63 views

Uploaded by Anonymous 78iIfzoqqL

ABSTRACT
Effects of Gravity are explained with QED. There is no mass, it’s all just light (photons). Special Theory of relativity holds, Instead of infinite mass it produces zero space through Length contraction; result is a photon emission.
Earth and Other planets rotates and orbits because of photons. This all means that Le Sage’s theory of gravity is, -as an idea- correct. The Aberration adjusts these orbits. This is actually been the case since the founding of relativity. As the “Gravity” has only the speed of light. I explain the Energy problem of this form of gravity and I support this explanation with observations. I explain the causes for the axial rotation of planets; they are driven by the Sun through Thermodynamics.
I explain various observed mysteries of physics; like Dark Matter or Dark Energy, there isn’t any; the corrected “gravity-law-without-mass” simply fits to observations. Sonoluminescence is as natural phenomenon as any other emission of photons.
This all I made possible through a synthesis of a few well known old physical laws, I calculate “The moment of momentums” Y as it is done by Leonhard Euler in his Pump and Turbine equation. The law of Gravity is defined as dimensionless like William Froude defined the speed-length ratio, which I will write in the same dimensions as the Y. I show through this Froude number, why the mass ratios between Proton, Neutron and Electron are almost correctly measured, and where the flaw in measurements lies.

- January - Thoughts for Life
- Unit 5 Physics Nuclear Decay Questions
- Alpha Beta Gamma Nuclear Decay Activity Sheet
- CH11SB026
- Chemistry 2nd Quarter
- Lab Manual Radioactivity_Gamma decay
- MME309 Lectures First
- RADIOACTIVE
- Edexcel GCSE Physics 2011 Topics P3.2 and P3.3 test 15_16 with mark scheme
- 0625_w13_qp_23
- Principle of Structural Geology
- Simulation of Radio Active Decay
- Telling Geologic Time
- 6ht929jcbx89j preatomic
- 2009 cbse pmt 2
- 11physics2-130508121354-phpapp01
- etovos.pdf
- Microsoft Word - C18 PS1a.doc
- Biology
- Cape Chemistry U1 P2 2015

You are on page 1of 34

Theory of Everything

Jouni Jokela

jouni@jokela-turbine.ch

ABSTRACT

Effects of Gravity are explained with QED. There is no mass, its all just light (photons).

Special Theory of relativity holds, Instead of infinite mass it produces zero space through

Length contraction; result is a photon emission.

Earth and Other planets rotates and orbits because of photons. This all means that Le Sages

theory of gravity is, -as an idea- correct. The Aberration adjusts these orbits. This is actually

been the case since the founding of relativity. As the Gravity has only the speed of light. I

explain the Energy problem of this form of gravity and I support this explanation with

observations. I explain the causes for the axial rotation of planets; they are driven by the

Sun through Thermodynamics.

I explain various observed mysteries of physics; like Dark Matter or Dark Energy, there

isnt any; the corrected gravity-law-without-mass simply fits to observations.

Sonoluminescence is as natural phenomenon as any other emission of photons.

This all I made possible through a synthesis of a few well known old physical laws, I

calculate The moment of momentums Y as it is done by Leonhard Euler in his Pump and

Turbine equation. The law of Gravity is defined as dimensionless like William Froude

defined the speed-length ratio, which I will write in the same dimensions as the Y . I show

through this Froude number, why the mass ratios between Proton, Neutron and Electron are

almost correctly measured, and where the flaw in measurements lies. And finally, as there

is no mass, the famous Formula from Einstein, E mc must be rewritten. Its nothing

really new or fancy either, only a synthesis from Stefan-Boltzmann law, something like

2

" E" c 4 . The true problem was rather to define the Energy, E without the mass, as to

copy-paste this equation. Thus the real problems reading this paper must lie on the fact that

almost the whole physics is written through mass. So the reader may have to read this few

times, just to learn to talk about Force and Energy without mass. The inevitable

conclusion is, that SI-system must be corrected accordingly.

Radioactive decay? It is the end result of continuous Radiation.

Fine-structure-constant ? It is 1.

Gravitational Constant G ? It doesnt exist.

Gravitational Waves? photon waves.

Double-slit experiment? the result from these gravitational photon waves

Theory of Everything? -It is the QED. This paper just rounds its edges.

- Let there be light.-

Content;

Abstract

Introduction, Preface

1. Theory; What Gravity is?

1.1 Introduction to this Question.

1.2 Froude number

2. Calculating the consequences.

2.1 Fine structure constant Recalculated.

2.2 Electromagnetic mass

2.3. The Special Theory of Relativity recalculated.

2.4 Radiation, Radioactivity, Radioactive decay

2.4.1. Introduction

2.4.2. Theory for Radioactive decay

2.4.3. Consequences of this theory for Radioactive decay

2.4.4. Observations according to the theory for Radioactive decay

3. Quantum Kinetic Gravity, Supporting Observations.

3.1 Froude number of planets

3.2 Star velocities of Galaxies

4. The Problems of the Quantum Kinetic Gravity

4.1. The drag and aberration problems, why the Planets still keep orbiting?

4.1.1. Earth.

4.1.1.1 Moment of Inertia. -Fluctuations in a length of day.

4.1.1.2 Power.

4.1.1.3 Conclusion;

4.1.2. Mercury

4.1.2.1 Rotation without an atmosphere?

4.1.3 Aberration problem

4.1.4. Conclusions of the Orbital rotation of planets; Drag Problem is not a problem!

4.2. The Energy problem?

4.2.1. Introduction to Energy Problem.

4.2.2. Introduction to the explanation to the Energy Problem; Thermosphere.

4.2.3. Explanation to the Energy Problem; Gravitational Power.

4.2.4. Energy Problem; Conclusions

5. Closing out the doubts.

5.1. Porosity of the material-problem (Wikipedia; Le Sages theory of Gravitation)

5.2. Introduction for calculating various constants

5.2.1 Age of the Universe

5.2.2 Planck constant

5.2.3 Gravitational coupling constant

5.3 Double-slit experiment

5.3.1 Wave pattern from the double-slit experiment

5.4. Gravitational waves

6. Consequences of this theory

6.1 SI-units, without mass

7. Conclusions

7. 1 Physical conclusions

7. 2 Practical conclusions

INTRODUCTION

Backround.

