I-try

It appears that I have been unable to convince those posters to the speculations part of this forum regarding the fundamental nature of energy. Even so, there has been no responders to my challenge to provide an example of motion, of an ability to move that did not require the presence of energy, irrespective of whatever name is used to refer to its potential attributes. Therefore, I will issue a further challenge regarding the use of the word Pull when scientist are referring to gravity or gravitation, such as the pull of gravity or gravitational pull. The manner in which I view the fundamental dynamic nature of motion and potential intrinsic energy forbids the concept of a pulling force. Einstein stated that gravitation is an illusion and gravity resulted from matter being compelled to follow geodetic pathways in space-time. Even so, those who valiantly attempt to prove Einstein to be correct regarding gravity, have a habit of referring to the pull of gravity or to gravitational pull. The concept of a pulling force requires adherence between the individuals making up the interconnection, and a winding or contracting concept. My challenge to those who dismiss the push concept of gravitation is for them to provide a physical description of a pulling force.

It appears that there is to be no discussion regarding my post above predicting the thermal activity to be registered by the spacecraft Rosetta during its encounter with comet 67P/C. Perhaps I may be able to encourage comments by posting an abbreviated * description of the physics supporting the prediction, and provided by my concept of gravity and gravitation. The concept referred to requires the prediction to be an accurate description of phenomena expected to be recorded by the Rosetta spacecraft, and resulting from the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect, GTE. The concept of gravity and gravitation referred to above conforms instant by instant to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum. The time rate of change in a body's velocity due to the gravitation effect is proportionally accompanied by instantaneous compensating change to its momentum. When a body of matter such as comet 67P/C approaches the Sun, the constantly decreasing distance to the Sun, results in a reduction of the mass of said body in the form of heat energy, and in proportion to the inverse of the square of the distance. With regards to how hot a body would become, there is a time rate of change to the decreasing distance to the Sun, varied by the inverse of the square; the magnitude of mass involved and radiation ability of the mass also critically controls the retention or radiation ability. A body with its center of mass close to the vacuum of space will retain less heat than a body with its center of mass better insulated with similar material, and with similar parameters acting on both bodies. Jupiter’s moons especially Io, are a macro example of the GTE. However there are micro examples extant in mainstream physics now referred to as anomalies. With regards to our ability to sense the effects of the GTE as a body approaches the Sun, that is because of the large amount of energy available from a unit of mass, that transforms to heat energy according to the equation E = C2 . Our ability to notice the effect of the GTE is also due to the huge number of particles of matter available to individually contribute a minute amount of heat energy in proportion to the reduction to their mass. When comet 67P/C begins to travel away from the Sun, the gravitational effect results in a reduction in velocity in proportion to the requirements of Newtonian gravitation. There is also the GTE that reverses activity and results in an increase in the mass of said body that physically results in a cooling and a reduction in velocity relative to the Sun, thereby exhibiting over sufficient distance from the Sun, a gradual increasing of mass and a corresponding reduction of velocity beyond that expected due to Newtonian gravitation. With regards to our reduced ability to sense the effects of the GTE when a body of matter is travelling away from the Sun, is because of the large amount of energy required to be available to replace the slight loss of mass from each particle during the approach to the Sun, the replacement of mass also required by the conservation of energy and momentum laws. With regards to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum, all changes however slight and irrespective of precursor, must be accounted for in obedience to those laws. My attempt now in book form required 152 pages to provide an outline understanding; also argument supporting the physic involved with the concept of gravity and electric fields attempted to be explained. Even so, I am prepared to provide further information if there are people willing to attempt to understand the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect.

Swansont. The stand alone part sentence you quoted and cut from my statement on post 25 could be fairly described as you implied. However, the lack of “meaningful content to it” was provided in preceding sentences. In answer to your statement “That's some top-flight gibberish there. Lots of buzzwords and no meaningful content to it”. I will refer you to my post number 15 in the thread; Gravity according to I-try. If my total statement concerning intrinsic energy on post number 25 is as you described, then the prediction made regarding my expectation of the thermal activity of the comet being investigated by the Rosetta spacecraft will not be found to be correct. The immediate above statement is relevant because the totality of my work is based on the concept that at the fundamental level of reality, motion is the basic reality and proportional intrinsic energy must accompany motion however slight the motion may be.

