next step will be to repeat this process for all the other planets as well, just to see what happens... I'm merely curious yellow... but not hot yet. More to think of this strange relationship between planetary mass and its centripetal force of spin, which becomes gravity. Divide a planet's mass by its internal spin related centripetal force and you get gravity? Weird!

By the way, the same number comes up with the Axiomatic's: G^2 = gc^2pi^2 = ~7.2e-11 Nm^2kg^-2, so it looks like the Axiomatic Equation and m/F gravity have some sort of relationship. More to think on this, but really looking for the planetary spin to SPH SR relationship. Still, it was a rather funny thing to happen on the way to planetary mass, only to find a way to rediscover gravity again.


By MStransky on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 07:19 pm:

quote-"since I had no design of find gravity from planetary mass and planetary spin, but here it how it happened.

Just made me think, you remember that basic rough guass equation I had (a*p'*surface spin)/radius = ~ Gauss value

And also that good equation where possiable Magnetic lines of force (measurment): did match exactly to orbital parameters? by the measurment of c

I guess after our individual breaks, I myself will try to over lap all the equations again to see if I see sometime more clearer then when I did it the last time, And when I made that comment that Heat maybe the missing part in my error%.
Even still we may come up with something to balance/verify a new equation to supplement your Axiomatic Equation? visa versa?

By Ivan A. on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 12:41 am:

m/F ‡ G. Neat Idea, but no cigar.

Hi Michael, yeah, it is an intriguing idea, but too good to be true. Appreciate the support just the same.

However, upon further reflection, your G is more realistic than my G, since though mine may work out for Earth, perhaps only coincidentally, my m/F = G = 1/v^2R cannot possibly work for Venus, since it has virtually no spin, and to get to a large enough denominator to give us G, the radius would have to be immense. So no cigar! Not yet. But I will work some more on yours, G= Rv^2/M, because that does have some promise, and we'll see if we can work it into planetary spin.

So we're back to square one. The goal is to find reason for planetary spin in relation to interior heat. And yours in finding the Gauss relationship. Back to the drawing board!

I'll be away this weekend, but hope to get to study this some more soon.

Cheers, Ivan

By Mstransky on Sunday, October 3, 2004 - 09:16 am:

Ok condsider this...
I am sure
([Surface g m/sec]*[mean Density m/cubed]*[surface spin m/sec])/Radius in meters = rough gauss measurment

must holds something.

If magnetic lines of force travel at 'c'

take these !!! 3D distances equations !!! I have that work out perfectly
my eqaution # 1
these both equal GM!!!
v^2*r = (r^3 * ((2 * pi / secs of orbit)^2))

setp #1.a
another equation
((2*pi)/orbit secs) * r^1.5 = sqrt(GM)

my equation #2
and now if to canculate Velocity of m2 orbit
by the path and time of c, roughly of a magnetic line of force.

(( c / r*pi)^1.5) * v = 7.15e17/sqrt(Mass1)

[[note (4*(pi^4))/(G^1.5) =7.14855E+17]]
i think I wrote that write from my notes
or written as

(( c / r*pi)^1.5) * v = (4*(pi^4)/(G^1.5))/sqrt(Mass1)

equation #2.a
To rewrite #2 in full mass instead of the Srqrt(of mass1)
But if I work those numbers c and G from ^1.5 each up to ^2 you might have something to work with.
And if this hold true?!?! then the vertical cut of magnetic fields in space due hold true from the magnetic lines of force, Orbital velocities, distances, mass, and gravitational FORCE.
And to conclude if these do show promise, then how to figure out how G and magnetic lines of force play there roll on a mass traveling at a velocity at a certain distance through these bands would cause a force of spin on it.
Now for everyone else, don't take this wrong, this is just an Idea of constant forces over many galactic time frame in galactic years. This force just winds up that effect from constant induced forces. I just wanted to make clear that this is not an instantaneous action.

on another note if you did take my Surface spin equation, the mathimatical slope matches a clear vauled slope to the known read gauss levels. But I have not found the equation yet to point this out, I see it very clearly, I just can not put my finger on the value just yet.

By Ivan A. on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 10:50 pm:

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:

Orbital Energy Proton mass Newton's G

10e24 J (zero?) kg (zero?) Nm^2

Please note these above figures for the Sun do not imply it has no gravity, which we know is very great, but merely that the molecules on the Sun's surface in its hottest regions, where E = mc^3 Joules, inhabit a zone where their proton mass is zero, and thus carry a Newton's G value of zero. At any distance from that hot region, their mass and G will increase in proportion to the E values as Energy decreases, per the chart below. The Axiomatic Equation was used to arrive at the proton mass and Newton's G values.

60.55e16 J 2.48e-28 kg 2.79e-11 Nm^2

17.33e16 J 8.67e-28 kg 5.20e-11 Nm^2

9.0e16 J 1.67e-27 kg 6.67e-11 Mn^2

3.66e16 J 3.86e-27 kg 1.096e-10 Nm^2

0.335e16 J 4.49e-26 kg 3.86e-10 Nm^2

0.1004e16J 1.498e-25kg 6.85e-10 Nm^2

0.0247e16J 6.1e-25 kg 1.38e-9 Nm^2

0.01e16 J 1.5e-24 kg 2.17e-9 Nm^2

0.006e16 J 2.58e-24 kg 2.84e-9 Nm^2

Which plot as:


Note how total orbital Energy, as computed above in Jaszz Spin 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?

I must admit I had not seen this in my mind's eye. Sorry the quality is so poor, with my chicken scratchings, but it gives you an idea.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 01:01 am:

PLEASE NOTE: This above work is not yet the final product, though the charts appear to work okay. There will still be the necessary adjustments to both total orbital Energy for the planets, as well as their mass, and hence their gravity variable constants, in order to bring everything into line with GM = Rv^2 as a final test of consistency. The error that appears throughout this work is that planetary mass was taken from current astronomical calculations, but these mass calculations, derived from Newton's orbital equation, included a constant Newton's G, so that the planetary mass may be off, so will need recalibration. Only Earth's mass would remain the same. To correct for this is the future project still in progress. Once an all inclusive uniform consistency for both G and mass is achieved, the final stage may then go in. It will change the above charts slightly, including total orbital Energy and planetary G constants, but the overall direction appears to be correct. Similar proportions should result, though the slope of both the Energy and Gravity curves should change somewhat. If it all works, the planetary spin should also fall into place. Please consider the above still a 'work in progress'. Stay tuned.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 11:15 pm:


GM = Rv^2 .

It taking the old GM values of mass and Newton's G for each planet, I arrived at a theoretical Rv^2 value, which I then used to estimate a new M from the new G.

Example: G = 6.67e-11 Nm^
Mars M = 0.642e24 kg

GM = Rv^2 = 4.282e13 Nm^^-1, where by substituting the new G for Mars:

(1.096e-10)M = 4.282e13 , we get M' = 0.3907e24 kg

...which is a new (G-adjusted) M value for Mars's mass. Note that today's physics assumes Newton's G is a universal constant; the Axiomatic shows it is a variable 'constant' instead, as per posts above.


Planet body Old G New G Earth G Mass local G Mass #

Sol** 6.67E-11 Nm^2 zero G ~4e-15 N [surface G only]* 1.99e30 kg 1.99e30 kg (?) ~6.63e23 kg (???) [hot surface only]*
Mercury 6.67E-11 N 2.79e-11 N 0.33e24 kg0.788e24 kg
Venus 6.67E-11 N 5.20e-11 N 4.87e24 kg 6.25e24 kg
Earth 6.67E-11 N 6.67e-11 N 5.97e24 kg 5.97e24 kg
Mars 6.67E-11 N 1.096e-10 N 0.6242e24 kg 0.3907e24 kg
Jupiter 6.67E-11 N 3.86e-10 N 18.9e26 kg 32.66e25 kg
Saturn 6.67E-11 N 6.85e-10 N 5.684e26 kg 5.534e25 kg
Uranus 6.67E-11 N 1.38e-9 N 8.68e25 kg 4.195e24 kg
Neptune 6.67E-11 N 2.17e-9 N 10.24e25 kg 3.147e24 kg
Pluto 6.67E-11 N 2.84e-9 N 0.013e24 kg 0.305e23 kg

# Note: "local G Mass = (local) inertial mass", which means any Earth originated mass, in Earth G terms, is (inversely) greater for the outer planet, and lesser for the inner planets.

So it looks strange to us, but these are the new G and M values, further explained below.

*(The Sun has gravity and mass as now computed, but its "hottest" region's molecular gravity and proton mass are very low, as shown above, so that these molecules are free to be cast off into the solar wind. The other values for the Sun's mass 1.99e30 kg is valid as a total solar mass.)

**(The Sun's mass, and other values, may be the result of complicated factors from how its interior is structured, including spin, heat convection, nuclear fusion, and the possibility of a mini-black hole at its center which puts all into spin internal motions. Solar mass figures may be completely off, and instead are a function of the immense gravitational forces from its center, though usable in current form. Total Solar Energy is E = mc^3, for m = 1.)

Of course, all of these values will need to be readjusted to a final when we learn how to measure Newton's G variable 'constant' at a distance. At present, we still do not know how to do this, so only theorized. Keeping in mind that mass for the planets is a gravity function as defined in kilograms on Earth, all the other planetary masses are likewise defined in Earth's kilograms, though if we lived on one of them instead, we might have evolved a different 'kilogram' unit germane to that planet instead, if the gravity 'constant' is different for them.

PLEASE NOTE: This mass phenomenon may appear counterintuitive at first, but it is not, as will be explained here:

The mass numbers for the inner planets in the above table appear enormous to us, because they are measured in Earth's kilograms, but one must keep in mind that the same numbers measured in their orbital G constant regions are in fact much smaller, viz. in line with our Earth estimates. So this new planetary mass is ONLY as it applies to local gravitational weight of that inner planet, per the weaker gravitational force there. Only the inertial mass is lower, as a function of G, to counterbalance the greater mass value. For all practical purposes, our mass values measured in Earth's gravitational equivalent are correct for our space travel purposes, since any craft approaching that region has its mass adjusted for the local conditions automatically by the local gravitational factors there. The opposite holds true for the outer planets, where their locally measured mass is lower than our estimates, per their greater gravity factors, but again for our purposes our original numbers are functional for space travel trajectories. The craft's mass adjusts itself accordingly to the local gravity field environment where it travels. It is for this reason we never had need to guess that the gravity functions of distant bodies were other than what we had estimated using orbital equations with a universally constant G, since the mass and G adjust themselves to local conditions. For example, if we measured Cassini's mass in terms of Saturn's G value, its mass would appear to have a lower kilogram value than here, though it itself had not changed in any way. The only difference we would notice is that as it entered the greater gravitational fields, its inertial mass, a function of greater local gravity, would get greater, so that if traveling at a constant momentum, it should begin to slow in velocity. With a lower kilogram value than here, but with a greater inertial mass to counter it, the Cassini craft's interior mass relationships remain equal, same as if it had never left Earth. However, in terms of the space region's gravity, its inertial mass is affected, which is why planets accelerate in velocity at the perihelion (lower inertial mass) and lose velocity at the aphelion (higher inertial mass), though the planet's internal mass relationships were not affected. We had assumed Kepler, Newton, and Einstein geometric orbital descriptions to be correct, and proven usable, since planets do speed up and slow in their elliptical orbits, though we had no real mechanism for understanding why it was so. This new way of looking at the same thing offers an opportunity to see why the geometry works the way it does, though the universal G constant is now a variable constant, and inversely proportional to the total orbital Energy where it is found, as shown in above posts.

