|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
triggers of nova and supernova Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons =Space = gravity #112 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Well, I am stuck in this chapter, because it is a difficult problem.
It has never been resolved and I reckon I am going to resolve it. Already I have unified gravity to EM, with being Space as an Ocean of Positrons, but what I have not resolved is the details of how that space = gravity. Here I have several options of which I have voiced the first option already: Option 1: Whereever there is normal matter (matter of the last six electrons of 231Pu Atom Totality) that the positrons form balls at the center of astro bodies, such as a tiny ball of positrons in the center of Sun that then attracts the normal matter of the other Solar System bodies. So in this option, space is positrons and the centers of matter bodies have tiny positron balls. Option 2: In EM we know that charge resides on the surface, so that we have no center of the Sun ball of positrons but that Space is positrons and that the surface of a normal matter body has more positrons. I do not like this option, but have to keep an open mind. Option 3: Forget about center of the Sun tiny balls of positrons and focus purely on Space as positrons. Focus on Space as if it were water and that the Sun and Earth were tiny ships on water. Now this is an imperfect analogy, but it is a good starting point. The idea is that Space is like Matter itself. Certainly water is matter and a ship is matter. So that we picture the Sun as a heavier ship and requiring more water to displace to keep it afloat, and that displacement then means more positrons near the Sun rather than Earth. So the Sun in our Solar System would have the most dense space surrounding the Sun which means the most dense positron-space. And that further means the most attraction for the other normal matter in the Solar System. So let me try to state gravity in terms of General Relativity and then this third option. In GR, mass bends space and then other mass follows the curvature of that bent space in its motion. In Option-3, the world consists of a giant Atom and we live on a piece of the last 6 electrons, for which it is composed of matter of those electrons (we call normal matter) and the space of that electron matter. The space is a positron ocean, and so were ever there is a lot of normal matter there is a lot more positron-space and thus normal matter appears to attract other normal matter in proportion to the positron density between the two. I guess what resolution is coming out of this is the idea that in Newton's gravity, he was dealing with mass body A versus mass body B. What AP does is deal with mass body A and B and then with the positron-space of A and positron-space of B. So Newton had 2 variables, and AP has at least 4 variables, and in the end, AP has a force equation of gravity that is an inverse square because it is EM force of positron antimatter versus normal matter. Newton's mass gravity is seen as only a partial force for it omits the Space. I think I am getting terribly close to a complete resolution. Of course, in Positron Space gravity, you cannot have a black-hole because the positrons cannot be squeezed closely together before they blow apart in a nova or supernova, and perhaps that is the clue to proving AP gravity, by studying what triggers a nova or supernova explosion. If my memory is good, the causes of a nova or supernova explosion are modern mysteries and have not been resolved. So here is a opportunity to see if the AP gravity is true, and that the trigger of a nova or supernova is due to a limit of positron space too densely crowded together. This maybe an easy proof, in that if nova's and supernova's explode from their surface first, rather than from their interiors, would suggest that Positron Gravity is the root cause of the explosion. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
easier proof that AP-gravity is true and GR and Newton gravity falseChapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons = Space = gravity #113 Atom Totalitytheory 5th ed.