What is Gravity? Its such a simple law describing how the planets move around the sun.

Force, that keeps the Planets moving on their orbits. The greatest generalisation achieved

by the human mind. At the time of the Kepler some people answered this problem by

saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets

around the orbit in tangential direction. This is of course nonsense, as it was shown by

Galileo and Newton; the angels are pushing exactly towards the sun instead of around the

orbit. Later Einstein noted that also this is nonsense, and showed how the angels are

pushing the planets on slightly wrong direction, as they are pushing towards the image of

the sun, instead of the true position of the sun. and corrected our knowledge with the time

which the light needs to send the image to the planets. That is our present knowledge of

Gravity! We have highly accurate measurements, which have proven this law to be correct.

But what is the mechanism? This we do not know. And thus angels are as good

explanation as any other word we want to use to cover the fact; we do not know.

This equation is almost all we have;

F= Force, m= Mass 1, M= Mass 2, r = distance, G = const.

mMG

r2

(1)

The equation shows how Force of Gravity depends only from the mass of the objects and

their distance. This causes certain problems on observations. As Force F is F ma where

a is acceleration, and this acceleration defines velocity. These velocities are easily

measurable over great distances with Doppler-effect. And many observations from galaxies

far away have provided too high velocities which cant be explained by this theory. A

theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy was developed to add the Power of the Engels in

the appropriate levels. Further, when we look on the quantum level, we dont see any

gravity. In the scale of Planck mass, approx in the size of flea egg, the effects of gravity

becomes as problematic as with galaxies. Any given name, Dark Engel, Aether, Graviton,

doesnt change the fact; We do not know or understand the mechanism of Gravity.

Le Sages theory of gravitation

There is one theory which has been originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duiller in

1690; only 3 years after Newton published his work. This was again proposed by GeorgesLouis Le Sage in 1748.

Richard Feynman explains this story at his Messenger Lectures, I-7-7 as follows;

Many mechanisms for gravitation have been suggested. It is interesting to consider one of these, which

many people have thought of from time to time. At first, one is quite excited and happy when he

discovers it, but he soon finds that it is not correct. It was first discovered about 1750. Suppose there

were many particles moving in space at a very high speed in all directions and being only slightly

absorbed in going through matter. When they are absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However,

since there are as many going one way as another, the impulses all balance. But when the sun is nearby,

the particles coming toward the earth through the sun are partially absorbed, so fewer of them are

coming from the sun than are coming from the other side. Therefore, the earth feels a net impulse

toward the sun and it does not take one long to see that it is inversely as the square of the distance

because of the variation of the solid angle that the sun subtends as we vary the distance. What is wrong

with that machinery? It involves some new consequences which are not true. This particular idea has the

following trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are

coming from its forward side than from its hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is

stronger than that on the back of your head!). Therefore there would be more impulse given the earth

from the front, and the earth would feel a resistance to motion and would be slowing up in its orbit. One

can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would not

take long enough for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. No machinery has

ever been invented that explains gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that

does not exist.

These phenomenon that does not exist are mostly stated as;

1. Drag problem.

2. Energy problem; at the Source and in the Target.

3. Porosity of the Material problem.

4. Aberration problem.

At this paper these phenomenon are worked out thoroughly and explained. There are few

main aspects which are combined to make this possible. Reader must be therefore familiar

with these issues. The most important is the Froude-number. Its dimensionless number

which defines the ratio between inertia and external field. This way the Mass is removed

from the Gravity law. It provides the idea how the Masses of the planets are not relevant,

and helps to understand the Dark-stuff and Quantum-gravity" -problems. But this aspect

still doesnt say anything about the Machinery behind the Gravity. To get this machinery

right, we need to combine the Kinetic theory of gases and the photon pressure and

understand how the heat of the solar system increases with hydrostatic pressure analogy

from the minimum at the Heliopause, to maximum in the centre of sun. For immediate

reality check; this theory predicts i.e. relatively higher atmospherical pressures near the

Sun, as can be verified from Venus.

Preface

As I do realize, how in this paper presented quite unconventional thoughts might be very

difficult to absorb, I feel necessary to say few word about how this paper was born, just to

light it out. At 2012 I saw the explanation to Turbulence. And I even produced one A4

where it was explained. While studying this issue, together with my Turbine project, I

looked planetal scale vortices, and I realized that the Earth must rotate true the Sun. As this

was not a main stream idea, I just hold it myself until 2014. At the meantime the idea

gathered momentum, in form of supporting observations. As my understanding in physics

was verified in the lab-test of my turbine, as I i.e. created the Eulers Pump & Turbine

equations from the Newtons laws by my self, I had to first win some confidence about my

skills. As this was achieved, I started to talk more about my idea about the Earth rotation

and Turbulence, just to notice that my arguments are holding. My turbine project did not

aloud me to use much time for the physics. But as my marriage ended, I encountered the

same craziness as Einstein and others. The divorcing in Swiss is still quite medieval. With

all costs I want to avoid that my Children are facing the same fate as Eduard Einstein. So

while trying to do things different and sorting out my private-life, I have had the time to

study QED. After I gathered the needed understanding from the Feynman lections, found

from YouTube. Its been really just straight forward. Just studying and sorting the

supporting observations, and writing the equations new, simultaneously as I have read

them. But As I am writing this, I havent met my children for over a half year. And my

main concern right now is, that we would be finally relieved from this crazy inquisition

against my heresy as a father.

Short, simplified answer; The Gravity can be partially thought to be as a hydrostatic

pressure, produced as it is explained by the Kinetic theory of gases. At space these walls

are replaced just by the radiation pressure. The Gravitational force is thus produced by the

photons (light). But this light is not only the visible light, but also radio waves and ULF

waves, down to

Way. Though these waves does penetrate enormous deep, the Gravitational energy and

its effects are also transferred by the atomic interactions similar to Newton cradle or

electricity. I would be lying by claiming that I understand this perfectly. So more

importance should be given to the more easily explainable facts that, the law of Gravity is

valid without the mass, and that its electromagnetically aspects, the consequences of this

beautiful theory are observable. I name this theory as Quantum Kinetic Gravity (QKG), to

avoid confusion with QG.

