Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

ABRAHAM: on 12/4/12 at 3:43am UTC, wrote Higgs Boson illustration and Spatial co-ordinate system illustration...

ABRAHAM: on 12/4/12 at 3:38am UTC, wrote Roger, 1) Gravity is the result of vacuum energies seeking to equalise the...

roger muldavin: on 12/4/12 at 2:24am UTC, wrote December 3, 2012, Arcadia, Michigan Thanks for all the comments. I scanned...

ABRAHAM: on 10/5/12 at 4:59am UTC, wrote You can only hope that the essays are assessed on their scientific merit...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 7:07am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

ABRAHAM: on 10/3/12 at 5:13am UTC, wrote Hai, Thanks for you input of the past days, as always a second-point of...

Hoang Hai: on 10/3/12 at 3:55am UTC, wrote DEAR ABRAHAM and TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST. Today, I am...

Hoang Hai: on 10/3/12 at 3:49am UTC, wrote DEAR ABRAHAM and TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST. Today, I am...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Tetryonics - The Charged Geometry of EM Mass-Energy-Matter by Kelvin Abraham [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Kelvin ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

After hundreds of years of dedicated research why do we not have a quantum mechanical model of sub-atomic particles and forces that explains all their observed properties and interactions? One that will leads from the quantum scale of Electro-Magnetism through to the cosmological scale of Gravity. Equilateral trigonometry used as a priori definition of the true quantum geometry of Energy allows for a whole suite of current quantum mysteries to be resolved. In turn the geometry establishs a mechanical basis for all quantum processes and interactions and highlights the error of using Mathematics without formal models on which to base their results. Revealing the true geometries of all sub-atomic particles and their associated EM fields of interaction many long-held mysteries such as Charge, mass-Matter, Wave-Particle duality, Spectral line emission/absorption, Electricity and even the true geometries of all the elements and their compounds are swept away. Even the true nature and mechanics of Gravity is revealed uniting Einstein's GR with Newton's Gravitation opening the door to clean limitless Energy generation by revealing the true source of and mechanism behind the SUN's energy. Tetryonic geometry covers Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electro-Dynamics, Chemistry, Cosmology and Mathematics and opens the door to countless major scientific and technological advances, in turn providing benefits for the human condition in ways never before witnessed. This is my gift to the Planet and all Future generations.......

Author Bio

Kelvin ABRAHAM 29/7/1965 Logan Australia Electrical Engineer with certificates in Data communications and Telecommunications network infrastructure Design and Standardisation.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



nmann wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 22:17 GMT
This is an interesting and ambitious paper. But it doesn't mention what in practical terms is (quoting Jan Zaanen) "the nightmare of modern physics," namely the fermion minus-sign problem.

Can strongly-interacting fermions be bosonized and mapped to Monte Carlo simulations? Or is strong fermionic interaction, as Matthias Troyer and Uwe-Jens Wiese believe, computationally NP-hard and mathematically intractable? Does your geometrical approach afford a work-around that might explain in sufficient detail the emergence of condensed matter?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 00:14 GMT
Firstly I am not a Mathematician - I would prefer the term Geometer.

As I understand it the crux of the minus-sign problem is finding a physical way to determine, sample and use both Positive and Negative probability distributions [please correct me if this is wrong]

Using my work [www.youtube.com/tetryonics] you CAN solve for this problem by using Charge geometries. Negative and Positive charge geometries result from the non-neutral component bosons of any charge [equilateral] geometry. The Bosons [odd number] components form a transverse quantum level and the Photon geometries [even numbers]form a longitudinal probabilistic geometry.

Square roots are the heights of each 2D equilateral geometry leading to a physical representation of Euler's formula for the square root of Negative one.

Super-positioned KE [electric]component geometries of each charge geometry are easily achieved resulting in our familiar physical Force constants.

These functional geometries all combine to form the familiar quantum mass-energy wave-function probabilities [as formulated by Schrödinger etc]

Fermions [4npi Matter geometries] can be Bosonised [ODDpi Charge geometries] as this is simply converting standing-wave Matter into radiant mass-Energy with all resultant charge geometries having a probabilistic n-distribution reflective of the [+/-] charge geometry and their [square n] energy content. (see attached)

To me this is all much easier to view geometrically rather than explain mathematically here but you will find much of the geometry described here on my webpage in the Bosons and Photons/EM wave chapters.

Applying these basic geometries to the problem the NP=P problem can be resolved physically through the geometry of Charge [both Negative and Positive] and forms the basis of my work on quantum computing [to be released].

attachments: Figure_80.22__Geometric_Physical_Maths_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 22:40 GMT
Kelvin

Please see my essay in last competition about Tetrahedron Logic

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT
Your paper on the 3:1 ratios in Physics is reminiscent of many who seek to understand the 1/3 charges of Quark etc. and in fact was the starting point for my journey of discovery.

Where I differed was that upon discovering the 'SQUARE' geometry of equilateral triangles I resolved Quarks to be 4 or 8 charge geometries [4/8] & [10/2] respectively.

I then resolved 2D CHARGE geometries to be equilateral triangles [a major jumping off point] and built all 3D Matter geometries from them then allowing me to realise the physical geometries of all mass-ENERGY-Matter as outlined in my work to date.

This charge geometry then allowed me to define Quarks & Leptons to be 12pi geometries with differing resultant net charges and Baryons to be 36pi geometries [see attached].

The quantum building block of all Matter was then revealed to be a 4pi Tetryon which surprisingly has a mass-charge ratio identical to that of Leptons explaining how it has been overlooked for so long in particle accelerator results.

The creation of all mass-ENERGY-Matter is the possible from the one geometric element of a neutral Z Boson [single equilateral triangle with positive and negative sides] or as I term it a Zero Point EM field with a Energy of hv.

Note - of extreme importance was the precise and rigorous definitions of terms such as 2D mass-Energy and 3D Matter along with the clarification of the distinction between Planck's transverse [hv] mass-Energies and Einstein's longitudinal[hf] mass-Energies [Charge vs Photons respectively].

Many patterns similar to the 3:1 ratio you noted can now be resolved down further to their base 12:1 charge geometries providing both a physical basis for CHARGE and highlighting its foundational role in the formation of all mass-ENERGY-Matter geometries in quantum mechanics

As Wheeler alluded the result is a beautifully simple geometric explanation for all the Forces and EM mass-ENERGY-Matter that are currently described by many disparate and dis-jointed quantum theories.

attachments: Figure_10.07__Tetryonic_Charge_Geometries_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 01:57 GMT
The Universe has:

Fermions 12(6 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino).

Bosons 12(8 gluons+3 vector(2W+1Z)+1photon).

Numerical supersymmetry not broken.

3.From other side the Universe has:

Fermions 3(proton,electron,neutrino),neutron non-stable

Boson only 1 photon.

See my essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Metasymmetry is broken

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 02:56 GMT
The asymmetry of equilateral Energy creates Positive & Negative Charges and Charges seeking equilibrium create EM field/particle geometries.

[See previous attachment for table of charged particles]

2D mass-ENERGIES

2 Charged Bosons Charge carriers [vector +W, -W]

1 Neutral Boson [Z boson]

1 Photon EM force carrier [bidirectional]

3D Matter

4 Charged Fermions [1 Tetryon, 2 Quarks, 1 Lepton]

2 Neutral Fermions [1 Gluon, 1 Neutrino]

1 Charged Baryon [Proton]

1 Neutral Baryon [Neutron]

......and their anti-particles resulting from nett Charge geometries of the same

2D mass-Energy content of each charged fascia creates the particle families.

Your 3:1 Tetrahedron ratio expands to become 12:1 CHARGED fascia ratio [with charges adding up to nett particle charge]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
This link http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3762 about tetron models

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 00:34 GMT
Also

http://metatranspiration.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/star-t
etrahedra-the-universe-revealed/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 01:54 GMT
It is the definition of equilateral CHARGE geometries and their role in creating 3D Tetryon[ic] Matter geometries that lies at the heart of my theory.

The equilateral CHARGED geometry of ENERGY proves a clear foundation for all EM mass-ENERGY-Matter particles of the Standard Model

It may be helpful to visualise this equilateral geometry as an ‘ideal quantum inductive loop’ of EM energy which forms the basis for inertial mass etc but it is also equally important to also note that 2D mass & 3D Matter are different properties of ENERGY and must be clearly defined.

2D mass-Energy is a planar radiative charge geometry and

3D Matter is a standing-wave mass-Energy geometry that is relativistically invariant

Vectors are in fact the result of the longitudinal [linear] momenta [SQUARE ROOT] of all 2D Kinetic Energy geometries that result from 3D Matter geometries in motion.

It is the 2D Kinetic Energy fields that undergo Lorentz contractions as a result of acceleration NOT the 3D Energy standing-waveforms of Matter has been supposed under SR and GR since their formulation by Einstein.

As you allude to in your paper it is the invariant 4npi tetrahedral standing-wave geometry of EM mass-ENERGY that is the quantum of all Matter, with its various net charge fascia producing the many fractional ‘elemental’ charges of Quarks etc and neutral charges of Photons and Gluons etc.

The quantum property of SPIN is the result of the geometrically enforced EM properties of 2D mass-Energy quanta of the 2D KEM fields of Matter in motion. [historically incorrectly viewed as the relativistic distortion of spherical point charges]

Leptons have a unique geometry that is reflective of a quantum 6 pole electric rotor [see attached] that permits the development of larger magnetic moments than that of either Quarks or Baryons

My YouTube pages go into these specific properties in greater depth that I can here [www.youtube.com/tetryonics]

attachments: Figure_19.03__Generating_Magnetons_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
Have you seen my essay?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear Kelvin

Congratulations for presenting your ideas on fqxi. This led me to look at your website and youtube offerings. To use Dirac's criterion your work is too beautiful not to be true. I may be speaking as an artist who also thinks about physics geometrically. This is my first impression, but your work deserve detailed critical study.

I am not an expert in particle physics so I would not be able to judge some of your conclusions, but I do have one objection about your physics: the photon...it is not a particle!

To see why please read Eric Reiter's fqxi essay here. Also my own essay mentions this topic. I find your approach very interesting - you think geometrically in terms of elemental building blocks (the tetrahedron). Indeed two of the dielectric nodes which are the elemental building blocks in my Beautiful Universe Theory can make such a tetrahedron.

Your illustrations are mostly in 2D so sometimes it is hard to see how the tetrahedra fit together. You show N/S/E as corners of the equilateral base of the tetrahedron, and I take it the apex is W - is there attraction and repulsion between these poles?. And what is the difference between N/S, E/W ? Thanks for clarifying this point.

I wish you luck - you are definitely on the right track and have worked hard!

