Friday, October 12, 2012

THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDABLE REALITY BEHIND MASS AND GRAVITY!

The Theory of Something radically changes our view on reality - It actually provides a reality that is missing in other current descriptions of the Grand Design. Sometimes, the "the Earth can't be round - We know it is flat"-attitude triggers an attack that gives a good opportunity to explain...

I got the following comments:

This stuff is hilarious! Too bad they don't give Nobel Prizes in Physics for comedy. This would win, hands down!


By your own writing, you clearly do not understand the difference between mass and weight. How do you expect the scientific community to even consider your "theory" when you cannot grasp such a simple concept? You calculate the reduced Planck constant using numbers that you made up for a particle that you made up and offer the result as "proof" of the particle you made up. A high school algebra student could do the same. I do love your experiments, though. They are a source of infinite laughter for me. I wish guys like Archimedes, Newton, and Feynman were alive to read this "ToS". They would probably wish they could have pulled their theories out of their asses like you seem to have perfected.

Thanks for reading and inspiring after reading up! Seems like I have to clarify…

Don’t you think Archimedes, Newton and Feynman would have been open to that the world is round, even if everyone “knows” that it is flat? Maybe… It is a fact that you cannot walk upside down on the other side of a ball, so why even try or bother to look if someone is trying… Will be fun to see though J  Can’t I understand that the Earth is a pancake? http://bit.ly/ScienceDarkAges 

I rephrase your statements into questions to clarify:

Q1) Does the ToS really show that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass (or that mass is the same as weight), something that Galileo demonstrated in 1586, but no one since then has been able to explain or derive, although it has been measured - with better and better accuracy - over the years?

Yes!  

Q) How? That would be sensational and “unbelievable”!

It is in the Theory of Something document, ToS section 5, Dark Energy, F=ma and the Gravity Law

Q) Show me F=ma (Newton’s second law of motion)!

Assume that the Universe is charged and a “charge increase” therein shows up as mass. (Also believe that E=mc2 and E=QV/2 – Einstein and Maxwell aren’t wrong, are they?)

Difficult to even see acceleration in Maxwell’s equations, but in school we were shown the general equation (same as Griffiths 10.3.2) for force between moving point charges (ToS section 5.4.1) that actually includes dv/dt (=acceleration). That equation is derived from Maxwell’s equations – both contain the complete theory of electromagnetism (that already is “Lorentz invariant and relativistic”).

(ToS 5.4.2): Applying that equation to acceleration of all the charges in the universe around that “charge increase”, out comes (after half a page of pretty simple university level classic electrodynamics with some vector evaluation in handwriting):
This was the moment I knew I got it! 100% sure. This is the way nature works!  

I had already put the Grid in place, with values of the negtrino charge (-e/3 C), of the distance between the negtrinos (10 pm), the magnetic energy in the negtrino (57 keV = 1/9 of electron rest mass), the dark energy being a tiny electrostatic over-pressure in the Grid, the electric potential in the Grid and the enormous forces in the Grid. (At that time I had not the correct idea about the very nature of mass – still thought it somehow was the binding energy in a composed particle (ToS 4.3.2), but the idea that it was “a charge increase” was correct already then.)

Using 150 years old classic electromagnetism, F=ma popped out. Just F=ma! – nothing else - nature did not even care about all my carefully assembled and correct parameters! It was like nature said to me: There is a reality, there is of course no fine tuning of parameters and such things, it is simple. That is the way nature works - Look for the reality!

Thanks nature, now I can collect a Nobel prize for half a page of math after 30 years or so J

But nature also kicked me! Accepting this, you also have to show that gravity acts on the same mass. There can of course not be different kind of masses for acceleration and gravity. – That would be crackpot! Mass and Weight IS the same. Explain and derive gravity, at least Newton’s (for long distances)!

Q) Show me gravity F=G m1m2/r2 then! Don’t cheat by calling the forces fictitious. You said there is a reality – something we can understand!

That is simple, can’t you see it is Coulomb’s law and I said it is all electricity… WRONG :( then gravity would be repelling and G gets a wrong value compared to what we measure.