1.1 Introduction to this Question.

As already stated few times; We do not know or understand the mechanism of Gravity.

We just have a perfect equation (1) which explains and works very well with the observed

nature. So lets just see what kind of things we can calculate with this equations and theory

for i.e. Planets. The Average orbital speed v can be calculated, with small eccentricity the

equation is simply; v

(m M )G

In this equation the mass of planet m, is in most

r

cases negligible and variations of r are dominant, thus the formula is often written simply;

mv 2 mMG

MG

Kinetic energy of Planet is Thus; Ekin

r

2

2r

mMG

If the small m is again left away as a

Gravitational Potential Energy is; E G pot

r

3

4 2 1AU

negligible, and the M is replaced with M; the Solar Mass, M

and

G (1yr ) 2

v

its noted that AU = r, and 1 yr; is unit of time; T. The Energy equations can be written

as follows;

4 2 1AU G 4 2 r 2 2 2 r 2

MG

MG 4 2 r 2

and

"

"

E

G pot

G (1yr ) 2 2r

2r

r

2T 2

T2

T2

3

" E"kin

6 2 r 2

T2

(2)

This above equation gives as the unit of Energy the same, as the square of velocity;

distance2 / time2. This means we might want to use the speed of light here to define the

distance r and T; This can be done many ways, ie. as

E mc 2 or m

mv 2 E? v 2

E

,

and

this

Kinetic

energy

E

kin

c2

2

2c 2

(3)

As seen in the equation (2) and (3), there is a need to redefine Energy, because of the

dimensions. Even the conventional kinetic energy can be made dimensionless. Such a game

with dimensional equations would not bring us any more understanding about the

phenomenon. So its more practical to go back to basics. We need something truly

dimensionless.

I could immediately notice, how the equations above follows the Froudes Law;

Dimensionless Ratio of Inertia to external field. This ratio is at optimum at FR= 1, at this

point the kinetic energy is 1/3 and the Potential energy is 2/3 of the total energy. This aspect

opens quite a new idea about what gravity really is. The FR=1 is mostly known as the

state of minimum energy. This is the state of flow where the nature finds its balance. From

this can be concluded, that it might rather be so, that the kinetic energy, or velocity

provided by some propulsion mechanism, is the machinery which defines the optimum

distance of the planets to the sun. As basically, all the equations above, can be written just

Inertia

2(mMG / 2r ) 2(mv 2 / 2) v 2

FR 1

Externalfield

mMG / r

mar

ar

(4)

v2

without masses and the G. It can be noted that actually a

; is the formula for radial

r

acceleration in circular motion. And acceleration is the Force without the Mass.

Thus the r/T analogy of energy should be understood by Wavelength,

v

where the

f

v is speed of light, and frequency; f is 1/T. (But what is the Time, T??)

From this observation, one can come to an idea, where the whole mass could be just a

vision. What if there is no mass at all? Maybe its just the counter force for radial

acceleration; as we know there is the known atomic attraction/propulsion depending on the

distance of separation. This attraction varies linearly and then inversely as the seventh

power of the distance, or F = k/ r7 where k is a constant that depends on the molecules. [1]

The variation after critical distance cant have much of a practical meaning for Gravity so

the linear part must be the one which is important. At this point some one might think that

the Earths gravity depends on the axial rotation and notes that the poles have also quite

remarkable gravity. This is indeed true, but as this paper tries to explain, there isnt any

Gravity. Its only QED combined with the kinetic theory. The atomic attraction/propulsion

is important, as through it, we can understand how the atoms transfer the energy in their

collisions. So on above, we are not talking about Gravity, but from Mass, or rather how

energy can be rearranged in a form which can be experienced as a mass. This was actually

already explained by Einstein.

v2

which actually only describes the ratio, can also be

ar

ar " E"? m

changed a = m and r = E, (*Why?) and v = c so it comes FR 1 2

v

c2

c2

2

which is of course " E? " m c or as we are interested about the mass; m

This

" E? "

The equation (4) above; FR 1

2

c2 2

c and further

" E? "

E" E? " E 2 c 4 which has a very clear analogy with Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Of course the mathematic says that this is also E c which, as a first thought, seems

2

impossible, as E mc c But what is actually really new here? Its a known fact, that

2

photon has no mass, though it has no energy. This means m c , which cant be true

simultaneously. So its needed to start to define what energy is here actually meant; Total

Energy? Potential energy? or Kinetic energy? This all above seems to be completely

useless for any practical purpose. And Energy is just defined with some new unit, though

2

there is enough units already. So where is the whole point? The point of this all is to see,

that these energies has a natural ratio of balance!

ETotal 3Ekinetic

or also

3

EPotential Ekinetic EPotential

2

(5)

The Explanation is that acceleration (a) and mass (m) are different aspects of Force (F), we

can think like mass/potential Force and acceleration/kinetic Force

And r is the main aspect of energy, so when we dived to Force to mass force and to

acceleration Force, the displacement still remains as the main aspect of the potential

energy. It seems pretty difficult to explain this with the present words used. As they (words)

do not quite fit in this theory. So if it irritates, that the units doesnt quite fit above, pls.

just get over it, and read forward. As the only thing which really counts, is how the theory

is supported by the observations. The Language can, and will be written afterwards.

2. Calculating the consequences.

2.1 Fine structure constant Recalculated

From the previous chapter, I concluded that the Fine structure constant; strength of the

electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles must also be redefined.