Of course, this does leave an open ended question: "What exactly is Mass?" Is it primarily a measure of convenience when converting from Energy? Is it merely a function of how gravity is effected within atoms? Or is it both of them? Or is mass a function we invented in Earth's gravity and energy environment, but is totally different elsewhere? I do not know... yet... perhaps proton mass is equivalent to inertial mass? But it does appear there are two kinds of mass, one of the volume of matter, so that Mercury is a very 'heavy' planet, and the other of its inertia, so that Mercury's inertial mass is very 'light' as it orbits the Sun. Though it all balances out in how is affected velocity, and spin, the offset between the two may not be exact, since other factors may be at play, such as interior heat. Pioneers are giving us hint of that, where the inertial mass far out of the solar system may be greater, hence they slow. This may also account for why they spin up, if their inertial gravity centripetal force is powering up. Someday, this may be a usable force.

Also as an aside, I tried to find some correlation between the calculated and actual planetary spins, as per the posts above, where it might be accounted for through proportional adjustments to E or M, but to date no such pattern had emerged. So ZPH SR planetary spin remains a curiosity, for now. Though their spin ratios tend in the right direction, they are not exact, so their mystery remains unsolved.


By MStransky on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 09:18 am:


"your G is more realistic than my G, since though mine may work out for Earth, perhaps only coincidentally, my m/F = G = 1/v^2R cannot possibly work for Venus, since it has virtually no spin,"-Ivan

I hit similar problems with other equations I thought could be useful as well. But reading all of this, made me think back to something.

Just a thought, try to put it in your minds eye.
Trying to get Heat into the equation.
So they say outer space is frictionless.
What would happen if it is NOT!

Movement causes friction on surfaces? or induction of magnetics,

So if I have an equations which might represent the (distance vs. density) (induction area of the mass in question)

Just as much as solar energy can be felt as absorption of heat or transferred heat.
My theory that these same Magnetic lines can induce internal (movement/fictional) effect!

I am not saying that this is what causes heat in the inners, but the larger your "Mass Induction Area" at higher spin speeds, faster orbit closer to M1, will result in more friction of the Forces, therefore more heat.

Take this with a grain of salt till I get the equation up on the post.

But just like your thoery of ZPG ZPH, If this is true with my thought on friction of forces, at distances, then it also mirrors yours as well.
Thats what I meantion awhile ago about getting heat/orEnergy into the equation I had, and work my equation in both directions.

By Ivan A. on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:15 pm:

RE VARIABLE MASS, per my post above, Oct. 9, 2004:

I've been thinking about mass of the planets per the new G 'constant' which becomes greater with distance from the Sun, and I think I understand it.

For example, if you took Pluto, which is in a very cold region of our solar system, hence per the
Axiomatic it should have greater G, and lower M, and you pulled the planet to where Earth orbits, what would happen? Assuming Pluto is an all water and methane ice planet, its mass density is quite low. Leaving aside that much of the methane would evaporate if brought here, the planet's mass, as a measure of its density, is likely probably very low, as calculated above. But because it resides in a very cold region of space, its inertial G is very great, likewise its compressed density due to the greater G there. So it appears to us as if its mass is 0.013e24 kg, while in fact it is lower, more like 0.305e23 kg, or ~250 times less! Now, look at the gaseous giants, and you have large gaseous planets that if brought to Earth would probably evaporate, but they can hold together out there because of greater G, though the internal mass density is very light. The chart above shows that Saturn, for example, is nearly 10 times lower in mass than now calculated. If Saturn were brought into our orbit, and it didn't evaporate, it would weigh 10 times less than now estimated. This is how it would work out if the outer planetswith greater G were brought into Earth's G region, ditto for the other gaseous giants. Note that Pluto's orbital region gets about 1500 less watts of solar energy than Earth does, that's a big difference, and per the Axiomatic, its G value is very great.

Now, I don't know that the values for G are totally correct for the planets, and am only going with these values because they plot on a straight line, (as per the graph above, Oct. 4, 2004), but the M numbers are from NASA. We can't take a planet and put it on a scale to measure what it weighs, and the kilograms, per this reasoning, would only be good on Earth. In their own regions of space, where they have their own G, their inertial mass is likewise their own, greater than here, but their actual mass density therefore is also lower than here. Going the other way, towards the Sun, you get the opposite effect, where G is less, and hence mass density is greater, culminating with Mercury having the greatest mass density. This still leaves one very important question: What is the internal composition of the planets, if the G is a variable? Does Earth really have an iron core, or is something else at work here, which gives us the appearance of a very great interior density? So many questions, but no real answers until we learn how to measure this new stuff.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 05:58 pm:

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-10 m/s^2, or in centimeters it becomes: G/G = ~7.3e-8 cm.s^-2. (It should be G/G = ~7.3e-10 cm/s^2. See ERRATUM below, Oct. 31, 2004)

Why is this last interesting? Because it comes in 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.

I don't know why these numbers work out the way they do, but that's the way it looks. Remember that we had always expected Newton's G constant to be a universal constant, so dividing the growth rate per the 'universal' constant yields the rate of our distant space crafts's acceleration towards the Sun. They're slowing down by the rate of ~8e-8 cm/s^2, it seems, because of increasing G. So we do not need to find an explanation as per the crafts's radiated heat, or lower solar wind, or some other reason intrinsic to the craft, etc. It's slowing down because it's taking on more G, more inertial mass, as it progresses deeper into the outer solar system. I would venture to guess that its large elliptic trajectory will eventually settle into a distant orbit around the Sun, if this is so, perhaps out in the Oort Cloud region.

But if so, what's G at the Oort Cloud, or beyond? If it's linear, shouldn't we be able to calculate it, at least an approximation?

Question: Why is Earth's G 6.67e-11 if G grows at the rate of ~7.3e-11 per AU? It obviously is either wrong, or something else is at work here, since Earth by definition is one AU from the Sun. I suspect Spin. If the planet did not spin, it would have G = 7.3e-11 Nm^2gk^-2, but because it does spin, what we measure is slighly less.

Ivan D. Alexander

[edited - 10/27/2004. As my math teacher used to say: "How'd you get the right answer by the wrong method?" I think it's right now. -IA]

I think I'll quit it here until we know more... If this is right, then the Pioneers anomaly is proving the Axiomatic Equation is right. But I've got a headache. Basta!
By Mstransky on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 10:58 pm:

Well it sounds good, I will look at it when I wake up.

But also if it holds true about the example of the ort cloud, and how it traps from getting away. In that sense of the manner you explianed. well in the wrong or right hands, someone (if/when proven true) a person may use it to prove a big bang theory, that when the bang, everything may get so great, not to escape, then does a crunch again.

I am not one to side with either, but thought about what a big bang shoe wearer might think to poss a view on that theory for their use?

anyway I will look at it more soon.

By Ivan A. on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 01:18 pm:

Hi Michael,

I think BB will be disproven, and already many voices are raised against it. It hinges on the redshift of distant cosmic light, interpreted as an expanding universe, which means this expansion had to have a beginning. However, if gravity is greater in the vast cold expanse of space, where the G 'constant' is much greater than here, then light redshifts because it is going through space loaded with more gravity. So if G is greater out there, then space is NOT expanding, not from Doppler effect, which puts the final nail into the coffin of BB. In effect, the Axiomatic Equation disproves Big Bang entirely. BBT is a fool's theory. There is no danger.

What did I really do? Nothing very exciting really. I just said that Einstein left out an important, albeit very small, function from his famous equation: E=mc^2. Why did he leave out the g function from m? That's the whole shebang in a nutshell. After that it was the laborious calculations that brought us to variable G, variable M, and ultimately why Pioneers are slowing. No big deal.

But if this should prove correct, then protecting Einstein's space-time cosmology may be good politics for the mainstream, but it sure means lousy science.

Thanks, cheers, Ivan

By Ivan A. on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 07:40 pm:

ERRATUM: Correction for Pioneers' acceleration towards the Sun, per above post of Oct. 23, 2004, as derived from Axiomatic Equation.

I ran a test of my calculated for Pioneers slowing, and the correct result is a = 7.3e-10 cm/s^2 (vs. my original a = 7.3e-8 cm/s^2, versus LANL's 8e-8 cm/s^2), by calculating backwards from acceleration to Newton's G 'constant'. (I got caught on the inverse powers on the last, where "0.7297e-11 m.s^-2, which is also = ~7.3e-10 m/s^2", which should be: 0.7287e-11 m.s^-2 converts to 7.297e-12 m.s^-2, same as ~7.3e-10 cm.s^-2). Not fatal, but it does change it by 100 fold less than what is being measured.

How can this be? I suspect there are other factors, since mine is closer to a real value than LANL's. For example, running their numbers backwards, I come up with gravity growing at the rate of ~8.9e-9 per AU, which we know is automatically wrong, since Earth is at one AU, and its gravity 'constant' G = 6.67e-11 Nm^^-2. So by definition, since we are located at one AU, LANL's acceleration is too high. However, there may be many factors why this is so, why the probes are slowing faster than they should. To list a few possibles:

1. Space dirt, dust collisions in 'empty' space.
2. Heat released from the front of the craft may create 'push', ala Crook's black faceted radiometer, for example, where the molecules of 'empty' space collide with the craft in the same way the blades spin in a toy radiometer. In the deep cold of the outer solar system, heat may be a bigger effect than in the warmer regions closer in to the Sun.
3. Redshift related: Possible that Planck's constant h may increase with light redshift at greater distances (may be too small to matter at Pluto's distance), so that as light wavelength increases due to redshift, so does h as computed there. This would influence the rate of growth of G by increasing it (per Axiomatic). However, since G growth plots on a straight line (which I value) when computed from (parabolic) orbital Energy, I shy away from this explanation, unless we have other reasons to think so.
4. Gas released from the probes onboard equipment, as theorized by Louis K. Scheffer (25 Feb. 2003), and others, to explain Pioneers anomalous behavior. These had been discounted by the LANL group.
5. Calculations either based on the Axiomatic, or by the LANL group, are intrinsically wrong.

So my above error, once corrected, shows a one hundred fold lower for the Axiomatic versus a greater acceleration computed by LANL, which in itself may not be correct: if you run the numbers backwards to calculated Earth's G, LANL's G = 8e-9 Nm^^-2 (*), is a hundred times greater than it should be. I suspect the other factors, especially space dust and heat related slowing, may be more at fault for the divergent readings, if Earth's G is growing at the rate of ~7.3e-11 Nm^^-2 per AU, hence why the probes are slowing faster than accounted for gravity's growing G alone.


*(a = 8e-8 cm/s^2 = 8e-10 m/s^2. If multiplied by constant G x 6.67e-11 Nm^2/kg^2 = 53.36e-21 = 5.336e-20 per meter, which multiplied by meters in AU, 5.336e-20 x 150e9 meters = 800e-11 per AU = 8.0e-9 Nm^2/kg^2 per AU. Too high!)

By Ivan A. on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 09:56 pm:

E = MC^3 revisited: Solar wind and minimum gravity.

We had postulated that E = mc^3 represents the uppermost limit of Energy, since above this level molecules no longer hold together as their G approaches zero. However, this is not a tested theory, so it needs further investigation. Conversely, if E = 0, then the proton gravitational coupling constant rises to its maximum, g=1, where G becomes its greatest value of G = c. This happens, as theorized, only when all electromagnetic energy is self-canceled, such as happens in a galactic black-hole, where light is reabsorbed by gravity. So what is the G equivalent of E = mc^3?

We can figure this equivalence by finding the proton mass, using the DeBroglie equation:

E = mc^3 = 27e24 J = hc/ l(proton m), so in solving for proton mass,

27e^24 = (6.626e-34)(3e8) / (1.32e-15)(proton m), so it works out to be:

(proton m) (27e^24)(1.32e-15) = (6.626e-34)(3e8), rewritten as:

proton m = (6.626e-34)(3e8) / (27e^24)(1.32e-15), which is numerically:

proton mass = 0.558e-35 kg., (when E = 27e24 Joules).

