Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation

your point is taken, about "physics breaking down" being mainly
but a dodge ... but the generally excepted explanation
of "black holes at the center of galaxies," I think, is that
stuff near them radiates a great deal when falling in (or
popping out of white holes ... might likely be darker .-)

now, if we only had a real, manned space program!

proclaimed words to the effect " The Hubble telescope gave us pictures
of the center of galaxies and proved the existence of black-holes."

I did some searching on Google to see if the Hubble has already spyed a
galaxy for which its center is nothing but open Space and which it has
stars and no black-hole.

This website about M31 seems to fit the description:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0512.html

thus:
Gibbs "merely" parted the real & imaginary parts
of quaternions to give inner & outer products etc.;
all of the terminology is in Hamilton's _Even More Quaternions_.

might be a good undergrad exercise, though.

The way I see it, I^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = 0, not -1

thus:
I was appending unrelated thread from another OP,
the loosey-goosey *literateur* of "MDT." anyway,
why would interstellar or intergalactic space consist of positrons,
not electrons ... and associated antiprotons etc.?...
the OP, hereinat, has failed to give any necessity or sufficiency
for such an ideal ... although I didn't read most of it, since
I provisionally use the Alfven cosmology.

there's no way to tell what is antimatter in Universe,
just by analyzing waves or photons therefrom,
according to Dirac et al.

Positrons comprising the interstellar hydrogen are a pretty safe bet.

We have briefly discussed a mission design study based on the
inter-comparison of the oscillation frequencies of three atomic clocks
based on three different species of singly ionized atoms. By flying
this instrument to within six solar radii of the sun it is possible to
search for a variation of fine structure constant to a level that is
not accessible to earth-based instruments. As briefly mentioned above,
and discussed elsewhere in this volume the detail of theories that
predict a temporal or spatial variation in fine structure constant,
such as M-theory or theories based on varying c or e, are rather
tentative. Experimental tests of these theories based on a search for
varying a then must produce direct and unambiguous results to be most
valuable. The three-clock comparison discussed here is indeed such an
approach. As discussed above, each atomic clock will drift in a
specific manner with varying a and inter-comparison of these
variations assures that an observed signal produces a clear result.
Secondly, the technology of atomic clocks is well developed, and a
space test based on clocks has an inherently large probability of
success.
With today's small ultra-stable ion clocks, mission costs for a small
(~ 200kg) solar gravity explorer are comparable or even competitive
with Earth orbit gravity missions and clearly much more adventurous.
The technical problems of spacecraft survival during a near solar flyby
were studied 30 years ago and judged to be feasible even then.
http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/quantum/pub/SpacePart'03_prestage.pdf

thus:
the OP is just reading deeper & deeper into reviews,
without even trying to suppose that ST might work,
as a superset of the Standard Model, because he can't think
of a way to accomodate more than 3D in space, hewing
to the "compactified" motif of Kaluza-Klein. thus,
he is confined to "reifying spacetime according to Minkowski,"
who died before he could qualify his silly statement ...
with a lot of wordsoup a la Hemingdingbatway.
Moving D Theory has no verifiable content, as
the words do not "add-up" to a concise metaphor; eh?
(on the other hand, there is Lanscoz's quaternionic treatment
of 3+1 phasespace; sheesh .-)
http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/quantum/pub/SpacePart'03_prestage.pdf

And that is precisely the problem with (string, brane, M) theory. The
theory had become a source for some interesting mathematics, but is it
physics?

thus:
so, Base One uses the igit, or the ungit, or the git?
I much prefer "Binary digIT" rather than "BINary digiT", but I thought

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)

Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster wrote:
I was appending unrelated thread from another OP,
the loosey-goosey *literateur* of "MDT." anyway,
why would interstellar or intergalactic space consist of positrons,
not electrons ... and associated antiprotons etc.?

Protons are what we usually find that effect conservation of
charge and that is within the realm of a something derived from
Coulomb force as the subject line suggest.

Sue...

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Perhaps the resolution of no monopoles would be verified by Space being
an Ocean of Positrons. In that an Ocean of Positrons would remove any
and all asymmetry in the Maxwell Equations. But then again, perhaps the
Maxwell Eq. need some asymmetry because the Universe itself is nothing
but one big atom which contains nothing but smaller atoms inside
itself. So if that is the sum total description of the Universe-- big
atom contains smaller atoms, then the Maxwell theory, by logic, cannot
be perfectly symmetrical.