It might first sound amazing, as its dimensionless. If you look at it carefully, you found

that it actually isnt. It just seems as such. Exactly as might be expected from the simplified

Equation (3). Because of the historical reasons, the mass is just everywhere, as its written

inside the Force; Newton, N kg m / s and is thus directly or indirectly used in every

2

e 2 0 e 2c ke e 2 c0

4 0 c 4

c

2 RK

And none of them are actually defining the Strength without the Force; and thus without the

mass. I.e. the elementary charge, e C A s is defined in Coulombs, which is Ampere

times second. The formal definition of the ampere, states that the ampere is the constant

current that will produce an attractive force of 2 107 newtons per metre of length

between two straight, parallel conductors of infinite length and negligible circular cross

section placed one metre apart in a vacuum. The same goes to its unit is Js and J = Nm!

This leaves us only the last option, but if you look what is the Vacuum permeability; its

0 4 10 7 N / A2

Ampere again, and thus we have also Newtons all over again..

The definition of Fine-Structure constant through Natural units doesnt either change

anything, as it doesnt define this constant; it just defines the elementary charge to be

e 4 0.302

To turn this around; I would rather define the mass through this elementary charge and this

way the mass of an Electron. Let the mass of an Electron be 2/3 of the total energy, and the

Elementary charge of the Electron to be 1/3 of the total energy. But this is all too early,

before we even start to talk about what defines which. We rather need to establish a unit for

2

this new energy. In SI-units it will obviously be expressed in a form of, m / s which is

actually the well known unit for Specific Work of a Turbine; Y . To avoid implementing

some new funny Jo-unit, the well established letter Y is used to describe this new

energy-unit. This unit also needs a better name than Specific Work, so I will call it

Strength.

For clarity and understanding the Total Energy, Strength of an Electron is dimensionless

explained; ETotal Ekin Emass 2Y 3e and this can be divided to the rest-mass

Ekin

and to the kinetic Energy part; basically the

c2

E

Y e mass

2c 2

elementary charge, which s Ekin

This pretty much rewrites the Physics; as what would now be the truly dimensionless

strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles?

What is strength? Its Y! And what is Field? Its also Y!

Truly dimensionless fine structure constant is

Y

1

Y

After concluding this work above, and while seeking word, I googled for Electromagnetic

mass and found out that Richard Feynman has already reported about the troubles in his

lecture II-28, named Electromagnetic mass[2]. I feel lucky to find these supporting words

about the 2/3 ratio in his Equation 28.4. and these texts;

283Electromagnetic mass

Where does the mass come from? In our laws of mechanics we have supposed that

every object carries a thing we call the masswhich also means that it carries a

momentum proportional to its velocity. Now we discover that it is understandable that

a charged particle carries a momentum proportional to its velocity. It might, in fact,

be that the mass is just the effect of electrodynamics. The origin of mass has until

now been unexplained. We have at last in the theory of electrodynamics a grand

opportunity to understand something that we never understood before. It comes out of

the blueor rather, from Maxwell and Poyntingthat any charged particle will have

a momentum proportional to its velocity just from electromagnetic influences.

285Attempts to modify the Maxwell theory

So today, there is no known solution to this problem. We do not know how to make a

consistent theoryincluding the quantum mechanicswhich does not produce an

infinity for the self-energy of an electron, or any point charge. And at the same time,

there is no satisfactory theory that describes a non-point charge. Its an unsolved

problem.

In case you are deciding to rush off to make a theory in which the action of an electron

on itself is completely removed, so that electromagnetic mass is no longer meaningful,

and then to make a quantum theory of it, you should be warned that you are certain to

be in trouble. There is definite experimental evidence of the existence of

electromagnetic inertiathere is evidence that some of the mass of charged particles

is electromagnetic in origin.

It used to be said in the older books that since Nature will obviously not present us

with two particlesone neutral and the other charged, but otherwise the samewe

will never be able to tell how much of the mass is electromagnetic and how much is

mechanical. But it turns out that Nature has been kind enough to present us with just

such objects, so that by comparing the observed mass of the charged one with the

observed mass of the neutral one, we can tell whether there is any electromagnetic

mass. For example, there are the neutrons and protons. They interact with tremendous

forcesthe nuclear forceswhose origin is unknown. However, as we have already

described, the nuclear forces have one remarkable property. So far as they are

concerned, the neutron and proton are exactly the same. The nuclear forces between

neutron and neutron, neutron and proton, and proton and proton are all identical as

far as we can tell. Only the little electromagnetic forces are different; electrically the

proton and neutron are as different as night and day. This is just what we wanted.

There are two particles, identical from the point of view of the strong interactions, but

different electrically. And they have a small difference in mass. The mass difference

between the proton and the neutronexpressed as the difference in the rest-energy

mc2 in units of MeVis about 1.3 MeV, which is about 2.6 times the electron mass.

The classical theory would then predict a radius of about 1/3 to 1/2 the classical

electron radius, or about 1013 cm. Of course, one should really use the quantum

theory, but by some strange accident, all the constants2s and s, etc.come out

so that the quantum theory gives roughly the same radius as the classical theory. The

only trouble is that the sign is wrong! The neutron is heavier than the proton.

So through this correction to theory; the Neutron is heavier than the proton;

Quick view to the Masses shows;

n (neutron)

939.5654133(58) MeV/c2

p (proton)

938.272046(21) MeV/c2

n-p

1.2933673 MeV/c2

e (electron)

0.510998910(13) MeV/c2

The present Mass difference of Neutron is 2.531 times the mass of electron; The sign and

the order of the result is now correct. The scale of the mistake might be possible to simple

be explained just by the Measuring difficulties, as the mass of a neutron simply cannot be

directly determined by mass spectrometry due to lack of electric charge; If the 1=2/3x1.5

mistake is also there, then we just correct the math and it should fit. This predicts that the

correct neutron mass would thus be approximately 939.5495 MeV/c2, though I would

not even like to speak from the mass anymore, as it is just not there!

