Stellar Splitting and pairing NEW Black holes foun

Sloat, The electron is very useful in models. The way theorists have used it is the issue I have with it. Just about everything in theory is based on the properties of a non-existant electron. But, the real problem is data is distorted to fit this mindset. It is ok to use stuff in models that are helpful but when the stuff of models is assumed to exist in nature it seems to me just plain wrong. Anyway, the charge(on the electron)unit observed in nature and it is clear Planck used it in the development of his constant which is the focus this thread. It seems to me the energy of a photon might be equal to the charge because light is transformed to chemical energy by plants at that same unit of energy. There are several steps in the process but its always the same action/reaction/energy exchange. Also Robert Millikan measured the charge in his oil drop/light machine.

Hi Jim, if we say that the electron is half in gravitational space and half in electromagnetic space, then say that its grav and elec frequency are the same, as we are thinking along the lines of refractive index, then we will have two gravitational wavelengths. One will be at the Shwartzchild radius, the other will be vastly greater than the electromagnetic radius of the particle.

So, a radius of about 1E -57 metres, the electromagnetic radius being about 2.4E -12 metres, and the second grav radius being about 93 km. The energy density of the electromagnetic part of the electron will be be extremely low compared to the energy density of the core. The 93 km radius will be so energy density low that we couldn't say much about it. So we'll put the charge at the smallest radius and call the electron a simple point.

The gravitational electron of huge radius would still exist, even though it would be incredibly diffuse. The electromagnetic radius electron would exist, even though that is also very diffuse

Chemists would be happy with that, they are more interested in charges, rather than masses of individual electrons.

I've been looking for a thread on this board, and can't find it. Tom was talking to some guy about Lorentz and the famous metre stick. Whether or not Lorentz was talking about a cosine or a sine for contraction. Obviously I favour the cosine.

I've been thinking of the lorentzian in terms of a circle. I simply don't buy that mass increases with velocity or that length decreases. Energy densities do vary but particles can't create new mass out of nothing. But let's look at the lorentzian for my speed of gravity in terms of it being an ellipse.

y^2 / b^2 + x^2 / a^2 = 1 That gives us y = b * sqrt (1 - x^2 / a^2) Here x = c and a = the speed of gravity. A miniscule change.

But think for a moment about an exponential cosine particle. The wavelength gets longer and longer, so even though there's a contraction it cancels itself out. So b doesnt contract at all, in fact it could actually become larger. So, let's imagine that we have a cardboard circle, we bend it into our paper plain at the top and we bend it outward at the bottom. The result looks like the brim of a fedora hat.

Galaxies wear fedora hats, one edge dips the other rises. I don't know about clusters though.

Sloat, You should send TVF an e-mail about how to find the archived threads on this site. I'm puzzled why a cosign is less good than a sine in your modeling?

Hi Jim,
"I'm puzzled why a cosign is less good than a sine in your modelling?"

No, I prefer the cosine. A natural log cosine particle would have a spike at radius zero. Something containing a tremendous amount of energy is there to push back, if we wanted to crush a particle into a smaller and smaller radius.

It's simply tidier and it doesnt have the problem of infinite mass. We can crush a particle down into a smaller radius but thats just altering its energy density, it only has a finite amount of energy.

On the question of our ellipse being the view in xy, and our stick being bent into, or out of the z axis. This ellipse is the Fitzgerald contraction of length. Here the semi-major axis is about half a gigaparsec long, and the semi-minor axis is the sqrt of h shorter. But that line isnt really shorter its being bent into our sheet of paper. The contraction is being compensated for by the increase in wavelength of a cosine of a natural log.

If a galaxy has linear movement then it will have this very slight fedora hat tilt front and back. Now things with very low masses have huge gravitational wavelengths. I would expect that photons and neutrinos will respond to this gentle slope more than suns will.

Sloat, Thanks for clearing that up. May it be assumed these things can be done in your model or should these things be observed and does data exist? Why is the very small and very large extremes the focus of interest?

Hi Jim, quantum mechanics and general relativity have been glowering at each other for about eighty years. The very small and the very large refuse to talk to each other. That's a crisis in physics which is showing not the slightest sign of being resolved.

I don't see how the two can be unified, when we have the seeming unification of geometry with gravity. We can unify something like electricity and magnetism but geometry! Geometry is real but it doesnt exist, it's an abstract tool of the human mind. Which geometry are we talking about, there are an infinity of them.

A guy called Nordstrom put forward a five dimensional theory, using Maxwell's equations to get gravity tumbling out. This was rejected in favour of Einstein, as Nordstrom's theory did not have light bending in a gravitational field. The idea resurfaced with the Kaluza-Klien theory. Imagine a flat field with tiny spheres at each point of the field. Two dimensions for the flat field, three for the tiny sphere.

This looked good but the radius of the tiny sphere had to be frozen in time and space. Now I think that the vacuum can be made of tiny spheres, or toruses, of this natural log cosine shape, these can vary their radii dynamically. The thing is, they are things which exist, its not a geometrical quality of the vacuum but a physical property.

On the question of data. It's early days yet. I think that the ratio of the speed of gravity to the speed of light is going to be pretty fundamental. I've put forward one possibility but others here might want to look at other ratios. What can we actually measure? An exponential gravity will show up when we look at giant clusters of galaxies. The edge is on a slightly more sloped hill As I say, I expect to see a higher, or lower, neutrino density at the front and back of a moving cluster. Neutrinos have mass.

The other thing which is worthy of a look at is that equation
h = e^2 mu / 2a epsilon
e being the electron charge
mu being the permeability of free space
a being the fine structure constant
epsilon being the permitivity of free space.

How this relates to the Fermi velocity of a material. One of those constants has to be a variable. I think it's the permeability of free space. Solving for that we get a change in the permeability of free space which is the reciprocal of the speed of light. If we then put in the reciprocal of the speed of gravity we get the drift rate. Both are about a factor of ten greater than the Fermi velocity and drift rates of copper. That 2a seems to be the fly in the ointment. Do we have the observed values for permitivity and permeability because we measure them in the "space" of the earth?

Think about the Fermi velocity for a moment. Outer orbital electrons are bashing about at near the speed of light. This is at absolute zero, so theres no photons, from outside the system, to dislodge them from the orbital. The obvious contender to do the job is an ftl particle.