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 10:29 GMT
I agree the Photon is not a particle ...it is a 2D EM wave consisting of 2 charged geometries. I must point out here as I always to the Photon is not 'massless' as is often claimed..it is better termed Matter-less as it is a 2D Em geometry not a 3D Matter geometry.

I have uploaded Tetryonic templates onto PirateBay that you can use to make the Tetryon[ic] quanta of Matter to give you a better feel for the real geometry of the theory [or just create your own using 4 ZPF geometries in 1 larger equilateral triangle and then fold into a tetrahedral geometry like nature does]. I do suggest this approach as I used it extensively when I was training my mind to visualise equilateral geometries and how it all works.

The drawings [whilst in 2D] do actually reflect the 3D geometries when you look closer [ie positive and negative fascia are marked on them]. In attachment 2 you will note the 2D planar geometries of Matter compared to the representative 3D models on the right of the picture. Creating a paper Tetryon and holding it up will help see what I talking about here.

But suffice to say close examination of all my work will reveal a lot of 'hidden' details resulting from applying and refining my wok over the past 4 years - even the colours used are specific - Pink of velocity, Green for Matter, Orange for Charge, Aqua for Magnetic fields etc etc.

The E you identified as East is in fact the Electric field [permittivity] of the charged geometry either Positive of Negative with differing Magnetic dipoles

So the Corners of all Tetryons are either North or South Magnetic poles as each fascia has a charged E field and an associated Mag dipole arrangement. .

It is through the interaction of these charged fascia that large-scale Matter forms. ie Weak interact is via Magnetic dipole induction [Bosons] and Strong force is the result of parallel charged fascia coming together and binding. The nett charges then create the multiples of the elemental charge recognised in the Standard model.

To summarise N-E-S is a Positive charge field and S-E-N is a Negative charge field...a bit hard to describe here, hence the many illustrations on the web [note 1st attachment]..

Care always has to taken with letters symbolising things... I always use m for mass and M for Matter but unfortunately E can stand for Energy as well as Electric fields. [That's English for you]. You will note that in QM I tended to draw rotational EoUo vectors reflective of the classical flow of Energy in an ideal inductive loop to help illustrate Charge polarities. This drops away in QED as the reader should be more familiar with the true geometry of Energy by then and hopefully can distinguish it automatically from the Mag dipole polarity at that stage.

Hope this help clear things up.

attachments: Figure_03.01__Zero_Point_Fields_800x600.jpg, Figure_06.08__Tetryon_family_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 20:46 GMT
Hello thinkers,

Permit me to tell this:

I don't agree, the photon is a particule !!! relativistically speaking.The wave duality takes all its meaning in fact.It is just that this light turns in the other sense than fermions. So indeed it has not mass, but it possesses the quantum number ! This line of reasoning shows the road for a better understanding of our duality w/p. The duality is rational.

ps:All is composed by the same essence , the light.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 21:38 GMT
Photons must be clearly defined against common physical interpretations.

They are 2pi EM energy geometries that radiate bidrectionally from a point.

They are EM mass-Energies when mass-ENERGY-Matter are all clearly defined.

Photons are Matter-less not mass-less [All Energy per second is mass].

Historically the very poor definitions of mass and Matter have led to a very confusing picture of what the 2 are.

2D mass is radiant ENERGY/c^2 [in a planar form] and

Matter is a standing-wave Energy geometry [Tetrahedral].

You will note that I repeat this point incessantly throughout my work.

So depending on your definitions your comment can be viewed as correct but in order to gain a geometric view of quantum mechanics and to gain a precise understanding of the two forms of Energy [mass & Matter] my definitions are better.

My youtube channel [Tetryonics] has expansive explanations of W/P duality, Photons and EM waves and QED itself is dedicated to the complete explanation of Electricity and all the nuclear Spectral lines.

Equilateral charged Energy geometry is the essence of everything - Light is a secondary form [2pi radiant] and the first physical manifestation of Energy perceivable by us

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT
Dear Kelvin Abraham,

We have the same view on modern physics and it's many inherent problems. I agree with you that matter is a standing wave geometry, although I also believe in the emission and re-aborption of graviton particles as well. You have presented an outstanding essay with professional diagrams to aid in your vision of reality.

I have made a potential discovery which shows matter to have a certain geometry with respect to it's gravitational field of influence. You would surely gain something from visualising what I have to say in my own essay entry: Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality

Kind regards,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 23:03 GMT
Your paper gets to the crux of a couple 'sticky 'points in Physics namely the transfer of Energy throughout Space and our current models of how things work of a cosmological scale.

I too have spent quite some time looking into this matter in order to develop a consistent and accurate quantum theory of Gravitations [as derived from Tetryonics].

Without giving too much away [as I have yet to release all my work on Gravitation] I would like to point out that you have fallen into the trap of trying to explain Energy on the cosmological scale through Gravity alone.

Einstein and all others have also fallen into this trap - Newton developed Gravitation from observations of the motions of celestial bodies, Einstein revised it with GR [an extension of SR] once more accurate observations revealed some inconsistencies. But both assumed that Gravity was the only force at work between celestial bodies.

Quantum mechanics tells us something completely different, hence the problem to date find a quantum theory of Gravitation that can unite Classical and Quantum physics.

Gravitons [along with Dark Energy/Matter] are just the results of trying to explain gravitation through a math that lacks a formal model of its quantum geometry and interactions.

I encourage you to continue thinking about these points as the answer is there [while the Forest has many trees it also has just as many shrubs and they both contribute to its total character]...I will release my QG work around October.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 10:49 GMT
Thanks for the kind words Alan,

Having perused you paper I agree that the WEP has its limitations at the quantum level. I spent many days struggling to explain this very point when I applied Tetryonics to Gravitation at both the quantum and Cosmological scales. But once I realise what Einstein had done and what GR was really representing all the pieces fell into place.

In short GR corrects for the observed fine perturbations of Mercury etc. but goes on to make erroneous assumptions as Einstein corrected for the motions but failed to recognise what was really causing the deviation from Newtonian gravitational mechanics. A shame as GR was based on SR after all.

This along with a number of other subtle but important mistakes in the modelling of the mathematics of quantum field equations and GR theory has resulted in almost a century of misdirection in determining a true quantum theory of Gravitation.

Gravitation is not on the web yet [a couple months time when I have finished reviewing it] but Tetryonic gravitation shows the true mechanism for Solar 'fusion' and points the way to clean limitless Energy using current technologies as I alluded to in this paper.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
Whee! First one looked at in the same ball park! Carried well beyond my entry.. Kudos!

1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing selected works for adding End Notes. You extend my notions with different balls.

I am pursuing consciousness, as Panpsychism which exists in ALL things to avoid Thermodynamic entropy,..Carnot's motive force of heat as primary to produce work energy.

First,, mass and energy, respectively, as the inscribed sphere, tangent to the face of a regular tetrahedron where sphere and tetrahedron have equal surface-to-volume ratios at ANY size, e.g. equivalent "activity" as free energy , unbounded as size approaches zero. Conclusion, Tesla's birth and death of ALL things at a a frequency.

Second, E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present?

Comment? (may use in end notes)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 21:19 GMT
1. Important key here is the fact that Energy has an EQUILATERAL geometry and TIME as measurement by us [Physics] is the radial distance travelled by light in a unit of Time.

Remember that light is bidirectional radiant Energy - thus in 1 second = c^2 radial.

This leads us to mass = Energy per c^2

ie An equilateral triangle [ET] circumscribed with a circle.

[Energy is just an ET without a circle]

2. The AREA covered by mass-Energy's ET geometry per second has the physical dimension of [m^2] which historically has been mistakenly viewed as classical angular momentum [ie a rotational vector] it is in fact a triangular geometry

3. Quantised Angular Momentum [QAM] as I refer to it, (to distinguish between the two]is revealed thus to be is a ET geometry and its Energy content per second forms EM mass. Its two possible directions create the two forms of CHARGE [Pos & Neg]

4. Linear momenta is simply the SQUARE ROOT of any Energy geometry [ie Vector Height of triangle] and as you point out it is then physically possible to represent the square roots of both Positive AND Negative EM mass-Energies.

[The SQR of Neg One is a physical reality] and Time is simply a measure of the QAM/Second of any physical system.

ie QAM/c^2 = [m^2/sec / sec^2/m^2] = seconds [pos or neg]

These points form the foundational [priori] points of Tetryonics that must be clearly understood by the reader so sense can be made of quantum physics.

More illustrations on these points are available in the opening 2 chapters on my webpage

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
I was inclined to approach the problem as a sphere inscribed, tangent to face of tetrahedron..where surface-to-volume of both are equivalent! Repeating this structure within and without carries on to cosmos and microscopic size.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
Understand the model you are portraying....

But I would say why would Nature have two identical 'particles' based on different geometry.

Tetrahedral geometries have 4 fascias of interaction for each Matter quanta.

Tetryonics creates everything out of ONE shape [a Equilateral Triangle] and it is only in the micro/macroscopic world that we can't see the triangulated fascia.

{just like a video game or movie CG etc.)

And as my models works for QM, QED, Chemistry and QG I feel it is the better approach to Q-geometry....but I always remain open to new ideas, it is funny where inspiration for QM solutions comes from

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Abraham,

As one elec. engr. to another, I like the photon definition and related descriptions you provide in your essay. I did not use the term "photon" in the IEEE paper I cited in my essay, 1294, I described the phenomenon using wavelength and frequency. Your geometric approach to describing physical law is supported by a statement I made in the IEEE paper.

"The basic tenets of electromagnetic waves were applied to the mathematical structure of algebra abut 200 years ago, wherein the methodology herein substitutes the mathematical structure of geometry. If one fundamental physical constant can be identified by a pair of simple right triangles based upon mathematical constants, it raises the issue that other fundamental physical constants might be identified using the same or other geometric structures."

That statement passed peer review because I demonstrated unequivocally that a pair of right triangles, dimensioned with physical constants, allowed the velocity of electromagnetic waves to be defined mathematically. It made it difficult for the peer reviewers to state it cannot be done.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
Absolutely agree here.

In fact the mathematical exploration of quantum mechanics is hopelessly lost with a rigid definable geometry to guide it.

It leads to all sorts of outcomes [multi-dimensions, black holes, no distinction between mass & Matter etc.]

A lot of time was taken up correcting small [but important] 'errors' arising from geometry-less maths. [Maths may the language - but geometry is the Canvas surface on which it is written].

See attached for the geometric explanation of all Physical constants. Many more examples [Coloumb' Law, Newton's G Alpha etc] are found in Chapter 16 on my YouTube channel.

attachments: Figure_16.01__The_geometry_of_Constants_800x600.jpg, Figure_16.04__Coulombs_Constant_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Correction:.

That statement passed peer review because I demonstrated unequivocally that a pair of right triangles, dimensioned with mathematical constants, allowed the velocity of electromagnetic waves to be defined mathematically."

