Sloat, When did I present a model? If I did so you should know there ar no WDs or neutron stars in it-no electron either. You need to dismiss those ideas as well as several other fiction items you seem to believe are real. There is a difference between models and real events.

Hi Jim, if you say that there have been billions of supernova events, then that is a model. The estimates are for about a hundred million supernova events. This is based on the assumption that such an event leaves us with a neutron star or a black hole. They are a rare event, about one per galaxy per century, of course we dont know what percentage are going to be black holes. The other point is that I believe the estimate to be partly based on the the big bang theory. If the universe is actually older than the big bang, then there could have been billions of super nova events. However, that would mean that there would be more of the elements heavier than iron in stellar nurseries.

Thats why we talked about dwarf stars. They are hard to detect, so we we could be way out in our estimates of how many stars there actually are in our galaxy. We need to know the mean rate of star formation in order to work out the rate of take up of heavier elements into new stars.

You then added to your model by saying that supernova events have nothing to do with neutron stars. Here I think you are simply wrong. Theres a neutron star at the centre of the Crab; the Crab has to be everyones favourite supernova, though oddly no one in Europe mentioned its occurrence!

A point that Nemesis made about the outer planets surviving. Go into a classroom with a bunch of billiard balls, to ask for volunteers for a little experiment. First billiard ball is made of ice, our sun. The next one is a bog standard billiard ball, as are the next two. A volunteer is needed to stand 300 metres away from the first billiard ball which has a tnt core. Roughly a hand grenade going off.

Who knows there might be one or two takers for that. Though I think they might be a bit surprised at the noise of a real explosion, if theyve only heard them in movies. Next up is the a bomb billiard ball, about ten tonnes of tnt. No takers at all. Then we have the h bomb billiard ball, about fifty tonnes of tnt. Again not one taker for the experiment.

Last up is the supernova billiard ball. This one will convert a sizeable percentage of its mass to pure energy. An a bomb converts 0.1% of its mass energy, an h bomb 0.5% My estimate for the supernova, based on a faster than light speed of gravity, is that we are talking in the region of an explosion with a 35% efficiency. An antimatter bomb of truly staggering proportions. Note though that the sun survives. its the very explosion that forces it to become so much denser. It would still be a star with more mass than our sun, it blows off two thirds of its mass but it was about six times the mass of our sun to start off with.

Last point to make, is that mainstream science wont accept ftl gravity. They would argue that the antimatter nature of this explosion gives us the power of it. Protons have to become neutrons and in this decay they emit heaps of positrons. They meet electrons and destroy each other. Well yes but it simply doesnt happen. When they meet we get a whole bag full of gamma rays and mesons. What we would have to argue about then is the percentage. We would still be talking about serious money here. A supernova is vastly more powerful kilo for kilo than an h bomb.

Hi Joe, a few questions for you. We know that Newton thought the speed of gravity was effectively infinite. I have heard the ridiculous argument that Newton had no comprehension of just how fast the speed of light was, living in a time when the horse was the fastest way of getting about. That the inventor of the calculus should have made such a mistake was never explained. Newton knew full well that the speed of light was fast, just not as fast as gravity.

Right, lets take my argument that c^2 / b^2 = h is good to go, here b is the speed of gravity. We can write this as 1/ eta, which is the refractive index, and equal to one over 1.5091889611E 33 Call this n.

Now lets write the lorentzian as (1 - 1 / n)^nx

That power of nx has to equal two, so x = 1.3252151E-33 That would mean that we live on the knee of a very tight exponential curve. Also, if we flip over the two divided by the reciprocal of h we get half h. In cosmicsurfers thread I did come up with this number with regard to the theoretical mass of the higgs. I didnt pursue it as I went on to something else.

Do you happen to know Joe, whether Newton himself had looked at the integral of one over x? I assume that he must have done, he would have been looking at the lorentzian as a problem in working out true compound interest I suppose.

Other questions, what do you think of the idea of gravitational caustics? For that matter near field Fresnel's, what is a near field when electromagnetic space and gravitational space are so hugely different? In fact we can swop their sizes back and forth at leisure. Gravitational space being huge or informationally very small

Sloat, You have way too many details to address in the time alotted, but for starters the number of SN events as you say might be one per century per galaxy. Then since billions of galaxies are estimated to exist and maybe SN events have occured for 10 billion years(100 million centuries) how can you calculate less than many billions of SN events? There are many other details in your latest post that need review so I'll see if they can be addressed.