Because there have been no posts in reply to my above post, I will take the opportunity to reply to those who stated that I must supply an example of a verifiable prediction that my work regarding gravity makes. The following is an extract from a resent email I sent to ESA regarding the comet probe Rosetta. Extract from the referred to email. My 70 years of work concerning the fundamental nature of matter supplies a concept of gravity and gravitation that requires the physical existence of a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect, (GTE). I therefore believe and predict that the Rosetta comet probe will record thermal activity resulting as per the following: Due to the relative rapid, gravitational induced constant increase in velocity as the comet approaches the Sun, the believed GTE will result in the comet's internal heat increasing by the inverse of the square of the distance, and said heat will be varied by the time rate of radiation ability of the material between the comet’s centre of gravity and vacuum of space. The referred to increase in heat energy is addition to radiation received from the Sun. The referred to production of heat energy is required because the comet’s material must conform to the physical requirements of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Upon reaching perihelion, and after the excess heat energy derived via the GTE is radiated from the comet, the temperature of the comet will depend only on the reception of radiated energy received from the Sun When the comet begins to travel away from the Sun, the heat production effect from the GTE will reverse and only radiation from the Sun will be warming the comet. Due to departure from the Sun, the GTE results in a cooling of the comet’s material in proportion to the square of the distance from the Sun. Again, the reducing radiation referred to being varied by the time rate of radiation ability of the comet’s material, and in conformity to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum. . The magnitude of cooling referred to will be in excess of the reducing radiation being received by the comet from the Sun. The velocity of the comet relative to the Sun will reduce to less than that expected to result from Newtonian gravitation. The magnitude of reducing acceleration will conform approximately to the reduction of acceleration relative to the Sun, and measured by NASA for the Pioneer spacecraft. The word Approximately was referred to because some of Pioneer’s unexpected slowing may have resulted from unbalanced radiation of heat energy in the direction of motion of Pioneer, and as now believed to have been the physical reason for Pioneer’s unexpected slowing. Even so, the major amount of slowing will result from the GTE on the comet’s mass. The unexpected slowing and proportional cooling of comet 67P/C-G, should concur with the excess slowing of Pioneer in proportion to distance from the Sun, and now held in NASA's records: there should be a square of the distance dependency. A comparison made between the heating and cooling of the comet relative to similar distances and with regards to direction of motion to and from the Sun, will conclusively indicate whether the GTE referred to above is a physical reality.

To Imatfaal and others who posted to this thread. To stay accurate with the use of words to describe a physical phenomenon, I should have been preceding the words intrinsic energy with the word Potential. Therefore , the potential intrinsic energy that accompanies a movement in any form and however slight that movement, only exhibits the characteristic of that we refer to as energy when the direction of motion is opposed. Consequently, the basic fundamental dynamic reality we refer to as energy requires impact derived from opposing the speed C of a unit quantity of a universal ability of movement. An attempt to provide the fundamental nature of that which is in motion, and provides the reality of movement, would be attempting to explain the creation of the physical universe. In my work on the subject, reference is made to the motion of primeval energy in wave form; QM refers to a quantum wave, and GR refers to the warping of the fabric of space-time.

. I-try, on 39 July2014, said: Snip Imatfaal. The intrinsic (meaning encompassed within) energy I referred to, is the essential energy that ensures the reality of all motion. I have no quarrel regarding your example. However,with regards to any type of existence, intrinsic energy must accompany the motion that enables said existence. Einstein provided us with the equation E = MC2 ; I attempted to reduce that equation to unit mass, and by so doing implied that mass is energy amassed to the density of C2 . How energy is amassed to that density is not known by mainstream science, or so I believe. You stated in reply, But your reality if frame dependent. There is an energy equivalent to the mass – calculated via Einstein's equation; but there is no absolute energy intrinsic to linear uniform motion. Imatfaal. Thanks for your reasonable and very accurate reply to my post number 6. However, the accuracy referred to requires that we stay strictly confined to the reality in which we exist. I will attempt to provide you with an answer to each portion of your reply. Your first statement was; But your reality is frame dependent. My answer; Yes, providing we stay strictly confined to the reality in which we exist. Even so, if we desire to achieve a knowledge of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy, we of necessity must project our thinking down two levels of reality to the fundamental level. At that level of reality, there is no need or physical requirement to compare different frames of references. At the referred to level of reality, I find that the ability to move and intrinsic energy accompanying that motion, is the fundamental dynamic reality that through the amassing of energy to a density of C2 , provides us with a unit of mass as referred to at our level of reality. At the level of reality referred to, I am unable to imagine any reality other than an ability to move and the energy that essentially accompanies the motion. If others can provide an example for a unit of fundamental reality that did not include motion and intrinsic energy, I would appreciate being informed. Einstein made a short reference to the Warping of the Fabric of space-time. Your statement: There is an energy equivalent to the mass - calculated via Einstein's equation. My answer; That is a correct statement as is now understood with regards to energy and mass. However, we refer to the mass of matter, the gravitational mass, the inertial mass, the rest or invariant mass, and relativistic mass. The precise meaning of the word Mass is not made clear in mainstream physics except for Einstein's statement that E = MC2. Even so, no reason is given as to how C influences the magnitude of energy providing the mass of matter, or why C requires to be squared. In post number 1 of this page I stated: a unit of mass consists of energy amassed to a density of C2 . I am prepared to post the reason I made that statement, if there is sufficient genuine interest at an understanding of the fundamental dynamics underpinning of our concepts pertaining to energy and mass at our level of reality. The remainder of your statement is as follows: There is an energy equivalent to the mass - calculated via Einstein's equation; but there is no absolute energy intrinsic to linear uniform motion. My reply. Quite correct regarding phenomenon at our level of reality and only requiring to make measurements of matter in motion. But inadequate if we seek further into the realities of the fundamental dynamic nature of the energy involved, and constituting that we refer to as a unit of mass. The sum total of such units of mass constituting a given amount of mass forming a particular body of matter. As stated above, I am prepared to invest the time if there is an interest to understand my work. That interest should include comments of agreement if any, besides posts expressing disagreement. With regards to providing further posts pertaining to the fundamental dynamic nature of energy and so to the formation of matter at our level of reality, there is no sense extending the discussion, if the concept of motion, energy and time is not understood to be the fundamental dynamic foundation of physics. I find that the physics pertaining to the nature of gravity automatically extends to an explanation of the charge and electric field of an electron, and so on to an explanation of other phenomena.