This very small proton mass is what happens at the hottest surface of the Sun where E is at its maximum of E = mc^3. If we take the equivalence as directly proportional to the g on Earth, g = ~5.9e-39, and proton m = 1.65e-27 kg, then:

1.67e-27 / 0.558e-35 = 5.9e-39/ ?g', so that we get g' = 1.97e-47

This very small proton g then converts into Newton's G as:

G^2 = (1.97e-47)c^2 pi^2, which gives us G^2 = 174.995e-31, so that:

G^2 = 17.5e-30, taking the square root: G = 4.18e-15 Nm^2kg^-2.

This is a surprising result, because it shows that once gravity reaches 10x^-15, it no longer holds together molecules, so they "drift away" on the solar wind. Actually, having virtually no inertial mass, they are catapulted at great velocities out into the solar system. It also marks the upper limit of Energy and lower limit of gravity. Gravity cannot be less than this, since here it fails. In effect, this is its 'zero' level, if E's upper limit is mc^3, where gravity stops working.

Of course, there is much gravity from the Sun, but not from its absolutely hottest surface. If gravity is a variable constant, then inside the Sun it is very great, but on the hot surface it is very weak. Compare the above absolute hottest G with Mercury's region, where G = 2.70e-11 N, and you can see that it does not take a great deal less gravity to have molecules fly apart gravitationally. In fact, it is amazing that Mercury holds together so well, is rather dense for its very low inertial mass, and behaves in its chaotic precessional orbit as one would expect with such low G, very low inertial mass, and very great solar heat. Mercury, being where it is, can ONLY attract heavy molecules, such as metals, to hold together, since lighter molecules will bind poorly.

On the Sun's hottest surface, presumably at its corona where G is 10,000 weaker than on Earth, matter no longer holds together gravitationally, and inertial mass is so weak that solar heat is sufficient to push it away. There's our solar wind.

So the highest G = c N, and lowest G < ~4.2e-15 N, which is essentially where it fails to hold mass together.


(Please see additional on solar wind on post today at: Guassian magnetic...)

Ps: This is an afterthought, but there seems to be a strange similarity between lambda l = 1.32E-15 m, as put out by our Sun, and what happens at E=mc^3 to G, where it becomes G' = 4.18E-15 Nm^2 kg^-1. Taking away the SI units, why is this G' value only slightly more than 3X lambda? Is this a 'zero' value of G, where the proton gravitational constant g=1.97E-47, its lowest possible value? We had seen on the other end how at maximum G, where g = 1, it becomes G = c, another puzzle, since how can gravity be equal to light? I don't have a clue for now, but there seems to be something happenin' here. How are these two extremes related to light?

Pps: Note how proton mass as E=mc^3 is approx. m= ~0.558E-35, which not so far off Planck's constant...

[Edited- 12/7/04]

By Ivan A. on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 03:01 pm:


Solar System, per Wiki:

Per this illustration, note how relatively 'hot' planets vis a vis their orbit Energy levels have a greater elliptical orbit, whereas 'cool' planets have more circular orbits. By this reasoning, Venus has a more circular orbit than Earth (though hotter than Earth but within a hotter solar region), so it is relatively 'cool'. (Venus also has very low spin due to equal energy ratios of orbit and interiori, as per posts above.) This may appear couterintuitive, but it is all relative to the solar energy region withing which the planet orbits, hotter closer to Sun, but cooler region in outer solar system; this is then matched against relative black body radiation of planet.

Pluto is off the charts and acts more like a comet than a planet, with a highly elliptical orbit, which by extension means it has a comparably high internal heat versus its very low Energy orbital region. At Pluto's energy region there is so little solar energy that any interior heat is 'hot' almost by definition. There appears to be a greater propensity towards elliptical orbits if the interior heat and exterior orbit energy are unevenly matched, so the elliptical orbit becomes an almost pendulum like effect.

Then do comets have internal heat? Maybe they are 'hot' far from the Sun, but 'cool' closer in? ... Note how they 'gas-out' coming into the hotter solar energy regions, but we do not know if they likewise 'gas-in' while going further out, to gain more mass from the stellar ice and dust?

I'm sure there is more here than meets a simple theory, but something to look at in the future.


By Ivan A. on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:46 pm:

New Spin on Earth's Rotation.

My own 'spin' on this is that Earth's orbit is at its perihelion during the northern hemisphere's winter, when it slows slightly, in milliseconds, while it subsequently speeds up during summer. The explanations offered in the article are ad hoc at best, that winter storm winds affect the whole planet. Using the planetary spins postulated above, Earth actually spins as would be expected: While at its perihelion, it is closer to the Sun's radiant energy, in a 'hotter' zone, which should slow its spin. An example is Venus, where the spin is virtually nil, as it is a 'hot' planet within a hot solar region, so not differential enough to cause spin. At Earth's aphelion, the planet is further from the Sun's solar irradiance, a cooler zone, so its spin as relative to its interior black body hear should accelerate slightly. The fact that it is in milliseconds is only a function of how small these differences are for its orbit total Energy, since the interior heat should remain constant. This is conceptual only, my spin on it, but the math should prove this out, though for now the theory is still too crude to be applied effectively. So think of this 'spin' as a work in progress, and one which is a much better and more reasonable fit than winter storms.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 01:27 pm:

EARTH KG vs. planetary kg:

I was looking over the proton mass numbers, as per Axiomatic Equation, chart below, and noticed that proton mass for Jupiter is about 25 times of Earth's, while Saturn's was about 100 times. This seemed to make no sense, since Jupiter at 5.2 AU has inertial mass, as figured per Newton's G 'proportional' there, to be only about 5 times, and Saturn's, at 9.5 AU, should be about 10 times. What's the story here?

Orbital Energy Proton mass Newton's G

60.55e16 J 2.48e-28 kg 2.79e-11 Nm^2

17.33e16 J 8.67e-28 kg 5.20e-11 Nm^2

9.0e16 J 1.67e-27 kg 6.67e-11 Mn^2

3.66e16 J 3.86e-27 kg 1.096e-10 Nm^2

0.335e16 J 4.49e-26 kg 3.86e-10 Nm^2

0.1004e16J 1.498e-25kg 6.85e-10 Nm^2

0.0247e16J 6.1e-25 kg 1.38e-9 Nm^2

0.01e16 J 1.5e-24 kg 2.17e-9 Nm^2

0.006e16 J 2.58e-24 kg 2.84e-9 Nm^2

Then it occurred to me that this is not wrong, rather right on. The reason being is that proton mass for Saturn and Jupiter are figured in Earth's kilograms, while the (delta) G was figured independent of that. What this means is that in Earth kg, indeed the Saturn proton is 100 times that of Earth's, but in terms of its G region, which is 10 times that of Earth's, the proton mass is only about 10 times in local kg. This is as it should be, since its inertial mass should be, per the equivalence principle with a G that is about 10 times Earth's, about 10 times here. Still, it only illustrates how important it is to adjust kilograms to local G conditions, where the equation, (G'/G)kg adjustment must be used to divide the proton mass of distant planets. For example, at Jupiter's G' = 38.6E-11 N, and Earth's G = 6.67E-11N, the ratio is:

38.6E-11/6.67E-11 = 5.87, so that taking Jupiter's proton mass (per above) and divided by this G ratio we get:

44.9E-27 kg/ 5.87 = 7.65E-27 kg, which is about 5 times Earth's proton mass, which better fits how it should be, since Jupiter's G is about 5 times Earth's, and thus its inertial mass is likewise about 5 times Earth's. Naturally, this means that Earth's based kilograms used for Jupiter's mass is 5 times too high, but in a 5 times greater G, the same results are obtained, as per Newton's orbital equation: GM = Rv^2, so everything washes.

The bottom line, for any proton, or hydrogen, mass to be figured for any distant body, its Earth based kg results need to be divided by the AU distance for the Sun, which will yield kg in local G.

Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:57 pm:


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:



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.

It would stand to reason that for planets beyond Earth, especially the gas giants, the gravity readings out there have been shown to climb (see Jaszz spin 4 above, July 31, 2004), while for the inner planets the gravity constant declines. Now, if zero-point gravity (ZPG) affects spin, then it would stand to reason that the inner planets would exhibit a lower spin, where G is low, in proportion to the outer planets, where gravity is progressively greater. This would mean that as gravity was greater in the outlying regions, the planetary spin should increase proportionately, so that the spin ratios computed should be greater than what resulted earlier. For the inner planets, it should likewise be lower. So I tested this hypothesis to see if true.

The way to test was to take Earth's spin ratio, which is 2.316 and divide it by Earth's daily spin, which is one. So for Earth, the base planet from which this puzzle is sought, the spin ratio remains the same, SR = 2.316. However, getting in close, for Mercury, the correct spin ratio, as a function of the planet's black body Kelvin heat and its orbital zero-point heat (ZPH) region, as calculated for its total orbital Energy, the correct spin ratio should be expressed as Earth's 2.316 divided by Mercury's orbital spin of 58.8 days. This division yields an actual SR' = 0.0394, which is lower then the calculated SR = 0.0736, or about half of the calculated. Mercury revolves around the Sun in a hotter region, which means it has a lower gravitational constant G for that region. When going out to Jupiter, for example, dividing 2.316 by Jupiter's Earth related spin of 0.418 days, the result is SR' = 5.541 vs. the calculated SR = 2.371, so that the actual SR' is over twice the calculated value SR. This would be as expected, since Jupiter's region is cooler, and its gravity G is greater. So I did a chart of all the planets, using Earth days as a base of one, with the actual SR' values as a ratio of Earth's SR divided by the planet's spin days, so that:

(Earth's ZPH SR 2.316) ÷ (planet's spin in Earth days) = actual SR'

Kelvin heat Planet spin Earth days calculated SR actual SR'

442K Mercury 58.8 0.0736 0.0394
231.7K Venus 245 0.006 0.0059
254.3K Earth -1- 2.316 2.316
210.1K Mars 1.03 1.973 2.248
110K Jupiter 0.415 2.371 5.541
81.1K Saturn 0.445 1.68 5.204
58.1K Uranus 0.718 0.732 3.226
46.6K Neptune 0.673 0.633 3.441
37.5K Pluto 6.3 0.0484 0.377

So what have we got? Mercury's actual SR' spin is about half of what had been calculated SR. Venus's SR' is a little too high, but remember Venus has a retro spin of 245 days vs. 244 day orbital, so it's almost flat, but backwards. Earth is Earth, normal for our G constant. Mars is almost right, since it is close to Earth's G region. Jupiter is nearly twice the actual spin SR' vs. calculated SR, but it is further out where there is already more G. Saturn is about three times. Uranus is nearly 4 and half times. Neptune is nearly 5 and half times, and Pluto is over 7 times the calculated SR. Wow! This is the direction it should take, since the gas giants in the outer region of the solar system reside in orbital ZPH that are much colder, and hence have greater gravitational constants G than here, or ZPG. As the G grows (see Jaszz spin 4 above, July 31,2004), then the spin ratios increase!

So the initial calculations done on SR had ignored gravity, but this was not correct, since gravity is an important component of spin, if for no other reason than that the planet's gravity centripetal forces causes spin. However, I have not yet worked out exactly how those relationships of gravity to spin work mathematically, well, not yet. Since there is a clear progression of increased spin as we go out into the solar system, certainly for the gas giants, then here is another indicator that the gravitational constant G out there is progressively greater than here, as shown. Pluto still remains an enigma, since its numbers should be closer to those of Neptune, since their paths cross in Pluto's highly elliptical orbit, though the interior heat may also be off, so the rest of it is off too... don't know.

So in summary, there is some sort of internal heat relationship of the planets relative to their solar heat zones in which they orbit, and that relationship is then further modified by the gravitational G of the region where they orbit, all together which accounts for the planet's spin. And if this is so, then the planets are spinning because of some interior engine that powers them, for billions of years. The actual spin is the correct number, of course, but the calculated spin worked out earlier shows how this relationship of interior heat versus solar heat works out, though incomplete. Now, to complete the story, we will need to find the mechanims that relates the variable gravitational G to planetary spin SR, so we get the real SR', or true Jaszz.