Hi Jim, of course there will be supernova events in other galaxies, there will be about ten to the power eighteen of them. That of course depends on how big the universe is. That begs a question. if we say that the universe has a radius of fourteen and a half billion light years, then whats gravitational, informational radius? That of course depends on how fast the speed of gravity is. With my speed of gravity the universe has a gravitational radius of eleven metres! Actually thats not what I ended up with, as I had to make the light speed radius about eight thousand times bigger, in order have a, very very slow light, move the compton wavelength. But the ratios good, so its okay to imagine this thing as a ball twenty two metres across. Everything knows when a supernova event happens, no matter where it is. It knows it almost immediately.

I think what we are after is an actuarial model of our galaxy. Really we havent been observing the universe long enough to have one. We have spectacular but rare deaths, we have dwarf stars running out of steam, and we have new stars being born. Do we have a viable stable community of stars? I think we simply dont have enough data to decide yet.

On the question of volunteers to stand 300 metres from a nuke. The figures are in the ball park, but we shouldnt be tempted to work out the true yield. There are bad guys out there who would like to know what the critical mass is.

A couple of obvious points to make about it, the volunteers will have to be shrunk down to about the size of a garden pea, thats just make them about the size of Jupiter. This ups their chances, as they dont have to absorb as much energy. They would still be reduced to atoms, and thats what we want to see. We want to have a big dirty cloud of heavy elements to make stars like ours.

Hi Joe, thinking about that exponential. It would just look like our 3d axis. So I thought what if I took that x value and considered it as the wavelength of a vacuum particle. lamda = h / mc It comes at about 1E-8 kg a bit of a heavy brute. Then I thought lets think of an electron as a diving bell. How many of these tiny things will it displace?

I worked out the volumes as spheres, and get a reciprocal of 1.62937084333E-64 First thing, the electron is under tremendous pressure, it would equalise the pressure by having its core at the same pressure. Then I thought this number is very close to my value for the rest mass of the compton wavelength photon. I divided them through, and got 3.70446692096E 00 Close but no cigar, I was hoping that it would be two but four would be nice as well. It would just mean pairing up vacuum particle which is what Planck thought anyway. (maybe they're not spheres?)

I still wonder about that high mass. Is it a mass value based on it moving at the speed of light? If so then I would have to consider its rest mass, simply because a vacuum particle as an aether particle hardly moves at all. In fact only the entrained aether particles will move.

I really want to get those particles to have a combined mass equal to the electrons mass, with a fourth power fall off. A sort of coating for our diving bell electron.

...gravitational caustics? For that matter near field Fresnels, what is a near field when electromagnetic space and gravitational space are so hugely different?...

Iorio, Journal of Cosmology & Astroparticle Physics, 2005, repeats reports that the entire solar system is expanding at a rate of 7 +/- 2 m / century / AU. The "unit" of this quantity is "1/time", like the "unit" of that other quantity, Hubble's parameter, 72 km / s / Mpc. The former quantity is 1/157 (error range: 1/122 to 1/220) times the latter. This is consistent with a ratio of 1/137, the fine structure constant.

I also find that textbook general relativity (GR) might overestimate perihelion advance by sqrt(1/137) = 8.5%. The three most important cases are Mercury, Icarus, and binary pulsars:

1. Mercury. The textbook GR prediction is 42.98" / century (for many years everyone cited Clemence's 43.03", which eventually was accurized by others). Shapiro (1972) found Mercury's observed non-Newtonian perihelion advance to be 43.2" +/- 0.9" (cited by Dicke & Goldenberg, AJ Supp 27:131-182, 1974). Although studies of the sun's (surface and internal) rotation do not explain it, and other measurements contradict it, Dicke & Goldenberg (op. cit.), in some of the most careful work I've ever seen, did find a solar oblateness which, with likely models of the sun's interior, implies an additional approx. 2.98" / century of Newtonian perihelion advance (due to solar oblateness) for Mercury. If Dicke & Goldenberg are correct, then Mercury's observed non-Newtonian perihelion advance is only 43.2 - 3.0 = 40.2", i.e., 6.5% too little.

