EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


my theory leads to restmass acceleration also. we have restmass energy E=mc^2 i standard theory and also derived from atomism.
we also in my theory have restmass momentum and restmass acceleration. It is a bit ironic, Schrodinger is a non relativistic appriox for v much smaller than c, but then it is derived also from standard momentum, that dose not exist for v=0. So dose restmass particles do not exist in standard theory, if so then how can E=mc^2 exist as it is for restmass particle, as the relativistic case naturally is E=mc^2*gamma
why restmass acceleration from my theory? well yes in the collisionspace time theory all mass consist of colliding indivisibles and this collision last one Planck second, and happens at the Compton frequency of the particle of question. The indivisibles moves at c when not colliding (round trip measure, or Einstein synchronized), and stands absolute still when colliding. Each compton time one have an acceleration lasting one Planck second going from 0 to c. Taking this into account it matches dark matter.
precession of mercury I have started looking at, there are a few angles to investigate here. Most of the papers that have looked at Newton theory have not actually even looked at Newton theory here, they have looked at the Newton theory presented by their "professors", that over generations have been altered from Newton's own theory. Newtons original gravity theory can only been understood from atomism. Newton explicitly points out that his theory is rooted in indivisible particles and indivisible time.
Collision space time is consisted with Newton's main idea on mass and time, standard theory is very very far off from Newtons core principles. There are some very interesting historical points here totally missed, that I hope to get time to write about also. Some english translations of ancient texts are very very wrong. This I first found out when doing transaction of many sentences one by one and looking closely at the words.
All in all my theory looks very promising, certainly several things need to be looked at more closely.





nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Hi, I looked into your article. Major comment: You take liberty to simplify (reduce) nomenclature of existing terminology and then tag it as a discovery or even theory.
After such careful and consistent relabeling you come to the very same results. No surprise. Time is wasted.
This is worrying:
"Most of the papers that have looked at Newton theory have not actually even looked at Newton theory here, they have looked at the Newton theory presented by their "professors", that over generations have been altered from Newton's own theory. Newtons original gravity theory can only been understood from atomism. Newton explicitly points out that his theory is rooted in indivisible particles and indivisible time.
Collision space time is consisted with Newton's main idea on mass and time, standard theory is very very far off from Newtons core principles."
Are you alive thing? If not, adjust your NPL algo. 



EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


""Most of the papers that have looked at Newton theory have not actually even looked at Newton theory here, they have looked at the Newton theory presented by their "professors", that over generations have been altered from Newton's own theory. Newtons original gravity theory can only been understood from atomism. Newton explicitly points out that his theory is rooted in indivisible particles and indivisible time.
Collision space time is consisted with Newton's main idea on mass and time, standard theory is very very far off from Newtons core principles."
Are you alive thing? If not, adjust your NPL algo.""
Standard theory uses two different mass definitions (without knowing about it). In their mass definition they indirectly have some quantization due to Planck constant, but same time point particle, leads to much infinities etc..
In their indirect mass definition that they have in gravity theory, without knowing about it ( read AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND the collision spacetime paper) they actually get a minimum spatial dimension into their mass (without even understanding that is the mass and even without knowing it)...
They use the 1873 constant they invented to get their nonNewtonian mass definition to fit observation....without understanding why. SOLVED!
They cannot unify. I can!! More papers coming out on it!!
"No surprise?" Who do u think u are bullshitting? the sheeps (so a large crowd yes) ? My theory simplify, more proofs coming that the Planck length replace G and h. In addtion we no longer need dark matter fantasies etc.
"you come to the very same results." what have u been smoking? from G and h to l_p, from fantasy of dark matter to no dark matter, from micro black holes planck mass size, where escape velocity is above c at the reduced Compton wave length to where the speed is c, different escape velocity formulas, from nothing stopping a single electron from having relativistic mass equal to the restmass of the galaxy or the assumed observable mass of the whole universe, to strict max limit at the Planck mass, from non unified, to unified. If this is the same result for u, then good luck to u!
And something totally not related. I strongly recommend the book Flash Crash, I got to page 35 now and it says
"SHEEP ARE HOSTILE WHEN ENCOUNTERING BRILLIANCE!" the book is right on man! Thanks to pj for recommendation! I read it while pumping iron, one page, one set, one page, one set...feel the gravity! Flash Crash will make me stronger!





EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


My latest paper show why G and h can be replaced with only the Planck length. That is a reduction in the number of constants.
The findings here strongly support my collisionspace time theory. And yes we can now easily unify gravity with the rest of physics.
G is just a composite constant.
Finding the Planck length multiplied by the speed of light without any knowledge of G, c, or ħ, using a Newton force spring
As clearly demonstrated in the paper this is not just hiding G and h inside something else. G contains h and is needed to cancel out h from the modern mass definition, and to get the Planck length in. When one understand this, then there is no need for G. 



nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Still, I cannot get it why do you focus on alignment and reduction of number of constants...
M.Planck fixed black body radiation problem assuming corpuscular/discrete EM radiation. The rest comes naturally. Where collisions are coming from? Can I say that waves are replicas of collisions and vice versa? If equations are the same then what is new? Your approach resembles 1001 way to derive BlackScholes ending up with same prices. 




EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


In all of physics except gravity one do not have the collisiontime, but indirectly the ratio of collisions (through the Planck constant). It is not enough to have the number of collisions indirectly, as one can get with wave theory only (combined with Planck constant). One also need the time of the collision itself.
It is only by incorporating this in all of physics one can unify parts of physics, as I already have. And as I have told before the theory predicts series of different things than standard theory.
It is all explained in my paper. I did never expect EVERYONE to understand my papers. Especially not people full of prejudice! If you dont like a theory that strongly simplify, and unify and also predicts things not predicted by standard theory (without adding fudge factors) then good luck!
The Planck constant is embedded in G and is needed to get h out of the incomplete mass definition of modern physics. (read Principa and understand how Newton looked at mass, very different than modern physics, he would likely never have approved G, a constant he never invented, nor used, nor needed, to introduce it he had would have been forced to go away from his view on mass and energy.)
No need for G or h
More papers coming out on this! Stay tuned!




nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Newton didn't know Planck's constant, that explains everything! 




nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Espen, I suppose you have read Hawking's "Virtual black hole" 1995. He says that Heisenberg's uncertainty is formulated in (dp.dx) and energytime spaces, while it also limits space curvature within small domain of space via GR equations, i.e. dR.dx https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_black_hole
You say, that GR breaks uncertainty, but actually it does not. 



pj


Total Posts: 3555 
Joined: Jun 2004 

 

nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Reminds me discussion about ether (not crypto!) by Ernst Mach. Also this experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Just wonder, why this guy didn't mention it. Was kind of waiting  "and now it is coming..."
PS. Recently got the same idea. Still it has much much more consequences especially related to GR. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whyisntthespeedoflig/ 



EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Espen, I suppose you have read Hawking's "Virtual black hole" 1995. He says that Heisenberg's uncertainty is formulated in (dp.dx) and energytime spaces, while it also limits space curvature within small domain of space via GR equations, i.e. dR.dx https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_black_hole
You say, that GR breaks uncertainty, but actually it does not."
1. How did he get around the Pauli objection? read up on papers on uncertainty principle for energy time!!
2. Much more important: what do the standard momentum represent from a quantum perspective? It is directly linked to the de Broglie wavelength that is not even mathematical valid for restmass particles! We cannot divide by zero! So the standard Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not valid for restmass particles, as explained in on of my published papers. So they start out with something that is flawed to try to prove claims....ridiculous.
I am deriving from Compton wavelength, the true matter "wavelength" that is valid for also restmass particles (the Compton momentum as I call it), and then one see gravity is a break on Lorentz symmetry, and a break down in Heisenberg uncertainty principle at the Planck scale. Einstein was right God Dose Not Throw Dice (at the very depth of reality) (inside the Planck time there is zero uncertainty).
GR came much out from some assumptions about Newton gravity theory that are wrong. Before we try to understand GR we should try to understand Newton. My papers give some insight here, much more insights and proofs, both mathematical, logical and experimental coming to U SOON! Stay Tuned!
MAKE PHYSICS GREAT AGAIN! (with or without Trump or Biden, who cares! Politicians are for years, some equations are forever)!