2.3. The Special Theory of Relativity recalculated.

For over 200 years the equations of motion enunciated by Newton were believed to

describe nature correctly, and the first time that an error in these laws was discovered, the

way to correct it was also discovered. Both the error and its correction were discovered by

Einstein in 1905. Newtons Second Law, which we have expressed by the equation

F ma was stated with the tacit assumption that m is a constant, but we now know that

this is not true, and that the mass of a body increases with velocity. In Einsteins corrected

m0

1 v2 / c2

mass of a body that is not moving and c is the speed of light. For those who want to learn

formula m has the value

just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of

relativityit just changes Newtons laws by introducing a correction factor to the

mass.[3]

Its obvious, that if mass is used on calculations, instead of a fixed natural ratio, between

Inertia and External field, this mass amount also needs to be corrected accordingly to fit

in to the concept. But its doubtful, if it is even reasonable to recalculate the relativity

theory, as there is no actual need for a correction factor to the mass, if the mass is simply

m

. What if we just leave the

obvious, when energies are calculated with the mass, as m

2

left out from the calculations. According to Froude

mass out and thats it? No more Lorentz transformation for mass, no Relativistic

momentum or kinetic energy? But this is not all; what about Length contraction and Time

dilation? The importance of these aspects asks us to proof also the concept of relativity.

The Length contraction and Time dilation can be understood very simply when thought how

the electrons are going around the atom on elliptical orbits. The Equations for the Lorentz

factor, ;

1 v / c

2

2

seems even very similar. This aloud us the make an analogy between semi-major axis a and

speed of light c and semi-minor axis b and speed v . Lets have a closer look on the ellipse;

And the Eccentricity equation, as it can be written many different ways;

2

a2 b2

b

e 1 b2 / a2 1

a2

a

But the simplest way to write it, is;

f

where f is the distance from the

a

center to the focus and a is the distance from

e

the picture f c (a-b-c triangle, NOT speed

of light)

Analogy to the relativity and Lorentz

transformation is obvious;

be written also

1 e which can

Figure 1: Ellipse

with growing v , as was the previous expectations. Instead of that, this predicts that

something goes to zero! Its a known fact that photon has zero mass. (What mass?) This

reveals us how the mass growing to infinity when approaching the speed of light, was a

pure illusion. There isnt even anything which can grow to infinity inside an ellipse. There

isnt even any mass, and its just similar pseudo/Fictitious force as ie. Centrifugal force is,

thus also all mass related derivatives; like momentum or kinetic energy, are (by definition)

also only fictitious things. Their appearance, the vision of a mass, might grow, and logically

even grows, as the radius around the focus get smaller when eccentricity approaches one.

Smaller radius with same velocity causes more acceleration, which is felt as a more mass.

What truly happens is that the space/volume goes to zero; the eccentricity goes to one, and

the ellipse bursts to a line, a ray. Though e=1 predicts a parabola, you cant burst the ellipse

to a parabola without going through line.

Its quite difficult to think how the energy

oscillates in the direction of the velocity. It

might be doing something like the Trammel of

Archimedes, or something like Hypotrochoid,

and this ofcourse in 3-Dimensions. Or maybe

its a hypocycloid, or Hypoellipsoid or

elliphypoid. What I mean is the light forms

a sort of Deltoid-curve (Red) inside an

Ellipse (Blue) when the velocity causes the

relativistic effects. But as the smartest readers

must have already noted, the semi-minor

axis b cant actually be the speed v , as this

causes that we have zero space or line in v = 0

and sphere in v = c? Well thats true, please

Figure 2: Deltoid

read also the chapter Radioactivity.

This must be the mechanism how an atom emits a photon. It could think to be like a balloon

filling the space in side an atom. Actually if the photon needs certain space for certain

movements the whole can be also thought as the well known Length contraction. If mass

is only a observation which follows, from the ar component of Equation 4, then

contracting length needs the growing mass as a counterpart, if the energies are calculated

mass included. But without mass, its only the acceleration which grows. This all means

that there is no spontaneous Emission, but a clear mechanism how and why a photon is

emitted; always when the orbit collapses. Against this explanation the phenomenon called

sonoluminescence becomes simply obvious; when the volume of atoms goes zero,

photons goes out. The conclusion which follows from this all, is, that instead of saying that

photon has zero mass, it has zero volume, as already explained by Length contraction.

This is the only recalculation needed to make for the Special Theory of Relativity; thus

all the space-time effects it predicts, remains exactly the same, though all the mass related

effects are turned up-side-down; 0 I.e. the question Can we travel with the speed of

light? Would still be no, as in this speed, all the matter would be simply emitted away.

And the most important thing to observe is, that photon is emitted in the counter direction

compared to the movement. This observation opens us the logical step to Radioactivity.

2.4 Radiation, Radioactivity or Radioactive decay

2.4.1. Introduction

I am really not able to explain completely the logic how the energy oscillates inside an atom

when the atom is moving. I have an idea, related to Radioactivity, and I will try to explain

it, but to get forward, we need to think these physical laws first.

Physical Law 1. The Statement; The present Relativity theory predicts that the mass

grows with velocity, and reaches infinity at the speed of light.

Consequence 1.1; Infinite mass with speed of light consumes infinite amount of

energy.

Consequence 1.2; Also the other way must be true; reducing the velocity should

reduce the mass to zero, and this infinite energy would be released.

Observation 1.1; There is no such known phenomenon, which releases infinite

amount of energy. Even Black holes, -if they exist- are counter-examples.

Observation 1.2; Any change in velocity, would thus violate the law of conservation

of Energy.

Physical Law 2. The Statement; The gravity is a force. And force is energy. This

statement is valid, regardless how force and Energy is defined. And this

energy/force/strength is acting in all directions over all distances,

Consequence 2.1; If gravity is working with pull, the energy will be finally

gathered to a single point.

Consequence 2.2; If gravity is working with push, the energy will be finally lost

and disappeared.

Consequence 2.3; If the topology of the space is continuous, the objects own

gravity will pull/push the object from all directions with same force, and the result

must be No net force. The amount of the objects doesnt make here any difference.

Observation 2; but there is measurable gravity which seems to remain infinitely.

These laws above are not correct. They cant be. It seems that thinking Mass and

Gravity is way too complicated, so I want to think something more simple; like

Radiation, Radioactivity or Radioactive decay; Radiation is energy emitted from an atom.