Still thinkin.... gettin close... but not yet.


So I've been thinking... Here is what happens when the ratio of actual SR' divided by calculated SR is compared. Notice how this then compares with the square root of AU, far right:

AU Kelvin heat Planet spin Earth days calculated SR actual SR' ratio SR'/SR sqrt AU

0.39 442K Mercury 58.8 0.0736 0.0394 0.535 0.624
0.72 231.7K Venus 245 0.006 0.0059 0.983 0.85
1.0 254.3K Earth -1- 2.316 2.316 1.00 1.000
1.52 210.1K Mars 1.03 1.973 2.248 1.14 1.233
5.2 110K Jupiter 0.415 2.371 5.541 2.38 2.28
9.5 81.1K Saturn 0.445 1.68 5.204 3.10 3.08
19.2 58.1K Uranus 0.718 0.732 3.226 4.40 4.38
30 46.6K Neptune 0.673 0.633 3.441 5.44 5.48
39.5 37.5K Pluto 6.3 0.0484 0.377 7.8 6.29

These results of comparing ratio of actual to calculated planetary Spin match up fairly well, within 10-15% error (except Pluto), of the square root of AU distances from the Sun. The two curves match up pretty well. What can it mean?

A few days ago, Feb. 27, 2005, I posted Earth's kg. vs. planetary kg., and came up with a similar problem where the square root relationship of (G'/G)] was needed to bring the Earth's kilograms in line with local planetary kilograms, in order to adjust proton mass for local G conditions. This worked out fairly well, and it so happens that the square root of G differentials also approximates closely the square root of AU distances (where delta G is ~7E-11 per AU).

So this is but another function of adjustment planetary Spin must undergo, if G is variable, to fit the curve of how it calculates in Kelvin heat vs. Energy for each orbit. Though this was a complicated process, it could no doubt be simplified further into an equation, which then yields the Spin Ratios for the planets in terms of their interior black-body Kelvin heat and their orbit's total solar Energy. For Earth, it is always a ratio of 1, with E = 9E+16 Joules. Of course, it is a different E for each planet, with different Spin Ratios, which dove tails nicely into the variable Newton's G 'proportional' hypothesis.

Now, to figure a more simplified equation to explain Spin Ratios. Also, I suspect that the Axiomatic Equation can be used to explain planetary acceleration in orbit at the perihelion, and deceleration at the aphelion, but haven't done the work yet. Would need to calculate these using Newton's orbital: GM = Rv^2. The same principle applies for distant inertial mass as a function of either (G'/G)F = ma, where kg. must be adjusted for different G. Or perhaps the square root will be what actually is needed, still don't know... Another time.

Ivan A. on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 02:20 am:


Taking planetary black-body heat in Kelvin and planet's orbit Energy, per Axiomatic, we can arrive at a spin ratio, SR, which will yield each planet's spin as measured in earth days. The resulting equation is:

(PK/PE) :/: (13.36E-16) x (PK/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

SR = Spin Ratio for planets
PK = Planet Kelvin, black-body heat
PE = Planet orbit solar Energy, per Axiomatic
VK = Venus Kelvin, base planet spin (245 days retro spin, per 244 days orbit), here as base spin "zero" (where Kelvin and Energy nearly equal)
VE = Venus Energy, per Axiomatic
planetary orbit = in Earth days
planet spin = in Earth days (or fraction of Earth day)
AU = G'/G, ratio of planet's G' and Earth's G, linear deltaG = ~7.2E-11 per AU
(AU)^1/2 = same as square root of (G'/G)
Spin Ratio = SR, a Kelvin and Energy dependent number, which when Earth's SR (2.32) is divided by planet's SR yields daily planet spin.
x = times
:/: = divided by
VK/VE = (2.317K/17.33E+16 J) = 13.36E-16 , which is a ratio, used in SR equation above, as a base for Venus (near zero) parity

The above equation for Earth yields:

(254.3K/9E+16J) :/: (13.36E-16) x (254.3K/231.7K) :/: (365/365) :/: (1) x (1) = 2.32

Tables of above values, where orbit and spin are in Earth days, and SR is as calculated per equation above:


0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; 88 days; 58.8 ; 0.624 ; 0.0456
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; 244 ; -245 ; 0.850 ; 0.005 (this is is way off - retro) ?
1.0 ; EArth ; 254,3K ; 9E16 J ; 365 days; -1- ; 1 ; 2.32 (base SR)
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; 687 ; 1.03 ; 1.225 ; 2.246
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; 4329 ; 0.415 ; 2.28 ; 5.41
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; 10753 ; 0.455 ; 3.08 ; 4.97
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; 30660 ; 0.718 ; 4.38 ; 3.21
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; 60225 ; 0.673 ; 5.48 ; 3.69
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; 90520 ; 6.3 ; 6.28 ; 0.304

Divide Earth's SR = 2.32 (which is our1 day spin) by any of the above planetary SR's, and you will find a close match to actual spin in Earth days. Here's the lineup:

Merc: 2.32/0.0456 = ~51 (vs. actual 58.8)
Ven: 2.32/ 0.005 = ~464 (way off by ~x2! vs. actual -245)?
Ear: 2.32/2.32 = 1 day (our home planet's spin)
Mar: 2.32/ 2.246 = ~1.033 (vs. 1.03 actual)
Jup: 2.32/ 5.41 = ~0.428 (vs. 0.415 actual)
Sat: 2.32/ 4.97 = ~0.467 (vs. 0.455 actual)
Uran: 2.32/3.21 = ~0.723 (vs. 0.718 actual)
Nept: 2.32/ 3.69 = ~0.629 (vs. 0.673 actual)
Plut: 2.32/ 0.304 = ~7.63 (vs. 6.3 actual) ?

You can see from the above that Venus is way out of line (it has retro spin) and Pluto are off by more than 20%, Mercury is off by 12%, but the other planets are a fairly good fit. Consering I am working with rough estimates, taken from Nasa Planet tables, and used mean distances, the spin ratios as a function of planetary heat and orbit Energy come in fairly close to actual spin. Perhaps there are more accurate numbers for Mercury or Pluto? Venus is truly an enigma, though as a retro spin planet, perhaps the number at nearly twice what it should be is not so odd, since it spins the other way in its Energy orbit per its relatively low Kelvin. But you get the general idea.

Coincidence? Numerology? Some will think it odd, others will dislike it intensely, or not believe it, and call it gibberish, even get vindictive over it. It's certainly not be found in any textbooks! But these are the numbers, and I am humbled. They clearly show that there seems to be a relationship between planetary interior heat and the Energy levels in which their orbits reside, factoring in a variable G, as per the equation above. Does this prove the Axiomatic Equation? Not to my mind. But it offers one more reason to go out there and look for a variable Newton's G 'proportional'. Next, Mercury's precessional orbit... I have an idea.

A formal paper on the above will follow in due time., to be posted here. Will it ever be published? Probably not, alas.

Ivan D. Alexander

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 01:35 am:

PART 2: Spin Ratios for nine planets.


I: There had been legitimate criticsm of this equation as having incorporated Spin in order to find a Spin Ratio, which may not be valid. Here is the orginal equation, though a later version as:

SR = [(PK^2 x 365 x (AU^0.5)] / [(231.k^2) x (PE * 17.33E+16) x orbit x spin]

versus original, used below:

(PK/PE) ./. (13.37E-16) x (PK/231.7K) ./. (planetary orbit/365) ./. (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

SR = Spin Ratio for planets
PK = Planet Kelvin, black-body heat
PE = Planet orbit solar Energy, per Axiomatic
VK = Venus Kelvin, base planet spin (245 days retro spin, per 244 days orbit), here as base spin "zero" (where Kelvin and Energy nearly equal)
VE = Venus Energy, per Axiomatic
planetary orbit = in Earth days
planet spin = in Earth days (or fraction of Earth day)
AU = G'/G, ratio of planet's G' and Earth's G, where linear deltaG = ~7.2E-11 per AU
(AU)^1/2 = same as square root of (G'/G)
Spin Ratio = SR, a Kelvin and Energy dependent number, which when Earth's SR (2.32) is divided by planet's SR yields daily planet spin.
x = times
./. = divided by
VK/VE = (2.317K/17.33E+16 J) = 13.37E-16 , which is a ratio, used in SR equation above, as a base for Venus (near zero) parity

The results for this equation were:

(254.3K/9E+16J) ./. (13.37E-16) x (254.3K/231.7K) ./. (365/365) ./. (1) x (1) = 2.32

Tables of above values, where orbit and spin are in Earth days, and SR is as calculated per equation above:


0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; 88 days; 58.8 ; 0.624 ; 0.0456
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; 244 ; 245 ; 0.850 ; 0.005 (this is is way off ) ?
1.0 ; EArth ; 254.3K ; 9E16 J ; 365 days; -1- ; 1 ; 2.32 (base SR)
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; 687 ; 1.03 ; 1.225 ; 2.246
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; 4329 ; 0.415 ; 2.28 ; 5.41
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; 10753 ; 0.455 ; 3.08 ; 4.97
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; 30660 ; 0.718 ; 4.38 ; 3.21
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; 60225 ; 0.673 ; 5.48 ; 3.69
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; 90520 ; 6.3 ; 6.28 ; 0.304

Divide Earth's SR = 2.32 (which is our1 day spin) by any of the above planetary SR's, and you will find a close match to actual spin in Earth days. Here's the lineup:

Merc: 2.32/0.0456 = ~51 (vs. actual 58.8)
Ven: 2.32/ 0.005 = ~464 (way off by ~x2! vs. actual -245)?
Ear: 2.32/2.32 = 1 day (our home planet's spin)
Mar: 2.32/ 2.246 = ~1.033 (vs. 1.03 actual)
Jup: 2.32/ 5.41 = ~0.428 (vs. 0.415 actual)
Sat: 2.32/ 4.97 = ~0.467 (vs. 0.455 actual)
Uran: 2.32/3.21 = ~0.723 (vs. 0.718 actual)
Nept: 2.32/ 3.69 = ~0.629 (vs. 0673 actual)
Plut: 2.32/ 0.304 = ~7.63 (vs. 6.3 actual) ?

(Please note, in the original I questioned Venus reverse spin, but dropped it here as irrelevant, same as for Uranus and Pluto's reverse daily spin.)

II: Deconstructing the above chart, we start by first removing Spin, then removing (AU)^/12, then orbit/365, etc. to see how look the results. The easiest way to see this it to reverse the left side on the right side, by multiplying. Removing Spin:


0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; 88 days; ; 0.624 ; = 2.681
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; 244 ; ; 0.850 ; = 1.225
1.0 ; EArth ; 254.3K ; 9E16 J ; 365 days; -- ; 1 ;= 2.32 (base SR)
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; 687 ; ; 1.225 ; = 2.313
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; 4329 ; ; 2.28 ; = 2.245
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; 10753 ; ; 3.08 ; = 2.261
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; 30660 ; ; 4.38 ; = 2.305
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; 60225 ; ; 5.48 ; = 2.483
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; 90520 ; ; 6.28 ; = 1.9152

The result gives a approximate mean value close to Earth's 2.32.
Note how Venus and Pluto are lower than the mean average near Earth's, while Mercury is higher. What does this mean?

