E = 9E+16 J, Atomic Mass paper

Humancafe's Bulletin Boards: The New PeoplesBook FORUMS: E = 9E+16 J, Atomic Mass paper
Ivan A. on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 09:56 pm:


By Ivan D. Alexander
Costa Mesa, CA USA

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

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

Introduction: It had always been assumed that gravity is a universal constant, with which using Kepler's Law and Newton?s orbital equation we were able to calculate distant orbital mass for planets and other cosmic bodies. Because these calculations yielded usable trajectories in space, there was no reason to doubt this universality until the Pioneers 10 and 11 traveling in opposite directions beyond the Kuiper Belt encountered a consistent acceleration towards the Sun, at the computed rate of ~8E-8 cm.s^-2, which remains unexplained to known physics [1]. Neither Newtonian gravity nor Modern Physics as postulated by Einstein's General Relativity, both based on assumed universal constant G=~6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2, can accommodate this acceleration anomaly for our distant space crafts, so other systemic causes were examined, as per Scheffer [4], to no verifiable satisfaction. Gravity remains an anomaly to our understanding, though we had been able to use its assumed constant successfully for the inner planets. It was at about Saturn, at 9.5 AU, that this anomaly became pronounced enough to become measurable, though we had not been looking for it. In fact, it should have become obvious by Jupiter, at 5.2 AU (adjusted for solar wind pressure), as will be seen below. The fact that this acceleration anomaly had remained constant right out to the Kuiper Belt, at beyond 50 AU, points to the need for a deeper understanding of what gravity is. Based on this observation, there is reason to believe that it may not be a universal constant, but interactive with the solar energy output of our local star, in a predictable way. There are now proposals to study this phenomenon directly, such as proposed by the European Space Agency [2] and by the proposed study by the LANL/JPL team, S.G. Turychev, J.D. Anderson and M.M. Nieto [3]. This may be achieved by finding the inertial mass equivalence to the gravity G at any given AU distance, per the 'principle of equivalence' hypothesis, as studied by Haisch-Rueda et al [5] [6]. The concept of a non-universal Newton's G was proposed by both MOND [7] as well as by the late Toivo Jaakkola [8], so this is not a totally new idea. To date, no solution has shown itself to satisfy a relativistic approach to gravity to explain this anomaly. It is here proposed a methodology for understanding this problem using a modified version of the E = hc/ l(proton mass) = (1)c^2 equation, where mass is redefined. The computed values from this modified DeBroglie-Einstein equation yields a significant result for the Pioneers Anomaly observed, where G is shown to not be a universal constant.

1.0 : How the Axiomatic Equation was derived:

1.1: Hypothesis for a new definition of Mass: Conceptually any value of one can be derived from an integer multiplied by its inverse, from zero to infinity, where the product is always = 1. This principle can be applied to mass as having a value that is the product of Energy and its inverse 1/c^2, to equal one. In our region of space, this will always work out to be E =~ 9E+16 Joules, or 90 petajoules, when m = 1. Because we measure gravitational mass on Earth in kilograms, this m = 1 kg is assumed. But it need not be limited to Earth's gravity, if gravity is not a universal constant, since this value of m = 1 kg may be different elsewhere. By this above reasoning, mass is retained as m = 1, but the kilograms is held aside for now and (m) will be treated as kg/kg instead, so that the value of one, as a product of inverse numbers, is preserved.
This means that when there is a total interaction between E and 1/c^2, mass as m =1 is assured. But if this interaction is less perfect, meaning the numerator E is less than the denominator 1/c^2, mass becomes less than one. The evident assumption that follows is that if mass is less than exactly one, there is a remainder that must be accounted for. Given the Planck quantum equation E = hc/ l(proton m), we can see immediately that for E = 90 petajoules, given h = 6.626E-34 m^2 kg s^-1, c = 3E+8 m s^-1, and l = 1.322E-15 m, the resulting proton mass = 1.67E-27 kg [9], which thus matches Einstein's E = mc^2. However, now if the real mass is less than one, to satisfy DeBroglie's equation, leaving all things equal, we must find another value on the right side to satisfy the equation. One way to do this is to say that mass, always equal to one, is modified by a gravitic value related to the left side, its proton mass, to account for a real value less than one. This can be met with subtracting from m = 1 a proton-to-proton gravitational constant value, let's call it 'g', which on Earth is computed as g = 5.9E-39, dimensionless. The resulting value for mass becomes m = (1-g) approximately, as will be explained. Though this value is so small as to appear negligible, it will be shown to be very important when values for E are calculated for different planetary orbital Energies.

1.2 : Calculating Mass as a function of Energy: Thus far, what results from the above is an equation that looks like this:

E = hc/ l(proton m) = ~(m)c^2 = ~(1-g)c^2

This is only an approximation, as will be shown later, but it serves to illustrate a principle. It also illustrates that (1-g)c^2 is a value of Energy that must translate into:

(1-g)c^2 = c^2 - gc^2, whereby E' = E - gc^2, where E' is a true Energy value, and E is the inverse of 1/c^2. This ideal inverse relationship can only exist in its pure form if there is no gravity, otherwise, E' must be less than E, per this equation, which means E is an ideal number and mathematically correct, though E' represents a real value.

If m =1, which means g becomes zero, it drops out, then the equation no longer works, except as a pure expression of E = mc^2. But no matter how small the g value, as long as g holds above zero, this equation may be usable as an expression of the interaction of Energy and its inverse, with a g remainder. The result is that E' is slightly less than E, of necessity, and that this Energy E' is the value sought after to calculate the proton gravitational constant g. Once found, then it can be converted into Newton's G, as will be shown. For now, the operable equation is an approximation for E':

E' = hc/ lproton m) = ~(1-g)c^2, where g is the proton gravitational constant, as it is subtracted from a mathematical ideal m = 1.

This leaves us with two mathematical ideals: E/c^2 = m, and m = 1, which may not represent what happens in the real world. If we take one hydrogen atom as m = < 1, what we have is a proton nucleus surrounded by electron energy shell. This total atom is a unity of one minus its gravitational constant, as measured here on Earth, per this equation, which is less than the mathematical ideal, but closer to what is observed. Proton mass is a gravity effect, where on the left side the quantum E = hf is an energy effect. On the right, we have an ideal mass unit minus its gravitational coupling constant, times energy c^2, which should result in the Energy that defines E = hf. Thus, greater or lesser values for Energy E' will result in lesser or greater values for proton mass on the left, since they are inversely proportional, while at the same time on the right we should get the same proportional values for g. What we had hitherto assumed to be ideally equal,
E = hf = mc^2, is in fact not, since there is a small remainder force of g to be accounted for. Though extremely small, this g is a sought after value, because it will enable us to calculate the like Newton's G value from it.

1.3 : Computing Newton's G 'constant' from the Proton gravitational coupling 'constant': Multiplying out the above equation, we can see that mass is defined as (1-g) times the energy value of c^2, so that of necessity the proton gravitational constant, as a function of energy, becomes gc^2. However, this will be found as incomplete without pi^2. So the gravitational function G should now become:

f(G)m = gc^2 (m) pi^2, to yield an approximation of G = 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, which is:

f(G)m = (5.9E-39)(9E+16 m^2 s^-2) (pi)^2, which equals = 53.1E-23 (9.87) = 52.41E-22, in taking the square root is: function of G = ~7.239E-11 , which is in SI Base:

G^2 (1) = g (1) m^2 s^-2 pi^2, where kg/kg is implied for m =1, and g is expressed in "Volts meters squared/second", viz. W/A m^2/s, where for A = Nm^-1,
then (m^2 kg s^-3) (m^2 s^1)/ (m kg s^-2) (m^-1) = m^3 m kg/kg s^-2, making:

V*m^2/s =V^2= (m^4 s^-2)(kg/kg) and therefore:

G^2 = [(m^4 s^-2)(kg/kg)(m^2 s^-2) pi^2],

(SI base units for f(g) may also be (kg s^-1), still unresolved)**

so taking the square root:

G = (52.41E-22 m^6 s^-4 kg/kg)^1/2 = ~7.239 E - 11 m^3 kg/kg s^-2 (which is ~0.57E-11 more than Newton's G = ~6.67E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2), as only an approximation of Earth's G.

Although this is only an approximation of Earth's G, and g estimated in SI units of Volts remains unresolved, it is a workable equation for converting proton gravitational constant into Newton's G, with a relatively close result. Though it is not exact, there may be other reasons why Earth's gravity is slightly less. Earth may generate its own energy, which may effect planetary spin or interior heat, and its magnetic field, though for now these will not be pursued. There may also exist a relationship between Earth's energy received from the Sun and its total orbital Energy, modified by its internally generated energy, but not covered here.