2. Icarus. Sitarski, AJ 104:1226+, 1992, finds close observational agreement with the textbook GR prediction ( 10.05" / century; Gilvarry, Phys. Rev., 1953) for Icarus' non-Newtonian perihelion advance. However, Sitarski there relied heavily on fancy statistical processing, of observations made near one point in time, that of Icarus' close passage to Earth. From a more conventional data set, Sitarski (op. cit., citing his own 1983 article) found that Icarus' observed non-Newtonian perihelion advance is only 93% +/- 6% of the textbook GR prediction. Shapiro et al, AJ 76:588+, 1971, similarly found Icarus' observed to be 95% of predicted, +/- 8% statistical error but possibly +/- 20% systematic error. Adler, Intro. to Gen. Relativity, 1975, says that the perihelion advance due to solar oblateness, drops off faster than that due to GR, by an extra factor of r. Dicke-Goldenberg's solar oblateness effect would amount to

2.98/42.98 * 0.387 (Mercury's a)/1.078 (Icarus' a) = 2.5%

of the GR prediction for Icarus. So, by the earlier and more orthodox of Sitarski's analyses, Icarus' non-Newtonian perihelion advance is 7 + 2.5 = 9.5% too small.

3. Binary pulsars. (Both should be neutron stars, because tidal effects become important for larger stars.) If the sum of the masses of the pulsars, and the orbital period & eccentricity, are known, then textbook GR predicts the perihelion advance (Lyne & Graham-Smith, Pulsar Astronomy, 3d ed., 2006, p. 67, eq. 6.9). These authors say, "This measured value of the rate of advance of periastron is important, since it provides a measure of the total mass of the system." This statement seems to imply, that currently the total binary mass is known accurately only from the perihelion advance. To test GR, the total mass must be accurately determined by other means, which currently are lacking.

Hi Joe, when I was looking at that index I forgot to take the square root, oops! We've got n, a very larger number, divided by its reciprocal to give us one. The square root thrown in gives us nx =2

That means I can double the mass of my higgs, which of course I'm thinkiing of as an aether particle. I don't need to pair them up in that case.

How such a particle interacts with a photon is the six million dollar question.

The thing about that graph, it's an exponetial, it's not equal to e but it's very close, as n is such a large number,and it does cross the y axis. Thinking of it as a bank's compound interest, then having your money in such a bank would pay you to spend it all and go into debt. You could be paid huge amounts of interest on your debt but the punters in credit have to pay that over by actually having negative interest on their savi ngs. Now with this bank everyone and everything has to be a member, there are no other banks. The amount of negative interest is tiny however, so there's no cutomer revolt.

We have been talking about neutron stars. Great fun exploding billiard balls on school fields. We set one off and the blast throws a good 70% of the star out and compresses the core. Part explosion and part implosion.

Let's say that this compression forces aether particles (higgs) from the core. Simply to allow the neutrons to be closer together. These things don't like to move. They stop the neutrons from bouncing back from the implosion and becoming protons again. The neutrons after all have that extra little bit of mass to play with, and the total mass of the new sun is not much greater than the mass of our sun. What is it that stops the renormalisation?

(Edited) almost forget, about that graph, when x equals zero the curve snaps to a horizontal line of y =1 The speed of light, now I woud argue that it varies about that line, because when we talk about h we are talking about an angular momentum. (For negative x values the graph looks the same as for positive values of x.)

A photon is spinning through space, it loses energy then gets it back from aether particles. It will lose more energy where the aether particle density is greater, near matter.

The heaviest common, stable isotope is the ("double magic" according to nuclear orbital theory) lead-208. The heaviest stable isotope of all, is bismuth-209. Because of binding energy (almost 8 MeV per nucleon for nuclei in this mass range, i.e., ~ 0.8%) the bismuth nucleus weighs slightly more than 207 protons. A muon weighs almost 207 times as much as an electron. Therefore maybe bismuth-209 is very slightly radioactive.

According to my 2004 theory of lepton and meson (maybe baryon too) masses, the muon weighs what it does, because the mass of the electron must be multiplied by this much, for the electron to become small enough (according to Schroedinger wave mechanics) to amount to a black hole (from the point of view of a test object with the charge/mass ratio of a positron) when electrostatic force is substituted for gravitational force (Weyl's unified theory idea). This theory also explains the masses of some mesons, when the quarks are assumed to be like layered immiscible liquids in chemistry.

If the mass within a nucleus is communal, that is, if one proton's charge can temporarily acquire some or all of the mass of other nucleons, then a nuclear mass greater than approx. 207 proton masses would allow a kind of Weyl, or electrostatic analogy, black hole to form. This could be the real reason that none of the nuclei with more than 209 nucleons, are stable.

The main difficulty getting anyone to pay attention to these glaringly non-accidental relationships, is that Weyl's unified theory has acquired a large baggage of tensor calculus. Unless one finds a way to put a large baggage of tensor calculus on the back of the above observations, all "trained minds" are going to snap shut. In other words, if tensors aren't needed to explain it, they can't think about it.

(new article submitted to Jeff Rense on Oct. 30, 2008)

New Evidence re: Nibiru

I. Introduction. I am not a professional astronomer. I was graduated from Harvard cumlaude in Mathematics. I also studied Mathematics at Iowa State Univ. for four years, passing the doctoral qualifying exams, but not writing a thesis or receiving a degree. I received an M. D. degree from the Univ. of Nebraska and became board-certified in Ophthalmology.

This year I submitted the substance of the following, to the professional astronomical conference review committee which I thought likeliest to respond intelligently. A representative of the review committee eventually responded, that the committee would neither formally accept nor formally reject my submission. I interpret this, as an underhanded rejection on political grounds.

II. My discovery. During the last two years I have collected extensive evidence, from refereed astronomical journals and from photographs, that a system of three hyperjovian planets lies in a nearly circular orbit 200 A. U. from our sun. I call the largest of these Barbarossa, and its two moons Frey and Freyja. There is some published evidence that such objects might be smaller or blacker than usually supposed, or might be surrounded by nebulae. Some of the faint images I've found on online sky survey plate scans, and on electronic amateur photos, are starlike, and some not. They are consistent with about +19 magnitude. These images lie too close to an orbital path, to be chance. They are too dim to have been found by Tombaugh in his manual "blink" survey. Their mutual orbital motion likely would have caused them to be automatically rejected as noise or asteroids, in the recent computerized surveys.

According to published reports, a complete research-quality telescope installation of the size I think needed to image these definitively, would cost almost a million dollars, which I can't afford. While I'm trying to build my own telescope, I hope to persuade or coerce the government's astronomy establishment to look, with the present tax-funded equipment. Even a negative search would be a significant contribution to scientific knowledge.

Details are on the online messageboard of Dr. Tom Van Flandern, under my name, Joe Keller. Dr. Van Flandern's was the only major astronomy messageboard that did not ban my posts.

III. Barbarossa is related to Zecharia Sitchin's Nibiru. The Semitic philologist, Sitchin, is said to have estimated Nibiru's period as 3600 years on textual grounds. On photographic and celestial mechanical grounds, I estimate Barbarossa's period as 2800 yr, but 3600 would be within my margin of error. Michael S. Heiser, a doctor of Semitic languages from the Univ. of Wisconsin, stated early this morning in a radio interview with George Noory, that ancient texts support an association of Sitchin's Nibiru with either Jupiter or Mercury. Though not identical with Jupiter or Mercury, Barbarossa is associated with both those planets:

Barbarossa's association with Jupiter, is that Barbarossa's position, projected onto the ecliptic, coincides with the "mean" (i.e., averaged over Jupiter's and Saturn's perihelion advance) position of one of the three conjunction points of the 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance. Barbarossa shepherds the famous "Great Inequality" (i.e., discrepancy) of this resonance.

Barbarossa's association with Mercury, is that Lescarbault & LeVerrier's "Vulcan", apparently a very large tailless comet which resembled a second Mercury, has the same orbital inclination as Barbarossa. Nibiru might be, like Vulcan, in a highly elliptical orbit but associated with Barbarossa. If so, Nibiru likely would have an orbital period similar to Barbarossa's.

IV. Sunlike stars often have companions like Barbarossa. A recent estimate is, that the second-hottest class of brown dwarfs, though uncommonly detectable ("observation bias"), is ten times commoner than the hottest class. No one knows how common, an even colder hyperjovian class might be. A sunlike star only 12 light years away, has a system of a pair of brown dwarfs, orbiting it. Often, brown dwarfs orbit a few A. U. from each other, and together in nearly circular orbit a few hundred A. U. from sunlike stars. If cold hyperjovians are as common as they might be, a system such as Barbarossa+Frey+Freya would be typical for sunlike stars. Published theoretical temperatures of hyperjovian planets involve questionable extrapolations; if Barbarossa, like Edgeworth-Kuiper belt objects, were in temperature equilibrium with solar radiation, it would be near the temperature of the galactic background, and undetectable in far infrared.

V. More gravitational evidence. Barbarossa's orbit is inclined to the orbits of the known planets, so Barbarossa torques them, but, the published article claiming that such a body would disrupt the solar system, confesses doubtful mathematical simplifications. The mass and distance of the Barbarossa system, give small-integer resonances for the Barbarossa-induced orbital precessions of Neptune, the plutinos, and the classic Edgeworth-Kuiper objects. Also, the classic Edgeworth-Kuiper belt lies at the distance where its precession caused by Barbarossa, equals its precession caused by the other, known, planets.

Barbarossa's tidal pull largely explains all the orbital residuals for Uranus and Neptune, found by many astronomers since Neptune's discovery. The recent paper by Standish which claims to remove the residuals, does not offer adequate explanation for their cause. Maybe Standish made the graduate student do it over and over until it came out zero.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tidal pull, from the anomalous Pioneer 10/11 probe acceleration, leaves a smoothly decreasing remaining, unexplained force. This remaining force would be consistent with outer solar system dark matter or with some other sun-centered force.

The precision of Hipparcos and other surveys, is inadequate to detect gravitational light-bending by objects such as Barbarossa against background stars. The claim that pulsar timing excludes any acceleration of the sun as large as would be caused by Barbarossa, relies on a naive model which fails to consider the quantization of apparent pulsar accelerations, whose quantization step, I have found, equals the Hubble parameter.

VI. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. It is admitted that the dipole, quadrupole, and higher multipole anisotropies of the apparent CMB temperature, are significantly correlated with the plane of the ecliptic. No one else offers any explanation for this. I have found that binary star orbital orientations are significantly nonrandom, but they, and the orbits of known extrasolar planets, are random enough, that if today's CMB dogma is correct, very few other solar systems should be correlated with the CMB anisotropy, as our own is. Some local mechanism, maybe the mechanism I've outlined on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard, is needed to explain the correlation. If the orbits of the planets somehow affect the CMB anisotropy, then the distant, massive Barbarossa, should lie at the CMB dipole. Barbarossa does lie slightly prograde of the positive CMB dipole.

VII. Barbarossa's nebula. Barbarossa is too cold to blow away its nebula. According to the Jacobi limit, modified to include the sun's radiation pressure and solar wind, this nebula should have large angular size. Of nearby stars, those in the direction of Barbarossa show the strongest reliable, unexplained interstellar spectral line absorption.

Discrepancies between stellar magnitudes at different epochs, are unusually systematic and large near Barbarossa, according to various data I have compared. This indicates moving debris. This was the first method by which I detected Barbarossa.

Hi Joe, I wanted to respond to your statment regarding possible black hole as anchor point within the nuclear model:

"According to my 2004 theory of lepton and meson (maybe baryon too) masses, the muon weighs what it does, because the mass of the electron must be multiplied by this much, for the electron to become small enough (according to Schroedinger wave mechanics) to amount to a black hole (from the point of view of a test object with the charge/mass ratio of a positron) when electrostatic force is substituted for gravitational force (Weyl's unified theory idea). This theory also explains the masses of some mesons, when the quarks are assumed to be layered like immiscible liquids in chemistry."

Let's first look at the 'source energy' for electrons: I think that gravitons operating above light speeds at extremely higher frequencies above light is the 'source energy' for electrons. A unified field approach balanced between graviton and antigraviton reciprocal motion from small to large scales should replicate generalized mass creational systems causing induction anchor points for all mass circulations around black holes. We currently have a very poor understanding of the role of black holes in cosmology. This reminds me of Dirac 'holes' in a sea of energy as being the negative charge. Of course, depending upon what side your observations were being made from the 'hole' might appear to be a 'hill' so that mirror reversals as found in matter antimatter pairs certainly does play a role in the power dynamics of this greater exchange. John

...gravitons operating above light speeds at extremely higher frequencies above light...Dirac 'holes' in a sea of energy as being the negative charge... - John

I haven't yet had time to become very familiar with these concepts, though they seem to be relevant. Tom Goodey has given me a copy of the book, "Pushing Gravity".

There seems to be a previously unappreciated hierarchy of forces and particles. The electron seems to be the simplest manifestation of the electric force. The proton is a complex manifestation of that force, yet the radioactivity of nuclei of greater than 207 proton masses, seems analogous to the muon mass of 207 electron masses.

...the bismuth nucleus weighs slightly more than 207 protons. A muon weighs almost 207 times as much as an electron. Therefore maybe bismuth-209 is very slightly radioactive. ...

I learned today, that in 2002 (see: Nature, April 24, 2003) scientists from the Univ. of Paris, discovered that bismuth-209 is radioactive, with a half-life of 19 quintillion yr. These inequalities hold:

mass of lead-208 nucleus :: mass of proton < mass of muon :: mass of electron < mass of bismuth-209 nucleus :: mass of proton

All the nuclei for which the second inequality holds, are radioactive.

Equipartition of Angular Momentum: More Evidence for Barbarossa

The Milky Way, the Solar System (if Barbarossa's parameters are as I think), our gas giants, and Earth (without Luna), all have about the same ratio, L/M^2, where L is their intrinsic angular momentum and M their mass. Here is the arithmetic:

Solar system, with Barbarossa system = 3000 Earthmasses at 198 AU 3000*(198*149600000)^2/(198^1.5*365.25*24/(2*pi))/335000^2 * 0.995(c.o.m. corr.) * (1+1/(10*sqrt(40))+1/(30*sqrt(20)))(Jupiter & Saturn corr.) = 6,143,500

Let's approximate our Milky Way galaxy crudely, as a solid thin disk of uniform surface density with our sun on the rim. Let's measure mass in solar masses, distance in A.U., and speed in units of Earth's speed around the sun. Crudely approximating the disk's gravity as though the mass were at the center, I find for our sun's galactic orbit, that V^2*R = M, the mass of the galaxy. For the disk, the average angular momentum per unit mass, is V*R/2. So, L/M^2 = M*V*R/2/(M*V^2*R) = 1/(2*V). For the sun, V = 240km/s / 30km/sec = 8.

In these units, our Solar System would have this same L/M^2, if Earth were replaced by an object of 1/16 solar mass. Alternatively, there could be an object of 1/(16*sqrt(196)) = 1/224 solar mass, at 196 AU. If Barbarossa has 1/100 solar mass, then our galaxy has about half the L/M^2 value of our solar system, but about the same as our rotating planets.

The galaxy and the rotating planets resemble the spin-1/2 electron, with half a quantum of angular momentum. The solar system resembles the hydrogen atom, with a full quantum of angular momentum.

The "electric to gravity [force] ratio", q^2/(G*m^2), where q & m are the charge & mass of the electron, and G the gravitational constant, is 4.166*10^42. For an electron with spin angular momentum L = hbar/2, the quantity L/m^2, when divided by the electric to gravity ratio, becomes 328,000 km^2/hr/Earthmass.

Let's add Jupiter's rotational angular momentum to that of the Galilean moons, to find L/M^2 for the entire Jovian system:

This suggests that the L/M^2 observed, for rotating planets, for the Milky Way galaxy, and (if Barbarossa exists) for our solar system, is the gravitational counterpart of either spin, or orbital, electron angular momentum. The analogy involves the electric to gravity ratio, and a factor of 8.

The angular momentum is proportional to the square of the number of particles, because it arises through the interactions of pairs of particles. This further suggests that the electron itself is composed of many subparticles (see: R. L. Mills) so that the same statistical process, applied to electricity and gravity respectively, gives momentum to electrons and to planets.

In the electrical case, there is an acceleration, (q^2/r^2)/m, which when divided by the speed of light, c, gives a "proper frequency", q^2/(r^2*m*c). The significance of the fine structure constant, alpha = q^2/(hbar*c) = 1/137.0359991 (PhysRevLett 100:120801, 2008), seems to be that the effective rotational frequency is the "proper frequency" multiplied by 1/alpha = 137. So, the angular momentum is ((q^2/(r^2*m*c))/alpha)*m*r^2 = hbar.

Let's find the angular momentum of the Earth-Luna system:

Luna-Earth orbit ( + Luna rotation (negligible) ) 0.0123*384400^2/27.322 * (1-0.0123/2) (corr. for c.o.m.) * (1+0.4*(1736/384400)^2) (corr. for Luna rotation) * sqr(1-0.0549^2) (corr. for orbital eccentricity) = 6.601 * 10^7

The ratio is 4.91, also close enough to a whole number, to suggest quantization.