Now, let us deconstruct again by moving sqrt AU, by dividing, to the right:

B. AU; PLANET; P-KELVIN; P-ENERGY; ORBIT; ; ; = SR x Spin ./. (AU)^1/2

0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; 88 days; ; ; = 4.296
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; 244 ; ; ; = 1.441
1.0 ; EArth ; 254.3K ; 9E16 J ; 365 days; -- ; ;= 2.32 (base SR)
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; 687 ; ; ; = 1.888
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; 4329 ; ; ; = 0.985
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; 10753 ; ; ; = 0.734
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; 30660 ; ; ; = 0.526
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; 60225 ; ; ; = 0.453
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; 90520 ; ; ; = 0.305

These numbers representing SR times Spin divided by sqrt AU are now falling consistently, except for Venus. What does this mean?

Now we shall multiply out the orbital ratios of planet's orbital days per Earth's 365. For example, Mercury's 88 days divided by Earth's 365 is 0.2411, so that we get on the right = SR x Spin ./. (AU)^1/2 x 0.2411. Here are the results:

C. AU; PLANET; P-KELVIN; P-ENERGY; ; ; ; = SR x Spin ./. (AU)^1/2 x Orbit}

which is: (PK/PE) ./. (13.37E-16) x (PK/231.7K) = SR x (planetary orbit/365) x. (planet spin) ./. (AU)^1/2

0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; ; ; ; = 1.0357
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; ; ; ; = 0.963 (i.e., ~1)
1.0 ; EArth ; 254.3K ; 9E16 J ; ; -- ; ;= 2.32 (base SR)
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; ; ; ; = 3.554
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; ; ; ; = 11.682
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; ; ; ; = 21.624
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; ; ; ; = 44.184
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; ; ; 5.48 ; = 74.745
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; ; ; 6.28 ; = 75.64

These resulting numbers are now rising consistently, except for Venus. Is this significant? Looking at what remains on the left side of the equation, we have merely a relationship of planetary black-body radiation in Kelvin divided by planetary orbit Energy, which is then divided by taking (Venus K/ Venus E = 13.37E-11), a constant, times planet's K divided by Venus K (where the result for Venus approximate = 1), and thus see a progressive relationship between Kelvin temperatures and orbit Energy. One way to look at this is to say that planetary heat increases as we increase in distance from the Sun, on a relative basis to its progressively cooler orbit Energy, which may be significant. There seems to be some sort of equilibrium in the making here, but not sure.

Now, lastly, we will divided this result by the distance in AU from the Sun, so see if any pattern emerges:

D. AU; PLANET; P-KELVIN; P-ENERGY; ; ; ; = SR x Spin ./. (AU)^1/2 x Orbit ./. AU}

0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; ; ; ; = 1.0357 / 0.39 = 2.656
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; ; ; ; = 0.963 / 0.72 = 1.3375
1.0 ; EArth ; 254.3K ; 9E16 J ; ; -- ; ;= 2.32 (base SR) /1 = 2.32
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; ; ; ; = 3.554 /1.5 = 2.369
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; ; ; ; = 11.682 / 5.2 = 2.2465
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; ; ; ; = 21.624 / 9.5 = 2.276
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; ; ; ; = 44.184 / 19.2 = 2.301
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; ; ; ; = 74.745 / 30 = 2.4915
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; ; ; ; = 75.64 / 39.5 = 1.915

So what have we got? This blows me away, but we're back to part A!! Are we tending towards some sort of energy cum gravity equilibrium? How can that be? Surely there is a mystery here begging to be unlocked. A possibility? That the planet's black-body heat as relating to its orbit Energy is a constant when deltaG per AU is factored in, though not sure why, except for Venus and Pluto. Something is going on, but I cannot see what it is off hand. Also, how about the planetary moons, since there seems to be progressively greater Kelvin interior heat as we progress out into the colder orbit Energy regions... something else to think about, still thinking... I leave it here for now, though.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:38 am:

ADDENDUM to "Deconstructed" Spin Ratio Equation.

I would add to the above that there is now a much simpler relationship on the left side of the equation, since "spin" is dropped, and the right side of the equation is reduced to an energy ratio, where all those functions equal the left side, to be expressed as:

ER = (PK/PE) ./. (13.37E-16) x (PK/231.7K) = ER ./. AU = ~2.32 +/-

This drops orbits, spin, (AU)^1/2, to retain the result divided by AU. Note that AU is also (G'/G) so there may be not merely a distance relationship from the Sun, but also a variable G relationship where AU = deltaG x AU, where deltaG = ~7.2 E-11 N.. per AU.

If AU is the same as R in E = solar irradiance x 1/2 Rv^2, then in dividing out R, this Energy equation can now be reduced to E = solar irrad x 1/2 v^2, which means that Energy is a function of solar irradiance times half the planet's velocity squared. However, this number should be a declining number, and as per above, the ER is a relatively constant number of about ER = 2.32 for all the planets except for Venus, Mercury, and Pluto (where their either closeness or great distance from Sun may give us wrong K readings); and thus the conclusion must be that in a constant ER, there is some sort of equilibrium factor to declining E to increasing planet's relative K. Can increasing G be a factor? So the original Spin Ratio equation is now morphed into an Energy Ratio equation. The search for why ER is a relative constant is now the new direction taken here. Spin may yet show up again, but at this time it appears irrelevant... unless there is a centripetal deltaG relationship yet to be discovered. Will think some more... But it appears at this point that the solar system's energy remains in equilibrium right out to the far edge.

There is thus an easier way to view this above equation for ER, if Venus's 'zero spin' is no longer a factor, if Earth is taken as a basis:

ER = (PK/PE) ./. (254.k/9E16) x (PK/254.3K) = ?

ER = (254.3K/9E16) ./. (254.3K/9E16) x (254.3K/254.3K) = 1

So this may be the new ratio for Energy for our solar system, which should give us a similar reading for all the other planets, with three exceptions. Next time...


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 04:58 pm:

PEER Principle for nine planets of our system.

As posted
here on BABB.
ER = (PK/PE) ./. (254.3K/9E16) x (PK/254.3K) ./. AU = PEER

For Mercury, for example using values in above posts, where Earth's (254.3K/9E16J) = 28.26E-16, a constant, it becomes:

(442K/60.55E+16) ./. (28.26E-16) x (442K/254.3K) ./. (0.39) = 1.151

For all the planets, these work out as:

Mercury= 1.151
Venus = 0.599
Earth = 1 base ER
Mars = 1.061
Jupiter = 0.9666
Saturn = 0.950
Uranus= 1.019
Neptune= 1.007
Pluto = 0.826

So for Earth's base of ER = 1, we have a similarity to ratios above, once spin was removed, and also similar to results when Venus was used as base rate. Obviously the orbit Energy equation which incorporates distance from the Sun: E = solar irrad x 1/2 Rv^2, has R dropped by dividing the end result by AU, distance from Sun. However, there seems to be a pattern of parity for the resulting energy for all the planets regardless of distance from the Sun, so that the effective ratio of black-body energy and orbit Energy are in some sort of equilibrium.

Spin at this point is no longer considered, though all possible relationships of internal radiating energy and external solar irradiance had not be examined in the light of the deltaG linear growth rate at ~7.2E-11 N.. per AU, as earlier postulated in the Axiomatic Equation (from where orbit Energy values were taken), so not all stones yet unturned. The only thing achieved thus far, if no internal errors discovered, is that the nine planets (except for Venus? which remains a big mystery) seem to fall into an energy parity regardless of distance from the Sun, which leads to a PEER principle.

There is one more simplification to consider: The orbit Energy equation can drop distance R in it, so that the resulting ER need not be divided by AU for a final PEER, since they are the same. It would mean that solar energy for each planet orbit (PE) could be defined as:

E = solar irrad x 1/2 v^2, which one might recognize that 1/2 (1)v^2 is the same as EK = 1/2 mv^2, if mass is generic as m = 1, which is the premise in the original Axiomatic Equation.

Full circle, I guess? It now appears as if there is some sort of partiy equilibrium between planet black-body energy and solar energy times planet's kinetic energy, for all the planets (if three of them seem to be out of line with greater deviations from the norm of ER = 1); which seems to say that total energy as represented by black-body heat and orbit energy is somehow generic for our solar system.

...To be further considered...

By Ivan A. on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 05:27 pm:

MERCURY'S E = 69.7E+16 J (not 60.55E+16 J as estimated):

I refigured the ER, Energy Ratio, for Mercury as if it were =1, and in so doing found that I had the wrong E initially, and with it the wrong mean distance from the Sun.

Taking ER = (PK/PE) ./. (254.3K/9E+16 J) x (PK/254.3) ./. AU which is same as:

ER = (PK^2/ PE) x (9E+16/(254.3)^2) x 1/AU , in numbers, where Mercurys PK = 442K, and AU = 0.39, and ER = 1, we get:

if ER = 1 = (195364 / PE) x (9E+16/ 64668.5) x 2.5641 , then

PE = 3.02 x 9E+16 x 2.5641 = 69.7E+16J, as E for Mercury.

Now, taking the E equation as E = solar irrad x D x 1/2 v^2, where (mean) v = 47.87 km/s, using E = 69.7E+16 J, we get:

69.7E+16 J = 9126.6 W/m^2 x D x 1/2 (2291.5), so that for D, we can use:

meanD = 69.7E+16/ 9126.6 x 1145.77 = 69.7E+16/ 10.457E+6 = 66.65E+6 km

(which compares with Mercury's perihelion at D = 46E+6 km, aphilelion D = 69.82E+6 km; so Mercury spends most of its time out there in the mean distance from the Sun, as its mean is closer to its aphelion distance)

This is merely an adaptation of using the PEER to figure for Mercury's true orbit Energy, meaning that if ER lines up with Earth's = 1, then E = 69.7E+16 J (not 60.55E+16 J as first estimated), and this has implications for Mercury's G. Proton mass on Mercury is now = 0.216E-27 kg, which makes proton gavitational constant as = 0.763E-39, which translates into Newton's G for Merc as G' = 2.606E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 (slightly lower than earlier 2.79E-11), and where at perihelion's (see below) G' = 2.02E-11 N.., it's less than a third of Earth's G!

However, this is assuming that Mercury's black-body is truly 442K, and that the mean distance as calculated is correct (as it may not be, if 442K is off).

As an aside, Mercury's highly eccentric orbit ranges from E = 116E+16J at its perihelion, and down to 33.7E+16J at its aphelion (vs. Venus E = 17.33E+16 J). These are very significant differences, which may account for why Mercury precesses in its orbit. The possible is that as Mercury approaches the solar intensity of E = 116E+16 J, its gravitational cum inertial mass is very low (G' = 2.02E-11N..), so that the Sun's moment of inertia, from its equatorial spin, transfers onto Mercury's orbital velocity, albeit very little, but enough to send it into a precessional motion in orbit. Not yet done the calcs... don't even know how to do the math... so must think some more.

... work in progress, to be continued...

(See Apr. 2, 2005 post for more on this Mercury question.)

By Ivan A. on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 10:05 pm:


I had been thinking about Venus, how its black-body temp in Kelvin is below what it should be to have an ER = 1. In fact, instead of 231.7K, it needs to be more like 299.4K, which means the planet is too cold. It also has virtually no spin, unlike the other planets. So there may yet be some sort of gravity cum black-body heat relationship at work here, though at the moment it is unknown to me. Would it being hotter than it is now in some way cause instability to this second planet from the Sun? It also seems to have immense atmospheric density, which seems out of place for such a hot place, unless it is simply not hot enough. What would have happened if it were 68K hotter, for example? Would it simply boil away? Would it spin too fast and break apart? There is something very odd about this planet which has failed to find parity with its solar and kinetic energy, if the other planets are compared. Don't have an answer... unless it is failing to radiate black-body temp like it should? Does radiating K involve some sort of spin? Very puzzling, but Venus is definitely different. Actually, there is something cosmically poetic about this, that Venus should be the only woman in our solar system. J

By Ivan A. on Monday, April 4, 2005 - 11:27 pm:

FOOTNOTE ON PLANETARY HEAT, cum orbit Energy and Gravity.