1.4 : Comments on the preceding development: At this stage, the equations are still disconnected from their applications, which will follow, where the Newton's G 'constant' will be shown to grow linearly from the Sun at a constant rate of delta G = 7.239E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2/AU. The purpose of the development thus far is to show how the DeBroglie-Einstein equation can be modified to accommodate a gravitational value g, which can convert into Newton's G, and prove a useful variable. The goal will be ultimately to show how this new value of G applies to the Pioneers Anomaly. For now, we still need to finalize the above listed equations into what will be a workable model. Why was this not addressed a hundred years earlier by physics in Einstein's famous E = mc^2? My guess is that the value difference between ideal mass and real mass was so small, viz. 10x^-39, that it seemed irrelevant, so was basically ignored, or perhaps simply not yet understood.

1.5 : Writing the Axiomatic Equation: If we postulate that solar Energy may be different for planetary orbits, we must accommodate this with the two values of Energy, as E' computed for the planets, and E for Earth, (where here E equals 90 petajoule), we need a qualifier function of f(E'/E) to satisfy the computed values of E'. It is obvious that for Earth, where E' = E, this additional function f(E'/E) is irrelevant, since it equals one, but for other planets this will become instrumental in computing their relative proton mass and gravitational constants.

So the equation, factoring in this postulate, should be:

E' = hc/ l(proton m) = f(E'/E)~(1-g)c^2 = planetary total orbital Energy

An additional qualifier, to make g exact , which will become more meaningful later is a function:

Proton gravitational constant f(g' ) = (proton m)' * g / (proton m), where

(proton m)' = proton mass for E', and (proton m) = proton mass for E.

So the full Axiomatic Equation, factoring in pi in conversion to G, should read as:

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

Where f(E'/E) [1 - f(g' )pi^2] is the modified version of Mass on the right side of the DeBroglie-Einstein equation, for m = 1, as a postulated Axiom [10].

(Please note the function f(g?) will not balance on the right side in Earth based units of the proton gravitational constant without an adjustment per (g/g?) coefficient.)

2.0 : Planetary Total Orbital Energy E' and the resulting g' :

2.1 : A Variant of Kepler's Law for the Planets: Energy is energy, so whether it is found as electromagnetic irradiance, or heat in Kelvin, or as accelerating orbital motion, it is still Energy, which can all be expressed in Joules, or Joules per second as Watts.
One possible approach is to measure the total orbital Energy E' for the planets in our solar system, and then compare these Energy levels with the DeBroglie-Einstein equation to calculate a proton-mass equivalent for each planet. This calculation may be accomplished by multiplying the solar irradiance in Watts (per meter squared) by the distance from the Sun, and then multiplying the result by the planet's orbital kinetic energy, where KE = 1/2 mv^2, and m = 1 (kg/kg). Note this is a combined function of solar electromagnetic radiant energy and, as expressed by orbital KE, gravitic energy.

When calculated for Earth's orbital Energy, taking data from "Nasa Planetary Fact Sheet" [11] per equation:

E' = solar irradiance x 1/2 Rv^2

Solar irradiance: 1367.6 W/m^2
Mean distance from Sun: 149.6E+9 meters
Mean orbital velocity: v = 29.78 km/s

(1367.6) (149.6E+9) = 204592.96E+9 = 2.046E+14 W/m = solar radiance energy

KE = (1/2) (1) (29.78)^2 = (1/2)(1)(886.85) = 443.4 m^2.kg.s^-2 (Joules) = gravitic energy

KE * W/m = ( 443.4 J) (2.046E+14 W/m) = 9.07e16 Joules (times Newton force N) # = Earth's total orbital Energy. (Please note m = 1 is a net function of planet mass already in orbital motion, and the planet KE is ?template? function only.)

Earth's E = ~9.07E+16 J, which is close to E = mc^2 = 90 petajoules. This Energy level (for Earth) then sets the basic template for like Energy E' levels for the other planets, using the same methodology:

MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J
VENUS: 17.33E+16 J
EARTH: 9.0E+16 J
MARS: 3.66E+16 J
JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J
SATURN: 0.1004E+16J
URANUS: 0.0247E+16J
NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J
PLUTO: 0.006E+16 J

The resulting Energy E' values if plotted on a chart show a parabolic upward steeply curved for the inner planets. and progressively lower and flatter for the outer planets, with an elbow for this curve about the level of Mars and the asteroid belt. It is immediately obvious that the inner planets receive a much greater level of solar irradiance than the distant planets, and that this total power-energy in Joules/second for each orbital has a parabolic relationship, where the energy levels for the outer planets declines on a curve[12].

2.2 Solving for a variable Proton Mass: How does this apply to Newton's G constant? We can calculate an intermediary function resulting from this Energy variance through the DeBroglie-Planck-Einstein equation: E = hc/ l(proton mass) = 90 petajoules. In computing the proton mass for each Energy level, we get a variable that can be used to estimate Newton's G at each Energy E'. Assuming that Planck's constant h = 6.626E-34 m^2.kg.s^-2, and electromagnetic energy lambda, 1.322E-15 m (assumes no redshift within our solar system), with light constant c, 3E+8 m/s, we get:

E = hc/ l(proton mass)
E = 9.0E+16 J = (19.878E-26) / (1.322E-15)(proton mass), so that proton mass is:

Proton m = 1.67E-27 kg

Using the same methodology, we can compute proton mass equivalents for each of the planets Energy levels, where E' is on the left, and equivalent proton mass is on right:

MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg

VENUS: 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg

EARTH: 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg

MARS: 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg

JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg

SATURN: 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25kg

URANUS: 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg

NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg

PLUTO: 0.006eE+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg

From this above, we can immediately see that proton mass varies inversely to Energy, so that the equivalent proton mass on Mercury is lower than Earth's, while on Saturn it is greater. In using our above Axiomatic Equation: E' = hc/ l(proton m) = f(E'/E) [1 - f(g')pi^2] c^2 , we can see the f(E'/E) relationship for Earth is =1, while for Mercury it is =6.728, and for Saturn it is =0.011. Please note, it should be understood here that these values for planetary Energy are as measured in Earth's values, and that if measured in terms of their respective planetary Energy levels, of necessity, this ratio is always one. The reason this function is a variable is that E is an Earth value, our basis, while each planet exists within its own orbital Energy E' as calculated in terms of Earth's Energy, so a numerical f(E'/E) ratio results.

2.3 : Calculating for the Proton Gravitational Variable g': The above values for proton mass will now lend themselves to finding the proton gravitational constants equivalents:

Again, taking our Axiomatic Equation:

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

We can now compute the f(g') proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant for each E' of the planets. Using Earth's g = 5.9E-39 as a basis, we can find f(g'} by applying
f(g' ) = (proton m)' * g / (proton m), as per above. Using this equation as a direct proportional value for g relative to proton mass, the ratio of the planet's proton mass (proton m)' = g' to Earth's (proton m) = 5.9E-39, we get =f(g').
For example: Mars proton mass = 3.86E-27 kg, which times Earth's g = 5.9E-39 equals 22.78E-66, divided by Earth's proton mass =1.67E-27 equals f(g')= 1.36E-38 (greater than Earth's g). This methodology yields the following proton gravity g' constants:

PLANET: total orbital Energy, Proton mass, Proton gravity constant:

MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg, 8.76E-40

VENUS: 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg, 3.06E-39

EARTH: 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg, 5.9E-39

MARS: 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg, 1.36E-38

JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg, 1.586E-37

SATURN: 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25 kg, 5.29E-37

URANUS: 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg, 2.153E-36

NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg, 5.3E-36

PLUTO: 0.006E+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg, 9.11E-36

As can be seen from the above, the proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant g' increases with distance from the Sun, and decrease towards the Sun, so the inverse relationship of Energy to proton gravitational constant is preserved. This can be further converted into Newton's G values via an equation, as per the conversion equation mentioned above:

G^2 * m = g c^2 pi^2, where g is the proton gravitational constant, and m =1,
G^2 * 1 = (5.9E-39)(9E+16)(9.87) = 524.1E-23 = 52.41E-22, of which square root is:

G = ~7.239E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 for Earth.
(Note this is 0.57E-11 more than Newton's G = 6.67E-11 N.)

2.4 : Converting Proton Gravitational g' into Newton's G' constant :
Using this same methodology, we can now calculate the variable local Newton's G "constant" for each of the Energy levels for the planets, preserving the 10x^-11 relationship constant for plotting ease, we get for E' the value of Newton's G' :

PLANET: total orbital Energy, Proton mass, Proton gravity g', local Newton's G':

MERCURY (0.39 AU): 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg, 8.76E-40, ~02.79E-11 N

VENUS (0.72 AU): 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg, 3.06E-39, ~ 5.20E-11 N

EARTH (1 AU): 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg, 5.9E-39, ~7.24E-11 N (vs. 6.67E-11 N)

MARS (1.52 AU): 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg, 1.36E-38, ~10.96E-11 N

JUPITER (5.2 AU): 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg, 1.586E-37, ~ 38.6E-11 N

SATURN (9.5 AU): 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25 kg, 5.29E-37, ~68.5E-11 N

URANUS (19.2 AU): 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg, 2.153E-36, ~138E-11 N

NEPTUNE (30 AU): 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg, 5.3E-36, ~217E-11 N

PLUTO (39.5 AU): 0.006E+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg, 9.11E-36, ~284E-11 N

When these Newton's G values are plotted on a chart on the X axis, with planetary distance from the Sun in AUs on the Y axis, it shows a linear growth at the rate of approximately: delta G = ~7.24E-11 per AU.