In most cases this happens in form of Photons. The Energy of photon is depended from its

wavelength, but the mechanism why or how a photon is emitted must be exactly the same

for radio waves and for gamma radiation. For all wavelengths.

On process named radioactivity / radioactive decay is emitted also particles like alpha and

beta but also plain neutrons and protons. And this decay happens randomly, but still

predictably. Lets just get this straight. The beta particles are electrons. And the alpha is

helium nuclei, having two protons and two neutrons. So basically, the whole radiation is

just photons and atoms. These atoms are the Hydrogen and Helium, the simplest atoms.

But WHY is these atoms radiating? Why radioactive decay? Why half-life?

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that,

according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.

The converse of half-life, is Doubling time and it might help to understand, what is going

on; Doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size, when the

relative growth rate is constant. Its applied to the population growth. From the population

growth rate, it is also impossible to predict how a particular family would grow. From this I

can produce an idea, how the population growth is dependent only from the surrounding

environment. But what could be Surrounding environment for atoms? The only and

obvious answer is photons. Its a fact, that only high number atoms are able to emit highest

energy photons, gamma rays. The very same must also go to absorption. But the high

energy photons are scattered also from the lower atomic number particles, and the lower

energy particles are thus always able to receive the energy needed to maintain their

existence. Through this logic, it could be thought, that no material is actually stable, or

otherwise said, all material is Radioactive. The ones which are not Radioactive, are just

able to absorb more energy from the surrounding environment than they are emitting

themselves, and thus these dont decay.

2.4.2. Theory for Radioactive decay

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be

slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects. They are mostly unaffected by

external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment, and electric,

magnetic, or gravitational fields. But I.e. Radon-222 exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak

seasonal variations. [4] Some others having small variations, while many materials having

any such effects. This above is logical; affecting to decay rate needs exactly correct kind of

radiation wave length. This theory would be easy to prove in lab. I just take it as proven, so

we can go forward with bigger picture. It was explained in chapter 2.3 why a photon is

emitted from atom. And in Figure 2, it was tried to explain, how this emission happen to the

opposite direction from the velocity. This means that if a particle travels enough distance

without colliding to any another particle, or receiving the correct radiation, which recovers

its energies, it will decay. This decay process is thus exponential. The emitted photons

increase the velocity of the particle, which decreases the wave length of emitted photons,

which means more and more energy is emitted, until the whole particle is emitted.

2.4.3. Consequences of this theory for Radioactive decay

This means that there are no stable Isotopes. There are only stable environments. If particle

is send away from this environment, it will finally decay. This means that even Hydrogen

will decay to a photon when send away. The consequence of this is that there should be

some specific radiation which is produced through this decay of Hydrogen. And this decay

should not be observed in our environment.

Another consequence would be, that the objects trailing edge would experience more

radioactive decay then the leading edge; Why? Its about energy absorption; particles are

able to absorb the energy of photons of any wavelengths through scattering, but also

through collisions. At the leading edge, there is always something colliding; so new energy

supply is simply higher. But to be accurate, there must be a stagnation point, where this is

quite not true.

2.4.4. Observations according to the theory for Radioactive decay

Its amazing how the Observations can be made in 0.2 seconds with Google to find the

needed Wikipedia article. There indeed is such a radiation present; Hydrogen line,

is equivalent to the vacuum wavelength of 21.10611405413 cm in free space. The

microwaves of the hydrogen line come from the atomic transition of an electron between

the two hyperfine levels of the hydrogen 1s ground state, that have an energy difference of

5.87433 eV. This transition is highly forbidden with an extremely small rate of 2.91015

s1, and a lifetime of around 10 million (107) years. A spontaneous occurrence of the

transition is unlikely be seen in a laboratory on Earth.

The bigger trailing edge decay is more difficult to observe. Though the seasonal variations

of the Radon-222 decay already supports this idea, I would rather like to see how even

some stable isotopes are decaying more in the trailing edge. These observations are

impossible to do in our environment, as we cant produce the needed QED-vacuum. The

objects in space are also mostly not observable, as theirs shapes are random, and they

mostly dont even hold their position compared to the movement. Or they are simply

covered with flowing fluids. But there are few objects, big enough to be spheres, but small

enough to be without fluid cover, called atmosphere. So we have Moon, Mercury, maybe

Mars, and 18 another known natural satellites that are massive enough to have lapsed into

hydrostatic Equilibrium. I just list the ones, not having too much atmosphere, say 1 kPa.

They are; Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa, Rhea, Iapetus, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus,

Mimas, Titania, Oberon, Umbriel, Ariel and Miranda. Mercury fits to theory, and so does

the moon. From Mars (Figure 5 and 6) its difficult to say; there is clear difference between

the South and North, the only problem is that the crust; 45 km on average, is thicker on

south; 58 km, than it is in north; 32 km. Though Mars seems highly interesting, I want hold

me mentally clear and avoid it because its complexity. Of course even Earth fits in the

theory too, with as its northern Landmasses.

Figure 7: Mimas

But I want to see a third moon, with radioactive craters. In Figure 7 is Mimas, from

Saturn. But Nothing what a disappointment! The Wikipedia says, that Most of the

surface is covered with craters larger than 40 kilometres (25 mi) in diameter, but in the

south polar region, there are generally no craters larger than 20 kilometres (12 mi) in

diameter.

wait, here is something!

Yes, Even these observed temperatures fits in theory. It must be noted that Mimas is

moving synchronous/tidal locked compared to Saturn, which means that its orbiting

movement has always the same leading edge and trailing edge. The velocity is also quite

high, 14.28 km/s; 14 time the velocity of the Earths moon. The Surface of Mimas offers yet

another details proving, that the most of the craters is caused by radioactive decay, instead

of impacts. Radioactivity can be considered as solved.