This was actually not easy at all – most ideas of how gravity can be attractive instead of repulsive became complex and obscure – a warning sign that it is an effort just to save a faulty assumption[1].

Even after understanding the very nature of mass (ToS 4.3) (It is the Grid rooms encapsulating matter that pushes charge together and gives the charge increase we experience as mass.) it took some time for the Gravity mechanism (how we experience that space-time curves or the attraction between matter) to suddenly fall into place.

That also solved how matter can move at all in the super strong Grid (ToS 3.1.5) where it is accelerated, which was a big concern of the ToS (ToS 3.2). The Grid room encapsulating matter is magnetically decoupled from the surrounding Grid and can move

In the ToS, this picture from ToS 5 (and its 5 line text - look it up!) is the complete[2] description of mass and gravity summed up:

The Grid is held together by attracting magnetic forces. In the Grid room around matter, those magnetic forces are redirected to encapsulate the matter, giving it a charge increase (=mass). Outside the Grid room, the loss of the magnetic forces holding the Grid together makes it expand, resulting in a charge decrease, producing the electrical E-field which is the gravity field. (See picture to the right or ToS 4.3.1)!

That also fully explains why gravity is such a weak force (ToS 5.5) the charge increase and decrease is much smaller that the charge in the Grid itself (ToS 4.3.3: The Grid Room filtering is 3.44x10-23).

With this understanding in place (in addition to the basics required for F=ma, which turned out to only be: “the Universe is charged and a “charge increase” therein shows up as mass”) Newton’s gravity law comes out after one line of high school math, see (ToS 5.5.1).

Seems like nature was speaking again…

Q) But wait! We have had tremendous progress over the years resolving these mysteries, in Quantum M...

Which beyond the G-factor and the prediction of the spooky entanglement?

Q) We have found the Higgs particle (which may explain something about mass) and then the Graviton…

What would we need them for – IF they are ever found?

Q) I was supposed to ask the questions!

Sorry. I want to add that Peter Higgs is worth a Nobel prize anyway for introducing the Higgs field. The Higgs field is like the Grid, something filling all of space, something for mass to interact with. He had to fight a lot to reintroduce “an aether”. His paper was rejected by Cern. After adding one sentence about a particle (Boson/Higgs/God..) the same Cern built the LHC. Wasn’t there something about a Super LHC for the graviton…
 
Q) OK, but you are just using 150 years old electromagnetic theory – We know that force! Show us something that we already don’t know - like the mysterious dark energy accelerating distant galaxies so the universe’s expansion accelerates. We don’t have a clue of what that is!

Ahh, sorry, I did that BEFORE deriving F=ma and Gravity. It is in ToS 5.3. That is just Coulomb’s law accelerating distant galaxies, the law we could not use for gravity because it was repelling...

The distant force law below only requires the assumption “the Universe is charged and a “charge increase” therein shows up as mass” and some high school math:

Again, nature gave me a lecture: The force that accelerates distant galaxies has nothing to do with dark energy at all (even though I had worked out what the dark energy was in ToS 5.2 in preparation for deriving the acceleration). It is even simpler, for that acceleration we don’t even need the dark energy – That acceleration just depends on how close you are to edge of the universe! 

And… The accelerating galaxies is not the expansion of the universe!

The dark energy is the electrostatic over-pressure in the zone that we experience as our universe. That is where Planck’s constant comes from: “the dark energy in the universe per negtrino and revolution”:
which I call the undisputable proof of the ToS model, see http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/introduction.html#PlanckProof1.

The only objection I have heard yet (a couple of times), is what A-Anonymous brings up above as:

Q)  “You calculate the reduced Planck constant using numbers that you made up for a particle that you made up and offer the result as "proof" of the particle you made up. A high school algebra student could do the same.”

If the 10 pm negtrino distance was just “made up” that would be the case. That is however calculated in many other ways. The answer it at: http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/viewers-q.html#Gridstructure1  10 pm comes from the atom calculations in ToS 4.5.1 and the maximum density of atomic matter in ToS 4.5.6 (which osmium reaches to 99.7%). 10 pm also matches the calculation of the Grid in equilibrium when charge is 1/3 e and magnetic energy is 1/9 of the electron mass (ToS 3.1.1). In addition, the photon energy E=hf carried from negtrino to negtrino also gives this distance between the negtrinos, see the ToS Summary 2.3.1.