On Dec 6, 12:30*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: Well, I am stuck in this chapter, because it is a difficult problem. It has never been resolved and I reckon I am going to resolve it. Already I have unified gravity *to EM, with being Space as an Ocean of Positrons, but what I have not resolved is the details of how that space = gravity. Here I have several options of which I have voiced the first option already: Option 1: Whereever there is normal matter (matter of the last six electrons of 231Pu Atom Totality) that the positrons form balls at the center of astro bodies, such as a tiny ball of positrons in the center of Sun that then attracts the normal matter of the other Solar System bodies. So in this option, space is positrons and the centers of matter bodies have tiny positron balls. Option 2: In EM we know that charge resides on the surface, so that we have no center of the Sun ball of positrons but that Space is positrons and that the surface of a normal matter body has more positrons. I do not like this option, but have to keep an open mind. Option 3: Forget about center of the Sun tiny balls of positrons and focus purely on Space as positrons. Focus on Space as if it were water and that the Sun and Earth were tiny ships on water. Now this is an imperfect analogy, but it is a good starting point. The idea is that Space is like Matter itself. Certainly water is matter and a ship is matter. So that we picture the Sun as a heavier ship and requiring more water to displace to keep it afloat, and that displacement then means more positrons near the Sun rather than Earth. So the Sun in our Solar System would have the most dense space surrounding the Sun which means the most dense positron-space. And that further means the most attraction for the other normal matter in the Solar System. So let me try to state gravity in terms of General Relativity and then this third option. In GR, mass bends space and then other mass follows the curvature of that bent space in its motion. In Option-3, the world consists of a giant Atom and we live on a piece of the last 6 electrons, for which it is composed of matter of those electrons (we call normal matter) and the space of that electron matter. The space is a positron ocean, and so were ever there is a lot of normal matter there is a lot more positron-space and thus normal matter appears to attract other normal matter in proportion to the positron density between the two. I guess what resolution is coming out of this is the idea that in Newton's gravity, he was dealing with mass body A versus mass body B. What AP does is deal with mass body A and B and then with the positron-space of A and positron-space of B. So Newton had 2 variables, and AP has at least 4 variables, and in the end, AP has a force equation of gravity that is an inverse square because it is EM force of positron antimatter versus normal matter. Newton's mass gravity is seen as only a partial force for it omits the Space. I think I am getting terribly close to a complete resolution. Of course, in Positron Space gravity, you cannot have a black-hole because the positrons cannot be squeezed closely together before they blow apart in a nova or supernova, and perhaps that is the clue to proving AP gravity, by studying what triggers a nova or supernova explosion. If my memory is good, the causes of a nova or supernova explosion are modern mysteries and have not been resolved. So here is a opportunity to see if the AP gravity is true, and that the trigger of a nova or supernova is due to a limit of positron space too densely crowded together. This maybe an easy proof, in that if nova's and supernova's explode from their surface first, rather than from their interiors, would suggest that Positron Gravity is the root cause of the explosion. In the last post, above, I suggested that the triggers of nova and supernova explosions were caused by positron-space becoming too dense or too unstable and act as a trigger for the explosion. A proof would be that Nova and Supernova explosions originate near the surface of the star and not the interior. However, I am not an expert on novas and supernovas and may have that turned around and backwards. It maybe the case that Supernovas and Novas explode from there centers outward, and that the positron space density is maximal in the center and where the explosion initiates, whereas in GR gravity, the star center or near center is clogged up with heavier elements that it is contradictory for the explosion to be initiated near the center. I do not know for I am not expert and not enough data. But what I do want to discuss here, is the fact of our Solar System and its plane of ecliptic, much like resembling Saturn and its rings, and resembling Spherical galaxies that evolve into spiral flat planed galaxies. In Cosmology we see the phenomenon of "planes of revolution" whether it is Saturn and its rings or the Sun and its planets forming the plane of ecliptic or whether it is a spherical galaxy turning into a flat planed spiral galaxy. So the question is, can Newton's gravity or GR explain why this evolving towards a flat plane around a central body mass, as exemplified by Saturn and its rings? Can Newton's gravity or GR really tackle and resolve this pattern of evolution of astro bodies? Many think it can, in that Maxwell himself used Newton's gravity to explain Saturn's rings. But we must pause for a moment and ask whether that was a true explanation? Because we know that Newton's equation of inverse square law is the same form of equation of EM of an inverse square law. So, what I am saying is that if Maxwell had used a EM equation, he would have made the same conclusion. Both are of the same mathematical form. However, does Newton's gravity or GR predict that all Spherical revolving entities end up looking like a Saturn with its rings? That is the important question. With Newton's gravity and GR, there are only two variables, body A and body B, and in AP gravity there are four variables, body A, body B, positron-space A, positron-space B. There should be a small variance in that the repulsion of positron- space A to that of positron-space B has a lasting effect on the bodies of A and B, and the repulsion of body A to body B since they are both matter. But the greatest difference is that in AP-gravity, there is a directional preference to end up in a "Planar Shape". With 4 variables in AP-gravity, the end result of the revolution of bodies around a central body is that EM force is planar and not 3rd dimensional spherical. So I think the proof of AP-gravity is going to be an easy proof, in that AP-gravity has all spherical revolutions evolving into planar ecliptic revolutions. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
inverse square law needs 4 variables to end up with Saturn and ringChapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons = Space = gravity #114 Atom Totalitytheory 5th ed.