I think I see causality: if I had to divide the black-body planetary Kelvin ratios by the AU distance in order to achieve a relative parity of planet heat to its orbit Energy, then it must mean by default that if the AU distance is left in, the Kelvin temperature for all the planets is progressively higher vis a vis its orbit Energy as we get further from the Sun. This can only mean one thing: that the AU distance, which also represents the variable G, per G'/G = ~AU, is by the same token the greater ratio of gravity G' to each planet's orbit Energy. So we are left of necessity a situation where black-body heat, which should be on par with the Sun energy output for each planet, is getting higher as we get progressively farther from the Sun. But how can that be? Should it not be on par automatically, so that Kelvin black-body equals, approximately, the solar output of energy? After all, where does this planetary black-body heat come from? The Sun, of course. But that is not what happens, since further from the Sun planet's interior heat is rising, in proportion to G'/G = AU. So to my mind what this means, again of necessity, is that the greater G, which is a variable inversely proportional to the Sun's Energy at each orbit, represents the greater pressure on the planetary mass in each orbit. Hence, the planetary black-body Kelvin heat is greater by this amount.

We are being 'squeezed', less so for the inner planets at a lower G, and more so for the outlying planets at a greater G. And from that squeeze, gravitationally speaking, the interior of the planets are made hotter for outer planets, or cooler for the inner planets. By how much? By just enough to keep the relative ratio of Kelvin to orbit Energy in parity. How about that! Isn't the universe funny? We find the equality parity of solar energy output with each planet's outradiating black-body heat not directly, but only through factoring in the variable G. Since we used Earth's ratio of one, then it makes sense that taking out the variable G'/G for each orbit, the inner planets have a ratio less than one, and outer have more than one, exactly in proportion to G. Newton's G has one more reason to be modified, or at least examined more closely, because its centripetal force on the planets realigns their internal and external heat into parity.

Here are the tables as per above (Mar. 23, 2005):


ER = (PK/PE) ./. (254.3K/9E16) x (PK/254.3K) ./. AU = PEER

For Mercury, for example using values in above posts, where Earth's (254.3K/9E16J) = 28.26E-16, a constant, it

(442K/60.55E+16) ./. (28.26E-16) x (442K/254.3K) ./. (0.39) = 1.151

For all the planets, if the distance AU is multiplied back in, these work out as:

Mercury= 1.151 * 0.39 = 0.449
Venus = 0.599 * 0.72 = 0.413
Earth = 1 base ER * 1 = 1
Mars = 1.061 * 1.5 = 1.59
Jupiter = 0.9666 * 5.2 = 5.03
Saturn = 0.950 * 9.5 = 9.03
Uranus= 1.019 * 19.2 = 19.56
Neptune= 1.007 * 30 = 30.2
Pluto = 0.826 * 39.5 = 32.63

So these now represent what the Kelvin to orbit Energy ratios are, if a variable G is not taken out. In effect, the planets get progressively hotter as they get further from the Sun, at a consistent rate of G'/G=AU. For the inner planets, the opposite happens, where they are relatively cooler than their orbit Energy. By dividing out AU we get relative parity for the inner and outer energy levels for the planets.

So the Sun really does rule the planets, with a parity in terms of their black-body radiation, but a variable G also plays an important factor. But why do they spin?... still unresolved... for now. Of course, Venus will still remain that obstinate enigma, in her feminine mystique kind of way.

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 11:23 am:

Post Script to Footnote above: Is gravity a 'rubic cube'?

It might be added here that if the AU distance is factored out from the original orbit Energy equation from the start: E = solar irradiance x 1/2 Rv^2, (where R in meters is AU distance, and solar irradiance as W/m^2 becomes reduced to W/m by factoring in distance in meters), so it reads merely as E = sol irrad x 1/ v^2, then the whole exercise is simplified. However, it then makes nonesense of a variable G, since even a flat G would result the same Kelvin to Energy ratios, approximating ER = ~1. Of course, if so, then this becomes a 'rubic cube', where the Axiomatic Equation's values for a deltaG = ~7.2E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 per AU becomes meaningless, since Energy values would now be different for all the planets, which could not be converted into Earth's G, so no such relationship results. Also, deltaG would no longer plot linear as a constant growth. So if the de Broglie cum Einstein equation, E = hf = mc^2, with its related G^2 = gc^2pi^2 conversion, is to be useful, it needs the distance figured in. So here is another example of how a universal constant Newton's G, which has served us well though it fails to explain many things, is very well hidden, and a variable G which explains much more, is still illusive until we measure for it in space.


By Edward Chesky on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 07:00 am:

With regards to gravity being a rubic's cube in my mind I see it as a a multi-dimentional force of which we are only dealing with a limited subset of it as it interacts with our reality...with our reality consisting of the limited number of dimentions that we are able to percieve....I suspect that once we get a better handle on the multi-dimentional component of gravity we will be on our way to being able to manipulate it and tap into the zero-point energy...or vacume energy that has been discussed previously...I have been reviewing the research on multi-dimentional theory and the interaction of multi-dimentional forces with our reality...I suspect my previous discussion of multi-dimentional technology like the mobius strip resistor which has the property of cancelling its own inductive reactance offers us some clues to understanding the missing aspect of gravity and provides us some small insight into a unified field theory.

I also believe that Nikola Tesla patent of similar technology in the early 1900s, US#512,340 "Coil for Electro Magnets" intended for use with his system of global transmission of electricity without wires, was an early attempt at using what he saw as the multi-dimentional construct that is our universe to transfer energy...I am in the process of trying to cross reference Telsa's work and the latest information on string theory to come up with a better construct but it is taking a lot of time and unfortunately I don't have access to Telsa's notes to reconstruct his view on on how the universe was constructed...what I suspect Tesla was trying to do was based upon his understanding of wave theory and how waves can cancel themselves out...I suspect that he had a working theory that when opposing waves met the energy contained within them did not get canceled out but instead was translated into another form or pushed/rotated into a higher dimention...into a resevoir that could be tapped...I also suspect that his equipment was built arround that concept and that he had some working experimental data that led him down that path...

Its an intersting concept that gives me a headache but I keep plugging along on it.....

All my best


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 05:01 pm:

Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets is one step closer to the Axiomatic Drive. They still need to boost the energy of the spinning plasma to x-ray bandwidth, then the ion particle jets will shoot straight out the axis poles, with a side dividend, a very powerful artificial gravity. This will be a usable force. They're getting close, but not there yet.


By Edward Chesky on Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 06:35 am:

I see what you are talking about Ivan,

The Old Soviets and the U.S. Military experimented with high energy Xray lasers using a micro-nuclear weapon as an energy source. The experiments were crude and uncontroled by the standards of the experiment you cite.

All data relating to these experiments remains highly classified by the DOD and the former Soviet Union. I suspect we may have some data from these experiments that would support the Axiomatic Drive, however the chance of getting it declassified is about zero. What we need is a classified program where we can start integrating all of this information and breaking down the barriers of government internal secrecy. WIth a hand picked team pulling everything from Niki Telsa's old notes to the SDI Star Wars tests with bomb pumped lasers.

If we did that I suspect we could, within 15-20 years, have a working model of an Axiomatic Drive...the problem being of course the Government's penchanct for secrecy and classifying everything.

My Best

Ed Chesky

By Anonymous on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:12 am:

THE concept for x-ray lasers goes back to the 1970s, when physicists realized that laser beams amplified with ions would have much higher energies than beams amplified using gases. Nuclear explosions were even envisioned as a power supply for these high-energy lasers. That vision became a reality at the time of the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, when x-ray laser beams initiated by nuclear explosives were generated underground at the Nevada Test Site. Livermore's Novette, the precursor of the Nova laser, was used for the first laboratory demonstration of an x-ray laser in 1984.
Since then, Nova, Livermore's largest laser, has set the standard for x-ray laser research and been the benchmark against which x-ray laser research has been measured. Nova uses a very-high-energy pulse of light about a nanosecond (a billionth of a second) long to cause lasing at x-ray frequencies. Because these high-energy pulses heat the system's glass amplifiers, Nova must be allowed to cool between shots. Nova can thus be fired only about six times a day.
In contrast, a team at Livermore has developed a small "tabletop" x-ray laser that can be fired every three or four minutes. By using two pulses--one of about a nanosecond and another in the trillionth-of-a-second (picosecond) range--their laser uses far less energy and does not require the cooling-off period.
Scientists had theorized for years that an x-ray laser beam could be created using an extremely short, picosecond pulse, which would require less energy. But very short pulses overheated the glass amplifiers, destroying them. Laser chirped-pulse amplification, developed in the late 1980s, gets around that problem by expanding a very short pulse before it travels through the amplifiers and then compressing it to its original duration before the laser beam is focused on a target.1 If chirped-pulse amplification is combined with lower energies, the pulses do not overheat the glass amplifiers, so the system can be fired many times a day.
The development team for this new laser includes Jim Dunn, the experimentalist, and theoreticians Al Osterheld and Slava Shlyaptsev, a visiting scientist from Russia's Lebedev Institute. All are physicists in the Physics and Space Technology Directorate. Together, they have produced one of only a handful of tabletop x-ray lasers in the world
X-ray lasers produce "soft" x rays, which is to say their wavelengths are a bit longer than those used in medical x rays. Soft x rays cannot penetrate a piece of paper, but they are ideal for probing and imaging high-energy-density ionized gases, known as plasmas. X-ray lasers are an invaluable tool for studying the expansion of high-density plasmas, particularly laser-produced plasmas, making them useful for Livermore's fusion and physics programs. Basic research using x-ray lasers as a diagnostic tool can fine-tune the equations of state of a variety of materials, including those used in nuclear weapons and under investigation by the Stockpile Stewardship Program. These lasers also have applications for the materials science community, both inside and outside the Laboratory, by supplying detailed information about the atomic structure of new and existing materials.
Notes Osterheld, "Plasmas do not behave nicely. To verify the modeling codes for plasmas, we need lots of experiments." With an experiment every three or four minutes on the tabletop x-ray laser, large quantities of data can be produced quickly. The team's goal is to refine the process and reduce the size and cost of the equipment so that someday an x-ray laser might be a routine piece of equipment in plasma physics research laboratories.
Achieving a Stable Lasing Plasma
In x-ray lasers, a pulse of light strikes a target, stripping its atoms of electrons to form ions and pumping energy into the ions ("exciting" or "amplifying" them). As each excited ion decays from the higher energy state, it emits a photon. Many millions of these photons at the same wavelength, amplified in step, create the x-ray laser beam. The highly ionized material in which excitation occurs is a plasma (which should not be confused with the plasma that the x-ray laser beam is later used to probe).
X-ray lasers are specifically designed to produce a lasing plasma with as high a fraction of usable ions as possible to maximize the stability and hence the output energy of the laser. If the target is made of titanium, which has 22 electrons, the ionization process strips off 12 electrons, leaving 10, which makes the ions like a neon atom in electron configuration. Neonlike ions in a plasma are very stable, closed-shell ions. They maintain their stability even when faced with temporal, spatial, and other changes. Dunn, Osterheld, and Shlyaptsev have also studied palladium targets. When palladium atoms are stripped of 18 electrons, their ions become like a nickel atom, which is also closed-shell and stable.