Swansont. I was not intentionally attempting to do as you state in post 20, because that would be contrary to the reason I contribute to this forum; It is my hope that theoretical or other physicists may be interested in a concept that extends from the fundamental dynamic level of reality, to attempt to explain anomalies found in mainstream concepts of physics, and on to conditions at the center of our galaxy. My post number 19 was an attempt to provide an answer to your correct statement on post 8 which was and I will now quote: Further, mc^2 is defined at rest. No motion. My reply was: I agree that which is referred to as the invariant mass implies a relative stationary state. However, the title of that thread indicated that an explanation of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy was being sought. Also on post number 19, I was also attempting to supply an answer to your reply to hoola's statements on post number 10 where he stated: but there is an internal motion, regardless of external motion..wouldn't that be the storage facility of c^2 within mass? From then on, posts 11 to 14 inclusive continued the debate and as a result, Imatfaal's post number 8 remained unanswered

I agree that which is referred to as the invariant mass implies a relative stationary state. However, the title of that thread indicated that an explanation of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy was being sought. The fact that we are aware of the existence of an electron and of its physical attributes such as charge and electric field, requires that its existence and continued existence requires a magnitude of intrinsic energy if only to account for its apparent mass.

I would agree that mathematical analysis of physical phenomena should be independent of the level of reality in which it is applied. Even so, maths is not always true at our level of existence when wrongly applied, and requires re-normalisation due to predicting infinities, or when requiring the existence of gravitational energy in the form of recurring gravity waves.

Mordred said. particle accelerators themselves are not a particularly good example of the differences between ADL and GR, first off you need to define what type of accelerator. Secondly the forces applied are not consistent so are inherently jerky (be much the same as jerk and snap though on the forces themselves lol) well here is a quick slide on the differences. As well as how the magnetic forces relate to the mass and momentum for each type and how centrifugal for is applied. Most people tend to jump to the conclusion that constant energy is applied to increase a particle to relativistic speeds but this isn't necessarily true. http://www.ucl.ac.uk...hysicsshow1.pdf fundamentally particle accelerators uses electromagnetic polarization. An increase of momentum is an increase in mass based on the total energy of the particle. http://galileo.phys....rgy_p_reln.html My reply. I was referring to the Large Hadron Accelerator underground in Europe. My information was derived from; http://www.scienceinschools.org/print/651 The following paragraph was copied from the article accessible via the web address above. They enter the LHC at 99.9997828 % of the speed of light. After acceleration, they reach 99.9999991 %. This is about the maximum speed that can be reached, since nothing can move faster than light, according to the theory of relativity. Although it might seem like an insignificant gain in speed, at close to the speed of light, even a small acceleration results in a large gain in mass, and this is the important part. A motionless proton has a mass of 0.938 GeV (938 million electron volts). The accelerators bring them to a final mass (or energy, which in this case is practically the same thing) of 7000 billion electron volts (7 tera-eV or 7 TeV). For practical purposes, I would agree with the statement that I have underlined in the copied paragraph above, that with regards an accelerator; it does not matter if an increase in kinetic energy is referred to an increase in mass. That would be because the time rate of change to the velocity of a remnant matter particle being simultaneously accelerated and confined to the accelerator within strict limits, would simulate an increase in mass. Even so, physical reality tells us that although kinetic energy and momentum are much increase due to achieving a speed close to C, kinetic energy and momentum cannot generate a gravity field that can affect other mass via the gravitational effect. According to my work of the fundamental nature of energy and matter, there is a chalk and cheese difference between the concepts of mass, kinetic energy and momentum. I find that there are two distinct parts to momentum, and not just the acceleration of the rest mass of matter particles. The change in dimension of a matter particle travelling at a speed close to light and as required by the Fitzgerald-Lorentz effect, would require that which remains of the particles mass, to be flattened perpendicular to the constantly changing direction of motion. There would be a very strong following magnetic field generated by the particles perpendicular to their direction of motion that provides the believed increase in mass. At a speed close to that of light, there would be only faint vestiges of a gravity field generated in the direction of motion of the remnant mass of a matter particle. Having stated the above, then if in physical reality, gravitation is an illusion and gravity only existing because matter is compelled (indicating that a force is acting) to follow Geodesic pathways as required by GR, then the increase in mass referred to in the above copied paragraph would be correct. I am sorry if my reference to the Abraham-Lorentz force and referred to jolt experienced by an electron when electrically accelerated, resulted in confusion; that was not the intention. When I referred to the Abraham-Lorentz conclusion regarding an electron receiving a jolt, I made that comparison because my explanation of an electron's instant by instant acceleration by electrical force, also requires frequency dependent impacts.