On Dec 6, 1:16*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: On Dec 6, 12:30*am, Archimedes Plutonium (snipped) So I think the proof of AP-gravity is going to be an easy proof, in that AP-gravity has all spherical revolutions evolving into planar ecliptic revolutions. Now many of us in science have seen the display alleged by General Relativity. The display as shown in books and on TV shows of physics. The display I refer to is the display where you have some fabric of space with the Sun in the middle, depressing the fabric of space causing a curved space around the Sun, and then where a Earth-ball is rolled into that curvature to pretend as though Earth is revolving around the Sun. That is the analogy of GR, General Relativity, where mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space. The trouble with GR and with Newton's gravity is that in astronomy, most bodies end up with looking like Saturn and its rings, or, the Solar System with its ecliptic plane, or a spherical galaxy that evolves eventually into a ecliptic-planar galaxy. So does the mathematics of GR or Newton's gravity give us ecliptic- planar structures? The answer is no. The answer is that we need 4 variables in an inverse square law in order to achieve a gravity that ends up looking like Saturn and its ring or ecliptic-planar structures. Newton's gravity and GR have only two variables, mass A and mass B. That does not give us what dynamic systems evolve into such as Saturn and ring, nor Sun and plane of ecliptic, nor ecliptic planar galaxies (spiral galaxies). In order for the inverse square law to give us what eventually these systems evolve into we need at least 4 variables: mass A, mass B, positron space A, positron space B. Now the mathematics are complicated and difficult, but basically with only two variable in GR, then the cute example of a fabric depressed as shown on TV will not work because that is Space is 3 dimensional, and so we need 4 variables to have a dynamic system collapse into a ECLIPTIC shaped orbit of revolution. P.S. I make an important note to myself here. In this book of previous editions I have been looking for a means of dating the ages of the Sun and inner planets versus the outer planets, thinking that the Sun is at least twice as old as Jupiter or Saturn. But I think I finally found the easiest dating technique of our Solar System. Younger planets will be more of a variance to the ecliptic, whereas older planets will be obeying the ecliptic. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons = Space = gravity #115 AtomTotality theory 5th ed.
I just wrote a few minutes ago:
P.S. I make an important note to myself here. In this book of previous editions I have been looking for a means of dating the ages of the Sun and inner planets versus the outer planets, thinking that the Sun is at least twice as old as Jupiter or Saturn. But I think I finally found the easiest dating technique of our Solar System. Younger planets will be more of a variance to the ecliptic, whereas older planets will be obeying the ecliptic. And in fact, the astro bodies of Pluto and beyond are very much younger than the Sun and inner planets and then the outer planets. So we have three tiers of ages for our Solar System, we have the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars as the oldest astro bodies of the Solar System, then we have Jupiter and the gas giants about 1/2 the age of the Sun and then we have the youngest group of all, the bodies of Pluto and beyond. The Plane of Ecliptic of the Solar System is going to be our very best age dating device. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Vector Field Equation for AP-gravity Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean ofPositrons = Space = gravity #116 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Alright, I spent the last several hours reviewing calculus for that of
starting out with a Coulomb force as a ball and shrinking the ball simultaneously forming a disc. GR gravity and Newton gravity is just a sphere in 3rd dimension. What I want is a sphere and the shrinking of that sphere into a center and surrounded by a disc. Think of Saturn and its ring, or think of the Sun and its planets in the plane of ecliptic. Think of a huge sphere say the size of Jupiter that shrinks to the size of Saturn and the extra mass becomes the saturn-ring. Or think of a larger sphere than the Sun, and then shrink that larger Sun-sphere to the present size of the Sun and what is left over of mass of the larger sphere becomes a planetary disc of plane of ecliptic. So I spent some hours trying to figure out what sort of mathematics encapsulates that chain of evolutionary events. It starts with a large sphere which shrinks to a tiny sphere and a disc of planar-ecliptic. So what I want to do is apply Coulomb law with four variables of mass A, mass B, positron space A, positron space B and as time goes by, that spherical mass shrinks into a smaller central sphere with a planar disc around that central sphere. If I can get that time elapsed evolution by 4 variables with the Coulomb force, then the job is done. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rings in Jarrett's mapping Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons =Space = gravity #110 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | December 6th 11 04:18 AM |
Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons = Space = gravity #107 AtomTotality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | December 5th 11 01:29 AM |
plane of ecliptic better explained Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons= Space (and tells us what gravity is) #106 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 2nd 11 07:33 AM |
Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons = Space (and tells us what gravityis) #104 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | December 2nd 11 06:25 AM |
Gravity is Dirac's Ocean of Positrons = Space #353 Atom Totalitytheory 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 5th 11 07:45 PM |