I had stated erroneously "physical constants". The title of the IEEE paper is, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


nmann wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 20:44 GMT
"As I understand it the crux of the minus-sign problem is finding a physical way to determine, sample and use both Positive and Negative probability distributions [please correct me if this is wrong]"

Not wrong so much as not complete. It's more than a computational problem designed to give numerical simulators headaches. It appears to be a fundamental barrier to progress in condensed matter physics. It's plain awful.

"Using my work [www.youtube.com/tetryonics] you CAN solve for this problem by using Charge geometries. Negative and Positive charge geometries result from the non-neutral component bosons of any charge [equilateral] geometry. The Bosons [odd number] components form a transverse quantum level and the Photon geometries [even numbers]form a longitudinal probabilistic geometry."

Okay ... without evaluating your video let me say this: you need to appreciate the goldmine you might be sitting on top of. If you're right, and you can get someone to mathematize your geometry, you may have managed to put strongly-interacting chiral fermions on the lattice and bosonize them for Monte Carlo simulation, and in addition (by disproving Troyer-Wiese) proven P=NP. That last could be worth a million dollars (US) from the Clay Mathematics Institute. Seriously.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT
I understand...and that is exactly what I am saying.

The longitudinal Energy quanta comprising Positive and Negative Charge geometries [photons] form n distribution patterns.

Their transverse ODD numbered [bosons] distributions form Quantum levels

and their total Energy [sum of the Odd numbers] are SQUARE numbers.

Also note that super-positioned Charge geometries then interact via their E fields with their geometric SQUARE ROOTS forming the well known Physical constants.

So through Charge geometry I can physically represent and model Odd numbers, SQUARE numbers, Square Roots, n Distributions, geometric MEANS, perform MULTIPLICATION via super-positioning and physically product the SQUARE ROOT of Plus or Minus One [Hello Euler - a physical model of your formula art last].

Plus all of these results can be generated instantly through the physical measurement of any number of super-positioned EM waveforms [multi-input computations]

All of this work forms the basis of a real quantum computer [as along with the geometric results above you also have to be able to build a real quantum sized computer element to store and manipulate data etc].

And I am only too happy to explain all of this in detail personally in order for the Science & Maths community to understand how it all works. But it required detailed explanations of the pertinent points and space in this forum is limited [hence all my videos].

Tetryonics really is the holy grail of Physics and Maths providing a clear consistent and testable way forward for Science in general and Humanity in particular.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 17:02 GMT
Kelvin,

I have been sifting through your essay in an attempt to find correlation between what I understand as compared to what you present about Tetryonics. During the discovery process for the concept presented in the IEEE reference in my essay, 1294, the value of 4Pi was extracted. I realized that the 4Pi value was representing a more complicated EM concept than that presented in the paper, which uses the 2Pi concept. I made the following statement in the paper, "Using the value of 2Pi for intrinsic frequency is not intuitive to the general scientific community, except perhaps to electrical engineers, who use 2Pi to represent a generic wavelength."

I take exception to your continued use of SI units to represent dimensions. If you truly want to redress our technological deficiencies, you need to utilize "intrinsic units", and derivatives thereof, as your Tetryonics units of measure. I demonstrated that the geometric-mathematical concepts in the IEEE paper directly link time, distance (space) and energy to a single mathematical equation, and it is simple.

You started your essay by quoting Einstein, and I will end this with another of his quotes, "Everything should be simple, but not too simple." Linking all the base units of measure to a simple mathematical abstraction, one that use mathematical concepts that are taught in K-12 schools, is about a simple as it needs to be.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 23:10 GMT
Tetryonics has many layers of detail not obvious to the first time viewer of the theory [particular the 9 page introduction submitted here].

As you point out many simplistic terms (and units) can be further resolved to reveal increasing levels of detail and complexity but a trade off has to be made.

You may view it as being similar to Einstein's use of a rubber sheet to depict curved Space-Time [while useful to help grasp the concept of Reimannian curvature it is completely incorrect as a physical model and does not represent the quantised nature of Gravitation in any way suitable for the formulation or development of a quantum theory of gravity].

In seeking a consistent methodology to present Tetryonic geometries I chose to highlight the generalised geometry of CHARGED Energy [ie Pos & Neg EM fields] as it is the interactions of charged geometries [through their E&M fields] that creates 3D Matter.

Hence the term Tetryonics - The CHARGED geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter.

For example the 2pi geometries of radiant Energy [Light] can be further resolved to 8pi geometries of the same [4pi longitudinal Electric fields with a transverse 4pi Magnetic moment see QED on my YouTube channel]

In short in order to in order to convey the beauty of the theory in 2D illustrations [major details of the theory can only be understood by building 3D physical models of what I represent as 2D illustrations and physically manipulating them - and this I encourage].

See attached.

attachments: Figure_90.11__n6_Charged_800x600.jpg, Figure_02.03__Tetryonics_and_Pi_radians_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Kelvin,

"In seeking a consistent methodology to present Tetryonic geometries I chose to highlight the generalised geometry of CHARGED Energy [ie Pos & Neg EM fields] as it is the interactions of charged geometries [through their E&M fields] that creates 3D Matter."

I agree, specialized forms of EM fields represent what we call 3D matter. One of my mentors, since deceased, a Prof Emeritus of Elec. Engr., stated that we are a "specialized form of energy." This agrees with the discredited theory of "energetics", which was supported by Max Planck, everything is a form of energy.

Consider the billions being spent in an effort to break apart particles, when in reality they are attempting to separate different EM field structures (EM geometries) from each other, very inefficiently.

I just looked at one of your Utube videos on EM waves, QED-28. Longitudinal EM waves are not like sound waves. Examine Laguerre-Gaussian beams with longitudinal components.

Have you examined Bob Palais' Pi page?

Pi

He published an article in the Mathematical Intelligencer, "Pi is Wrong!"

Your 2Pi and 4Pi descriptions match material I have in a couple of papers. My IEEE paper uses the 2Pi description, but I avoid using the 4Pi term in my other papers, not because it is not correct, I describe the characteristic in a different manner.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 22:28 GMT
Max Planck's theory of 'Energetics'was on the right track - but it became complicated with things like Maxwellian waves, Transverse mass & Longitudinal waves, quantised energy and probabilistic wavefunctions etc as you point out).

Lacking a formally defined and visual model for their Mathematical solutions to the same,the situation then became even more confused as numerous answers [sqr Neg one, probabilities etc] became accepted scientific answers to quantum math.

Maxwell [had he lived ] would have been one of the first to point out that you must be able to build a physical model of any quantum system in order to justify the theory's accuracy and completeness.

I too agree with the comments concerning pi [C/D] vs Pi radians - it is a fine example in science of using 1 name for 2 distinct properties and as pointed out in Tetryonics we have been mistaking EQUILATERAL Pi radians for spherical Pi ratios in QM for over a century now.

This situation became very more complex in tetryonics where Pi [normally the property of a circle/sphere] becomes a property of Equilateral geometries. However in ET 1/2 pi really is 1/2 of the triangle and 2 ETs have internal angles adding up to 360 degrees so you win some - you lose some.

Fortunately TIME (having a spherical geometry) is usually measured by us as the time is takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres so it units are usually s. s^2 or c^2, c^4. [even though they are drawn as spheres.

I was tempted (early in my work) to use 'Tau' in lieu of Pi for my unified equation but dropped it as I thought it would create confusion in understanding my theory. [ie 4Pi & 36Pi quickly create the impression of geometry in most minds whereas 4T & 36T etc don't] and who am I to re-write mathematical descriptors - I am doing so much now correcting subtle but important misconceptions that arise from using Math without physical Models..

Sometimes you have to go with the accepted terms in order to have a new theory viewed seriously and to be understood by minds used to those particularly quirky

inconstancy...perhaps when the theory develops we can change these poor definitions .... after all seriously QUARKS, UP, DOWN, STRANGE, CHARMED, TOP, BOTTOM, GLUONS??

Perhaps when the theory grows in acceptance we can hold a international council to review some of the sillier names of fields & particles in Physics...I have gone far enough naming the tetrahedral quantum of Matter [the Tetryon]

attachments: 1_Figure_02.03__Tetryonics_and_Pi_radians_800x600.jpg, 1_Figure_01.03__Spatial_geometries_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT
Kelvin,

"Fortunately TIME (having a spherical geometry) is usually measured by us as the time is takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres .... "

You need to reexamine how you have defined TIME. TIME is a manifestation of the existence of energy. You do not need TIME unless you have energy. I don't know if you looked at the IEEE paper I cite in my essay, topic 1294, but TIME is the result of the relationship between an EM wavelength and its duration, otherwise it seems TIME has no requirement to exist. This is a mathematical argument for the existence of TIME.

Before the concepts in the IEEE paper were identified, time was never expressed in relationship to energy, it was tied to the 1/86400th division of the rotation of the planet Earth, the second. The second duration is okay for domestic use but it has no validity as a scientific unit of measure.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT
I agree Time is simple the measurement of Energy's motion in empty space.

If you take the equilateral geometry of Energy/second you have Planck's constant [kg.m^2/s] - ignoring the mass (which is Energy per second [c^2] you will find you have m^2 left over. I introduce the reality of this unit as the area of an Equilateral triangle. so Plancks' constant is really reflecting EQ.Energy/sec

ie Quantised Angular Momentum = m^2/s

mass = Energy /second = Energy/c^2 = kg

put the two together you have Planck's Constant [kg.m^2/s]

TIME is thus revealed as a measurement of the measure of the QAM

equilateral geometries] of Energy in any region of Space



QAM/c^2 = [m^2/s]*[s^2/m^2] = seconds

As you rightly point out no Energy means no QAM geometry per region of Space

this no TIME.

And no changes to Energy means no changes to its QAM quanta [h] - without changes to the Energy content of a region of Space there can be no measurement of what we perceive and measure to be TIME, and from that we can clearly identify the 2 'directions of Time' as being what causes the 2 forms of Electric CHARGE to arise.

'Travel forward in Time' - Positive Charge

'Travel Backward in Time' - Negative charge

To illustrate that point I drew rotational vectors onto the geometries of equilateral Energy geometries. You can then view them as the Energy flow in idealised quantum inductive loops. [remember inductors are the electrical equivalent of inertial mass]

It is important to remember here that Angular Momentum [as viewed currently by Physicists] is a measure of the rotational velocity component of a system - in Tetryonics it it a reflection of the EQUILATERAL GEOMETRY only - there is no rotational component only changes to the Energy quanta per unit of Time.

Additionally, you may find a lot more information of what I am explaining here in my QED video on You Tube particularly the Spectral line calculations and the work on Photons wavelengths and frequency.