Such a hypothetical G variable is not beyond the scope of possibility, as mentioned above, i.e., MOND[7] and Toivo Jaakkola[8], and perhaps theorized in the Machian principle [13], though no conclusive theory of variable G has yet emerged. In the above, given the parabolic nature of the Energy curve, which was not expected to yield a linear Newton's delta G, offers an algorithmic solution to a variable G', as per the Axiomatic Equation. Consequently, what is sought from these calculations is the hypothetical rate of acceleration towards the Sun by the Pioneer distant probes.

3.0 : A Variable Newton's G 'constant' affecting Pioneers 10 and 11 Acceleration:

3.1 Calculating the Pioneers 10 and 11 anomalous acceleration:
Given that the above calculations yield a linear growth of Newton's G by the rate of 7.239E-11 per AU, the resulting plotted line points inwards towards the Sun towards a hypothetical 'zero' value on the Sun's hottest surface corona region (where G' = ~4E-15 N per above equation), and outwards towards the gas giants, so that by Saturn the G variable is approximately 68.5E-11 Nm^kg^-2 which at 9.5 AUs from the Sun is about ten times Earth's G equivalent. Taking it beyond the solar system out to the Oort Cloud, for example, at about 50,000 AU, yields a G value of about 3.5E-6 Nm^2kg^-2, though this value may flatten with extreme distance, and reverse as we approach another hot star's Energy. (Though beyond the scope of this paper, there may be a possibility that this linear growth for G may plateau at some 'cut-off frequency' when stellar-galactic Energy is lower than the photo-electric effect's 700 nm lambda, at which point gravity reverts to some very high constant value in the deep of intergalactic space; per the Axiomatic Equation, this level, viz. G" =~1.6E+4 N, is reached where E = c. Implied in this is that a total absence of Energy, which does not happen naturally due to MWB, maximum G would be absolute, where G'" = c, though this may only happen in a galactic black-hole.)

We had really no reason to consider a variable Newton's G before because our local trajectoral needs were satisfactorily met using a constant G and its resulting estimated mass for distant bodies. The obvious implication here is that our mass estimates may have been wrong, at least in terms of local G, but that we still managed to reach our trajectoral objectives with a universal Newton's G and in-flight adjustments. Given we computed local mass from this universal G, we got workable results. The fact that the Pioneers are now about 250,000 plus miles closer to the Sun than they should be raised a valid question on the resulting trajectory. Given a constant momentum, a greater inertial mass affects its deceleration, and thus its resulting velocity. (Please note: The probes's spin factors may also be affected, where given a greater inertial-G-mass, spin should accelerate; however, depending upon right-hand or left-hand spin, it could either accelerate faster or accelerate towards a reverse.)

3.2 : Acceleration of the Pioneers towards the Sun:
The acceleration towards the Sun may therefore be calculated from the G variable, using the methodology described above. Taking the delta G divided by Earth's known G, and then divided by one AU in meters yields the expected acceleration pointed towards the Sun:

Delta G = 7.239E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 (m^/s^2)
Earth G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2
One AU in meters = 150E+9 meters

(7.239E-11 Nm^2kg^-2) / (6.67E-11) / (150E+9) = Pioneers acceleration anomaly

hypothetical acceleration = 1.085 / 150E+9 = 7.235E-12 m/s^2, in centimeters is:

~-a = ~7.235E-14 cm/s^2, which satisfies the computed delta G of 7.239E-11 per AU, and workably close to Earth's G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 at one AU from the Sun.

If we take inertial mass growing at the same proportion as G, per the Equivalence Principle, then the resulting acceleration towards the Sun for any probe on an 'exit' trajectory should experience the square root of this (delta G) acceleration: ~-a' = ~2.69E-7 cm/s^2.

It is this value the Pioneers should experience due to the equivalence of delta G on their inertial mass as they travel out of the solar system. The fact that their trajectory acceleration towards the Sun had been calculated as ~8E-8 cm/s^2, leaves room for other systemic factors as to why the probes are slowing in deep space. These anomalies had been proposed by others, including heat venting, space dust, radio waves pressure, and other conventional reasons, such as proposed by Louis S Scheffer [4], solar wind, dark matter, as having no gravity or "new physics" basis. But as can be seen from the above, there may in fact be a gravitational basis for the distant spacecrafts acceleration anomaly. It is the author's opinion that the reason the rate of acceleration is lower than a pure delta G value is due to the internal "heat" carried by the Pioneers, such as vented, which yields a lower value for inertial mass for the spacecrafts. Otherwise, as the G' environment through which they travel increases linearly with distance from the Sun, so does its acceleration towards the Sun at a constant rate. This constant acceleration towards the Sun confirms the postulated Axiomatic Equation's variable Newton's gravity delta G, within reasonable parameters, for the outer solar system.

3.3 : Additional Confirmations sought for a Variable Newton's G:
The prospects for a variable Newton's G had been foreseen more than a year before the author learned of the Pioneers Anomaly, so when found it came as a pleasant surprise, though not unexpected. Physics cannot explain the gravitational anomaly revealed by the Pioneers. What the author had hoped for instead was to find distant comet trajectories behaving as if G was greater in the outer solar system, though there was no effective way to measure this at their great distances from the Sun without attaching a probe to them. This should still be a viable project for future studies to better understand what comets do once they leave the near vicinity of Earth, where they can be readily observed. We know what they do here in our region of G, but do not know how they behave where G is substantially greater. It should be noted that though G' is multiples of Earth's G for the outer planets, it is still a very small value of 10x^-11, so that it remains a very weak force even out by the Kuiper Belt regions. It is not until we get to the Oort Cloud where G may be computed as a much higher value, viz. G' = 3.5E-6 N, that we would see a markedly different trajectoral behavior. The author thinks that the Oort Cloud is a 'graveyard' depository for all cosmic objects with insufficient momentum to leave the solar system, which may ultimately be the fate of our Pioneers as they settle into a very large orbit around the Sun. To achieve an escape velocity from the Sun requires more than a constant momentum, if delta G is a factor, so that it would need constant acceleration to go beyond the Oort Cloud. Studies proposed to measure greater inertial mass for the outer solar system [2] [3], such as by the European Space Agency, are a necessary first step to confirm a variable gravity, one that is inversely proportional to the Energy received in that region, as per the discussion above. The numbers worked out for this paper are only approximations to illustrate a principle, so they need to be verified empirically to give us a more correct understanding of how this principle of variable G operates in space. As Einstein was fond of saying: "Experimentum summus judex."

4.0 : Implications for the Axiomatic Equation in future studies:

4.1 : Do we know what Mass is for distant cosmic bodies? Per force our thinking on mass and cosmic density must change. The two are inversely proportional to the solar Energy received. This should be the first implication from a variable gravity, that the estimated mass for the planets are wrong. By measuring mass using Newton's orbital equation, GM = Rv^2, we of necessity get readings true in Earth's G only (believed a universal constant), though all mass numbers in local G are of necessity wrong. This means that a space probe leaving our G region and traveling into a greater or lesser G, its inertial mass remains the same in Earth kilograms, but changes in terms of local G. Thus our distant planets away from the Sun have effectively progressively lower mass per greater G in their orbital regions, while those closer into the Sun have higher mass per lower G. The further implication is that planetary density will become affected. For example, in a higher G region, gas molecules which cannot hold together easily in a lower G region will bind more easily, as we see in the gas giants. Conversely, planets closer to the Sun should have a more difficult time binding light molecules, so that heavier molecules should give them a greater interior density within a lighter G region. This could explain why Mercury would be an almost all metallic planet devoid of water, while Neptune is an almost all gas planet. Pluto is a variant, possibly a former Neptune moon or captured Kuiper Belt object, in that it may be an almost all water ice body with enough G density so that, though half the size of our Moon, it is able to retain an atmosphere. The rocky planets Earth and Mars, and perhaps Venus, live in a middling gravitational environment, so that molecules of both gas, water, and solid matter bind as they do. We are not accustomed to thinking this way, so it requires a new vocabulary to accommodate a variable gravity, where mass has a definition both in terms of Earth's kilograms, and effectively in local "kilogram", where "inertial-G-mass" is affected. The first clue to this is how the planets are composed, for which proton mass and the resulting variable G can be calculated, at least as an estimate, by using the Axiomatic Equation.