A One-Two Punch
In Livermore's Nova laser, a high-energy, kilojoule pulse lasting a nanosecond or slightly less must accomplish three things: produce an initial line-focus plasma, ionize it, and excite the ions. Because the excitation, or heating, is happening relatively slowly compared to other plasma behavior, this process is called quasi-steady-state excitation.
The tabletop x-ray laser is configured differently from Nova It uses the compact multipulse terawatt (COMET) laser driver to produce two pulses. First, a low-energy, nanosecond pulse of only 5 joules strikes a polished palladium or titanium target to produce the plasma and ionize it. The pulse must accomplish less than the Nova pulse, so less energy is needed.
Then a 5-joule, picosecond pulse, created by chirped-pulse amplification, arrives at the target a split second later to excite the ions. Although the picosecond pulse uses 100 times less energy than a Nova pulse, its power is ten times higher because the pulse is one thousand times shorter. And its power density, which adds the length of the target to the power equation, is also very high.
The brief, picosecond, "transient" plasma excitation plays a major role in the laser's effectiveness. During the ionization process, the plasma expands rapidly. In the quasi-steady-state approach used with Nova, excitation occurs while the plasma is continuing to expand and be heated so that much of the deposited energy is lost from the lasing process. With the transient scheme, excitation happens so fast that more ions in the plasma can contribute to the lasing.
For plasma research purposes, the tabletop x-ray laser almost has it all--low energy requirements, high power, a repetition rate of a shot every four minutes, and a short wavelength. (Keep in mind that the shorter the wavelength of the laser, the more effectively it can penetrate high-density plasmas.)
Two Plasmas in One Chamber
To date, the Livermore team has studied neonlike titanium and nickel-like palladium transient schemes. It has produced the first transient-gain, nickel-like, x-ray lasing at 14.7 nanometers with a laser pump of less than 10 joules (Figure 3).2 The team is looking at various ways to maximize the laser's output, including using different target designs and delaying the arrival of the picosecond pulse to match the propagation of the x-ray laser in the gain region.
Within the next year, the team plans to have a second plasma in the target chamber. The first one will be for lasing, while the second will be studied and probed. The very-short-pulse x-ray laser probe will act as a strobe to "freeze" the action of the second plasma, resulting in clearer images of plasmas than any yet produced. And with an experiment every three or four minutes, there can be lots of excellent images.
--Katie Walter

By Ivan A. on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 05:38 pm:


Hot plasma, magnetic fields, and faculas.

JUPITER, Infrared, 11 mm

Surface Jupiter cloud temp -240F/-150C, but at surface 200F/100C ?


By Ivan A. on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 10:06 pm:

Earth's core runs ahead of crust

How can this be, by what possible mechanism?

The Axiomatic Equation says that when all radiant energy cancels on a point, it creates a "black hole" like gravitational point. In Earth's case, being a hot planet, this micro-black-hole would form in its center. Such a gravity hole there would induce spin, and with the mass of the planet around it spinning, one would expect the center to spin faster. If this article is correct, the diferrence is small, but it is there!

Incidentally, the micro black hole naturally generates a magnetic field, so the so called "dynamo effect" is unnecessary. The inner core's spin, at one revolution per 900 years vs. the outer core, seems hardly enough to generate a field anyway.

Also, per the thread above, there may need to be a net difference between the stars energy output received by the planet's orbit for spin to result. For example, Earth is hotter inside than the surrounding radiant energy flux in its orbit, so it spins; Venus may be more evenly balanced, so it has virtually no spin. This is just a speculation at this point, however, until we can relate spin to planet's interior versus exterior energy flux.


By Edward Chesky on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 10:20 pm:


Perhaps that would explain the model I have been using along with observations of stellar, geomagnetic and gravitational interaction to predict earthquakes. I suspected a linkage between the sun and earth with regards to eathquakes and was looking for the patern of interactions in the various data I was getting from the NASA satellight feeds and the USGS.

Food for thought

Ed Chesky

PS orbiting micro-black holes according to the latest theory can generate wormholes....:) perhaps we are closer than we think to taking a step into the universe

By Ivan A. on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 10:52 am:

Hi Ed, I found the article revealing, in that if planetary spin is left over momentum from primordial gases and dust condensed into planetary orbs, the spin should be consistent throughout the planet. I tried thinking of why the interior core could spin faster, but there are only two possibilities that come to mind: 1. the core is dense and heavier, so gravitational centripetal force is greater; 2. drag from the outside in, starting with atmospheric drag, slows the outer portion of the planet. The third possibility is the one I mentioned above, that Earth sports a mini-balck-hole, so the core portion spins faster, being closest to this strong gravity point. The first two don't make much sense, so the third is a a better possibility. Of course, we don't know this, since such a mini black hole is not part of current scientific thinking.

Worm holes may be a possibility too, and very exciting if they exist. Or else, they certain add flavor to sci-fi stories. Earthquakes, I am sure, are related to Earth's interior heat, molten magma convections, plate techtonics, and possibly magnetic shifts. All these factors are interrelatable to solar activity, and possibly to other cosmic forces as well, such as exploding bursts of gamma rays, even possibly 'gravity waves' though not yet detected. So at this point, all we could do is, as you had suggested, to look for patterns and see if various interactions have something that makes sense over time. I am sure we will find an early warning system for earthquakes, something we had so far overlooked, though we may not fully understand what specifically causes them to occur at that moment in time. It's worth the search, IMHO.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 09:19 am:


This is a followup to a post on the Bad Astronomy's "General Astronomy" forum, regarding Earth's core spins faster than surface discussion.


When I read the article, if the Earth's core is really spinning ahead of the planet, three possibilities came to mind as to why it is so:

1. the core is denser and heavier, so gravitational centripetal force is greater;
2. drag from the outside in, starting with atmospheric drag, slows the outer portion of the planet;
3. Earth's core sports a mini-micro-black-hole, so more gravity concentrated there, causing slightly accelerated spin.

The first two may be cause, but they are not strong arguments. The last may be possible, but outside current scientific knowledge.

If #3 is right, that Earth's core has a micro-black-hole at its center which generates a magnetic field for the planet (and is not due to so called dynamo effect), then periodic magnetic pole reversals make sense. This would be guided by convections of hot magma within the planet's interior, dependent upon the direction of the overall convections in the aggregate. This same process would be at work inside the Sun, so Sun's magnetic field reversals would work the same way, except being hotter and more dynamic, it would do so more frequently. This would likewise imply the Sun has a mini-black-hole at its core.

The reason for magnetic polar periodic reversals is due to the aggregate direction of the convecting flow in the interior. If you took a cross section of the Earth's, or Sun's, equator looking down from the pole, it would appear as if the convection currents are all aligned in the aggregate in one direction. This would be analogous to how liquids convect when at a boil, so individual cells of liquid convect, but in some aggregate overall direction. Let's say, seen as a cross section looking down from the pole, they're convecting clockwise. But over time these currents slowly migrate, in the aggregate, so that their direction shifts gradually. Now looking down from the poles, they would appear directionless. In fact, they would be convecting top over end, so only appear directionless from the poles. This would be the time the magnetic field would be at its ebb, at perhaps only 10 percent of its normal force. Then as this convection slowly migrates further, again looking down from the poles, the aggregate would appear to be convection counter-clockwise. In this case, the magnetic field would have reversed.

This effect, which happens about every 11 years in the Sun, and about every 10,000 years on Earth, is a natural phenomenon, yet not exactly chaotic, if the magnetic field is independent of the so called dynamo effect. Conversely, if it were the dynamo effect, then there should never be any change in the magnetic field's direction. So in this case, a micro-black-hole at the planet's, or star's, center makes more sense. It would also explain why these bodies spin continuously, and also why the Sun's equator spins faster than it higher latitudes.

The question that follows naturally is: by what process do these aggregate convections change direction? Does the whole body act in some sort of "capacitor" effect, so when the charge builds up too much in one direction, it gradually shifts it back? Unknowns for now...

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 01:48 pm:

Plate Tectonic Convections are why continents drift, moutains form, and earthquakes happen. But this same mechanims may also account for direction of mantle convections flows inside the Earth's molten interior. It is the directional flow, which may rotate over time, that may be resonponsible for direction of magnetic field over time, including drifting of the magnetic poles. The same may be happening on the Sun, though accelerated, and very likely on all the hot planets, which may explain why some of them have such strange magnetic field configurations. However, at the bottom core of this idea is some innate cause for the body's magnetism, what becomes modified into the overall magnetic field, and to that cause I would introduce the idea of a micro-black-hole in each body's center. Why there? Because that is where all the ambient radiant hot energy of the planet or star converges, which cause electromagnetic wave cancelation. Per the Axiomatic Equation, that convergent self cancelation releases a gravity hole, which itself is naturally magnetic.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 11:32 am:


I've been thinking about motion, why momentum of motion keeps a body at constant velocity until encountering force; or why things continue to spin in the same way. I wrote elsewhere that motion in any direction is a kind of 'infalling' gravitationally to that direction, but it never really made much sense other than a brain twitch. It could be that motion is a gravitational phenomenon in ways we had not modeled before, since gravity had remained completely a mystery to physics (Einstein's GR gives it a mathematical formalism, but not cause). Same as in the attempts to model planetary spin within their G regions and energy received from the Sun, per all the above posts, there seems to be some interior energy heat relationship of the planet to its G domain at its distance from the star. But other than some nice coincidental patterns of spin resulting from this, it remains inconclusive. Yet, if there is a pattern, then there may be a model. And it is this pattern that is intriguing enough to want to see if motion and spin may not be also related to gravity. The gravity we are considering here is the zero-point type, so it is something that is endemic to the body in motion, same as it is endemic for each atom of that body. These are merely conceptual modeling considerations, with no math involved, but can there be some relationship between how zero-point gravity works and motion or spin?

We know per Einstein's Equivalence Principle, and his famous elevator-thought-experiment, that gravity and accelerated motion are connected directly. But without having to resort to complex frame relativity, is this motion perhaps not more easily explained in some other way? If the Axiomatic Equation is right, then the remainder force of gravity for each atom is a function of the electromagnetic energy received within the domain of where this atoms resides. This means the total gravity force on a point, where it has a value of g = 1, which is the Strong Force between protons and neutrons, or the maximum force to which gravity can go, is the starting point. Where all ambient energy is canceled, such as in a galactic black hole, then this force is maximum. Inside the atom, per this hypothesis, devoid of any external radiant energy, the atom's center would likewise have this g = 1. Per this reasoning, Newton's G at this maximum point is G = c (m^3 kg^-1 s^-2), as derived elsewhere, which is why no light can escape the black hole, since gravity cancels it there. However, in our region of space at 1 AU from the Sun, this is not the case, so the Sun's radiant energy very much modifies this zero-point maximum gravity; so all that remains is a very weak gravitational force, such as measured on Earth as Newton's G, though it had also been shown to be a variable proportional for the other planets, inversely proportional to the energy received by them. Likewise, in the overall galaxy, the maximum gravity of the black hole is modified by all the ambient energy of the surrounding billions of stars, so that the actual gravity of the galactic mass exists at a lower G than G = c. But this idea does not address motion, or spin, so it needs to be taken further, if any model is to result.

Spin seems to come with gravity, at its zero-point, so the galaxy spins, planets spin in some modified version of their heat to gravity relationship, as shown above, and one may suspect atoms spin too. Our current understanding of the atom, quarks aside, is purely electromagnetic in nature. Electrons 'spin' around the atom's nucleus, or exists in 'shells' there, but it still does not explain macro-body-spin since no direct relationship had been found. In effect, electron spin does not translate into body spin. However, this may not be in itself the reason why mass spins, and other factors need to be considered. On the other hand, we understand the positive negative forces of the proton to electron relationships quite well, and it may be that this is just how it works. However, we do not understand magnetism well enough to know why same poles repel while opposites attract, for example, nor do we think of the proton mass, which is a positive, as a gravitational zero-point effect, same as we do not think of the electron as its gravitational negative zero-point effect. We simply have no model to understand it this way, so our physics is oriented almost entirely towards the radiant energy spectrum, possibly at the expense of leaving out the gravity energy spectrum. So for us gravity is merely a 'universal constant' which we used to compute astronomical relationships and left it at that, with all our efforts going into the electromagnetic energy areas: E = mc^2. But are we missing something here, because we had so focussed on radiant energy that we forgot to address gravitic energy? I think it is here that we can perhaps unlock the secrets of how gravity within the atom, or its remainder weak version experienced here, is related to both its inertial mass, per Einstein's Equivalence, as well as related to its motion and spin.