CH29 illustration 17 shows clearly how frequency, wavelength and wave numbers are all directly related through mass to QAM geometry.

see attached

CH60 may be of help in understanding how QAM is the source of the Fine Structure, various coupling constants and Charge itself

I'll look over your paper and get back to you.

attachments: Figure_01.07__Quantised_Angular_Momentum_800x600.jpg, Figure_61.08__Time_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
Kelvin,

'Travel forward in Time' - Positive Charge

'Travel Backward in Time' - Negative charge

Only in "physics fiction" can time travel backwards. This would imply that an event can have a less than zero duration.

I would like to know of a reference dating from the period of Tesla's spark gap oscillation process where someone measured the presence of longitudinal EM waves.

It is not difficult to build an antenna that can efficiently detect longitudinal EM waves, but the same structure will detect transverse wave equally. I am unaware of receiver-signal processors of the Tesla era that could provide discrimination between longitudinal and transverse EM waves.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 21:38 GMT
Frank,

You're right about the antenna for either design being able to receiver each type of wave.

As I see it the longitudinal wave would act as a carrier signal like we already do, you could encode information as frequency variations on top of this carrier signal [as we already do in AM] of use the LW own momenta as information[by varying the voltage that produced it - a LW version of FM].

Either way, if we were to filter out the information superimposed on the LW carrier frequency we would measure it has a couple of different features to a typical AM carrier signal.

The measured carrier wave would be a longitudinal wave and its momenta (at the receiver) would be varying in a way that contains information. This signal variation would be a fluctuation in the Voltage per second [E=hv]rather than a Frequency per second variation[E=hf] as is normally employed in radio communications.

In short it would be a Longitudinal variation that decodes into intelligible information that you would be looking to discriminate for [ie Voltage fluctuations]

All that is needed for such a system to work (and transmit information of vast distances instantly) would be a source of constant LWs - may I suggest our own SUN. It has been doing that since its birth and its LW should have reached a few billion light years out by now. [perhaps SETI has been looking in the wrong direction all this time - ET uses stars to communicate with each other]

attachments: Figure_79.06__FTL_Communications_800x600.jpg, Figure_79.09__Interstellar_communication_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 23:41 GMT
Kelvin,

You did not respond to the statement I made in my Aug. 15, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT post, "I just looked at one of your Utube videos on EM waves, QED-28. Longitudinal EM waves are not like sound waves. Examine Laguerre-Gaussian beams with longitudinal components."

For an EM wave with a field component aligned with the axis of propagation, you now get a variation in the intensity in the direction of the axis during the wave cycle, but the frequency of the wave stays constant.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 04:16 GMT
Frank,

Apologies if the response was delayed somewhere but I did reply - perhaps my being in a AUS time zone [GMT+10] had something to do with that.

Re Longitudinal wave correct they are directional EM waves with their E fields aligned with their direction of propagation[DOP] and are produced by spark gaps as utilised by Tesla at the turn of the century.

Whereas Hertzian/Maxwellian waves are Transverse EM waves produced by accelerating/oscillating electrons and have their E fields orthogonal to their DOP.

Tesla attempted to persuade Hertz of this when he first announced his discovery but when the photoelectric effect was discovered transmission technology switched to accelerating electrons instead of spark gaps and the debate died down.

Transverse waves are like sound waves in that they create a pressure gradient in any region of space, while Longitudinal waves have their momenta aligned to their DOP [consider one a slap to the face the other a karate jab to the eye].

Additionally, (and this is hard to explain here] the Energy intensity of a Transverse wave is a function of its instantaneous Frequency [E=hf] while a Longitudinal wave's energy is more appropriately described by [E=p^2] because it is the momenta aligned to the DOP that does the work [hence the above analogy]..

It is Longitudinal waves with their aligned momenta that can produce real damage as well being able to produce 'instantaneous action-at-a-distance'.

You can produce EM waves with identical EM Energies (which only differ in the polarization of their constituent Energy momenta) but it is the Longitudinal wave that will kill you [ask Tesla' assistants or anyone struck by lightning].

Reading up on Gaussian beans etc will also take me some time so I trust this helps.

attachments: Figure_28.07__Hertz_vs_Tesla_800x600.jpg, Figure_28.08__EM_waves_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 09:15 GMT
Abraham,

Thank you for your earlier replies. I have a question for you which will hopefully tell whether we have a hypopthesis overlap or not: "How do you explain the well known Flyby anomaly?"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 10:48 GMT
In the simplest terms:

The SUN (and all Planets etc) emits radiant energies throughout the heliosphere in addition to the convergent gravitational energy produced by their Matter.

These divergent energies have already been included in the Newtonian model of Gravitation (as well as GR) because both are based on observations not first principles [and so have not been noticed].

Neither theory differentiates between EM mass and Matter [in fact GR - based on SR - must accommodate it in its formulation but simply lumps Energy in all its forms into the Stress-Energy tensor - EM mass is completely distinct from Matter]

I propose the term Gravito-Electro-Magnetism [GEM] to reflect the three distinct forces produced by all Matter (particularly Matter in motion]

The radiant energies produce a net DIVERGENT interactive component to gravitation that that diminishes under the inverse square law and as all Matter is comprised of charged energy fascia interacts with it BUT because our current models of gravitation do not include a quantum model of its source of mechanics (only the observations of the motion it creates) we cannot model the true interactions of the GEM fields of Matter in motion with the GEM fields produced by Planets as they move in their orbits and rotate on their axis.

The divergent [radiant] components of GEM field [specifically the E field] accelerate charged particles, and as Matter is comprised of charged fascia [even neutral Matter] it creates a force on all Matter moving past another.

These charge interactions are also responsible for other puzzling aspects of Cosmology namely Dark Matter and Dark Energy and is similar to the Pioneer anomaly [see attached]

Much more detail will soon be released by me in my next release Tetryonics [4] -Quantum Cosmology [including the true mechanical dynamics of Gravity both at a quantum scale as well as the Cosmological].

I trust this helps.

attachments: Figure_74.06__Pioneer_anomaly_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT
Kelvin,

"Much more detail will soon be released by me in my next release Tetryonics [4] -Quantum Cosmology [including the true mechanical dynamics of Gravity both at a quantum scale as well as the Cosmological]."

Your Hertz vs Tesla diagram, Figure 28.07 (post Aug. 16, 2012 @ 04:16 GMT) does not explain how a longitudinal wave produces instantaneous action-at-a-distance. The notation below the Teslian wave, "The E fields are co-linear with the axis of propagation" would result in a negation of the field and action-at-a-distance because the positive and negative phases cancel in a collinear beam.

I have a paper that explains how a longitudinal EM field produces action-at-a-distance. The paper is an iteration of six different papers, produced over several years with slightly different titles, that were submitted to five different publications, three being IEEE publications, two to the Gravity Research Foundation (GRF) contest (two different years), and one an ARRL publication. The GRF does not provide peer review rejection comments. Only one IEEE publication, of the two that went to peer review, provided me with the actual peer review comments, except the comments were truncated from one reviewer. The ARRL provided a simple rejection statement.

The paper provides a simple EM explanation for the force of gravity. The paper contains a statement why a longitudinal EM field, if it is collinear, cannot produce a net force in the direction of propagation (DOP). I didn't use the term collinear, as I illustrated the vector condition with a simple Cartesian figure with the E field aligned with the DOP. The accompanying statement, "Even if a way was found to generate one of the fields to be aligned with the axis of propagation, such as EZ in Fig. 1b, the positive and negative EZ field vectors would be aligned and there would be no net force measurable in the axis of propagation."

Helical Electromagnetic Gravity Field

Except for the GRF entries, the other papers provided specific application processes that were topical to the IEEE and ARRL publications, the core helical electromagnetic (HEM) material was essentially the same.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT
Kelvin,

I didn't mean to post the above, Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT , as anonymous.

Frank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 11:30 GMT
Thank you for the Flyby anomaly post. Your Pioneer diagram was impressive, although I'm still befuddled by your reasoning of course. I think we *do* have a potential overlap in our ideas. I'm about to engage in calculations using the Wikipedia data on Earth flyby anomalies as a way to confirm my exotic matter hypothesis. I believe that an additional force exists on the plane of rotation of the earth which interacts witht the iron of the spacecraft due to it's centre bodied cubic geometry. I'll show you my workings just as soon as I can.

[quote]An analysis of the MESSENGER spacecraft (studying Mercury) did not reveal any significant unexpected velocity increase. This may be that MESSENGER both approached and departed Earth symmetrically about the equator (see data and proposed equation below). This may suggest that the anomaly is related to Earth's rotation.[quote]

Kind regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABARAHAM replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:36 GMT
Hi Alan,

It would interesting to see if both of our ideas can bring about a clear and concise model and explanation of the quantum mechanics at work in this area of celestial mechanics.

I understand that the intricacies of my work are a bit daunting on first impressions but you are obviously working on problems that I can model directly with my quantum theory of Gravitation.

Not quite sure if I follow what you mean by 'centre bodied cubic geometry' but based on my definitions you would be right in saying that any model of Matter using Cartesian co-ordinates (ie c^3) would deviate mathematically from a spherical [c^4] second squared co-ordinate system - but I hasten to add that if done properly they both should yield the same force vectors on the body involved.

The crux of Tetryonic QG is that the force of Gravitation [as historically modelled by Newton and in SR] is based on observations of the bodies concerned and not the real quantum mechanics that create the gravitational force between the bodies.

There are convergent [attractive] force vectors and divergent [interactive] force vectors that present to us as the net Gravitational force we observe, until all of these quantum interactions are accurately modelled there will always be 'perturbations' and disagreements with respect to accepted theory.

My work explains the quantum fields and forces responsible for 'Gravitation' but is beyond my abilities and time at present to develop a full computer model of the processes and present it.

Tetryonic's Unified equation is all you need, but you need experience in writing the 3D CAD models for the computer along with a good overall grasp of Tetryonic theory. [remember Garbage in - Garbage out]

Which brings me back to why I entered the competition - I am only one person with a clear, succinct answer to many of Science's questions - imagine what we can achieve when the whole World understands this geometry and starts using it.

I have attached my definitions of Spatial co-ordinate systems (wrt Energy propagation [c]) along with an accurate 3D Tetryonic model of Iron for you - hope it helps you in some way..

I am completing, what I hope will be, the final revision of my QG eBook as we speak and as soon as it is 'ready' I will release it and then I trust my explanations will become clearer for you and your work.

attachments: 2_Figure_01.03__Spatial_geometries_800x600.jpg, Figure_52.26__Iron_aufbau_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:45 GMT
Alan,

This wikipedia quote has an additional sentence.

"The anomaly may be due to the rotation of the Earth. This rotation induces an azimuthally symmetric gravitational field."