3. Quantum Kinetic Gravity, Supporting Observations.

3.1 Froude number of planets

As I am here replacing one really well established formula, which works with astonishing

accuracy with the observations, the new rules just must work in reality too. Tough its

actually obvious (purely from the known equations) that the Froude-number of Planets is

one. These calculations are presented here, as they were the eye-opening stuff, which

convinced me to trust to this 1= 2/3 + 1/3 rule;

Binding E radius r kg

Velocity

m/s

F=

a=

E=mMG/r0 B- E

Kinetic energy

Mercury

2.11E+30

2E+06

3.58E+23 5.8147E+10

48 271

1.407E+22 0.0392530

8.18E+32

-8E+32

4.17E+32 0.510445

Venus

1.59E+32

6E+06

4.9E+24 1.0735E+11

34 497

5.64E+22 0.0115169

6.05E+33

-6E+33

2.91E+33 0.481274

Earth(a)

2.24E+32

6E+06 5.972E+24

1.491E+11

29 705

3.566E+22 0.0059704

5.32E+33

-5E+33

2.63E+33 0.495653

Mars

5.1E+30

3E+06

6.57E+23 2.2662E+11

24 017

1.698E+21 0.0025841

3.85E+32

-4E+32

1.89E+32 0.492485

Jupiter

2.02E+36

7E+07

1.9E+27 7.7529E+11

13 024

4.191E+23 0.0002208

3.25E+35 1.7E+36

1.61E+35 0.495471

Saturn

2.15E+35

6E+07

5.69E+26 1.4224E+12

9 619

3.73E+22 0.0000656

5.3E+34 1.6E+35

2.63E+34 0.495858

Uranus

1.19E+34

3E+07

8.72E+25 2.8656E+12

6 796

1.409E+21 0.0000162

4.04E+33 7.9E+33

2.01E+33 0.498627

Neptune

1.71E+34

2E+07

1.03E+26 4.4818E+12

5 418

6.787E+20 0.0000066

3.04E+33 1.4E+34

1.51E+33 0.495713

From the far right can be read, how accurately the E=mMG/r0 and Kinetic Energy

follows the Ratio 2:1, which then produces 2/3, 1/3 energy rule from William Froude. Or

1:1 rule, when comparison is made the way Froude has it described. This means that the

planets had flowing Froude numbers; Mercury 1.02, Venus 0.96, Earth 0.99, Mars, 0.98,

Jupiter 0.99, Saturn 0.99, Uranus 1.00, Neptune 0.99. Of course if we calculate them

through v2 / ar we have always exactly 1. There is interesting anomaly to be seen at BE; There is calculated the difference between Gravitational Binding energy minus

Gravitational Potenential Energy, and as it can be seen, this value is negative for Mercury

and Venus; Venus having the most Negative value of them all. This seems to have some

connection to the amount of moons. To limit the length of this paper, this subject is simply

left out. Though its Principe becomes clear from chapters 5.3.1. and 5.4.

3.2 Star velocities of Galaxies

This theory explains easily the Observed velocities of the outer stars of Galaxies. No Dark

Energy or Dark Matter is needed to correct the error. Its just the spiral form of the

Galaxy which causes the Outer stars to have more electromagnetic radiation as the stars,

which are nearer the centre and positioned on each others shades. I dont have the capacity

to study the observations of galactic rotational curves. But I am convinced, that the

mathematical rules to explain the velocity distribution of these spiral formed structures, can

be found through this ratio. The principle is easily understood by simply comparing the

equations. At the old equation the bigger radius means smaller orbital velocity with the

same mass; v

(m M )G

but with the new equation the Velocity is, v ar

r

4.1. The drag and aberration problems, why the Planets still keep orbiting?

This problem can be solved with two ways. First way is to find the machinery which

produces the movement. And second approach is to see if there is observable drag, which

would make it impossible to maintain the velocity over the time which is already passed. In

Figure 9. are already quite remarkable signs from drag to be seen. But I want to investigate

this issue thoroughly. We will look Earth and Mercury as examples. It should be noted that

the Drag influences for both; axial- and orbital rotation. It is also possible, that the total

velocity is a combination of multiple causes. In this paper I am only trying to show, that

these mechanisms exists, and their scale is in correct range to close out the drag problem.

So this paper is not trying to make a complete clearness from the causes. Aberration

problem is also discussed under this chapter, as it actually offers a partial solution to the

Drag problem.

4.1.1 Earth.

4.1.1.1 Moment of Inertia. -Fluctuations in a length of day.

There is precise measurement data available about the Length of day of Earth. I have

chosen one extreme example, Year 1998, 23.May, the Earth rotated in 86400.0023738

seconds. At 9.July the rotation time of the Earth was 86400.0000159 Seconds. This

acceleration happened in just 47 days. What does this small change mean in form of

Rotational Kinetic Energy? Erot = 2.138 x1029 J (J, kg m2/s2) I calculated this and I got a

comparable values of Approx 2.12597562 x1029 J and 2.12597574 x1029 J, and though you

dont almost see any difference, its 11.6 x1021 J

Is it much? Well, if you want to store this energy with the mass of atmosphere;

matm = 5.15 x 1018 kg, you need to have the whole Atmosphere to first move with a velocity

of 8.2 m/s or 30 km/h and then bring it to the full stop to make this difference. And the

power you need to do this in 47 days, 47 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 4060800 Seconds?

11.6 x1021 J / 4060800 s = 2.85 x 1015 W. This is 1.6 % of the Power of the sun.

Almost 200 times the power used through whole mankind. With this rate it would take only

389817 days to accelerate the Earths rotation to current speed. This is only 1067 Years.

Another example can be made through long term changes. The slowest rotation speed ever

was measured 18.3.1973; 86400.0041340 seconds, the fastest rotation speed after this was

measured at 5.7.2005; 86399.9989263 seconds. The difference means that 25.6 x1021 J of

Kinetic energy has been stored for 32 years. Close to amount what Mankind has ever used

energy. It might not be necessary to calculate this further. Such a accelerations either

violates the law of conservation of energy, or there must be an externals source; this

external Source must be the sun.

4.1.1.2 Power.

- Sun radiates on earth with 174 000 TW or 174 x 1015 W

- 30 % of this power, 26 118 TW produces steam/rain.

