Re: Bending of light not well authenticated

On Wed, 4 May 2005 21:47:07 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:l02j71p47q8q8590v8f6fm4hqubi85m4b2@xxxxxxxxxx
>| On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:24:41 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
>| <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip
>| >
>| >Well, how about it John? Can you derive the max force thing from
>| >"vacuum" permittivity? If so, here is your chance to shine.
>Christoph
>| >Schiller has already shown how max force goes to GR.
>| >
>| >FrediFizzx
>|
>| Fredi, I derived maximum force in Eq. 13-20 in Chapter 13 of the Dual
>| Space book which you have. It is not some numerological gimmick. It is
>| in fact the jet force of creation as electrons are launched to
>| velocity c. I have it as
>| Fmax = c^4/2G = 6.05x10^43 N.
>| It is twice Schiller's hypothesis, but we do have twin universes.
>
>Yes, I know you have shown some of the derivation but it is all not
>quite there. Do it right here or make it another one of your little
>excerpts on your website. "Dual Space Derives General Relativity" Now
>that is a title that will get attention and turn heads (must be my
>Hollywood upbringing). OK?

No, Fred, you don't get it. You don't get that Dual Space completely
replaces relativity. Relativity is done. It is the wrong model, with
right answers. Rel. has XYZT all welded together so nothing "moves".
Dual Space has our 3D universe whizzing through time at c. Rel has
time stretching; in DS it's the speed of light and our cosmic speed in
time that are affected by gravity.
You are still thinking it would be a feather in my hat to derive GR
from max force or something? Far from it. Your instincts must tell you
that GR being so ridiculously complex, it must have something wrong
with it. You do not recognize that Dual Space tells WHY there is
gravity and HOW it works: filching electron from Espace causes
pinching and Navier Stokesm as a result of which, g IS.

I showed in my gravity paper how I came up with the extra term cdc/dr
that does relativity without 4-space. All those little papers require
study, which presupposes conviction on the reader's part, but I think
I can say without exaggeration that such conviction is naturally in
short supply in these newsgroups. No one will read more than 2
equations.

> So let's see the whole derivation from
>start to max force. Start with "vacuum" permittivity with DS concept
>and end up with max force. Then I will show you exactly why you are
>twice as big as Schiller's. Plus I will add the quantum connection to
>it. Fair enough? I will even do it in SI units just for you.

Vacuum permittivity forces a new space, Espace, in which it takes
..5mc2 to pull an electron out of its cell in Espace, and .5mc2 to
accelerate it to c in our vacuum, accomplished by virtue of
alpha-cubed expansion energy so everything that is created flies at c
and cooks into our 100 elements, given 11 billion years.
>
>| In that chapter I also demonstrate how the Einstein de Sitter omega
>| can be (and is) maintained at unity (constant creation is the
>| clinching logic in Eq. 13-11), derived a CMBR temperature of 2.557K
>| and solved the Pioneer 10 anomaly.
>|
>| I count 5 Nobel prizes in Chapter 13. Take a look.
>
>I have taken a look many times. Much of it looks good to me. But first
>things first. I am not seeing the direct connection from "vacuum"
>permittivity to max force mathematically. Get ready, get set, go man
>go! ;-)
Forget the max force or proof for GR. You seem to be quite impressed
with Schiller's hypothesis which as I recall has no basis, but is just
a combination of constants, like Planck length, that just must be the
solution to some problem that is yet to be identified..

Follow this logic concerning our cosmological progress (is this a jump
from the vacuum permittivity you want me to launch from?):

Einstein de Sitter's critical density (whether universe is expanding
contracting or what) is
3H^2/8piG.
My density, independently derived, using my model mass M derived from
the 8.4e-10m/s2 of the Pioneer anomaly, which is just mass over
volume:
3M/4piR^3 where R is 10.87 BLtyr.
(M = Melec + Mposi = 1.83e53kg)
Numerically both densities have the same value using H = 1/T. Thus
omega = 1, a fortuitous value indeed. But if it's 1 today how can it
be that way tomorrow? Divide one expression by the other and get,
after some algebra
2MG/c^3T = 1
The problem: T in the denominator.
The solution: CONTINUOUS CREATION!
Mdot = c^3/2G
The universe is under continual creation at the rate of c^3/2G or
c^3/G for both the Espace and Uspace halves! This means there are
102,000 solar masses being created each second, which is also the
quotient of total mass over time.

If you poke around in cosmology papers you see that it is the fashion
to fiddle with several parameters available to adjust, including
Einsteins cosmological constant. You don't need all that. The above
exposition should be of comfort to everyone; things are going along
nicely. There are no wormholes, the whole thing is not going to
collapse. The expansion of the universe is accompanied by continual
increase in mass!

This is totally counter to the Big Bang where all mass is present
instantly. It is probably also the answer to the mystery of gamma ray
bursters no one can figure out. It is also probably the answer to the
dark matter, dark energy mystery.

As to your max force, there is a jet force in the creation of speeding
electrons that are the seeds of our universe:

d(mv)/dt = vdm/dt = c*Mdot/2
= c^4/2G = 6.05x10^43N = Fmax.

This is new physics and I guess I'm a lousy writer if you say you have
read Ch. 13 and understood it and still didn't get it. I guess you
could say explaining the gamma ray bursters and dark energy with my
continuous creation would be the 6th and 7th Nobel prizes in Ch. 13.

I have no idea where to publish this stuff. Even arXiv needs an
"endorser" before they will print anything. Who's got one? Who is a
person established as proficient in my field, which is everything?
Phys Rev D is so far gone as not to recognize simple new science. It
is its own industry not to be disturbed.

Oh I just ran across a paper I wrote some time ago that better
explains at least part of this. It's number 9 on my website Constant
Creation explains Gamma Ray Bursters.


>FrediFizzx
>
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
>or postscript
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
    ... "Dual Space Derives General Relativity" ... | Dual Space has our 3D universe whizzing through time at c. ... | My density, independently derived, using my model mass M derived from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
    ... > | Dual Space has our 3D universe whizzing through time at c. ... difficult to say what derives what on a logical ... > | My density, independently derived, using my model mass M derived ... > | The solution: CONTINUOUS CREATION! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast