[General] Overview

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John M,

I hope to have time in a few months to go thru your work in detail. What I
have seen so far, looks productive. I think that the relationships you have
established can lead to many good paths. I think that your comments "that
gravity has both an oscillating component and a non-oscillating component"
is the 'beginning of wisdom' for a lot of physics. I have been pushing that
from the EM viewpoint and I believe that they connect.

Andrew



On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:32 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Andrew and All,
>
>
>
> The Gravitational Transformations PDF that was included in my last post is
> merely an enumeration of the gravitational effect on units of physics such
> as the Joule, second, newton, etc. *However, now I would like to give an
> overview of all of my work.*
>
>
>
> I started with the simplest possible starting assumption for a theory of
> everything which is: The universe is only 4 dimensional spacetime.  I am
> really a scientific inventor, so I decided to see if I could “invent” a
> model of the universe that used only the properties of 4 dimensional
> spacetime.  If this was a wrong assumption, then I should quickly reach an
> impasse.  However, if this is the key to understanding the universe, then I
> should be on a narrow path which yields answers to all of physics.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, the result has been amazing.  Once I characterized the
> properties of vacuum energy (zero point energy), then everything fell into
> place.  I get particles with the correct properties.  From first
> principles, I derive that there should be three different types of forces.
> (I do not get the weak force and the strong force is short range)  When I
> calculated the two long range forces, the first force turns out to be the
> electrostatic force between particles if they both had Planck charge (about
> 11.7 times charge e).  Planck charge is really the basic unit of charge
> because it has a coupling constant of 1 rather than 1*/*137.  The next
> force that I get is due to the fact that the “spacetime field” has boundary
> conditions which dictate that waves in spacetime should have a nonlinear
> component. The first approximation of this nonlinear component scales with
> wave amplitude squared.  When the wave amplitude that gave the
> electrostatic force is squared, the result gives the gravitational force.
> *Eureka!*  Furthermore, the squaring means that gravity has only one
> polarity since the square is always a positive number.
>
>
>
> Einstein worked for 30 years trying to unite gravity and the
> electromagnetic force.  Once I reduce these forces to waves, I easily
> generated about 10 simple equations which connect a fundamental particle’s
> gravitational force to its electrostatic force. Here is one recently
> generated equation:
>
>
>
> *Fg/FE* = *Rs/λc*
>
>
>
> *Fg* = magnitude of the gravitational force at arbitrary separation
> distance *r*
>
> *FE* = magnitude of the electrostatic force at distance *r* assuming
> Planck charge qp
>
> *Rs* = *Gm/c*2 = Schwarzschild radius of a maximally rotating particle
>
> *λ*c = *ħ**/mc* = reduced Compton wavelength which is the spacetime
> particle’s radius
>
>
>
> To convert *FE* to *Fe* (the force between two elementary charge *e)*,
> the equation is: *F*E = *F*eα-1.
>
>
>
> I have not published *Fg/FE* = *Rs/λc* and other recently derived
> equations yet.  All these equations were predicted by my particle model.
> While others in this group are speculating about photons somehow being
> confined into a double loop, my approach gives has quantifiable wave
> amplitudes, sizes, energy densities, forces, etc. and these are being
> ignored. I claim that others are building castles in the sky because they
> lack a quantifiable foundation.  Others in the group use the word “charge”
> as if it is an unknowable property.  I can tell you exactly what a charge
> is and the quantifiable effect a charged particle has on the surrounding
> spacetime. I can tell you the effect a photon has on spacetime.  I can
> check this model of photons and charge because they both predict that there
> should be a limiting condition which produces 100% modulation of the
> properties of spacetime.  I claim that this model is proven because this
> 100% condition corresponds to the condition that makes a black hole.  It is
> not necessary to do an experiment to verify that spacetime has a maximum
> photon intensity or a maximum voltage on a vacuum capacitor.  It is
> impossible to exceed either of these conditions because a black hole forms.
>
>
>
> In my “foundation” paper I give an equation for the curvature of spacetime
> produced by my particles.  This corresponds to the weak gravity curvature
> of spacetime.  Now I have gone further and shown that gravity has both an
> oscillating component and a non-oscillating component which we know as the
> curvature of spacetime.  However, in analyzing the oscillating component of
> gravity I find that it implies that a gravitational field also has energy
> density.  When I compare this to what I call the “interactive energy
> density of spacetime” I can see the physics behind how matter curves
> spacetime.  It is no longer just a correct curvature equation. The
> underlying physics of curvature comes from two different types of energy
> density interacting.
>
>
>
> If anyone is interested in learning more, I suggest first reading my
> “foundation” paper which was attached to about 5 of my previous posts. Then
> I can give selected portions of my revised book.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150619/e75ccd63/attachment.htm>