Motion may be nothing more than a natural bias of inertial mass towards the direction it takes. The mental image I see is the atom having a kind of gravitic 'hole' in the direction of motion. What this appears to be, in my mind's eye, is that where the atom's maximum nucleus gravity resulting from the ambient electron captured by it, all that remains from this gravity-electromagnetic interaction is a rather weak gravity-cum-inertial mass value. So if this inertial mass is moved, accelerated, the gravity surrounding this atom is altered in the direction of the motion. What this might mean, in effect, is that a kind of gravity-hole results in the atom, so that its motion determines where this hole is located; it is located on the side of the direction of motion. Taken in terms of how the Axiomatic Equation shows ambient canceled light energy on a point, it should mean that this directional bias of the atom is where this total cancellation is disturbed, in the direction of the motion, so that once we accelerate that balance between electromagnetic energy and gravity is not longer in place. What happens now, in a kind of gravity 'hole' in the direction of the motion, is that inertial mass is now biased in that direction, which we also know as momentum: p = mv. It is quite interesting to see it this way, since now motion, especially accelerating motion, can have an 'equivalence' to its gravity relationship: for the very weak gravity experienced here, it is relatively easy to initiate motion by kinetically 'pushing' on mass, while in deep space where G is orders of magnitude above ours, it would be easier to initiate motion gravitically than kinetically. So motion may be a very important consideration, once we are outside our weak gravity field, in terms of the inner dynamics of how an atom is constructed, and in terms of how inertial mass converts to accelerated motion. But this is where our thinking on motion must evolve above Newton's first and second laws, and penetrate into the interior of the atom to understand why such motion exists.

Let us see if there is room to improve on our understanding of this. For example, imagine the galaxy being out of balance, where a large chunk off stars had been extinguished from a portion of it, where it is now dark and leaving the galaxy of billions of stars lopsided. What would happen? Would the galaxy not be drawn into the darkened portion, given that the G there is suddenly much greater than for the radiant portion of it? And if this did happen, then would not the galaxy en masse move in that direction? This is the mental image I have of a 'hole' in the atom, where in the direction of motion, a 'darkening' of radiant energy results within the electron shell there, and thus the inertial mass of the atom is 'drawn' gravitationally in that direction. I am painting this image purely for conceptual purposes, but it might be that, though we never noticed such 'darkening' in direction of motion, this is what happens when matter accelerates. The gravitational 'hole' in direction of motion may involve the ambient electron energy, which we know is related to photon energy per Quantum Electrodynamics, as being altered into a lower state of electromagnetic energy, but counter balanced by a greater gravitic energy, so the mass of the atom is drawn in that direction, and we get motion. That this motion, sans any other accelerative force, remains constant means, therefore, that this condition of the electron shell remains constant, just as the inertial mass in motion remains constant per its momentum. So it would seem, by this model, that what happens inside the atom in its balance between gravitic and electromagnetic energy, may be what determines its motion, and the direction of this motion is a result of the imbalance within its electron shell. Though we had never measured any such imbalance, perhaps because we never looked for it, it does result in a rather interesting model of inertial mass in motion. Per Equivalence, this motion is directly proportional to the remainder gravity in the G domain where this mass exists, so that it should find acceleration be a function of the G-inertial-mass of that region. This means, in effect, that in very great regions of G the resulting accelerative motion, if driven by the atom's imbalanced electron shell, should be immense. Likewise, in our very low G region on Earth, such accelerative motion would be relatively slow, yet doable. And if this were to be so, then we can stimulate motion entirely from within how the balance the gravitic and electromagnetic energies within the atom.

Think of molecular vibrational motion as a perpetual exchange between molecules of this imbalanced energy described. As one molecule 'collide' with another, it transfers some of this biased energy, which in turn collides again with another, until all such collisions are effectively canceled. Thus, no motion results. But if these micro collisions were to be biased in some way, in one direction over that of another, then would not motion result? This is how I can see the idea of motion as modeled by the gravity hole concept within the atom, that motion is a bias of molecular activity, and the resulting motion is that activity being biased in some direction. But how could this be achieved, since we had never seen any such 'darkening' of the electron shell in the direction of acceleration? If this acceleration is a natural gravitic effect, and since we are totally clueless about the atom's internal gravitic dynamics, then we had never cause to suspect such a phenomenon, other than give it an inertial or momentum definition. Should we not look for it, in our Quantum studies of the atom? Newton gave us that rather early on, but we had not improved on it very much, other than Einstein's Equivalence Principle. I suggest that we can improve on it, if the above described model is true. But finding ways to alter the ambient energy within the electron shell of the atom is a whole new world we had not yet entered. Yet, if we succeed, we might be able to recreated motion in the same way the universe creates motion, through gravitational imbalance within the atom. But this is all I 'see' for now in my mind's eye, so leave it off here for future consideration. Of course, all this is contingent upon G not being a universal constant, but a variable instead, as per the Axiomatic. If gravity is a variable force, then biased molecular action is doable, and that could take us to where we had never been before, both in physics as well as in space, with new gravitic engines that can accelerate continuously at velocities now unimagined.

(to be continued...)


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 04:52 pm:

INFALLING, continued:

Could light traveling through space be a kind of 'infalling'? If gravity is extent throughout the universe, meaning that (misnomer) space is pure gravity, modified into very weak gravity in the vicinity of stars (such as measured on Earth), but is very great in intergalactic space, then light photons released from any light source continues 'infalling' linearly into that gravitational hole extent throughout space. What makes it more interesting is that this gravitational 'infalling', which is linear and continuous, would be true regardless of what reference frame from which it is observed, and measured. This means that even if traveling, hypothetically, at light speed, the observer's gravitational space is always treated as 'rest' frame; thus from that observational platform, the light is still 'infalling' in a linear and continuous manner, measured always as v = c in space. No matter how fast we travel, light will continue to behave in the same manner for us, because regardless of our relative velocity, our observational frame is always (within gravitational space) at 'rest'. Just a brain twitch, but something worth thinking of. Could this perpetual 'rest frame' gravity then be the fabled 'ether' we had long searched for? If so, it is then the medium through which light photons travel.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 03:56 pm:

INFALLING - LIGHT, continued:

On the invariant velocity of light, in his The Meaning of Relativity, Einstein said:

"In the general theory of relativity also the velocity of light is everywhere the same, relatively to a local inertial system. This velocity is our natural measure of time."

What Einstein failed to mention, however, in any of his works is that the frequency of this light is not everywhere the same. We know that a reference frame coming towards the observer will blue-shift, while receding will red-shift; we also know that not all frequencies of light are the same per the photoelectric effect, where it is not the same light used to measure a rod of length in different reference frames. So, in fact, "the velocity of light is everywhere the same" is not to say we are measuring the same light.

Light may be seen as infalling towards gravity points in space at same velocity, but its electromagnetic frequency is constantly shifting, depending upon what mass it encounters, which may "bend" it, or depending upon the velocity from which it is being observed. Gravitationally, this same light is also shown to red-shift traveling through a gravitational field, so that light's "infalling" is affected by any ambient gravitational field exhibited by mass in its path. This does not negate light at constant velocity, but it does skew what this light actually is, which means it is not "everywhere the same".

In D. M. Snyder's paper
A Connection Between Gravitation and Electromagnetism, there is a good description of General Relativity and light, Einstein wrote:
"The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of coordinates, that is, are covariant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally covariant)."

Does this mean "all systems" are "everywhere the same"? But if light is gravitationally red-shifted, and it is not the same light, then are "substitutions" valid? Possibly not "covariant", in the sense that red-blue-shifted light remains unchanged, or invariant... (to be continued)...

Ivan A. on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 06:15 pm:

MOMENTUM - INFALLING of light (continued):

E = pc is one of the tenets of light's ability to behave 'as if' it has mass.

Of course it is puzzling that photons of light, which have no intrinsic mass m, can at their velocity c result in momentum p. Yet, it does not seem so strange given the idea of 'infalling', where the photons are drawn into the gravitational 'wells' of space, which are continuous, indivisible, and isotropic. The follow through idea then becomes that, given this constant 'infalling', the interaction between each gravitational 'point' in space and the electromagnetic photon is itself cause for momentum. This means, if it were so, that it is the 'interaction' of light to gravity that is 'momentum'.

If so, is there still a need for General Relativity, where the components of Special Relativity are disassembled into local and invariant space, only to be reconstructed into the universal spacetime format? The result becomes the distortion of spacetime to cause gravity. But this may not be needed, if light performs in space already as if it were 'infalling' into gravity, because every point is space is that gravitational point. This of course is then modified by the presence of mass. But what is mass? If light is what infalls into space gravitational points, and then (for reasons not here discussed) this electromagnetic wave becomes a standing wave reverberating on that point within its electron shell, then the mass itself is no more than that same light on a point. This is the p = mc function times c, so it becomes pc = mc^2 = E. That is our mass, and it comes from the momentum of light 'infalling' into an infinity of points in space. Lucky that this happens in a linear fashion, and at a constant velocity, so it becomes something we can work with!

So then what is mass? Here it gets interesting: Mass is both a form of energy, what light is trapped within the atom, as energy-mass, and also the gravitational remainder, what leaks out of the atom as gravity, its gravitational-mass. It is the prior that is mass defined by E = mc2, but it is the latter that is defined by the Equivalence Principle! Mass comes in two flavors, both energy and gravity. The universe is all gravity, all of space is defined as gravity-mass at any point in infinity, but the gravitational remainder of an atom is its gravitational mass. So take the atom as two phases, both of light energy and gravitational 'energy' and together they form the unity of one atom. But this atom is then manifest as mass in both its components, so that if the energy-mass is less than one, the gravitational mass remains, and we experience gravity. The less light energy, the greater the gravitational force exhibited. Conversely, the greater the light energy, the lower the mass exhibited. What the Equivalence Principle captures is only the gravitational remainder portion, but it does not address the energy portion; that is left to Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2, where m is an energy function. To break them out, as done in the Axiomatic Equation, is to change the format, where m = (1-g), so that the 'unity' of an idealized mass (where there is no gravitational remainder) is modified by its gravitational remainder (1-g), which then times c^2 becomes the form used to convert this g into Newton's G: G^2 = gc^2pi^2. And there is the connection between the Quantum energy of light and its (opposing) gravitational remainder. Either one is 'mass', though they are different from each other.

If the universe has a means of 'communicating' within itself instantaneously, as any relationship within the universe is known to the rest of it, ad infinitum, then the light velocity limit of c is merely a function of how we may observe this communications. It means we are not privy to it, since we do not (as yet) have the means to see interrelationships within the universe instantaneously. So we are left with Relativity as an 'observational' technique; but the universe can dispense with that limitation, if its forces are known instantly. One possible suspect in this is gravity, where it may be in fact, as a potential, instantaneous throughout infinity. What happens gravitationally here, at any one point in time, is 'known' infinitely throughout the universe, instantaneously. And if so, then both Special Relativity, and General, are unnecessary, from the universe's point of view. If we are to know the real physics of the universe, we need to emulate this same instantaneous interrelationship of space in time, and that we as yet cannot do.

Back to momentum: Momentum is the gravitational component of light traveling through space, so that as each point of space gravity is encountered, it responds to the passing light as if it were to hold it back. Of course, it does not hold it back, so light travels as if it has no mass; but that 'holding back' is what gives the photon its mass. In effect, if this 'mass' did not exist as momentum, light speed would be infinite, just like gravity. Of course, it is not. Hence, p = mc, and E = pc, which is in fact: E = mc^2.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 06:19 pm:

PS: Is it any wonder, given the above, that a Unifed Theory has not emerged? Now, it can be, if mass is split into two parts.


Add a Message

This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Post as "Anonymous"