Flyby Anomaly

If you would consider that the gravity field is EM, and has a helical field structure, with Earth's particular gravitational angular phase position, a host of odd spacecraft anomalies might be explained.

Helical Electromagnetic Gravity Field

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 13:24 GMT
Alan,

Frank is close here but I'd like to point out that there is a real convergent gravitational force created by all Matter, as well as a divergent interactive force created by the EM field of any Matter in motion.

EM mass & Matter must be clearly and rigorously defined (as I do throughout Tetryonics) as radiant energies and Tetrahedral standing waves respectively if a quantum theory of gravity is to be developed that can account for the motions of space craft etc. as you seek to do.

Both the divergent and convergent forces result in the nett force we observe as gravitation.

It is the quantum mechanics of Energy momenta that provide all the macroscopic forces we know of, and there is much more at work than only the gravitation of Matter on the cosmological scale, hence why terms like Dark Matter & Dark Energy have become popular.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT
Frank,

I believe that the rotation of the earth is important because the exact location of the closest approach of a flyby is relevant. The exotic matter distribution within the earth is irregular due it's existence being due to exotic matter comets impacting from supernovae events. It's all speculative, yes, but also reassuringly consistent. This is why the data from Wikipedia is inconclusive. I believe that a spacecraft crossing the equator at a shallow angle and low speed will give the greatest energy increase. This because it spends the greatest amount of time in earth's 'equatorial exotic band of influence'. The results don't quite reflect this due to irregularities within the innermost core as well as exotic matter comets embedded within the crust, but will be confirmed in the future with more data such as Juno imo.

We think similarly with regard to your helical field structure, but I detail this with imagery of a self creating universe [P.S. which author spoke about SCUs? I can't find it now!] given in my last FQXi competition entry Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?

Abraham,

I don't mean to be rude, but my thinking is very back-to-basics and fundamental. I'm putting myself in the shoes of Newton as if he'd thought of an additional force to explain the flyby anomaly *before* reaching a conclusion on planetary motion. The combination of explaining the ice age data as well as the flyby amomalies as well as the galaxy rotation curves would have convinced him of additional *anisotropic* matter interaction on planetary scales, I'm sure. This is in addition to his ideas on ordinary matter interaction. Why not have this 'exotic matter' at the centre of planets and stars? Why does it have to be in a hypothetical'halo'?? (Ans: because science has already made the assumption of isotropy and equivalence for *all* matter, therefore it *has* to be in a halo)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 10:12 GMT
You're on the right track but you don't have to create new exotic Matter to explain the accelerations. As you point out if Newton had been given the data he would have pointed out F=ma [so any acceleration of mass/Matter must be the result of an additional force - other than what he had already modelled]

In fact that is what happened with Mercury, and Einstein then came along with GR and corrected for the force giving GR 8piG as opposed to Newtonian 4PiG. ie twice the acceleration for EM masses that come close to a gravitational body than what was expected by Newtonian mechanics.

GR reduces to Newtonian gravity far away from the bodies - where the 'curvature' is weaker. But GR is based on SR and any Physicist will tell you Gravity is the only force acting between planetary bodies so what causes the additional 2pi of G-force close to Planets etc?

Back to what GR was based on.....SR.....

'when to impossible is removed - what remains however improbable must be true'

All Matter not only creates a convergent [gravitational] force but also possesses interactive [divergent] forces - Black-body radiation is well established in physics and these two forces apply to all Matter [as defined in Tetryonics].

Also of note is that Tetryonics gives us the geometry for these 'missing' fields and shows how it applies to all material bodies in the universe regardless of scale. ie it explains Mercury's perihelion, the bending of Light, galaxy rotation curves, and many other phenomena current using Dark Matter as an explanation.

And the force it creates is strongest in the equatorial region of a gravitational body [defined wrt to its magnetic axis of course] just as you propose.

So why do we struggle to explain this acceleration?

Gravity to date has been mathematically modelled on the observations of the motion of large scale Matter. As the observations get better the theory must be 'adjusted' in an attempt to explain these tiny inconsistencies but I believe I am the first to present a theory from first quantum principles that coherently explains the processes at work and agrees with current observations without the need for DM halos etc.

I am half-way through my final review of my QG illustrations and then it will be released for all to comment on.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 18:37 GMT
Abraham, Alan,

On a close approach to earth, or any large solar body, it is no longer a point source. There are gravity influence maps that show irregularities in the force of gravity due to material density changes. Do any of the studies of a flyby anomaly examine the flyby path in relationship to these known variations in the force of gravity?

Many papers that are attempting to describe some spacecraft anomaly do not identify all the parameters about the spacecraft or the spacecraft/object relative dynamics.

One of the parameters that should be identified is whether the spacecraft is or is not spin stabilized, and if spin stabilized, the angular direction of the spin and its angular rate. What is this spin direction relative to the objects rotation? Secondly, on a close encounter, is the spacecraft going in the same direction of the objects rotation or opposite to it? And as Alan pointed out, what angle did the spacecraft pass by the object relative to the objects equator? This also has implications on the force of gravity, as it will be influenced if the object has an equatorial bulge.

Can I assume a flyby anomaly study accounts for the position of any nearby object(s), such as a moon?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABAHAM replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT
Ah POINT particles, the bane of modern physics.

Resulting from the mathematical modelling of force vectors of all kinds back to their origin without providing an detailed material explanation of what created the forces in the first place.

It is given us spherical [4pi] quantum particles and other great wonders like Black holes and Singularities - Feynman best summed up the problems arising from this approach to physics in his lectures on electron QED.

Frank, you are right to point out that the distribution of Matter [made from charged Energy geometries] in an object under investigation is important and should always be modelled as accurately as possible in order to provide a full account of all the forces present and acting on (and between) material bodies in motion [irrespective of their scale] see attached.

As all Forces are mediated by Photons in 2D planar EM fields and Matter is a 3D charged geometry [never a point] the distribution of charges in any object in motion is extremely important (at the quantum scale upwards) if we want to give a full account of the influence of all interactive forces on any material body in motion - I believe that the true geometry of the electron was the source of inspiration for Tesla invention of the rotating synchronous converter.

Many of the parameters you mention must be modelled if a full account of physical dynamics on any scale is to be developed - otherwise any theory we develop to explain finer and subtler inconstancies in gravitation etc will have to be corrected again as more refined measurements are made [as we have historically done].

And that is what excites me about Tetryonics - it provides a quantum basis for ALL forces and particles and dictates a rigid geometry for the mathematical modelling of physical geometries and interactions that no other theory can provide.

attachments: Figure_72.06__Singularities_800x600.jpg, Figure_40.08__Einsteins_Error_of_perception_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 10:24 GMT
Frank and Abraham,

You've both made some very good points that I've found useful, so thank you. My jigsaw puzzle methodology has drawn me to the exotic matter hypothesis, so I intend to stay with it due to the innumerable mini-clues as to the final picture of reality. Maybe you two are both right and I'm wrong. The possiblity of exotic matter comets accessible in the earth's crust is too much to dismiss imo though. The world economy would be instantly revived. Maybe the 'philosopher's stone' of the bible is in fact exotic matter? Maybe there's more of them located at sites of Gravity & Magnetic Hills throughout the world? Worth a dedicated look imo.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Alan,

There is never only one path to scientific discovery and that is what makes it exciting. Keep working on your ideas and if you need another person to bounce ideas off (or to offer their theory's point of view on a problem you have) feel free to get in touch

The exchange of ideas is an important foundation to the development of scientific theory.

And every idea [no matter how off-beat] has the potential to spark a revolution in how we perceive the Universe and our place in it [even equilateral energy].

I hope the attached will help you view the quantum field geometry of the forces (as dictated by Tetryonic theory) that I described previously in my correspondence on your fly-by modelling.

attachments: Figure_65.04__Graviational_Field_800x600.jpg, Figure_69.13__The_Perihellion_of_Mercury_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Thank you Abraham, I might take you up on that offer. I'd like you to consider the ice age data as being rather spikey swift changes in global air tempaeratures in a 100ky cycle as well as quasi-millennial cycles. See attached. Your extra force from ordinary matter doesn't fit as well with the ice age data discovery imo. The 5 Milankovitch problems are solved so that it is shown that the inclination cycle is the most likely driver. My model suggests that the shape of the global air temperature curve is steeper than would be expected with your extra quantum energy with density hypothesis. My model proposes Jupiter's irregular matter equatorial band of influence creates additionl ocean and atmospheric tides when the earth crosses in a 100kyr cycle. Jupiter's irregular matter to Earth's irregular matter interaction is estimated to at least double the current earth tidal ocean energy. My band is much narrower and steeper than your more bell-shaped curve. The evidence is in the ice age data graph attached imo. Controversial, I know.

Another reason for these mega dense matter comets is their impact craters left behind which don't fit the regular comet impact energy. I propose that the Africa Rift valley and lakes was one such mighty impact collision event. Only exotic matter could create the Madagascan bulge which was carved into an island. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congo's world no1 copper and cobalt deposits as well as precious metals are due to this impact. The entire nuclear fusion model of the Sun's interior and "we're all made of star stuff" is most likely complete baloney! What do you say to that possiblity?!

attachments: IceAge_data_svg.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 22:24 GMT
Alan,

I see where your coming from - but here's my two-bobs worth.

All EM radiation is subject to the inverse square law.

The distance from the SUN to the Earth is 1AU (or 150M KM on average)

The distance from the EARTH to JUPITER is 4-6Au [778M km)

Making EM influences from Jupiter many orders of magnitude weaker that that received from the SUN.

The SUN is s giant arc furnace and the dominant source of Energy for the entire solar system and it is its fluctuations that I say drive your graphed variations of Temp & CO2 levels in the Earth's environment.

Re FUSION [and the WE'RE STAR STUFF claims] I agree complete baloney!

Stars convert Matter into Energy not by fusion but by 'collapsing' the Matter in their cores, turning it into radiant energies. Tetryonics dictates processes from the quantum level up - Forces, Constants, Matter geometries, Chemical compounds, DNA etc etc - and shows that the Proton-Proton chains energy model is wrong. [scientists know this as well that's why the coulombic barrier presents such a problem for them - and why their fusion reactors don't work)

Matter to Energy collapse is 100% efficient [as opposed to

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:42 GMT
Abraham,

I'm delighted that we agree on the baloney of "star stuff". I also agree on the solar collapsing of ordinary matter into something very different. It should also be remembered that the mechanism of supernovae is a complete mystery to modern science. My hypothesis is that gravitational radiation from this collapsed matter *isn't* subject to the inverse square law simple because it isn't emitting isotropically, but is concentrated on the plane of rotation of the star. Distance isn't as big an issue as with ordinary matter.