imatfaal. Your statements of post number 21 are all correct relative to Einstein and our level of reality. However, to gain an idea of Essence of Energy, we are compelled to abandoned the physical concepts known to be correct at our level of reality, and descend down at least three levels to the fundamental domain of dynamic physical reality, where the ability to move is essentially accompanied by a proportional intrinsic amount of the concept we know as energy. At the referred to level of physical reality, the ability to move would result only because of the speed of light propagation of basic energy. Einstein referred to the warping of the Fabric of Space-Time. Relative to QM, the concept of a portion of energy providing reality to a quantum wave would approach the reality of that referred to immediate above. In my work on the subject that in this thread is now being referred to as Essence of Energy, the fundamental dynamic nature of motion and energy serves as a base for all physical reality that elevates to the parameters that allow the photon mainly to exist as a wave, and periodically, fleetingly exhibit a particle nature. All physical concepts belonging at our level of reality are necessarily derived as a results of parameters and precursors formed from the basic fundamental dynamic level of physical reality referred to above. Strange. It is your prerogative to deal with the subject of this thread Essence Of Energy by evoking concepts belonging to our level of reality. I prefer to attempt to provide an answer that is more relevant to the present unknown physic implied by those three words.

C2 is not a density. Strange: In post 19, you provided the unsupported bland statement above in reply to the mathematical logic of my statement regarding the amassing of energy. Perhaps you may be prepare to provide further clarification, and provide us with the logical thinking supporting your statement. With regards to the transition to that of a unit of matter mass, derived from C2 units of the force intrinsic with a quantity of that we refer to as energy, why is that not an intensification of the density of energy? The force referred to is synonymous with the sensation we experience upon being hit with an object, and not a measurement such as force = mass times acceleration.

Imatfaal. I must direct your attention to the title of this thread, it states: Essence of Energy. Also, it would be of assistance if you were to examine my statement at post 12 Mitch Bass opening post stated, My post number 12. By referring to an essence, I understood he was starting a conversation involving What actually is energy, and he gave motion as an example. The intrinsic (meaning encompassed within) energy I referred to, is the essential energy that ensures the reality of all motion however minute the motion. I have no quarrel regarding your example. However, with regards to an existence of any type, intrinsic energy must accompany the motion that enables said existence. Einstein provided us with the equation E=MC2; I attempted to reduce that equation to unit mass, and by so doing implied that mass is energy amassed to the density of C2 . How energy is amassed to that density is not presently known by mainstream science, or so I believe.

Having expended the time and effort to read the answers, and the defence put up by Relative to support his argument concerning the subject of this thread, I find I must admire the patience of those who have supplied many answers and also kept their comments regarding his efforts quite moderate. I also agree with some of Relative's comments regarding the conceptual verses the mathematical with regards to value for the advancement of physics. However, if Relative is attempting to present some idea of value to the advancement of physics, I cannot see anything of value being eventually arrived at with regards the accusation implied in title of this thread,

Changing of momentum of a particle of mass in motion require input of energy from an external source. Please provide an example where motion, uniform or otherwise, is possible without proportional intrinsic energy essentially associated with that motion. The referred to energy only becomes evident when an attempt is made to change velocity.