4.2 : Newton's G 'constant' and Einstein's General Relativity: We can still think of Newton's G as a constant, but only within the parameters of a body's orbital location. This means that where planets or moons have highly elliptical orbits, they stray from a constant G, and thus as expected given their constant momentum, they should accelerate within a lower G field, and slow in a higher G field, as observed. However, now in addition to Kepler's Law, which is purely geometric, we can add physical causality as to why this is so. Mercury's precession was adequately explained by Einstein using General Relativity, but again it was a mathematical explanation without causality. This new way of seeing mass and momentum as a function of energy and gravity may give us a more real explanation as to why Mercury behaves the way it does at its perihelion, since it resides in a highly sensitive G region, where it is extremely weak. The fact that the Pioneers are behaving the way they do, now in a predictable fashion, can give us valuable data on how other distant bodies will behave in space within the context of a variable G, whose delta is linear from the Sun. Obviously, for other stars, this variable G will be different, depending upon the Energy output there, where some stars may be so weak as to fail to produce enough Energy to break the postulated gravity 'cut-off' frequency, so they are forever trapped in a very high gravity environment. This may be an alternative explanation for what are neutron stars, for example, rather than collapsed stars; in fact, they may be failed stars instead, though a cold collapsed star would have the same results. This new approach may also offer some relief to understanding why galaxies behave on the margin the way they do, with a postulated so-called "dark matter", since this may only be a function of a much higher G region.
We know cosmic light redshifts, as evidenced by spectrographic analysis of distant light and their molecular signatures. It had been postulated that this redshift is due to a Doppler effect of an expanding universe, from which sprang a Big Bang Theory. We may be forced to relegate the Big Bang to a mere hypothesis, since distant cosmic light may be redshifting due to a much greater gravity environment of deep space, so that traveling over great distances for long periods of time through heavy G fields will lengthen their electromagnetic wavelengths, hence redshift. Alas, Big Bang may not survive variable gravity, unlike Relativity which will. Assuming light is indeed a constant velocity, Relativity is a meaningful observational science, which will prove useful when we travel at or above lightspeed, but it may not necessarily be the most efficient way to understand the physics of our universe. In particular, if inertia is affected by its location in relation to a star's energy, and not universal, then we cannot assume that there are "no preferential inertial reference frames" in Relativity; which puts Einstein's first postulate of Special Relativity at risk; in fact, only the star's radiance output is preferential by this reasoning. So we may need to change some aspects of Einstein's highly successful theory of relativity by making adjustments to General Relativity, if gravity is not a constant. This may be more difficult to do politically than scientifically, unfortunately, since a whole body of Modern Physics had been built upon the foundations or Relativity, which represents a tremendous investment in brain power and money over the decades, not to be dismissed lightly. The Axiomatic Equation, built out of stock equations of the known physics, including Einstein's, shows a different relationship, but it does not obviate the exceptionally brilliant work done to date, only we may have to rethink much of our cosmology in terms of a variable gravity.

4.3 : Bridging Energy and Gravity into a Unified Theory: This has been the 'holy grail' of physics for decades, and it may continue to be still. The author does not know if the Axiomatic Equation can bridge the micro world of Quantum Mechanics with the macro world of astrophysics. It is the author's goal to show how such a bridge may be achieved, but its actuality is beyond this paper. If gravity and energy are inverse proportions, they may never be unified a priori . What happens inside the atom is contingent upon the gravity and energy environment within which this atom exists. It may be no coincidence that per our physics the so-called Strong Force holding like charged protons together is equal to one. This is an almost immediately self canceling force, and had been compared to a 'bungie cord' force, which gets stronger if stretched within the extremely short distance involved. If we look deeper into the atom, beyond the obvious electrical charge involved holding proton and electron together, we might begin to see it as a function of extreme gravity, where g = 1 at the proton nucleus, which is then modified into its extremely weak force of g' by the electromagnetic energy received. The obvious source of this energy is from the local star, which dominates all matter within its domain, but it should not be excluded from other factors, such as a planet's interior black-body heat. Any source of energy will affect how this g' becomes manifest, and thus affect how any matter within its vicinity will exhibit mass and density. For example, why is it that the inner rings of the gas giants show a dirty composition, while the most peripheral rings are almost all water ice? The Axiomatic Equation would point to a reason of lighter G for the inner rings of relatively 'hot' planets, which succeeds in holding together heavier molecules at the expense of lighter ones, and a heavier G for the outer rings, which can better hold lighter molecules, such as water. This does not invalidate the planet's gravity as an inverse square law force, so that there is obviously more gravity near the planet than further from it, but it does suggest that the G environment will cause some molecules to stick better than others. Of course, per our hypothesis, closer into the planet gathers more dust, and water, but the water molecules are rejected, so that dirty rings result. On the fringe, the opposite effect takes place, so water is retained in larger proportion. The same can be said for the planets, where those closer to the Sun will be of heavier density, while those farther away, especially past the asteroid belt (3 AU+), will bind lighter molecules in a heavier G region. However, this is a conjectural hypothesis for now, and in need of greater study.

4.4 : Atomic Mass as a function of Gravity and Energy:
It will take a complete paradigm shift to think of the atom as more than a product of its electrical charge, including quarks, etc. The Bohr model has been operable successfully, as evidenced by our highly successful accomplishments in chemistry, but it falters when presented with Quantum Theory. Atom smashers have given us a large roster of 'elementary' particles, but they may not explain what is actually keeping the atom together as a unitary whole. Niether General Relativity, nor its predecessor Special Relativity, successfully merge with Quantum Theory to date. Seeing the atom's nucleus as a product of a very strong gravity force, where it is at its maximum value of g =1, found elsewhere only at the center of a galactic black-hole, becomes more meaningful as what holds protons together, along with their corollary neutrons, within their tight radius, as they are modified by ambient energy received. This resulting atomic mass, which remains m =1 in its ideal form, is the product of this energy interaction, as E/c^2 = m, so that the original strong gravitic force is retained, and now only modified by its energy relationship, as electromagnetic waves split off into their dual pole charge. This is much different way to understand the atom, and much simpler than a Bose medium modified by spin, color, up down, charge, quarks, gluons, leptons, muons, etc. We know light photons interact with electron orbital shells in a quantum manner, as observed. These interactions may be harmonic in relation to the energy received [15][16]. The interaction within the atom is no more than intense gravity (g=1) modified by energy (the inverse relationship of E/ c^2), so that a charge neutral (or ionized) totality forms, with a small remainder force of gravity to define the whole atom. If it were a complete 'combustion', in a sense, this atom would have no gravitic remainder and matter would all fly apart. It is an indication of how well balanced is our universe that all matter displays some gravity, and thus can form into larger bodies to populate space. By this same reasoning, any star which puts out too much energy cannot hold together, since its g falls off towards a level where it can no longer hold mass together, so one would have to postulate that there is an upper limit as to how much energy a star can produce. Above that range, the atomic mass fails, and the star explodes. The author speculates this upper limit of Energy is: E'" = mc^3, but beyond the scope of this paper.
Out in deep space, where energy is low, the gravitic remainder of atomic mass should be greater than here, hence more gravity evident, as well as a greater inertial mass, so that molecules there can bind more easily, even for the very light hydrogen molecules. What the Axiomatic Equation projects is that space dust, activated by hot plasma gas energy, should find in cold-deep-space sufficient very-high-gravity to clump together this gas with enough pressure to combust into nuclear fission, thus producing stars. With very large number of stars around a center of ambient Energy focussed on one such point, symmetrically in-radiating light to its interior, should cancel all electromagnetic lambda on that point; this would initiate the formation of where E = 0, G = maximum, and thus cause a black-hole. Of course, a black-hole may be initially 'seeded' by a massive collapsed star, but that is not the main process of its creation. Once this process is activated, a whole new range of processes then takes place to start a galaxy formation, with surrounding stars activated into spin around this center, each with planetary formation around the star; and we return to where we began: a new solar system with a variable G in inverse proportion to the distance of the Energy produced [10], as per the Equation:

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

Where m =1 is Axiomatic.

This is what the atomic Mass as a function of Gravity and Energy looks like, as per the Axiomatic Equation. There is more, as to how this theory may power future motors and spacecrafts with a variable G, as electromagnetically modified, with an amplified version of the Casimir force [14], but I must leave it off here. Thank you.

Ivan D. Alexander

November 27, 2004
Costa Mesa, CA USA

[1] "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11" by John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, Slava G. Turyshev (2002). http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

[2] "Pioneer anomaly put to the test", Sept. 2004, PhysicsWeb.com news, authors: Slava Turyshev, John Anderson, Michael Martin Nieto. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3

[3] "Lessons Learned from the Pioneer 10/11 for a Mission to Test the Pioneer Anomaly", by S.G. Turyshev, M.M. Nieto, and J.D. Anderson.

