Re: Bending of light not well authenticated

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vgtk715vdg8lg3kqhsl40np3j6l3hsthp7@xxxxxxxxxx
| 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.

I already told you that I don't see the direct connection from "vacuum"
permittivity to max force. I still don't see it after your rant. Plus
you have to make this additional assumption about mass flow thru a
horizon being creation. Now, I am OK with that assumption but how to
connect to vac permittivity? Mathematically? If it is there, I must be
having some kind of brain lock. ;-) Help out if you wish.

But I will figure it out eventually because I know it's there. Then I
will take the correct path from bound dual space-time *quantum* "vacuum"
charge to GR. So I think you are wrong when you say gravity can't be
quantized. You have already basically done it and you don't even know
it. LoL. Now all this other physics that you think you have solved;
that is all fine and dandy. But you don't know how to "play the game"
of getting proper attention for it. Your problem; not mine. I was just
trying to be helpful. Like I said before; your approach is funky. Very
funky. Take a baby step first. You might just find out it is a bigger
step than you thought at first.

FrediFizzx

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

.

Relevant Pages