There are two asymmetries in Maxwell Equations. One is that in Monopole
the equation is zero whereas in Coulomb law the equation is q/e

The second asymmetry is in Faraday's Law although most textbooks would
say the asymmetry is in Ampere-Maxwell's Law with the extra term of u i
(displacement current).

So when you accept that Space itself is a ocean of positrons then what
happens with the magnetic field is that it has a term of q/e in
addition to the zero and thus removing the asymmetry.

And for the Faraday's Law in a space that is a ocean of positrons also
has a displacement current because of gravity is a result of a changing
magnetic field of the mass which is electron mass embedded in a space
that is positvely charged (positrons). So the additional term of what
can be called the gravity displacement term in Faraday's law.

And so, by considering that SPACE itself is an ocean of positrons,
dismisses the two asymmetries of the Maxwell Equations.

And I resolve the ages old problem of no monopoles. Think about it for
a clear second. If Space was a ocean of Positrons, it constitutes a
magnetic monopole. On the other side of the picture is all the mass and
matter in the observable universe which we see as mixed up evenly
between positive and negative charge with a net charge of zero. But
that is only because we are embedded in this mass and matter to realize
that is only the electrons of an Atom Totality. So the entire
Observable Universe is a negative charge monopole because it is
electron fragments of the Atom Totality. And the Space that the mass
and matter are immersed in is another monopole only positive charge for
it is a collection of positrons.

But I suppose someone may argue that the positrons cancel out the
electrons of the Atom Totality and so no monopole. But I would disagree
by saying that the force of gravity is not a completed force but is
ongoing and works to keep these as two distinct and separate monopoles.

So with this Unification of gravity as the coulomb force of
positron-space acting on electron matter of Atom Totality, we end up
with a symmetrical Maxwell theory. I am surprized because I thought a
lot more would change in the Maxwell Equations. But then again I should
not be surprized because gravity is so weak compared to electricity and
magnetism.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

If any one of us plays around in physics long enough it will make every
one of us an "ironic fool". I say this because for some ten or more
years I have been preaching that Black Holes cannot and do not exist.

But what I have come up with in the past few days with this gravity
unification to coulomb force; as space is an ocean of positrons, that
I seem to be hinting of black-holes. When I want to get far away from
anything that smacks of black-holes.

So what happens if gravity becomes very enormous with the Space as
positron theory? Would not the positron space envelope the huge mass?
Would the enveloped mass be enclosed?

Well one thing for sure is that positrons are antimatter to normal
matter and thus energy would radiate from a positron enveloping of a
huge mass.

So the disc of blue stars in the M31 galactic center is indication of
antimatter to matter conversion.

But would the center of galaxies envelope completely a massive star?
And where would the energy go?

Some of the energy would be radiated into space, and perhaps much of
the energy is radiated into the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

But would the space of enveloping look like "empty space" again?

I do not know. From indications of M31, apparently an enveloping mass
could look like empty space.

What we need now is a Hubble picture of the center of a galaxy which
has what appears to be simply normal stars. Such a picture would
indicate that black holes are fakery because all galactic centers would
have alot of mass.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
If any one of us plays around in physics long enough it will make every
one of us an "ironic fool". I say this because for some ten or more
years I have been preaching that Black Holes cannot and do not exist.

But what I have come up with in the past few days with this gravity
unification to coulomb force; as space is an ocean of positrons, that
I seem to be hinting of black-holes. When I want to get far away from
anything that smacks of black-holes.

Besides being explosively unstable, your sea of positrons will
produce forces about 10^30 larger than what we measure.

You might visit the below URLs to see how the sea of hydrogen
that we know about can produce a Coulomb derived gravity
consistant with the forces we measure.

http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...rtia/index.htm

Sue...

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

[...]

Sue... wrote:


Besides being explosively unstable, your sea of positrons will
produce forces about 10^30 larger than what we measure.


Sue, you need a copy of Dirac's book Directions in Physics to see how a
Cosmic Vacuum is really filled with a Ocean of Positrons. Dirac never
worried about a 10^30 larger force of his Cosmic Ocean of Positrons,
because his derivation of that cosmic ocean is a derivation that has to
satisfy and balance the energy states of Quantum Mechanics.