Mitch Bass. The way I view energy indicates that you are correct to believe that motion requires the presence of energy. Even so, the magnitude of energy intrinsic with the motion you are referring to depends on whether the motion is of matter or to that of a photon. In either case, if you were to do an analysis of energy that extends to the fundamental level of reality, you would be compelled to invoke the concept motion however slight, and the magnitude of potential force intrinsic with that motion. In that case, a unit of mass consists of energy amassed to a density of C2 .

Mordred. Thanks for your reply regarding your belief that I have written a book on the subject you refer to. The reference to the Abraham-Lorentz jolt in the book is at the bottom of page 82 as follows: *Similar to the Jerk referred to and required by the Abraham-Lorentz force; the electron's acceleration only being partly retarded by such impact. That information is supplied to further inform a reader of my work regarding the instant by instant changing of parameters affecting gravity, electric charge and field, momentum, magnetic field, and how the relatively sudden change in speed results in radiation perpendicular to the direction of motion, during the acceleration of an electron. Do you have any comment to provide with regard to the need to change from relativistic mass to relativistic momentum, as indicated in post number 8, and requested in post number 10.

Mordred By your use of the word FINE regarding my statement you quoted, does not indicate your opinion of the relevance of the information provided in the quote; do you agree or disagree with my statement indicating that the physical parameters that undergo change involve a continual increase in momentum and not an increase of relativistic mass. Also, by stating that the referred to jolt has an explanation in my book, implies that it is accounted for in my work. In that regard, an electron experiences an instant by instant attempt to resist acceleration, the physical realities being explained in the work. There was no statement that I agreed or disagreed with or changed any information provided by your link. I agree that the phenomenon referred to can be referred to as a jolt, and required by the Abraham-Lorentz jolt. You made no comment regarding the simple explanation of why matter cannot be accelerated beyond speed C, whilst making demands of your own that I should explain the complications experienced in the study of physics resulting from applying mathematics to inadequately understood dynamic realities of matter, that end up in runaway acceleration problem or require the application of the normalisation process to remove mistaken mathematically derived concepts that result in infinities.

Mordred. Because I believe that an answer to your post number 7 will not contravene the rules of this forum; therefore I will state that like all others, you are entitled, correct or otherwise, to state your beliefs regarding my understanding of physics. However I should be entitled to state that mathematics requires the use of words at the beginning, to provide the manner in which mathematics symbols are to be regarded. Following the findings of mathematics, words are essential to conceptually explain the information derived from the mathematics. I will state again that I have great faith in the mathematical ability of Professor Einstein and further for his first wife's ability; she achieved high grades in both physics and mathematics and would have been of great assistance to him. Therefore, I do not require an understanding of the mathematics involved that allow Einstein to use words such as the warping of space/time. My work as stated in my post above, is in agreement that the warping is a crude reference to the physical reality that transpires in the the presence of matter, however, my work in book form you contemptuously refer to, along with providing an explanation of other anomalies, also conceptually, by the use of words, explains why and how the warping must occur. With regard to your statement that "I obviously have no interest in learning what physics is really about", then perhaps you may be interested in a discussing regarding the statements made concerning relativistic mass. My work requires that the mass of matter must increase or decrease due to the circumstances of the gravitational thermodynamic effect – GTE – but in an accelerator, a particle of matter travelling close to C has experienced constant changes to its momentum, and not an increase of its mass. If mass constantly increased as speed C is approached, it would require equal force to deflect a particle into a circular path as it would to accelerate it in its original direction of motion. Under acceleration in an accelerating machine, a charged particle must radiate because it is instant by instant experiencing jolts derived from the Abraham-Lorentz force, (reason for such force explained in the book) and therefore cannot be credited with energy increase in the form of an increase in mass. When speed of a particle is approaching C, accelerating force would become less and lesser effective in achieving acceleration because the accelerating force can only travel at speed C. Also what is your opinion with regards to the constant changes of the parameters responsible for the particles other phenomena such as its electrical, gravity, and magnetic fields.