The negtrinos are out there, 10 pm apart, making up space itself!

Q) So, is the Distant Force law above proved? (We know that F=ma and gravity is real already and anyone can check that 4c4R0/Wde is the measured gravity constant G=6,6738x10-11 m5/(s4A) (ToS 5.5.1 and 5.5.2)?

No, I have asked some well known astronomers, if they can check the measured data of the acceleration of distant galaxies against the simple distance behavior in the ToS law above. (Their data analysis is instead based on after how many billion years after the Big Bang a repelling kind of gravity emerged. – That is not how nature works…)

I am still awaiting some answer - Will ask a few more astronomers now.  Do you know any?

And to answer your question “I do love your experiments, though. They are a source of infinite laughter for me. I wish guys like Archimedes, Newton, and Feynman were alive to read this "ToS". They would probably wish they could have pulled their theories out of their asses like you seem to have perfected.

Do you know anyone out there that can reproduce my experiment in ToS 4.5.5 under scientific conditions? Note the warnings! Maybe I can contribute with a Nobel prize in addition to the amusement J  

There are also a lot of things in the ToS that can be shown/proved by clever software simulation. Will the scientific community step in, or will those Nobel Prizes go to the Open Source community. Amazing things turns up from there! J There are many computer simulations “experiments” suggested in the ToS!

Finally, if you understood most of this, by studying the ToS, you will also be able to understand: 
- Why the negative electron does not fall into the positive atom nucleus (ToS 4.5) 
- How particles are composed (ToS 4) 
- The nature and mechanism of mass and gravity (ToS 4.3) 
- What a photon actually is (ToS 3.1.3) Why space-time curves and the speed of light is measured to be constant in relation to everything (ToS 4.5.9) 
- What Planck’s constant is  (ToS 3.1.3 and 6.1) What a black hole is (ToS 2.11.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.2.5, 4.7.2.7 and more) 
- What dark matter can be (ToS 4.8) 
- Where the antimatter is (ToS 7.1.1) 
- The Big Bang and the possible origin of our universe (ToS 7.2) 
- What makes up space itself (ToS 3, 6.3, 8, 8.2.3) 
- Why F=ma, what energy is and the origin of our laws of physics (ToS 6.3 and 5) 

Remember: There is a reality – often much simpler than expected!

Oh, I forgot the “Something out of Nothing”-question (ToS 8) and the very Creation itself (ToS 9).



[1] Another example that also looks like an effort to save a faulty assumption: For the Big Bang to create the Universe from nothing, you have to fix (i) that energy can come out of nothing: Just invent “Symmetry Breaking” = new physical laws appearing at convenient times, but (ii) Who assured then that all those laws became the same everywhere so we can be in the homogenous universe we see? Just invent “Inflation”, that the entire universe must have emerged from a quantum mechanical short cut (of course, anything is allowed quantum mechanics we are taught these days) of something smaller than an atom and expanding faster than light at some Planck time period when needed? Then (iii)… How about considering ToS section 7, especially 7.2.3 and 7.2.2 instead?
[2] The E1 formula is only for long distances (Newton’s gravity), but a clever mathematician should be able to work out something that matches Einstein’s gravity at shorter distances.

4 comments:

  1. Gravitational energy, or mass-energy is independent from electromagnetism energy [light; electric field [i.e. charge density]; and magnetic fields] as measured and described in my patent application. http://www.calfree.com/13595424.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael, In the ToS, Energy is the density of magnetic momentum see http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/top-views.html#energy. I’m not sure of the different kind of energy in your patent. There is more feedback on the linked-in discussion http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3091009&type=member&item=170717825&commentID=99714901&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regarding your derivation of F=ma, deriving a fundamental law of physics should not be possible, but I can't see what is wrong - Irritating! :) Can you allow me to cut and paste from this site and your documents to ask about the F=ma derivation at Physics Forum? They don't allow references to "New Theories" so I cannot say it is coming from here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, since you are asking so nicely, you are welcome to do that. Let me know about their feedback!

      Delete

Real Time Web Analytics