You must be reading too many cranks and crackpots to get this 10^30. If
Dirac was never worried about Cosmic Ocean of Positrons making up
Space, then you should never be worried.



You might visit the below URLs to see how the sea of hydrogen
that we know about can produce a Coulomb derived gravity
consistant with the forces we measure.


Those two websites are science fiction with their spiel on inertia.
Feynman had a nice science fiction, cute analysis of gravity by
outlining an overabundance of neutrinos on one side of the planets from
the Sun where Feynman thence takes this imbalance of neutrinos as the
force of gravity. But Feynman announces that this model is wrong and he
only wanted to show how easy it is to come up with models, yet those
models are wrong. Same thing with the two wesites you refer to, only
that the authors did not have the good physics commonsense to
understand that their model is wrong.
Physics is chock full of people with pet theories that they are deluded
with as being correct when they are lousy wrong.

To have a correct theory of what gravity really is, has to connect with
very many other features of physics. And the Feynman model and the two
models you refer to connect with nothing else in physics.

To have a correct new theory of gravity has to pass these tests:
(1) accept as true the statement "mass bends space and other mass
follows the curvature of that bent space" where the new theory
elucidates and makes clear what is SPACE. Feynmans neutrino model and
the two websites never touch on the question of what is Space. If your
model never clarifies the concept of space, then it is trash.

(2) a true new theory will add onto Maxwell Equations. Did Feynman's
model do that? No. Did the two websites do that? No.

Did my model do both (1) and (2). Yes. Space is Dirac's ocean of
positrons. And thus gravity is the attraction of positrons to ordinary
matter which is really electron matter of the Atom Totality. Did my
model engage in a revision of the Maxwell Equations? Most certainly in
that it removed the asymmetry from the monopole equation and the
asymmetry of Faraday's law with Ampere-Maxwell's law.

Thousands of new models have arisen in the past century, and none of
them have addressed (1) and (2) and so they are wrong and
trashcannable.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
To have a correct theory of what gravity really is, has to connect with
very many other features of physics. And the Feynman model and the two
models you refer to connect with nothing else in physics.

Read what the Tajamr and de Matos papers have to say
about the Gravito-magnetic London moment and
coherent matter.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html


[...]

Sue... wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
To have a correct theory of what gravity really is, has to connect with
very many other features of physics. And the Feynman model and the two
models you refer to connect with nothing else in physics.

Read what the Tajamr and de Matos papers have to say
about the Gravito-magnetic London moment and
coherent matter.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html


[...]
Hey, Al....!!!!!
I know you're lurking you old perv...........
Evgeny Podkletnov..........is that name vaguely
familiar?
Wait til we get magnets rotating/precessing at speed
and see the gravitational effects.........the ratio is 1:2

John
Galaxy Model
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

malibu wrote:
Sue... wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
To have a correct theory of what gravity really is, has to connect with
very many other features of physics. And the Feynman model and the two
models you refer to connect with nothing else in physics.

Read what the Tajamr and de Matos papers have to say
about the Gravito-magnetic London moment and
coherent matter.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html


[...]
Hey, Al....!!!!!
I know you're lurking you old perv...........
Evgeny Podkletnov..........is that name vaguely
familiar?
Wait til we get magnets rotating/precessing at speed
and see the gravitational effects.........the ratio is 1:2

Tajamar, Podkletnov and de Matos are all in agreement
that their devices have little in common and they have
stated so in public forums.

Sue...


John
Galaxy Model
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

Sue... wrote:
malibu wrote:
Sue... wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
To have a correct theory of what gravity really is, has to connect with
very many other features of physics. And the Feynman model and the two
models you refer to connect with nothing else in physics.

Read what the Tajamr and de Matos papers have to say
about the Gravito-magnetic London moment and
coherent matter.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html


[...]
Hey, Al....!!!!!
I know you're lurking you old perv...........
Evgeny Podkletnov..........is that name vaguely
familiar?
Wait til we get magnets rotating/precessing at speed
and see the gravitational effects.........the ratio is 1:2

Tajamar, Podkletnov and de Matos are all in agreement
that their devices have little in common and they have
stated so in public forums.

What is there in common?
Gravity.
Superconductors.
High rate of spin.
????????
John