Speculations Forum Rules The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is not testable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory. Have fun. Hypervalent_iodine. Rule number one and three are the reason I have not and will not be responding to other posts in future. I have already had two warnings, one of which I was accused of hijacking when I answered a part of a question concerning the qualification of the author of an article read by the thread starter. The other posters thought that he might have been a quack and did not respond further. With regards to test ability: As stated in my question that has turned into a post on Speculation, my work begins in the region of the physiological, and deals with what present science would refer to as the fundamental dynamic nature of a quantum wave: we are not capable of measuring the energy in a portion of a quantum wave. On a higher level of physical reality, the equation of E=MC2 is attempted to be explained utilising the information and logic provided by the discussion concerning the nature of quantum waves; as is the bases of the following statements regarding anomalies. The work provides answers to present anomalies such as the masked assimilation and return of heat energy in a changing of state during changes of water to steam and back to water. Many anomalies such as just described occur throughout physics, and are explainable by the GTE. Another anomaly occurred during the flyby of Jupiter by Pioneer. If I state the excess acceleration was gravitationally induced because a planet's gravity field is exactly balanced in conformity with the planet's velocity, the first post that followed that statement would demand a proof. Unfortunately the attempt at a proof is located in and requiring an understanding of a large part of 152 pages of explanation. I will be leaving the fun part you referred to, to other posters to this Forum Phi for all. GR states that gravitation is an illusion, and gravity only exists because matter is compelled to follow geodesic pathways; that is an example of the need to carefully describe the findings of maths by the use of words. I do not doubt that Einstein's mathematics are correct; my concern is with the fact that despite all physical evidence presented by our study and experience regarding gravitation, mainstream science has a religious like belief in the conceptual statements derived from GR. My work agrees with and provides a reason why that which provides reality to our concept space, can be crudely referred to as warped where matter is located. Also in all space when matter is not located. The work also states that Einstein was correct to state that gravitation is not a force, and incorrect to declare gravitation to be an illusion. In that regard, there is the gravitational effect and gravitational induced unbalancing of force that leads to the gravitational effect. With regards to the curvature of light and the gravitational ability of a photon; a photon travelling past an electron will undergo a curvature of its path in conformity to a inverse of square of the distance law; which in regards to the gravitational effect of an electron on a photon, is of much greater magnitude than the Newtonian law pertaining to the gravitational interaction between bulk bodies. I find that a photon has no ability to create a gravitational effect. It is an impossible task to defend the above statements because as previously explained, the bases of the work is not measurable as demanded by the rules stated above, and by the physicists statements that all must be measurable or it cannot be regarded as contributing to science. Presently, Australian scientists have found a regularly repeating pattern of climatic behaviour locked in ancient ice cores drilled from Antarctica. It is my belief that those patterns of changes to climate will coincide with sunspot activity. Also to the slow but regular alignments regarding positions relative to the Sun of the planets of the solar system. Thereby conforming to what I refer to as a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect. The GTE is responsible for many phenomenons that occur in physics, and are now referred to as anomalies. For instance: the magnitude of rapidity of random molecular motion is a measure of a portion of the dynamic state of matter, even so rapidity of random motion of molecules is not heat energy, but is a necessary precursor of heat energy. The closeness and rate of approach and retreat of electrons with each-other dictates the intensity of thermal activity - GTE - ranging from the far infra-red to beyond the ultra violet. The GTE is the principal reason for the excessive volcanic activity on Jupiter's moon Io, due to Io's rapid and much extended orbiting in Jupiter's strong gravity field. With regards to giving up the study of maths, I never had the opportunity to begin due to the privation inflicted by the great depression. My study of physics has always centred on the how and the why of fundamental realities necessary to be understood if science is to advance beyond the false concepts derived from GR; such as regularly reoccurring gravitation induced waves capable of detection after travelling long distances. No matter how valiant or expensive the attempt at detection extends, the non existent cannot be detected. With regards to having the benefit of hindsight; the work referred to above was available 40 years ago and clearly indicated that such waves cannot exist.