pj


Total Posts: 3555 
Joined: Jun 2004 


@EGH
One cannot seemingly start a discussion with you without digesting _all_ your papers _and_ the book.
Somehow the situation reminds me of Jordan Peterson defenders. "You cannot contradict the Man without having previously read _all_ his writings."
Could we start the deconstruction from one exact basic article without references to the Unified Revolution?
I recall your paper about squaring the circle. That one was weak.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


no noo nooo, this is not in my books, start reading THIS to understand why standard momentum not even is mathematical defined for restmass particle. Since Heisenberg derivation is rooted in standard momentum it can say nothing about restmass particles. And understanding rest is all about understanding gravity at a deeper level!
Much of todays modern physics are rooted in derivatives of deeper reality. This has made it unnecessarily complex and also lead to endless strange interpretations of reality.
Standard momentum is always equal v/c times Comptonmomentum!! What is this when v=0 ? (Compton momentum = m*c*gamma)
More important check out the de Broglie wavelength = h/p = h/(m*v*gamma), or non relativistic h/p=h/(m*v). What is this when v=0. Try to derive standard momentum from quantum level, see what u get.
Derive uncertainty principle from Comptonmomentum and we get equations that holds for v also zero.
De Broglie wavelenght is always = c/v*ComptonWavelength.
Sorry I do not believe in matter waves that converge to infinity when mass almost at rest and that do not even exist mathematically when v=0. Sure u can use it for many calculations, but it is nothing more than a derivative of the true matter "wavelength" that is defined for any valid velocity, and even v=0.
That one thought and still thinks the De Broglie wavelength represent a real matter wave is a disaster! It is nothing more than a derivative of the true matter "wave" (Compton). De Broglie wave is needed for nothing except make the math more complex and the interpretations horrible.
""You cannot contradict the Man without having previously read _all_ his writings."
you are wrong Miss, only need to read part of one of my papers to start to get this! skip my books!
and big progress recently....all the pieces are falling together. I will be Back!
Make Physics Great Again!





EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


I am quite confident that the assumption that Newton gravity move at infinite speed, instant gravity assumption about Newton gravity is flawed! They have been staring at G and M without hardly any clue what G truly represent, and limited clue what M represent from a deeper perspective.
If one understand mass and Newton gravity from deeper perspective one see one actually have the following Newtonian type field equation (derived from Gauss law):
except one need more input info to operate G*rho versus c_g^3*rho_c, but exactly same output!
where c_g is the speed of gravity. rho is the kg mass denisty (incomplete mass definition of modern physics), and rho_c is the the mass density of collisiontime mass definition, see paper in previous post.
for it to be true that the speed of gravity in Newton is = infinite we must set c_g=infinite, this gives infinite strong gravity, which is absurd and not consistent with Newton. Or we could set c_g=0, which gives always zero gravity, absurd! Only thing that fit experiments and predictions from Newton formula is setting c_g approx= c (actually we have c_g=c).
Newton did not know this or assumed this. Something where missing in the model, one called it G and calibrated G to observation (Cavendish apparatus for example). So several things missing in Newton formula one got into the formula, but as a camouflaged composite constant G. Well when using kg mass and similar mass definitions.
So Newton speed is light speed!
One has been fooled all the time by not understanding what G and M truly represent! Surface science! They have not understood that c_g (or c, same as they are the same) is embedded and hidden inside G and M, not by assumptions, but they are the essence and one get them also by calibration without knowing what one got.
In addition one need to make M and m relativistic in Newton, and then one get perfect fit with supernovas, and that is the end of the dark energy fantasy! 



nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


For God sake, you seem to be stuck with Newton.





EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"For God sake, you seem to be stuck with Newton."
one should understand A before moving to B. Something modern physics clearly not have done. Proofs coming!!
For example laughable to call G the Newton gravity constant when Newton never invented nor used such a constant, nor did Cavendish in 1798, actually in conflict with the philosophy behind all his (Newtons) work on gravity!
Newton is coming back at Godspeed! 




as outside observer I have no clue what's going on here, so you may have issue with the communication here or I with understanding,
there is an accountable clear goal that can be measured in real world? what is the purpose of this work and thread? is there something interesting going on and why?
only one thing that pop in my mind is that newton was deprecated by GR spacetime 
First Commander of the USS Enterprise 



nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Let's discuss "dark stars" too and fight this concept down to the center of the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell#Black_holes
@svisstack
All this discussion is fun.
"newton was deprecated by GR spacetime"
I would say, that his theory was extended. All derivations of GR benchmark with Newton to calibrate constants. So far, additional views popped up: from thermodynamic entropy (T.Jacobson) to information (Verlinde) and even "causal diamonds" ! (T.Jacobson again).
Espen says that Newton is retarded. Well. It reminds me fight about correctness of BlackScholes. Models fit well.
Light is bended, GPS functions, rockets are flying to the amusement of public. What else can be wrong? 



EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Major test for good theory: it should explain all current experiments and predict something what others can't. "
think we have discussed this before here.
Assume u have a new theory that fails second part "and predict something what others can't. "
then u would skip that theory? What if this theory only could explain the same as the previous theory but was much simpler?
GR did not predict galaxy rotations correct, one had to invent dark matter, a fudge factor! Dark matter never observed directly. I mean if I miss something in a model i can always add a extra degree of freedom, such as assume there are mass there that we not have any observations of, and in addition let the distribution of that mass be a function of what we need in the model to fit data. Double fudge.
GR do not predict supernova observations. So instead of thinking ohh something miss in model, we are inventing dark energy, and a massive amount of its, that also never have been detected.
GR and Newton also give many identical predictions, for example the escape velocity formula one get from the two models are identical. How can this be if Newton gravity moves at infinite speed and GR gravity speed is c? Dose speed of gravity has nothing to do with escape velocity ?
Standard mass theory is not even mathematical valid for restmass particles, at least not if u try to link it to their quantum view, see my post below.
I will be back! Make Physics Great Again! 




pj


Total Posts: 3555 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> I will be back! Make Physics Great Again!
Are you threatening with a lawsuit like the other guy?

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Concession 'not our vocabulary'. ))






@nikol: Thanks make sense.
I don't see why the speed of gravity should be anyway related to the escape velocity and not sure why you are assuming otherwise, from the logical reasoning speed of the gravity will only affect anything around the espacing object, but dont know just spend on this 30 seconds max. nevermind
looks like you were fooled by yourself and overfitted on the math side if you don't belive me then make an experiment, the old days this was physics.
if you want to deprecate the GR, then a good way is to find what the spacetime actually is, like nikol said it's accepted knowledge that the model works, read some stuff; you will not get around this.

First Commander of the USS Enterprise 


EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 


pls show your derivations, bla bla bla without equations is not for physics! this is not a politician debate! Lets finish physics before we start to run for office!
actually we have fooled ourself for 300 years, or at least since 1873! One must know what the variables and constants represent!
How on Earth can I extract c*lp from a Newton force spring if Newton type gravity phenomena not depend on the speed of gravity equal to c ?? (and I do this without having to know anything about G, h or c)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/23996528/ab9dd7
but sure it must irritate some in the field that though they understood Newton gravity!
And when I know c and lp (that I get from gravity without any knowledge of any physical constant) I can predict any gravity phenomena only from c and lp, as supersstring theory also has ideas about, but they failed big time, and in addition made the models unnecessarily complex. Back to simplicity and Power!
"Are you threatening with a lawsuit like the other guy?"
Not time! I am busy writing The New Laws! It will be impossible to break the new laws! The old laws where not laws because they where broken and one tried to patch them up with dark matter, dark energy and other fudge factors!





EGH


Total Posts: 91 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

nikol


Total Posts: 1230 
Joined: Jun 2005 


"why Newtonian gravity moves at the speed of light and is not instantaneous as previously thought."
Man, who could have such idea, if concepts of waves and infinite speed are not even compatible?
You have literally nuclear energy inside but you just dump it into the ground ... 