It took me around 6 months with deep discussion with Andre from Holland to appreciate the fallacies of modern ice age data interpretation. The evidence for warm waters regularly pushing into the Arctic basin is published in scientific reports. This can only be achieved by an substantial increase in global tidal energy imo. Milankovitch cycles, or sunlight only forcing models, have one significant problem which my hypothesis solves and yours doesn't unfortunately, namely, *the unsplit peak problem*.

[quote]The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies,[15] but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100ka periodicity. [end quote]

The evidence is extremely clear imo.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Alan,

This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together.

I must confess to my ignorance to the finer details of this matter [Milankovitch cycles etc] as to date I have been consumed with getting Tetryonics out of my head onto paper so it can be shared but the topic does raise some interest with me.

As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present.

I would however point out that Tetryonics clearly shows that collapsed standing-wave Matter-energies form radiant EM energies - which have Electric & Magnetic components to their divergent energies and as such are indeed subject to the inverse square laws (with the E field being equatorial and in alignment with the solar ecliptic). In fact the E field does all the interacting with the planets and the B field causes perturbations in orbital mechanics closer into the SUN [as noted by Le Verrier and corrected for in GR]

As the SUN is a charged body moving through space it is subject to variations due to its interactions with its surrounding environment [as evidenced with its CME, sunspots cycles etc.] - modelling the causal field dynamics in order to be able to develop a predictive model is another matter [we can't even to a 5 day weather forecast].

I can obviously offer advice as to what Tetryonics dictates from the quantum level to the cosmological scale regarding EM interactions etc. but I am a long way off developing a fully fledged hypothesis on all the interactions at work.

But it does intrigue me as part of my work on my next eBook [Tetryonic Cosmology]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 09:23 GMT
Abraham,

We think very similarly when you say "This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together." and "As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present."

Yes, I totally agree on the necessity of a detailed simulation model of the solar sytem and the climate. As I've mentioned before in my own discussion area, I think we should start with the correct modelling of the creation of the moon. Not a simple task.

Good luck with your new book and Tetryonics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT
Thanks Alan,

And Yikes!!!

A computer simulation of the creation of the moon, and I thought unifying QM, QED, Chemistry and GR was ambitious.

But modelling all those processes are possible now that we have a complete quantum theory of mass-ENERGY-Matter...it just requires time and coding skills...hopefully in the process it will help explain why the moon happens to be the exact right size to create solar eclipses for us to view the solar coronas.

Surely that's not a co-incidence of nature ....but that's another story.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 13:47 GMT
Ha, the moon's exact fit over the sun is a co-incidence imo, but more of one than you might think. I believe that not only is the moon receding from the earth, currently at 3.7cm/yr, but that it also approaches our planet as well in the 1,500yr millennial cycle. This is the spikey peaks in the ice age data already seen. The moon's irregular matter interacts with our earth's when it crosses the equator every 2 weeks, hence the spring tides! The maximum tide raising forces of the moon occur on a calculated cycle of 1,800 years, but this hasn't been adjusted for dark matter interaction which will speed-up the cycle.

I hope you can appreciate the interconnectedness of this irregualr matter hypothesis. One last point: How do you suppose that mountains are formed? By the ultra-slow plate movements as given in school text books? Think again. This uplift would be quickly eroded by weathering, wouldn't it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Alan,

You're right about the moon receding from the Earth - this is easily confirmed with laser ranging - but the current model of attractive-only gravitation cannot explain it.

Under that model the moon should spiral into the Earth [unless a force was acting on it to give it a velocity increase] and that is exactly what is happening.

By modelling the Math of Gravity on observations [instead of its quantum foundations] you model a NETT attractive force between large-scale Matter - in fact there are a number of forces including EM [as any nuclear scientist will tell you].

But to not acknowledge the presents (and effect) of the Earth's EM field on its own satellites is a bit like saying the Earth is flat [despite the evidence to the contrary].

A fully fledged quantum theory of Gravity must rely on a quantum foundation else it will need to be corrected every time better observations are made of the motion of planetary bodies as has historically been the case [Newton, Le Verrier, Einstein, Dark Matter].

I would argue [and will prove in Tetryonic QG] that your Dark matter halo can easily be replaced with the interactive, inverse forces generated by the Earth's own EM field, or at the least that this should be done before any other components like DM are considered.

Re- the mountains - I haven't given it much thought.

I do note that the Himalayas are made up of soft marine limestone that should have weathered as you say but it also had to form from a sea-level sedimentary deposit so it had to be transported up into their current location by some process over a relatively short period of time [another consideration for me to keep in mind].

attachments: Figure_70.05__Gravitational_Tidal_Forces_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 11:43 GMT
Abraham,

I'm glad we agree on the irregular nature of the moon's recession which can't be simulated with conventional gravity models. I was alarmed when I read "..that your Dark matter halo..", no(!), not a halo outside the matter, but condensed irregular matter *INSIDE* the planets and stars! This is a major difference between mine against other DM models. I understand that you are pursuing extra EM forces as the solution and I was heart-warmed when you said "..can easily be replaced with the interactive, inverse forces generated by the Earth's own EM field, or at the least that this should be done before any other components like DM are considered." Yes, I respect your position and hope that one day one of us will be shown to be right.

Thank you for the limestone/Himalaya info. I was unaware of that particular case. The irregular matter comet impact scenario is the best fit imo of course. This is the only viable model of mountain building if one is stringent enough in the analysis.

Kind regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 17:02 GMT
Alan & Abraham,

There are many misconceptions about dark matter, but from the standpoint of it's justification as evidenced by the conflict between galactic and Keplerian rotation curves, as I understand only a specific configuration of dark matter that both increases total galactic mass AND significantly extends the peripheral boundary and its mass distribution can fit the observed rotation curves within the context of the laws of planetary motion.

Characteristic Keplerian rotation curves produce rather flat curves for the planets relatively close to the Sun - they diminish markedly at increasing radii. Since galaxies only exhibit relatively flat curves, it is considered that they must represent only the inner radius of the actual galaxy mass distribution. In this way it's thought that the characteristic diminishing Keplerian rotation curves at the outer radii (comprised of dark matter) would be exhibited (if only they could be observed).

As I understand then, configurations that increase the mass within the visible galaxy, such as dark matter within massive objects, would not produce the observed flat rotation curves, unless the amount of dark matter outside the visible galaxy were commensurately increased and the galaxy periphery is also significantly extended.

Of course I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think the references in "Supplemental Information" section of my essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1419, under the heading "Dimensional constraints for any possible galactic Dark Matter halo" address this issue. If I recall, it's thought that the dark matter halo must extend to a radial distance of 300,000 light years in order to resolve the conflict with Keplerian rotation curves. Of course, if it doesn't do that, galactic dark matter serves no purpose!

I hope this helps, and wasn't too tedious...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 23:49 GMT
James,

I agree with your summary about the distribution of DM in galaxies to produce the observed rotations and Matter distributions.

As a quick way to provide a reply response to this point see attached. I think it sums it all up in one picture [note the Matter distribution wrt the galactic EM field]

The geometry of energy [GEM] fields is fixed resulting in many things historically modelled mathematically in Physics [Constants, mass-Matter geometries, Forces etc] and in this case (when fully revealed) explains DE and well as DM.

attachments: Figure_72.01__The_Plasma_Universe_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 21:45 GMT
James,

You right in your comments [save where you use mass instead of Matter] and I suspect your concern may be arising from the fact that the illustration I sent you is one of 200 on the topic.

Its main point was to convey that Gravity only modelled galaxies will have reduced Matter motions at the edges of their Matter distributions while the EM forces predominant in all Matter distributions will create the flat velocity profiles that G cannot explain.

In fact there is no such thing as a purely G or EM field it is always a combination of the two [GEM fields]. Both fields exist and act to produce all the motions we observe.

My unified formula for EM mass-Energy-Matter, when applied to QG reveals that there are in fat 3 distinct forces making up the nett gravitational effect we currently attempt to model with Newtonian G or GR.

But at its heart lies a poor historical definition and understanding of EM mass and Matter [and their various interactions]. Perhaps I could of placed a G on the right-hand illustration to make it reflective of all the interactions at work. But I am confident that all my illustrations produced for my GR book will paint the full dynamics at work.

Thanks for the feedback, which is always appreciated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Abraham et al,

I'm just a pedestrian passerby, but these discussions have been very interesting. I also agree that there is some physical process that produces gravitational effects that has not been identified - only the end results have been ingeniously described, that errors can and have occurred as a result of this incomplete understanding.

Kelvin, if you are hinting that EM...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 23:39 GMT
James,

You're right in stating that I am asserting that there is more to gravity than a single attractive force as historically formulated in the Math itself.

Of course that is what science has been searching for ever since GR was formulated but 'our' current understanding of QM doesn't permit this. [Enter Tetryonics - the CHARGED geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter].

Gravity is...

view entire post


attachments: Figure_67.11__Gravity_geometry_800x600.jpg, Figure_66.03__Charge_vs_Gravity_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
Abraham,

Thanks for responding and explaining - sorry for being so slow. The charts are eventually helpful.

Don't inverse-square relations simply represent a geometric radial dispersion through space?

Doesn't GR's curvature of spacetime actually represent the radial contraction or compaction of spatial and temporal dimensions rather than a pressure gradient?

Can't the 'attractive force' also be represented as the interaction between two opposingly directed fields of radially contracted dimensional spacetime?

At any rate, the one question I would most like you to respond to is this: if any EM charge flow affects the net attraction between objects of mass, wouldn't the attraction produced by the Sun be substantially greater than that produced by the Moon, relative to their individual masses?

Thanks very much for your patience and understanding!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
James,

Yes to all of your replies above BUT it all depends on your viewing perspective.

For example re: Inverse Square relations (when viewed from a polar perspective above the source - ie looking down) will produce the radial dispersion you speak of BUT if viewed 90 degrees to that perspective (ie a equatorial perspective) it will be revealed that they are in fact equilateral EM...

view entire post


attachments: Figure_28.03__EM_radiation_patterns_800x600.jpg, 1_Figure_67.11__Gravity_geometry_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
ABRAHAM,

Very good!

Thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:13 GMT
Abraham!

Sorry for my delay in responding, but I didn't have internet access over the UK bank holiday weekend. Hey, I had a eureka moment on the bus Saturday afternoon! The moon's spring tidal effect occurs every 2 weeks, when the moon is on the same plane as the sun, i.e. the equatorial plane. This would be the biggest irregularity factor in the flyby anomaly and would account for *negative energy increases* if the moon is behind the direction of the spacecraft! The idea can be checked against the moon's position for the flyby data given in Wikipedia. It can be checked again with the future Juno flyby. We have evidence at our fingertips! Abraham, think about it!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
Yes Alan,

Amazing isn't it - when you have the right quantum geometry -you can develop a unified theory of QM, QED, Chemistry and gravitation.