[4] "Conventional Forces can Explain the Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer 10" by
Louis K. Scheffer: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107092

[5] "Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis" by Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch, and Roh Tung: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0108026

[6] "Beyond E=mc^2, a first glimpse of a postmodern physics, in which mass, inertia and gravity arise from underlying electromagnetic processes" by B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff. http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html

[7] "Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND)", Wikipedia encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

[8] "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation", by Toivo Jaakkola:

[9] DeBroglie-Einstein wavelength equation, per Hyperphysics.com:

[10] Further reading: Please note, more can be found on how these ideas had evolved over the past three years in the forums at Humancafe.com/discus , where specifically the threads: "Axiomatic Equation" http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/108.html and "Does Gravity Zero-point Energy Explain Spin" http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/145.html by I.D. Alexander et al, may offer some insights.

[11] "Nasa Planetary Fact Sheet":

[12] "A Gravity Variable Newton's G 'constant' Hypothesis for the Pioneer 10 and 11 Distant Probes Acceleration Anomalies" by I.D. Alexander (Nov. 13, 2004, not yet published).

[13] "Mach's Principle" by H. Litchenegger. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407078

[14] PhysicsWeb.com: "The Casimir effect: a force from nothing" by Astrid Lambrecht. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6

[15] "Harmonics, Music, Pythagoras & the Universe" by Ray Tomes.

[16] Atomus Summus, see: "Electron 'Harmonics' for Hydrogen" by I.D. Alexander, (Sept. 15, 2002) at: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1/65.html

**( SI base units: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html are still unresolved for g)

#(Erratum: in the original I had it worked out as W/m, or Joules per second per meter.)

Many thanks to all who had contributed with their ideas, or challenges, to help in formulating these works. My thanks to Jim W., Nelson Zink, Alan Levine Ph.D, Greg Hall, Michael Stransky, Chris Torri, Margaret Kelso, Ted Sarhanis, Adam Shiono , Bill C. Esq., Richard Hoagland, Jerry Jensen (all USA), Dave Tirrell (Australia), Laura and Arkadiusz J. (Poland), BingXin Gong (China), and others, for your contributions to developing these thoughts on mass, gravity and energy. Also thanks to the participants of the many on-line forums on physics and astronomy who challenged my ideas, for your rebuttals were important: They made me think.

With a special thanks to the valuable inputs and editorial help from Dr. Anthony Smart, Ph.D. Physics (UK/USA), though I hold only myself responsible for any errors or omissions.

My further thanks for the excellent reference pages at Hyperphysics.com.
Ivan A. on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 09:51 pm:


This is the foundation for Mass as a function of both gravity and electromagnetic energy:

1. Planck-deBroglie's quantum: E = hc/l(proton mass) = 9E+16 J
2. Einstein's famous: E = mc^2 = 9E+16 J
3. E' = 1/2 Rv^2 x solar irradiance = 9.07E+16 J

In deBroglie's, (proton mass) = 1.67E-27 kg, and Einstein's, mass = 1 kg, both sides of the equation balance, with a new mass axiom: m = 1.

This developmental work reflects discussions made on this and other forums. To all thank you.

Copyright protected (©12-31-2004), 'fair use' allows for this material to be used for educational and illustration purposes, if not for commercial applications.

Ivan D. Alexander

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 04:47 pm:

E' = 1/2 Rv^2 x solar irradiance.

This is an illusration, as per paper on Atomic Mass above:

This was derived in the following manner:

GM = Rv^2 , per Newton's orbital equation

GMm/ R = mv^2 , per above with m included

1/2 GMm/R = 1/2 mv^2 , per above with 1/2 included, where:

1/2 mv^2 = KE , kinetic energy

removing the m, putting R back on right

1/2 GM = 1/2 Rv^2

as a variation of Newton's orbital, including 'solar irradiance' in Watts/m^2, the equation becomes as used in Atomic Mass paper above:

E' = solar irradiance x 1/2 Rv^2 = J/s/m

where R is planet distance from Sun, v^2 is planet's velocity squared (both in kilometers), times solar irradiance.

This relationship between solar irradiance, distance, and planet velocity gives us the computed Energy values for each planet. The equation can also be written as:

E' = solar irradiance x 1/2 GM

where G is Newton's constant as measured on Earth (at 1 AU) and M is solar mass, which yields the same E', as per above. The resulting proton/hydrogen mass for each E' level is then used to generate the Newton's G for each planet orbital region, as per Axiomatic Equation. The variable Newton's G 'proportional' is different for each planet, growing at the linear rate of (delta) G = ~7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 (m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) per AU, so that it approximates G x AU = G' for each planet.

Not a proof, only an illustration how solar irradiance was used to determine E' and G' for each planet, where the results are in E'/E or G'/G, and where on Earth these ratios are equal to one.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 02:23 am:


There is a common perception that mass is matter. In Einstein's famous equation:

E = mc^2

mass is a kilogram of matter which when converted into energy equals E = 90 petajoules, or 9x10^16 joules.

In the right side of the Axiomatic Equation this was modified to where m = 1, so that:

E = (1-g)c^2 = 9c10^16 joules, where g is the proton gravitational constant.

This leads to confusion over what mass really represents, which in the modified equation it is a number of unity, of kg/kg, which represents the energy portion of mass, and in (1-g) it is the energy unity minus its proton gravitational constant. It is this constant that times c^2 and pi^2 becomes the basis for conversion into Newton's G gravitational 'constant'. However, this still does not answer the question fully.

What mass represents in this new way of understanding it, as m = 1, is a totality of energy and gravity. What this means is that when radiant energy is present in full, mass is totally expressed as a function of energy (1-0); but if radiant energy is lacking, then the gravitational constant grows. In effect, when there is absolutely no radiant energy, then mass is expressed as (1-1), where it becomes zero. This in fact never happens because of background microwave energy, so that mass is never zero but always some value above that. But this is only as a function of radiant energy; where the difference between Einstein's mass and the Axiomatic's mass lies is that when radiant energy is lacking, because this equation is an expression E, then gravitational mass takes over completely, and E drops off to zero. Again, this is not likely since there is always some radiant energy present in the universe.

So in the new way of understanding mass, it is both a function of radiant energy and of gravity, where the two interact and are thus inversely proportional. This is what the Axiomatic Equation says, that more energy means less gravity; less energy means more gravity, which is then expressed into Newton's G as a variable inversely proportional to solar energy flux. Conceptually, it is no different from Einstein's famous equation's mass, except that there is an internal factor that breaks it up into the dual function that represent mass: radiant energy and gravity.

So taking one kilogram of mass in the common usage, matter of one kilogram as measured either gravitationally or as a function of force, it actually represents atoms and molecules assembled, on Earth at least, as very light gravitationally but very rich energetically. The result is a matter that has a gravitational cum inertial mass equal to one kilogram. In the Axiomatic's interpretation of this mass, the matter has either more or less energy in it, but then inversely either less or more gravity in it. What results is that the totality of the two always amount to one, where m = 1. And the kg/kg represents either the energetic kilograms, or the gravitational kilograms. This is also exemplified in how E/c^2 = m = 1, where E is the energetic radiance, while c^2 represents total gravity, where divided by each other results in the unity of mass.

Finally, one kilogram of matter to convert into E = 9x10^16 joules, is the same kilogram if it was its inverse, where c^2 = 8x10^16 joules. The two are equal, and it is their interaction dependent upon the value of E that then determines whether mass is a unity that is all energy, or some lesser value that gives more rise to gravity, or totally gravity if energy is totally absent. The mass is still m = 1, but in a low energy environment, more of it is gravitational in nature, while less of it is energetic in nature. In an environment such as deep space where energy is low, the gravitational portion of mass as gravity outweighs it as energy, but it is still one kilogram. Except now, one kilogram is represented by a higher gravitational mass than energetic mass. We must remember that Einstein's equation is an Energy equation, and so it remains in the Axiomatic, which is not a gravitational equation.**(see gravity equation below) So mass is either more energy and less gravity, in m = (1-g), or it is less energy and more gravity, depending upon the radiant Energy the equation represents. In Einstein's E is fixed; in the Axiomatic it is a variable.

This line of reasoning was absent in Einstein's famous equation, which was geared entirely to Earth's region where gravity is extremely weak. It is now introduced into the Axiomatic Equation. In deep space, as already forecast by MOND, gravity is greater, having less of the radiant energy component, so it affects mass differently. Yet, through the Equivalence Principle, though its inertial mass is greater than here, it remains as one kilogram. Mass is always m = 1, which is axiomatic, and only its gravitational component is greater.

That is mass.

Next question: what happens to energetic mass as it travels from a high radiance region to a low radiance region? This is not my original idea (proposed by Jerry Jensen) but the radiant energetic portion of it radiates out as it gains in inertial (gravity) mass. I tend to agree.

**Gravity equation:

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


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 04:07 pm:


Einstein's field equation for gravity reads as:

Rab - (R/ 2) * gab + Lgab = (8pG/ c4) * Tab

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

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

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

So if Einstein's General Relativity needs to be so revised that it no longer serves as a model for reality, though it is elegant and a high mathematical art in and of itself, one must wonder if in our spacefaring future we may not ignore it entirely, except as perhaps an interesting historical relic of our past century?