I have now reread the Forum rules and appreciate the originators attitude concerning giving all persons interested in science a medium through which they can express their ideas irrespective of their educational qualifications. I also note that an exchange of information between those who post on the forum is allowed via email providing both persons concerned consent to the exchange. That is exactly what I was suggesting when I received my first warning. With regards to my second warning; although Hysor stated that he was reading about the discussion concerning the cosmic background radiation which was being investigated by BICEP2, his question related to whether he could believe the statements of the author of the item he read, and perhaps the author was a quack. Two subsequent posts provided statements concerning quackery, and another provided his belief concerning the author, and provided several recommendations regarding books. None of the posts discussed BICEP2. My post provided accurate information concerning the author of the article Hysor had read and a response concerning books, even so, I was the one issued with a warning for not discussing BICEP2 and considered a hijack. I have since then provided that discussion, and like most of my other statements of such nature, my statements have remained uncontested. I would have thought that stating in an earlier post that the first Pioneer anomaly resulted from a cause related to gravity and Jupiter's velocity would have resulted in a response; it was ignored. Presently, posts are being part quoted and commented on, followed by my answers and therefore, leading to endless useless repetition. However, the following is part answer to ajb and then Swansont. ajb That is an interesting point of view. Institutions dedicated to the study of something don't actually want to study that something just in case they eventually render themselves obsolete. Reply They study gravity because of a professional interest with the hope that they personally become successful. If not successful, they appreciate the continual arrival of their pay cheque. A number of people working at the referred to institutions are bureaucrats and they also appreciate a regular and continuing pay cheque. abj It is true that big names in theoretical and mathematical physics have contributed to our understanding of gravity. To "shoot down" these talented people would take a lot. However, if you had some well formulated and valid reason for a challenge then you can "take a shot". It maybe true that if your ideas are so radical it may be difficult to publish, but the silent treatment you have had from journal editors suggests that they don't read past your introduction. Reply My attempt to have my work evaluated is for that reason and that reason only. To achieve that purpose may require statements declaring concepts such as relativistic mass to be incorrect; however, each time I make such statements, they are followed by the physics pertaining there to. There were no comments forthcoming following my earlier post stating relativistic mass to be incorrect, as indicated by the physics then provided. There was no challenge or questions when I stated in my post number 10 the following: Quote, Given the mainstream other beliefs regarding physics, the lack of understanding of what is happening is accounted for by the statement that momentum is conserved annually when the Earth returns to any selected particular point in Earth's orbit. In that regard, my work demands and provides comprehensive (with all other phenomena) explanations why angular momentum is conserved instant by instant. I will provide the following hint. Given the fact that the Earth's velocity is constantly changing, (momentum = MV) the mathematicians should try a proportional instant by instant reduction in Earth's mass when the Earth is approaching the Sun and an increase as the Earth recedes from the Sun; then attempt to vindicate the mass changing. Also, what parameters are changing with regards to the conservation of energy? Perhaps they will then realise that the mainstream concept of gravity and gravitation provided by GR is a long way short of reality, and inhibiting advances in the knowledge of physics. Unquote. Because the phenomenon we refer to as gravitation is resulting in the acceleration of the Earth, and the acceleration of mass requires a force to be acting, the comment regarding changes to mass was provided. Because the mass now referred to as invariant was being referred to, therefore I expected a challenge. With regards to the immediate above, the Earth is constantly being acted upon by the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect previously mentioned in my posts. With regards to the Earth, the GTE has only a slight effect, unlike that acting on Jupiter’s moon Io. Because Io undergoes a rapid orbiting of Jupiter, and undergoes large and rapid changes to proximity, the time-rate-of-changing of proximity create a GTE that conform to the inverse of the square of the distance between the two bodies and results in excess volcanic activity. When Io travels away from Jupiter, the GTE diminishes by the square and Io undergoes cooling other than radiated heat energy. The referred to work provides the physics requiring those statements. ajb I doubt any new noteworthy results can appear in this simple way. Reply. There are two such attempts supplied in the referred to work; One concerns the maximum rate of oscillations of an electron. The other provides a slight difference between acceleration of a kilogram mass by gravitation acting between the accelerating mass and Earth, and horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass by 9.81 newtons of force. The physics related to both are provided. Swansont. Grandiose and ultimately empty words. I have no idea what this is supposed to actually mean. Reply. Comprehensive implies the full meaning as supplied by the Oxford dictionary. The work attempts to provide conceptual understanding of all phenomena ranging from a fundamental dynamic level of reality and so on to conditions at the centre of the galaxy. A sample is supplied in my answers to ajb. Swansont. It should be noted that this is not because they are talented and well-known, it's because the work is thorough and has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment. And the work gets challenged all the time; publication does not require agreement with the mainstream, but it does require rigor. My reply. I am inclined to agree with you, however, being well known helps, and the editors of such journals have to be very careful with regards to how far from mainstream concepts presented papers have strayed.

ajb. Thanks for the kindly meant advice to submit to peer review on recognised journals. My attempts to do so have only resulted in an acknowledgement regarding the receipt of my work and no further comment or contact. Submitting to institutions supposedly dedicated to the advancement of the knowledge of gravity meets with the same response; and yes, they may consider the work submitted to be rubbish and don't respond. Then again, what would happen to the future existence of the institution if gravity was no longer considered an anomaly. Black Holes, reoccurring gravitational induced waves and the present understanding of gravity, all have the authoritative backing of one of sciences most revered mathematicians, and consequently now the foundation for thousands of physicists and bureaucratic careers and endeavours. Swansont. Regarding some of your post number 12. With regards to mathematics and concepts derived there-from, both have their importance in physics. Mathematics can be of little use and worse, misleading, if capable of being incorrectly conceptually interpreted. Why should there be a need for me to provide the mathematics already supplied by Newton and Einstein where gravity is concerned. Any statements regarding numbers in my work are derived from arithmetic and use of a calculator. As already stated, my work is comprehensive with regards to other physical concepts. It ranges from the unmeasurable fundamental dynamic reality, through the levels of reality, and on up to the conditions at the galactic centre. With regards to my posts concerning Pioneer, from memory of one post, I stated that my work predicted and required the Pioneer so-called anomalies to occur, and that the excess boost to the velocity of Pioneer during the flyby of Jupiter resulted because a planets gravity field is varied in exact proportion to its velocity. Also that had Pioneer passed in front of Jupiter’s direction of motion, there would have been less acceleration than expected. The expected questions following that statement never eventuated. With regards to the excess boost of Pioneer, if Einstein’s mathematics were being used instead of Newtonian, the extra boost may have been expected. In that regard, Einstein’s mathematics may have predicted and required the excess. Re conservation of momentum; mainstream science certainly does insist and require that momentum must be conserved during collisions etceteras. Even so, where orbits are concerned, the statement is that momentum is conserved annually.