Now we're back to a Tetryonic clockwork universe [like Newton's] when we can visualise the real mechanics at play and don't have to use relativistic tensors or Riemann's curved geometries.

All we have to do is a 'simple' analysis of Matter's gravitational force and super-position it with the radiated EM fields of the bodies in motion in order to calculate the effect on the satellite.

No DM, DE, thermal emissions from space-craft, perturbations from unseen sources etc. just plain old [G]EM field calculations. Newton would be proud [of course he could have figured this out if he had access to our current data sets]

Welcome to the new World of Tetryonics where answers are found everywhere you look - I can't wait for the rest of the World to catch up.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 10:54 GMT
I've just checked the phases of the moon with the dates of the flybys and it fits! The biggest positive energy changes were when the moon was in it's last quarter, before a new moon. This is the same side of the planet as the sun when the flyby occurs. This is given as evidence for the irregular matter hypothesis. More data such Juno will confirm this, I'm sure. Remember where you heard it first!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:05 GMT
Alan.

This gives us about a year to 'educate' all concerned as to the real gravitational mechanics at work so we can propose testable refined models of the GEM interactions at work.

Fortunately Juno's GS experiment uses radio waves to test GR gravitation - it will reveal the SR EM mass contributions to the nett GEM field dependent on space-craft's position wrt Jupiter's G & EM fields.(ie polar or equitorial positions)

Without Tetryonic geometry to model the individual GEM field components they will get confusing results, similar to the anomolous flyby accelerations you have previously noted (as M fields are inverse cubed fields vs G & E fields which are inverse squared)

Guess I'd better release Tetryonic Gravitation ASAP

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT
Peter,

I appreciate you taking an interest in the flyby anomaly and how it can relate to the current gravity problem in physics. I'm a sea kayaker so too am familar with reading tide tables and having a deeper knowledge of the weather. I've also studied astronomy, physics and simulation modelling.

The Flyby anomaly has a number of clues to it's origin:

(i)An analysis of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:14 GMT
Alan,

Well done, you have got me generating a whole new chapter for my upcoming cosmology eBook [A chapter on multi-body gravitational mechanics].

Send me your email address to answers@tetryonics.com and I'll return email a couple of draft illustrations on SUN-Earth-moon system GEM interactions, so you have a clearer picture of the exact field mechanics that I've been describing to you in this forum.

I'll know they'll get you excited and I'd appreciate your feed-back on them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:49 GMT
Abraham,

I'm honoured to have influenced you for the better and given something new for your upcoming book. I'll happily take a look at your draft illustrations and give you some feedback.

I'm still waiting for Peter's assessment of the claim of a new discovery and the potential for a scientific prediction for Juno's flyby. Here's my latest thoughts:

The giant impact hypothesis is a vital part of the moon conunudrum imo.

(i) The moon appears to be more influential for flyby accelerations than the earth itself. This implies that the moon has more irregular matter than the earth, yet much smaller in size. I propose that Theia, the large impact body, had a high concentration of irregular matter for it's size and consequently acquired earth's irregular matter as it passed *through* the protoplanet. This could be the reason for life on earth. Less irregular matter means less comet impacts from iron and other irregular matter comets. The moon would also act as a 'soak-up' for these incoming orbital comets. It's similar to how Jupiter acts as a 'soak-up' for comets in the region.

I even had the idea that Theia passed through the Arctic basin, creating Antarctica on it's exit! The moon then interacted with Venus, causing it to flip and was then captured by earth in a return orbit. The earth then flipped itself by 90 degrees so that the comet entry became the north pole as we are familiar with today. Pure speculation of course.

There's many unknowns with the moon's creation. The issue is far from being resolved, much like the ice age theory fundamental problems .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT
Abraham,

I can't see how Tetryonics can explain the flyby anomaly being determined by the moon's position and not simply due to the much nearer earth.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
Hi Alan.

Here's where the 'simpler' Gravitational fields of Newton and Einstein are revealed in their true nature.

Firstly, you will note that the circular fields represent the Newtonian 4pG fields the all Matter produces.

Secondly, the E^2 fields [the diamond ones] are geometric reflections of the super-positioned E-field components of the same field that Newton modelled with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
Okay, I'll have to digest the explanation that you've given me and get back to you as soon as I can. I'm glad we both agree on the mysterious influence of the moon on earth flybys.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
In the meantime I'm still perplexed that you can have a model which describes the *extreme* irregular nature of the flyby discovery which an exotic matter comet hypothesis can explain. The moon can be represented as a pea held at arm's length infront of one's eye, which represents the size of the earth. How can the moon which is so much smaller and *so* much further away affect the satellite when it skims the earth's atmosphere? My model has the moon's composition to be much different to that of the earth, having a much higher concentartion of irregular matter. How does tetryonics account for this apparent discrepancy between the moon's internal composition and the earth's?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
The key is to recognise that the attractive pull of Gravity is really the net force created by Gravitational Matter fields, Interactive Electric fields and Perturbative Magnetic fields and that these forces are all distinctly different both in strength and geometry from the Matter that creates then.

In short the force between all material bodies [Matter] on any scale are the result of 3...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT
I'm happy that you agree that the earth and moon must have vastly different internal compositions to account for the moon's influence on satellite earth flybys at such a long distance away.

I think we need a third party to assess our conclusions so far. I'll request Brendan take a look at this potentially groundbreaking discovery.

Cheers for now,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:29 GMT
Very soon, the Quantum Gravity eBook will be publicly released bringing to conclusion the major re-working of the foundations of classical, quantum and relativistic physics on a new truly unified foundation from which we can forge a better understanding the mechanics of our Universe and develop a better relationship with its Creator.

But it won't end there - already behind the scenes I have begun developing a 5th Book - Tetryonic Solutions - highlighting the advances derivable directly from theory that Tetryonics can provide us now [using our current technology] in meeting the current demands of Humanity in the 21st century.

It will overview all aspects of Tetryonic geometry as it applies to our current Math of physics and provide a new geometric foundation for physical Mathematics that can be taught from the earliest stages of schooling.

Excitingly, it will reveal new sources of clean, limitless Energy derived directly from Tetryonic theory, along with its safe generation, storage and distribution for people and industry anywhere on the Planet.

And finally, a way will be revealed to rid our world of harmful radioactive & biological wastes once and for all, cleaning-up degraded land and waterways; restoring our world to its pre-industrial splendour for all future generations.

The promise of a better world with clean, limitless Energy, unlimited resources, astounding medical advances and new forms of communication and transport is now at hand as promised in the closing statement of my essay.

I am only one person revealing the geometric mechanics underlying the true physics of the Universe we live in - I look forward with great anticipation to the wonders we can achieve when scientists and engineers worldwide start applying this understanding to their fields of expertise and strive to make the World a better place.

attachments: massENERGYMatter_in_motion_800x600.jpg, A_Gift_to_Humanity_and_the_Planet_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 16:37 GMT
:)After hundreds of years of dedicated research why do we not have a quantum mechanical model of sub-atomic particles and forces that explains all their observed properties and interactions?

because my theory was not still there, but now the big gut toe is found.....from a small humble Spherical Jedi from Belgium speaking french of 37 years old.

:) one day we shall see the truth and all wa shall say, oh my god, but how it was possible that we have not seen that before.....

QUANTUM SPHERES.........COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES.........UNIVERSAL SPHERE AND ITS CENTRAL SPHERE.

It was so simple that that. eureka so .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:20 GMT
Steve,

Very well you may talk about spheres but that just reflects the point that you are following the herd and refusing to see what is before your very eyes.

Equilateral energies form the Universe we inhabit - Equilateral mass-Energies and Tetrahedral Matter [see attached].

On my YouTube channel I offer you detailed explanations for QM, QED, Q-Chemistry and Quantum Gravity for your consideration [all united under Tetryonics] - something 300 years of spherical geometry has failed to achieve.

I trust with time you will open your mind to the answers it provides and see spheres for the what they really are [a macroscopic construct resulting from the quantum tessellation of equilateral energies]

attachments: Tetryonic_theory_800x600.jpg, 2_EM__massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 23:10 GMT
Ahahah yes of course, a small string perhaps in a compactification of pure reductionism in 11 dimension with a bridge in 7 to 8 and 12 after, of course.And also the 2d M theory is convergent with the pi extrapolation for the equivalence peinciple between mass/E. and what after ?

a beer from Belgium and our planet are tetryon, and our stra also, our eyes are teryonical mass energy brane.And also the brains are not spherical and also a water drop is not a sphere, our universal sphere is ion a tetryonic superimposing of dimensionalities.because the fractal of spaces in a pure numerical way is entropical.Of course also, the mass is not proportional with rotating spheres because the tetryonisation of extradimensions are ina pure Pauli principle. Now of course the rotations are not important and the angles also are not important.The tetryon is the answer and the favorate sports of humans are not with spheres.Of course the arrogance is not important inside the sciences community and the humility is in the extradimensionalities of complexs numbers.of course the BH are not spheres but tetryons and our particules elemenatry also are not spheres.The flowers them are tetryons of Entropy.And the primes are in a parallelization of primes.Now of course the sphericality is on the road again ...and the tetryonix is a mTheorization of branes of diemsnionalities.Of course .Equilateral energies , and what after they do not turn also?

ps you do not explain the gravity, me yes ! with humility of course.

Regards :) let's play like children, innocent and arrogant.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT
That said, I see on net that you want save the world.Me also, it is well, we have the syndrom of the savor, let's collaborate so.

1 composting at Big Scale, WE MUST REBUILD THE SOILS !!!are you ok ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
I know that it is well, thanks. You know Abraham, don't be too much jealous and envious, you know it is not serious if a young belgian has found. The jealousy and the vanity you know are not the good partners for correct universal extrapolation, but it is just a suggestion of course.Don't be touched, I just explain how I see. I don't need to read your publications, fqxi is sufficcient to show me that you are just not foundamental and general. Probably the syndrom of the searcher.

Insert my equations and my theory of spherization, you shall be better, you shall see.

Regards thinker of tetryonics. And forget a little your strings and chains and think by yourself ina pure spherical road.

the spherical Jedi.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:17 GMT
Steve,

I note the tone of your comments and question why you didn't enter an essay outlining the full details of your spherical theory to let others comment on your work [and let it speak for itself]

We all appreciate a new way of interpreting the physics we know.

Perhaps you should read the publications you comment on - so you may make better informed comments [Tetryonics has nothing to do with strings].

attachments: 1_massENERGYMatter_in_motion_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:48 GMT
Mr Abraham,

Why I should make this contest or why I should publish ?