It was Max Born who said: "The theory appeared to me then, and still does, the greatest feat of human thinking about nature, the most amazing combination of philosophical penetration, physical intuition, and mathematical skill. But its connections with experience were slender. It appealed to me like a great work of art, to be enjoyed and admired from a distance." If G is variable, he may have gotten that right.

It all works out much easier with the deBroglie-Einstein modified equation where G is an inverse function of E:

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

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

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


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 10:23 pm:


It is asked of me some times, referring to item 2.0: Planetary Total Orbital Energy E' in paper above, as to why did I multiply solar irradiance by distance from the Sun?

The equation for E' shows how the total energy of any planet is represented by the radiant energy flux times its kinetic energy:

E' = solar irradiance x distance x 1/2 (m) v^2, where KE = 1/2 mv^2, with m = 1

By analogy, the simplest reason is how Newton's gravity equation for Force, F, refers to the equation for gravity potential, -U.

F = GMm/r^2, which times distance r becomes -U = -GMm/r

The same principle applies to Energy E', where the solar irradiance is in Watts per meters squared, W/m^2, but in multiplying by distance in meters, we get total radiant energy as W/m.

The kinetic energy in the equation is called a 'template' because it was worked out for its numeric value, in kilometers, whereas the solar radiance energy was in meters. This was done in order to bring the result into line for Earth's E = 9E+16 J, and then likewise figured, by same template, for all the solar planets (see paper above), from which were extrapolated the relative Newton's G 'proportionals' for their orbits.

For Earth this function became: E' = solar irrad x 1/2 (1)Rv^2, where R is distance from Sun, and W/m = m^2 kg s^-2/ m = m kg s^-2, the Newton force.

E' = 1/2 (1367.6 W/m^2) x (149.6E+9 m) x (1 kg)(29.78)^2

E' = 1/2 (2.046E+14 m kg s^-2) x (886.85 m^2 kg s^-2) = 9.07E+16 m^3 kg^2 s^-4 ,

which is J*N, so per Newton force (N = m kg s^-2), it becomes: E' = 9.07E+16 m^2 kg s^-2, or Joules.

(Erratum: in the original I had it worked out as W/m, or Joules per second per meter.)

The reason E' = 9.07E+16 J is greater than E = mc^2 = 9E+16 J may be related to Earth's interior heat, which implies Earth's Einterior = 0.07E+16 J, but at present is unresolved.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 10:36 pm:


This is a hypothesis for testing spectral redshift in deep space at multiple AUs from Earth's ~1AU, as a test of both Einstein's Second Postulate and Newton's G 'constant'.

Hypthesis: if deep space gravity G' is greater than inner solar system gravity (ie. Earth's G, as expressed in Newton's proportional G), then 'greater than' applies as follows:

G' > G
d' > d
v' > v
c' > c

exception: t'=t, always equal standard measure of time t.

Therefore, for E = hf, where Energy equals Planck's constant times frequency f, where f = c / l, then

if G' is greater than G, then d'/t = v' = c', and c' > c.

Example; if d'/G' =~ d'/t, so that d'/G' =~ v', then c'/G' = v'/G', and thus if t = c, then v' = ~d'/c (which is the redshift in G').

Conclusion: if speed of light accelerates in deep space higher G' region, then distance covered by light increases proportionally in standard equal measures of time t. If distance traveled in deep space by light is greater, and not Doppler related, then resulting redshift means the universe is much larger than we think (as now postulated using Einstein's relativistic variable time and length), and light wavelength is redshifted due to greater G' in deep space.

As a measure of time, t = t always, and d = d always, but c is not constant, per v = c limitation. So if lightspeed is gravity related to where it may exceed v = c in greater G', so that c' > c in deep space. Velocity of light greater than c violates Einstein's second postulate in his Special Relativity, however, so this postulate may no longer be supported, of necessity.

Time t = c may apply depending upon c constant as a measure of time, if t remains invariable. Time t can be set to any unit of measure, provided it is a universal consistant. However, c may be less than c' in deep space if G' is greater than Earth's G.

Spectral Analysis to follow:

If v = fl = c, then f = v/l = c/l for v = c, so that if f'= c'/l' for v' = c', then it should follow that f' = f, which means there should be no change in cosmic light frequency. So spectral analysis is not affected, except as wavelength l shifts to the red, i.e., redshift of cosmic light.

Therefore, if spectral analysis of distant cosmic light is taken from deep space, at multiple AUs from Earth's, that redshift should appear to be greater for the same spectral analysis of such light frequency as now found from Earth's ~1 AU observations. In fact, this redshift should be more deeply redshifted if measured from Pluto, for example, but relatively blueshifted back (to our known redshift values) when again observed from Earth's location. Frequency of light does not change if deep space G' yields to increased light v' > c, but greater velocity of light traveling greater distances for same time t in deep space G' should show up as greater redshift values for deep space (as measured in Newton's G proportional for mass), where gravity is orders of magnitudes greater than for inner solar system. This test for deep space redshift should provide a test for Einstein's variable time Special Relativity (in non-relativistic mathematical parameters) with in-situ measurements of cosmic light redshift, and also for the second postulate of v = c as a maximum velocity of light in space. Redshifted light should not be Doppler related, of necessity, but a factor of lightspeed in deep gravity space.

This may be one way to design a 'double blind' test for gravity in deep space away from Earth's ~1AU, by testing for redshift spectral analysis out there.

(Note: this was something that came to mind after we stopped for a drink at a natural spring at Capranica, Lazio, en route from Viterbo to Roma, Sunday night, May 1, 2005, so not complete... consider it work in progress...)


Ps: I should note that I really have no basis for what I wrote above, just a specualtive idea. In fact, the more I think of it, the more sure I am that v = c for lightspeed is the norm, and that the only fallout from greater deep space gravity is the redshift, period. Actual observations from outer solar system should give us a better picture of what happens to light in deep space. --Ivan, June 6, 2005.

By Ivan A. on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 03:05 pm:

What if lightspeed c is a variable?

The above post raises the possibility if redshift is studied from outer solar system, it may show up differently for observations made from near Earth's 1 AU, which then may mean a variable G leads also to a variable c. That said, it would of necessity impact the Axiomatic Equation if this is so. It would now have to be rewritten as follows, to allow for c' = v > c:

E' = hc'/ l(proton m) = ~(1-g)c' * c, or perhaps to better reflect a variable c':

E'/c' = h/ l(proton m) = ~(1-g)c

But this is just a spec until we know what lightspeed is from redshift observations of known phenomena at distant AUs.


By Ivan A. on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 02:33 am:


What is momentum? It's 'infalling', that's all. I know this sounds strange, so let me explain.

Atomic mass is an electromagnetic-gravity interaction, where what we know of as mass measured in kilograms, both as inertia or per gravity G, is dependent upon how much electromagnetic radiant energy is present in space. Near a hot star, it is very abundant, so the G is small and inertial mass, per the equivalence principle, is likewise small. But in deep space e.m. energy is low, so the G is greater, along with inertial mass and gravity. The two, e.m. and gravity, thus have an inversely proportional relationship. The Newton's G is then merely a 'proportional' variable that is 'constant' for any orbital level at a distance from a star. Now, about momentum.

If we think of motion, velocity, as atomic mass in motion, what causes this motion? Mostly, it comes from two sources: a transfer of kinetic energy or a gravitationally accelerated velocity. Now think of what this means. Each molecule within any matter in motion is in a constant state of agitation. This agitation we know will increase with additional hot radiant energy, meaning it receives more electromagnetic energy. However, this agitation is a velocity neutral phenomenon, where all the molecules agitated in effect cancel out to zero, since they interact only with themselves. The situation is different, however, if the matter is in motion. Then what happens is that some of the molecular vibration is directional, where the net effect is a positive vibration in the direction of the motion. The greater this net directional effect, the greater the velocity. Once set in motion, whether because it was pushed by a hand, a bat, or a rocket engine, this motion tends to remain the same, what we call inertial motion, or momentum. Newton's first law of motion, that once an object is set in motion, devoid of other forces influencing this motion, it will remain thus. So far, nothing new here.

Now here is where the new idea of 'infalling' comes in.: The other reason motion results is from gravitational pull. Any mass, regardless of its inertial state, will be pulled in by another mass, so an attractive and accelerated motion results. However, momentum motion is not accelerative, so it remains constant. And this is where the two are different, the motion resulting from applied energy to 'push' on matter, and the motion resulting from a 'pull' of gravity. But they are related! How? Because each molecule that is either pushed or pulled into a net directional motion is 'infalling' into a theoretical gravitational hole, constantly. This is very strange, so I had better explain it further.