Hi Joe, as you know Im looking at ratios for the speed of light and the speed of gravity, and I think the best contender is h = c^2 / b^2 where b is the speed of gravity. So I rearranged the equation for the fine structure constant with 1 - h = 2Gm / r c^2 to get h = e^2 mu / 2a epsilon. e = electron charge mu = permeability of free space epsilon = permittivity of free space.

Now something had to alter and I decided to go with mu. Mu alters and becomes the reciprocal of the speed of light. Now thats rather odd but I had to think that it might be an artefact. This possible speed of gravity keeps throwing up reciprocals. Lots of ones and noughts and some very nearly constant values.

Then I found this in a book called the trouble with physics "... One example is a version of Yang-Mills theory called n = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory, which has as much supersymmetry as possible... There is good evidence that this theory has a version of S-duality. It works roughly like this. The theory has in it a number of electrically charged particles. It also has some emergent particles that carry magnetic charges. Now, normally there are no magnetic charges , there are only magnetic poles. Every magnet has two, and we refer to them as north and south. But in special situations there may be emergent magnetic poles that move independently of each other - they are known as monopoles. What happens in the maximally super theory is that there is a symmetry within which electrical charges and magnetic monopoles trade places. When this happens, if you change the value of the electrical charge to 1 divided by the original value, you dont change anything in the physics described by the theory."

The more I look at this the more I think that Newton was right, the speed of gravity is instantaneous, gravity takes an exponential form over vast distances. Yet its quantised into h intervals.

What Im now looking at is the Riemann conjecture. Complex harmonics have to play a role in a space which has a negative refractive index. I dont, I hasten to add, expect to solve it!!! Im far too thick. Still, the zeta function does look a lot like the lorentzian, when we write the lorentzian in terms of refractive index. z(x) = 1 / (1 - 1 / p^s)

"[1] ... One example is a version of Yang-Mills theory called n = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory, which has as much supersymmetry as possible... ...in the maximally super theory is that there is a symmetry within which electrical charges and magnetic monopoles trade places. ..."

[2] ...the zeta function does look a lot like the lorentzian...

[2] I've seen books about slight generalizations of Riemann's zeta function, called "zeta functions", which arise in quantum mechanics. To my knowledge, you're the first ever to have noted the similarity of the Lorentzian to the zeta function. The solution of the equation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-beta^2) = zeta(e^e)

is beta = 1/134.89. If e is replaced with e*(1+alpha/(4*pi)), where alpha is the fine structure constant, then the solution is beta = 1/137.15. Zeta(x^x) is such a sensitive function of x, that given beta=alpha, x differs from e by only 1 part in 2000.

[1] The empirical equation, L/M^2 (Jupiter system) = L/M^2 (spinning electron) * 8/(electric to gravity ratio), suggests a mechanism involving all possible subsets of 3 things: 2^3 = 8. This would be a kind of supersymmetry.

...This suggests that the L/M^2 observed, for rotating planets, for the Milky Way galaxy, and (if Barbarossa exists) for our solar system, is the gravitational counterpart of either spin, or orbital, electron angular momentum. The analogy involves the electric to gravity ratio, and a factor of 8. ...

Paul Wesson's 1981 article in Physical Rev. D, has a chart showing the constancy of L/M^2 for astronomical objects, from planets, to galaxy clusters. With Barbarossa, the solar system has no more than twice too much angular momentum, vs. the planets; without Barbarossa, 30 to 60 times too little.

For those people not too clued up on maths but who would like to take a look at a nice explanation, here's a link. Worth taking a look just to see the wonderful Ulam's prime number spiral.

Of note also is the families of simple quadratics of prime numbers, and that number b = 14 point something or other. When I was talking to Cosmicsurfer about this I did mention that 8 would be an interesting quantum number, as it's 2*2*2 a cube and the other two roots are going to be complex. I wonder if we can build models of possible solar systems?

I wonder what happens if nature uses some other system than you guys use in your models? Currently we humans are stuck on the modern numbering system but in the old days other humans used other systems to organize their observations of nature. Why assume the modern system is any better or nearer to being able to understand the nature of things? Maybe prime numbers mean nothing to nature and why should they mean anything? I don't get it but want to.