It is indeed a good question. In fact I don't know, perhaps that it is not important for me the competition.Or perhaps that I have difficulties to focus on topics.Or perhaps that I have difficulties to resume the generality.Or perhaps I have too much things to pubklish, so I don't know how I must do.Or perhaps that I need a team to help me.Or perhaps thatI lmike to see the copycats.Or perhaps I like to learn on this platfrom. Or perhaps for me that the only one importance is the sharing in a total transparence.Or perhaps I am too much occupied with my equations also and its derivations in my head.Or perhaps I smoke too much.Or perhaps my meds are too much strong.Or perhaps I need to find a girlfreind.Or perhaps I need to be less parno.Or perhaps that I need to find a job.Or perhaps that the number is finite for the uniqueness :)

Spherically yours, they turn so they are.:)

The spherical Jedi.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT
*Abraham*,

The lunar influence on earth flybys fits with the problems experienced by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they descended to the moon's surface. Were they in the grip of the lunar exotic matter? I think they were.

Neil Armstrong and the Landing of the Eagle UPDATED

[quote]Eagle had overshot the landing zone, Home Plate, by four miles. A slight navigational error and a faster than intended descent speed accounted for Eagle missing its planned touchdown site in the Sea of Tranquility.[end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Alan,

As noted in the GEM illustrations sent to you the convergent G-field modelled by observations is in fact a EM field close to objects of Matter [Earth, moon etc].

As any object approaches the moon [for example] it will experience a interactive E-field and then a perturbative M-field both of which will accelerate charged Matter in differing strengths and directions.

These affects are predicted by GR [8piG] vs Newtonian [4piG] but not the direction of interactions as GR treats all energies are convergent and are usually ignored in lunar calculations as the G-field is considered to be too weak to model relativistically

Yes even neutral Matter is comprised of charged fascia [see Tetryonic QM - 1 tonne = 1.355e50 charged quanta]

Also of note is the fact that the astronauts had considerable difficulty in removing the lunar soils from their suits at the end of each EVA [due to the lunar soils having a slightly negative charge compared to the Astronauts]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT
I'd forgotten about the charged nature of the lunar soil. I was always suspicious in the fact that the lunar rock brought back from the surface is better guarded than the gold in Fort Knox. Are there mysteries and inconsistensies which have been overlooked or even concealed I wonder?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:07 GMT
Alan,

I suspect the value apportioned to Lunar rocks has something to do with the Apollo program costing $25 billion and only 380kg of Lunar rock was brought back [that's $73.5 million/kg excluding what they made selling the rights to Velcro and Tang]

There's a great TV show called "Million Dollar Moon Rock Heist" where a Salt lake City Uni student stole ALL the rock samples NASA had in a lab at the Johnson Space Labs in 2002 and tried to sell them to an overseas buyer for a few million.

As another interesting fact, if you check out my Chemistry videos on YouTube [specifically CHs 54 & 60 re Isotopes] you'll see how energy increases the mass of Elements like Oxygen etc showing the effect of Solar irradiance on the lunar rocks. The moon has higher O18 & He3 concentrations than the Earth die to is lack of atmosphere etc.

Oh and note that ALL elements have the same number Protons, electrons and Neutrons with differing energy levels [not the extra Neutron models currently used] ie O18 has 8P/8N/8e and 2N worth of energy not 10N as often claimed] see Chapter 52 for 3D models of all the elements.

If Tetryonics has taught me anything thing it is that they are MANY inconsistencies in the current modelling of physics - hence the 1300 illustrations I've produced to date.

attachments: Figure_52.08__Oxygen_aufbau_800x600.jpg, Figure_54.13__Oxygen_isotopes_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 11:43 GMT
Abraham,

Okay, thanks for the extra info. So it's the lack of an atmosphere which gives the dust a negative charge and the lunar rocks aren't thought to be anything super extra special.

I even had the idea that the moon might be responsible for the precession of Mercury and make Einstein's solution obsolete. It's either the moon or Mars. The current rover and Mars orbiter should be able to identify the effect of the extra force of Mars' equatorial region. It won't be long before the truth is out.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 12:30 GMT
Alan,

Close, the simplest way to put it is that the moon is a charged body moving through the SUN's EM field [and its soil accumulates a charge in the process].

Einstein's GR is still right but under Tetryonic GEM the strictly convergent force of Gravity is comprised of divergent interactive and perturbative forces closer into the body [and the strength of these interactions are in turn influenced by the amount of Matter in the bodies]

GR [being based on SR] fails to recognise the quantum mechanics underlying the interactive and perturbative components of the Gravitation field. [EM masses are accelerated and Lorentz contracted by E-fields not Gravitational or Magnetic fields]

LeVerrier and others calculated for perturbations of Mercury's orbit just after Neptune was found and couldn't account for it using Newtonian Gravity - that's why Einstein developed GR - and why we had to invent Dark Matter to account for discrepancies in his model.

But you're right, very accurate measurement of G-field with EM waves from Curiosity & Juno etc. will help to prove this never-the-less - as long as they understand the real mechanism for the 'extra gravitational-shifting' they detect.

Given enough time the truth is bound to come out - I just hope they don't want to modify GR again!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 09:20 GMT
Oops, I meant to say Venus as the contender for Mercury's precession and *not* Mars, due to it being the closer of the two. Schoolboy error!

Abraham,

Why not compromise and call this idea something like "the additional force on the plane of rotation of a planet or moon" and not specify the exact cause? I want to attract some interest from others so that progress can be made with new ideas and some rough calculations perhaps.

I've just read about Venus and think that there is a clue:

[quote]Venus is believed to have previously possessed oceans,[14] but these vaporized as the temperature rose due to the runaway greenhouse effect.[15] The water has most probably photodissociated, and, because of the lack of a planetary magnetic field, the free hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind. [end quote]

It's possible that the planet previously had a magnetic field which ties in with idea that inner convection is created by non-Newtonian matter i.e. by the moon. It sounds as though Earth might have acquired Venus's life giving moon for example. Do you think that this is a contender?

Do you think Venus is the likeliest candidate for Mercury's orbital anomaly as I do?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
A knowledge of when the equatorial plane of Venus and Mercury are aligned and for how long is the next step. Any ideas?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:24 GMT
Alan,

I don't think it is wise to develop an theory that doesn't have an explanation for its motive force [or for the corrections it predicts], that would put us back to Newtonian gravity with no explanation for its mechanics.

GR obviously attempts to overcome this by giving us the correct answer but couches the answer as being the result of 'space-time' geometry [but it also fails...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 00:41 GMT
Hai,

As it is shown to be in Tetryonics mass is a measure of the amount of equilateral Energy found in any time based co-ordinate system. You will note the left and right rotation vectors that I draw on my charge diagrams [see attached] they reflect the 'direction' that the electromagnetic inductive flux moves within the equilateral geometry to produce the 2 charges we know.

Currents...

view entire post


attachments: Charged_massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg, Figure_62.11__mass___gravity__weight_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear ABRAHAM

Is grateful for your answer,but the problem is:

If the Higg particle contains the mass (is "heavy")

So: in multi-dimensional space,way or direction was it will be "heavy" follow ?

and why it is "heavy" follow that way or that direction?

Regards.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Hai,

What you are alluding to [I think] is the distinction between mass and Matter, where it is Matter that experiences the force of Gravity to create weight.

Tetryonics has VERY rigid definitions of the terms EM mass and Matter with the former being a 2D radiant energy geometry and the later being a 3D tetrahedral standing-wave geometry possessing volume.

EM masses do not...

view entire post


attachments: 1_Charged_massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg, Figure_73.08__The_Bending_of_Light_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 03:55 GMT
DEAR ABRAHAM and TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

WAIITING FOR SCIENCE HELPS IS VERY LONGTIME,

LET PRAY TO GOD OR A CERTAIN DEITY SOMETIMES EVEN FASTER !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:13 GMT
Hai,

Thanks for you input of the past days, as always a second-point of view always serves to help advance scientific topics (for those enlightened enough to consider another's point of view).

No man is an Island and Science should be careful to not become to dogmatic in its position on things like geometry etc, lest it run the risk of creating its own religion of black holes and multi-Verses.

Perhaps one day soon both Science and Religion will come to see they have more in common then they ever suspected - and then I pray we can move forward as Humanity in the search of more enlightened outcomes of our scientific endeavors.

attachments: EM_massENERGYMatter_in_motion_800x600.jpg, Let_there_be_Everything_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:07 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:59 GMT
You can only hope that the essays are assessed on their scientific merit and overall readability....not just their final rating.

After all don't we have enough popularity contests?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

roger muldavin replied on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 02:24 GMT
December 3, 2012, Arcadia, Michigan

Thanks for all the comments. I scanned [visual and some reading] and am impressed how much thought and art has been given. If the LA Times blog is still open, there are a few of my observations:

(1) gravity is a force that travels longitudinally along a string of equal lateral triangles (elts) with point masses of smaller elts; and, the math model is thus an regular tetrahedral.

(2) the string's origin can be connected to the Higgs Boson, conceptually, as connected to all other point particles in the universe;

(3) coordinates for taking measurements assume that the speed of light is constant at the point of measurement for the increments of time and space [special and general relativity];

(4) The Higgs Boson's concept connects "all" point masses to each other, thus I choose a helix that travels longitudinally along the string as it is displaced from a single source, or a collection of sources bound strongly to all distant distant ones (thus all others to each other);

(5) Confusion is an important life-form motivation, at the least for my way of trying to figure how things work, including body/mind;

(6) Time appears to be on the side of distance, and locally we assume Albert Einstein and others have conveyed such, perhaps because, survival is essential. Thanks prof Higgs.

Best of converging knowledge with understanding, rm

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 03:38 GMT
Roger,

1) Gravity is the result of vacuum energies seeking to equalise the 'null-space' lower energy densities found within all charged standing-wave energy geometries [tetrahedral Matter]

Newton modeled the motion as a force between two bodies of Matter [similar to Coulomb's Charges] whilst Einstein modeled the actual energy density gradient with his stress tensor Math.....

2) The Higgs boson is simply any ONE of the charge fascia that make up Matter geometries, with their inductive EM loop geometry giving it the property of mass

It is the motion of a Higgs inductive loop energy geometry [Matter fascia] through vacuum energy fields that creates the property of mass [inductors resist changes to their energy levels]

Each Matter fascia contains Compton frequency number of smaller elts each contributing to mass [E/c^2] with any tetrahedral arrangement of Higgs bosons creating the physical property of standing-wave Matter [E/c^4]

3) I agree - the assumption is for a 'natural' speed of light when using it as the foundation of a temporal-spatial co-ordinate system... but that system was forced onto my by the math used in relativity more than anything so I felt it wise to explain it to everyone.. besides it does help distinguish between energy in its forms of mass & Matter [c^2 vs c^4 co-ordinate systems per second]

There is much more information available now on Tumblr, YouTube and Pirate-bay to help with your understanding of these comments,.... feel free to contact me with any of your inquiries... and see the attached illustrations

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.