Space is gravity, it is everywhere, and it exists in a steady state so that any one point in the space vacuum is gravitationally equal to any other. This is the principle of infinity having no center, and that each point in infinity is equally its center. Thus, any motion of atomic mass, matter, has a net directional velocity towards a continuous stream of gravitational points in space, ad infinitum. However, this motion resulting from a net biased vibration, if resulting from kinetic energy push, is not directed towards a given gravitational mass. So the result is that it is not attracted by mass pull, but rather is only attracted towards each continuous point in space. The result is a steady state 'infalling' without acceleration, just pure motion. This motion is then modified by the mass inertia, so that in a very weak G region, it is relatively easy to push matter, but in a higher G region, this push require more work, as per E = 1/2 mv^2. Once set in motion, it continues this net effect of 'infalling' into the space gravity, which is continuous, and thus results in what we call 'momentum', p = mv. The more inertial mass, whether due to size or resulting from greater G proportional, the more this momentum will result. And because of this infalling into gravitational points, ad infinitum, the motion remains unchanged until some other force interferes with it. This interfering force can then again come from two sources: either kinetic energy transfer, push, or from gravitational attraction due to mass, where it is accelerated with pull. Once that happens, the molecular agitations, the biased vibrations in the direction of motion, then become altered, which results either in a change of direction or change in velocity, per vectors involved.

Think what this means: The affected molecules vibrating in a biased manner, towards direction of motion, are then no longer in the same net effect of motion as they were before the influence of force. Their net vibrations now exhibit a new bias, which results in a change of its vector motion. The infalling into those continuous points of space now have a different relationship once the motion is altered. And what it also means is that if this matter is traveling from a light G to a heavy G region, it will then exhibit this material change in force by transferring the kinetic energy of motion back into the vibrational parameters of the atomic mass involved. And here is the connections with light: The same momentum principle applies to photons, that they are 'drawn' into the gravity holes of a continuous space vacuum. Same as the molecular vibrations drawn into the gravity holes of space on a continuos manner to cause mass to move in a given direction, so is light drawn into that same continuous gravitational space to move through light years of distance at a continuous rate. Light travels through space, as photons of light, because space 'pulls' on this light from an infinite progression of continuous gravity, which in effect is the momentum of light. The difference between the two is that where matter needs a vibrational bias to be drawn into this gravitational space continuum, light does so dispensing with the need for this bias. Its cross-section of electric and magnetic energy, its electromagnetic energy, is what 'pulls' this light continuously throughout the light years of space, until they reach us.

This means one more thing: Light may in fact be drawn faster into the deep gravity of deep space, but there may be a counter effect, that as light photons are drawn into this gravity hole, because their momentum is constant, they likewise slow, causing it to redshift In effect, because of light's constant moment, there is no affect on velocity' it merely redshifts. The net result is that light maintains at a constant velocity, as now theorized. For light to vary in velocity, it would have to dissipate energy into the gravity medium, same as passing through any material medium, and that is unlikely. Light may be drawn into the gravity at a greater rate, but the same gravitational state maintains its constant momentum, and thus without energy loss, its velocity and momentum remain constant.

Unlike matter traveling at a constant velocity through this gravity medium, matter should accelerate into it, if it is gravity propelled: viz. The molecular vibrations respond to this deeper gravity by vibrating more in the vectorial direction of motion, if it is due to gravitational pull. Conversely, the same molecular vibration will be dissipated, or drawn less, into that same continuum of space gravity if the motion is resultant from kinetic push. The net effect is that motion launched kinetically will actually slow as it encounters deep space gravity, where the molecular biased vibrations are neutralized, but will be drawn at an accelerate rate if motion is due to gravitational pull. If pushed, it will decelerate instead; with the momentum conservation principle intact due to molecular vibrations increased by the rate of slowing; this may also mean that this increased vibration is then dissipated into space as heat.

The implications for future space travel, if this image model of momentum is true, is that spacecrafts pushed by kinetic energy will slow in the greater gravity of deep space; but like light, the same spacecrafts would accelerate into deep space if propelled by a gravity force. This to us is still a mystery as to how this can be accomplished. But if it can, we may in some distant future travel using the same momentum experienced by the electromagnetic waves of light, where matter can accelerate to lightspeed rather quickly, and likely surpass it in orders of magnitude. And if so, then space is wide open to us, and the great distances between stars and galaxies shrinks proportionally. That is the power of momentum, as an infalling force of space gravity. The main difference between light and matter is that light is invariable, meaning the vibrations remain the same regardless of the G density of space through which they travel, though it may accelerate in deep space gravity; whereas matter is subject to other factors of molecular vibrations that will require a constant 'gravitational' force to keep accelerating through the continuous gravity points of deep space, not only to maintain momentum, but in fact to increase it to light speeds and beyond. Light and heat versus gravity, that is what future motion will be made of. I think it is doable. However, until we can test for this constant momentum in deep space, it merely remains a hypothesis, geocentric at that. Further, until we can propel crafts using gravity drives, we cannot measure how all this plays out in deep space, since we may in fact not be able to get there on purely kinetic energy.


[Edited, 6/5/05, to correct a confusion I had on the velocity of light, which remains constant, except for the gravitational redshift effect in deep space. Einstein was right! that v = c, but the redshift is not due to any Doppler effect.]

By Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 01:58 pm:

Lost Asteroid Anomaly may be a better way to test for a possible gravitational anomaly in the outer solar system, better than comets to test for the same, which may be subject of outgassing.

By Ivan A. on Monday, June 6, 2005 - 12:21 am:


It occurred to me while correcting my above post, May 13, 2005, on Momentum, that there may be a connection between how light redshifts in a greater gravity medium and how it has a similar redshift due to the Doppler effect for receding motion. This receding motion would cause redshift on the side of the galaxy moving away from us, conversely blueshift on the side moving towards us. However, in deep space, redshift is universal in that it appears nearly equally in all directions for all galaxies, with the exception of certain quasars. The connection is tenuous at best, for now, but they may be related to what is the cause of inertia in mass. As I understand it, tentatively, inertia in mass is a gravity effect, as per the Equivalence Principle; if light redshift in space is also a gravity effect, proportional to the greater gravity density of the spacevacuum through which it passes in deep space, then here is another equivalence. However, at this time I am not prepared to pursue this further, so leave it here only as a note for future study.


By Ivan A. on Monday, June 6, 2005 - 05:41 pm:

BLACK HOLES, as posted on the Bad Astronomy forums:
The Black Hole / Tully-Fisher Paradox

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am    Post subject:

Here is a totally different idea, maybe out there with "wormholes" and "time travel", but I have cause to think it is this:


Black holes are always at the center of spiral galaxies because they are a function of all the ambient starlight canceling on a point. When this happens, starlight radiant e.m. energy, which keeps extreme high gravity of the spacevacuum in check, is canceled at the galaxy center, releasing in that central point extremely powerful gravity, perhaps the highest it can go. The system is thus balanced between the solar masses of the accretion disk and the extreme galactic center gravity, so the galactic disk remains stable. The radiant solar energy output moderates the gravitational characteristics of the accretion disk, while at the same time feeding the black hole with more ambient energy, implying that the more radiant e.m. energy received by the black hole, the more it grows. The system in this way remains balanced, to be disturbed only through either collision with other galaxies or massive star failures within the accretion disk. It is that simple. This is how it works using the equation where radiant e.m. energy is inversely proportional to the gravitational energy, per the "Axiomatic Equation".

--quote mine/ Ivan

I leave this here only for the record. Solar masses collapsing or falling into black holes have nothing to do with their size or growth. Rather, the extremely high spin around black holes converts these solar masses to lightspeed energy instead, which further feeds the black hole. The spin off dividend is ionized hydrogen proto-atoms spun out the galactic axis, which will seed the galactic disk with future hydrogen molecules, which will gravitationally collapse into hot radiant stars, which will feed radiant energy into the black hole, and so on. It's a continuous system.

Check back in a few decades, when cosmology goes the next step. They'll call it the "Alexander effect". J

Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

By Edward Chesky on Monday, June 6, 2005 - 06:05 pm:

Cheers Ivan,

Hopefully one day they will call the trisection problem the Chesky hexagonial solution....

If we get a chance one day I will by you a coffee or a beer...geometry and mathmatics two sides of coin...

My Best Ed

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 05:05 pm:

Core of Supernova Goes Missing, Space.com review of a supernova... but uh oh... no neutron star!

Wha' happened? Or could this be one more indication that so-called neutron stars are really very high G stars instead, something completely different? My take on this is that what we see as a remnant of a supernove is just that, a star suffering catastrophic failure, it blew up. Very high G stars are simply stars which cannot generate enough hot radiant e.m. energy to climb over the 'cut-off' threshold of very high gravity (G = ~10x^-6 Nm^2 kg^-2, or five orders of magnitude above Earth's G). They result in very high spin, x-ray generating micro-stars, with extreme G, mostly 'invisible' to us except for their characteristic signature.