Swansont. Now that I have been able to read the posts on the thread started by Hysor, I can understand why I provided the defence for S Crothers and made the comment regarding the promotion of books. In that regard and under similar circumstances in the future, I probably would be judged to have broken forum rules. My first warning delivered some years ago, resulted from my offer to supply free access for two physicists to my work if it could be arranged via email. I was warned to stop attempting to introduce crackpot pseudo science into general science. I have now received a second warning and will not be posting further to receive any more. I have reached that decision because irrespective of my other posts on this forum pertaining to faults in GR and providing physical backing for such beliefs, there has been no comments or attempts at a discussion. I find it strange that there can be so much speculation involving various peoples ideas concerning gravity etceteras on the General Science category, whilst my work is considered to belong in the pseudo science section. As stated on other posts, my work is comprehensive and able to provide explanations regarding the Pioneer excess acceleration during the flyby of Jupiter, (regarded as an anomaly) and unexpected slowing later in flight. With regards to the fundamental dynamic nature of momentum, I will provide a further statement regarding mainstream science failure that involves the conservation of energy, also conservation of momentum, both rectilinear and angular. Presently and pertaining to the Earth's orbit about the Sun, the constant gravitational induced acceleration experienced by Earth's matter during closer approach to the Sun, indicates a constant changing of momentum if only a state of acceleration is taking place. Given the mainstream other beliefs regarding physics, the lack of understanding of what is happening is accounted for by the statement that momentum is conserved annually when the Earth returns to any selected particular point in Earth's orbit. In that regard, my work demands and provides comprehensive (with all other phenomena) explanations why angular momentum is conserved instant by instant. I will provide the following hint. Given the fact that the Earth's velocity is constantly changing, (momentum = MV) the mathematicians should try a proportion instant by instant reduction in Earth's mass when the Earth is approaching the Sun and an increase as the Earth recedes from the Sun; then attempt to vindicate the mass changing. Also, what parameters are changing with regards to the conservation of energy. Perhaps they will then realise that the mainstream concept of gravity and gravitation provided by GR is a long way short of reality, and inhibiting advances in the knowledge of physics. I have now received a supply of my books and intend to attempt to issue a challenge to mainstream concepts through the Australian media.

Swansont and Spyman. Thanks for the information concerning the thread I was having difficulty finding, and now am relieved that I did not post to the wrong thread. However, I now realise by a comparison with the other replies to that thread, that my information concerning S Crothers was not appreciated with regards to the discussion taking place on that thread. My transgression appears to be with the fact that I supplied truthful information concerning the author of the subject that Hysor was concerned about, and not commenting on the BICEP2. With regards to the BICEP2 project, my memory concern the attempt to detect Recurring Gravitational Induced Waves goes back to to the first attempt at detection, by suspending a large cylinder of solid aluminium in the expectation that it would indicate the passage of such waves. The attempt failed and was followed by others of a similar type. No wave was detected and so the attempt was extended to interferometer types of experiments becoming more extensive and expensive. The experiments now involve space-craft and the several buildings at the South Pole. From a euphoric expectation of establishing a new method of investigating the universe in cooperation with radio astronomy, the lack of direct detection has now deteriorated to declaring a perturbation in the polarisation of the cosmic background microwave radiation as indication of the existence of gravitational induced recurring waves. Given the fact that Pulsars in orbit about each-other are supposed to create powerful, recurring gravitational (an illusion according to GR) induced waves, indicates the changes to expectation first envisaged.

Swansont. My computer had to be repaired and now is in working order. As I stated in my post above regarding my search for the thread you refer to, and I have again searched for the thread I was hijacking. My memory of that thread referred to a question from Hysor regarding his uncertainty concerning the qualifications of the author of an article he read on the CMBR. He supplied a link to a Video by S Corothers regarding that subject and wondered if it was so much quackery. AS I stated in that reply, I did not listen to the video because I was well aware of his articles on such subjects. From my memory of some replies to that thread, the discussion centred on quackery and the believability of such articles. I would be much obliged if you could supply me with information regarding how to find that thread. Due to my age, if I have posted to the wrong thread, it is important to know how it occurred