Re: Bending of light not well authenticated

On Thu, 5 May 2005 11:35:37 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:82ek71tp87g4c3uibqois7rb9svv7f4a8b@xxxxxxxxxx
>| 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.
>
>Never mind. I can easily see that you don't "get it". I will do it
>myself.

No, do it for all of us. I gave you plenty of fodder for you to
contradict, so give us the same privelege.

>| 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.
>
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with GR and it is only as complex as
>you make it. The fact that it maybe doesn't explain everything is not
>its fault.
>
>| 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.
>
>If you want to continue banging your head against the wall, fine; that
>is your problem. I have shown you the "path" you need to take to get
>attention. Baby steps can work.
>
>FrediFizzx
C'mon Fredi you've been hinting you have the true scoop, so give
already.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... our universe had to be created from electrons taken from Espace. ... >> expended for an electron at rest in our universe. ... >> In justification of all this, Dual Space with its new law of gravity ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... our universe had to be created from electrons taken from Espace. ... >> expended for an electron at rest in our universe. ... >> In justification of all this, Dual Space with its new law of gravity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: particle and virtual particle sea
    ... let's take the case of the hydrogen atom. ... >>>atom in the Espace?? ... >> Mr. Dual Space ... far vaster than our universe and it is the stockpile for our universe. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Creation of the Universe and the One Fact (Formerly known as the Unified Theory). On creating Ec
    ... Physics is War. ... The Universe has a certain finite size. ... out because it is converting tiny pieces of it's mass to L and then ... The laws of physics in the macro-universe and the micro universe are ...
    (sci.physics)