Here's looking at you, kid. ;)


By Anonymous on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 07:56 pm:

Pioneers 10 & 11 are slowing in the outer solar system. Could this "acceleration towards the sun" measured at about 8x10-8 cm/s2, be at least in part due to signal redshift to and from the distant crafts? How would a redshift of signal affect our perception of where the distance Pioneers are at any one point in time? Consider the following pages by T. Saakkola, where he challenges our understandings of cosmic phsyics, including redshift and gravity:
Could it be that if there is redshift within our solar domain, as signals travel to and from the crafts, that we are not sure where the crafts are?

By Ivan A. on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 08:45 pm:

Dear Anon,

Interesting point, that signal may redshift to and from our distant spacecraft. However, I dare say, the end result should be null. If light redshifts leaving the solar system, then it should blueshift coming back in (or vice versa for the same reason), likewise for electromagnetic signals. So we in all probability know where the spacecrafts are, though also in all probability we do not know whether or not the signal red/blue shifts or not. At least, we can't tell from our point of view on Earth. If there is redshift at the Pioneers, we simply have no way of knowing it. Then again, I haven't read the article referenced, so will do when able.

Thanks for your post.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:06 pm:


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

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

The Axiomatic Equations says:

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

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

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

One other note: Einstein's equation for gravity in General Relativity, G = 8pi T, where T is a stress energy tensor, would then have to be adjusted with a constant (delta)G' per AU to account for how gravity grows at a constant linear rate of approximately one G per AU in our solar system. The same effect for other stars remains unresolved, however, since we have no way to measure adequately the energy flux output there.

The Pioneers 10 and 11 are now in deep space where there is very great G, so per this equivalence, their weight in local kilograms is a function of their distance, let's say at 70 AU they weight 70 times their original mass, except that in Earth terms, it is now 4900 times Earth kilograms. Hence, they are accelerating towards the Sun's (by now very weak gravity per the inverse square law) as if they had this tremendous (Earth based) mass. This is also the reason why this acceleration is a square root of local G, rather than in direct proportion to it, since the mass is a square function of its original mass on Earth. Consequently, the Pioneers's acceleration towards the Sun is -a = ~1/ AU(deltaG'/G), where deltaG'/G is approximately = 1 per AU m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, or 1/AU = 6.67E-10 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 (inverse of distance from the Sun, per meter seconds squared). Taking the square root (to adjust for local kilograms) becomes -a' = ~2.6E-5 m/s^2 = ~2.6E-7 cm/s^2* This is the gravity accelerations result for Pioneers, vs. 8E-8 cm/s^2 measured, as a local acceleration towards the Sun. Solar wind, variable red/blue shifted signal, and other factors, may modify this variable gravity equivalence result.

Confused? You bet! We are simply not used to thinking this way, since for the past 300 years we had thought G was a universal constant, and inertial mass per Equivalence was measurable in Earth's kilograms. This may be all about to change. Now "dark matter" is beginning to make sense, in those far away very high G regions.

*(Note the function of mass as kg drops out.)


By Anonymous on Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 12:31 pm:

See the same in "Xians and Earthians" debate over kilograms and gravity G.

Neat little ditty, still unresolved. Hoo was right?

By Ivan A. on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 02:40 pm:

Summation of some thoughts on variable mass, hypothetically, in a variable G universe.
BABB's as posted:


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 09:52 pm:

Axiomatic Equation, Atomic Mass paper re-instated, top of thread.

Since I got the official rejection letter from the Astrophysical Journal today, after 2 1/2 months, I feel it right to re-instate the original paper showing the variable G basis for the Pioneers Anomaly, with slight modifications.

Now we wait for the actual measurements in situ of Newton's G away from Earth's 1 AU = 1 G region. (I'm not too worried about it, and will be surprised if it comes out different from my calcuations.) History will be the judge.


By Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 10:36 pm:

Have patience Ivan,

In time everything works out

Ed Chesky

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 12:25 am:

Well Ed, I really didn't expect them to embrace an idea, that Newton's G is NOT a universal constant, one that shoots down so much of modern astrophysics that it would be 'suicidal' for them to agree with me. J

Nevertheless, the proof is not in some extremely elegant mathematical formalism, ala GR, but in the measurements when they make them. By my calculations, Mars sits at about 1.5 Earth's G, Jupiter at ~5 Earth's G, Saturn at nearly 10 G, etc. So you see, this is pretty damning stuff. And to make matters worse, my Axiomatic works out that most of deep space, 99.99% of it, sits at G that is 5+ orders of magnitude to our G, which is high enough to gravitationally redshift light coming from there in the manner observed. Of course, that pretty kills one of their favorite cows, the BBT, so didn't expect anything other than rejection. As you say, in time... Thanks for your support. Now we just kick back and wait.


By Anonymous on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 04:27 am:

Your welcome Ivan

A Church group and some academics approached me the other day concerned about earthquakes in light of the recent disater but were afraid to go on record about it. They wanted me to look at some data. I did and the risk remains high for another major quake in the Sumatra/Pacific Area one occured withing a few minutes of my projection and one in the Salton Sea area of CA which was part of a earthquake swarm. Like the Astrophysical Journal Today they were affraid to go public too much is unknown about the model I am using.

Such is life.

Ed Chesky

By Edward Chesky on Friday, September 9, 2005 - 06:39 am:

At the time of this writing a major 7.3 magnitude quake occured in the pacific region near the PNG.

Ed Chesky

By Ivan A. on Friday, September 9, 2005 - 12:32 pm:


New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory

It looks like the BBT may soon be the BBB. They say:


Although widely accepted by astrophysicists and cosmologists as the best theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang model has come under increasingly vocal criticism from scientists concerned about inconsistencies between the theory and astronomical observations, or by concepts that have been used to "fix" the theory so it agrees with those observations.
In research published April 10 in the "Astrophysical Journal, Letters," Lieu and Mittaz found that evidence provided by WMAP point to a slightly "super critical" universe, where there is more matter (and gravity) than what the standard interpretation of the WMAP data says. This posed serious problems to the inflationary paradigm.

Finding very old stars at the supposed origin time of BB is another damning thing. My theoretical hunch is that gravity is at fault, that it is over 100,000 times greater per volume of matter (molecules of hydrogen and other gases) in deep intergalactic space than on Earth, so distant cosmic light redshifts naturally (gravitationally) in line with the Hubble constant. No expansion, just redshifted light. Of course, this does change the paradigm, where the BB idea is null, bust, kaput. Put it to bed, "Hasta la vista Baby!"

By Edward Chesky on Friday, September 9, 2005 - 08:33 pm:


In time I am sure that evidence will bear out you theory. But it is not yet time. To try and change a world view takes time and a grassroots effort. Give it time.

In my own case as I sit here preparing for a well earned vaction with my wife. I think of a president that vacationed as New Orleans was destroyed and his efforts to dismantle the Federal Government in an effort to privatize everything. He and his agenda and effort to impose a World View on the World now lay in ruins from Bagdad to New Orleans because he lacked the intelligence to understand the ramifications of his actions and the threat that global warming poses to our society and planet.

I am a direct descendent of the Mayflower and served in or supported 6 Wars, Campaigns or Major Global Crisis and applied to FEMA but was turned down due to the intervention of political hacks of the Bush Administration because I opposed George Bush's policies. I believe that time has told now who understood better what the results of his policies were going to be.

I have looked on the aftermath of Katrina and seen much to be appalled by and much to rejoice over. I have to say that I am disgusted with the current administration and its actions in New Orleans. Now that the people have seen the truth they will accept nothing less than an accounting from government.

I also note with disgust the actions of the rich descendents of New Orleans families who have been there since the 1700 hundreds that sit in large homes siping highballs behind private security forces in the French Quarter looking to profit from this disaster and reshape the city to reduce the influence of the undesriable black poor population.

My family has served this nation in all its wars since before it was a nation and we have amassed and lost fortunes over the course of it but we never broke the terms of the Mayflower compact. When called we served and died. From the days of the revolution to the underground railroad, which we helped run, to the civil war to the jungles of Vietnam to the Deserts of Iraq my family has served this nation. When the government needed to build a base for long range nuclear bombers we sold our land at fair market price to the government then moved on to new jobs.

One thing I would caution the old families of New Orleans about is that the black race will not bow to you again. During the 1960's and 1970's my family helped get southern blacks jobs that had no birth certificates because they were not counted in the south. All they had were bibles with the names of the families written in them. Many of those people and their children have moved into government service the police and the military, and FBI and they remember what the descendents fo the Mayflower did for them during the great battle for civil rights.

What the future hold for me now I do not know except that I am sure it will be interesting.

Ed Chesky

By Ivan A. on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 12:03 pm:

"The Distribution of Thermal Pressures in the Interstellar Medium from a Survey of C I Fine-Structure Excitation", by Edward B. Jenkins and Todd M. Tripp.

This paper may be another clue in how gravitational mass and radiant energy have an inverse proportionality, as per Axiomatic Equation.


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"