- Yearly rainfall is 505 000 km3, calculated to 365 days, it makes 1.383 x 1015 kg daily

- The volume of this vapour is 1.383 x 1015 kg / 0.804 kg/m3 = 1.72 x 1015 m3

- The volume of Troposphere Averages 17 km x 510 x 106 m2 = 8.67 x 1015 m3

- The volume of the Troposphere pumps 12.8 % in a daily cycle

4.1.1.3 Conclusion;

The axial and orbital Rotation of the Earth can be caused by the daily cycle on Atmosphere.

The deeper study of this issue is out of the scope of this paper, but the author is prepared to

present a more precise paper of the mechanisms.

4.1.2. Mercury

4.1.2.1 Rotation without an atmosphere?

So the Plantar movements can been caused by the sun through the atmosphere. This would

be other vice perfect, but Mercury has practically no atmosphere! So either the theory is

wrong, or the rotation of the Mercury can be explained other way. It should be noted that

Mercury has few aspects very different than other planets. Mercury has the most eccentric

orbit of all the planets. This varying distance to the Sun, combined with a 3:2 spinorbit

resonance of the planet's rotation around its axis, result in complex variations of the

surface temperature. This resonance makes a single solar day on Mercury last exactly two

Mercury years, or about 176 Earth days. -Says the Wikipedia. The Atmosphere is merely

an Exosphere, but its containing very interestingly water-related ions. Owing to the high

Orbital speed, there must be a continuous source for these ions. Further we need to know

that the surface is mainly constructed from magnesian basalt.

The thermal conductivity of basalt is extremely low, in order of 2 W /mK. Its Specific heat

is in order of 1 kJ/kgK. this means that the max radiation power of 14500 W/m2 cant be

absorbed; with maximum Temperature difference of 600 K, only 1200 W can be transferred

to stone through conductivity, and as the distance grows, even less. So it's not probable that

surface would be heated very deep at all. This closes out any possibility of materialexpansion driven mechanisms, as explained to Earth. So, either the whole theory is wrong,

or there is another mechanism. There is a curious spot in Mercury; Caloris Basin, place

which is even found to be a significant source of gases. The place is also excessively heated

through sun at Perihelion. This must lead to an excessive overheating of the surface. And it

could be the explanation to the High amounts of water related ions like O+, OH, and

H2O+ and other gases.

So it can be seen that all the stuff found from the atmosphere of Mercury, can be resulted

by the melted and boiled basalt-stone; which shoots the atoms towards the sun like rocket

engine. We May calculate the rough amount of this "rocket engine"; the average solar

radiation is 10412 W on Mercury; If 10 % is absorbed, the rest will "burn the rock". Let's

calculate with 10 kW/ m2, and with silicon. Heat of fusion and Vaporisation 50+383 =433

kJ /mol, Molar mass 28 g, W = J/s, so it means with 10 kW we are shooting atoms away

with a 10/433 = 0.023 mol and 0.023 mol X 28 g/mol = 0.64 g/s per m2 of Mercury. This

means that the Mercury's sun side is shooting atoms with an average rate of 12 Mio tons in

second. If we calculate the speed (vrms) of these molecules, with the Kinetic energy formula,

just to have some scale with the same Silicon. Boiling temperature 3538 K gives a velocity

of 1775 m/s, and thus a small, but real impulse of 2.12 x 1013 kgm/s. Please note that this

calculation is here only for providing the principe and scale for this mechanism. Ie. the

Thermal expansion of the core might easily explain the 3:2 spinorbit resonance. Though

this particle flow would lead the Mercury to be burned away in just 865 000 years, it can

rather be expected that these high velocity particles are colliding to lighter atoms and

photons and are finally landing on the other side of Mercury giving even a second impulse,

and even gaining on mass.

4.1.3 Aberration problem

As shown by Laplace, another possible Le Sage effect is orbital aberration due to finite

speed of gravity. Unless the Le Sage particles are moving at speeds much greater than the

speed of light, as Le Sage and Kelvin supposed, there is a time delay in the interactions

between bodies (the transit time). In the case of orbital motion this results in each body

reacting to a retarded position of the other, which creates a leading force component.

Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from

each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate

much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been

suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast,

general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by

Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity,

the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the

interaction. -Wikipedia.

Explanation; With aspects presented by this paper, it can be rather seen, that this aberration

problem is part of the solution. Maybe its even a crucial part which is holding the

movements of the planets on exactly at Fr 1 . I dont quite understand how aberration

is cancelled by velocity dependent term as the main problem/solution is the leading force

component, which comes from the simple fact that it takes some time for the forces to

arrive on goal, which causes a small angle difference. I have calculated what this

Aberration would be for Earth; as the diameters of the planet compared to Sun has an

influence, this force must vary from planet to planet. But as smaller force means lower

velocity, which means greater distance, which means grater aberration, this really seems as

a missing link. The aberration angle, sort of COS phi for Eath would be 0.005657

degrees; COS phi 0.999999995 which means that the Leading force would be

0.00009873 times (SIN or TAN) the Gravitational Force 3.56 x 1022 N. And for clarity, here

I mean Newtons with mass. So the Leading force component would be approx 3.5 x 1018N.

This aloud us to easily calculate acceleration; As one aspect about Gravity is, that the

velocity is changing compared to radius, which further means that what ever mechanism

Gravity has, it must be able to produce this acceleration. From the value above, we get an

acceleration of 5.9 x 10-7 m/s2 The Change of Orbital velocity is 30.29-29.29 =1 km/s.

The time for this change is half year; approx 1.6 x 107 s, which concludes that the velocity

would change because of aberration merely a 9.3 m/s; when a change of 1000 m/ is

needed. But I think my model is far too simple. This effect is naturally affecting all the

particles in all distances, and thus this effect is cumulative. I can see it as a connection to

Galactic spirals. But to limit the length of this paper I leave this subject here.

4.1.4 Conclusions of the Orbital rotation of planets; Drag Problem is not a problem!

It should be noted that one of the consequences of this theory is, that the gravitational

constant G, is not a constant, und thus the mass of the Mercury is probably wrong defined.

Therefore its not even reasonable to try to be very accurate. Its enough to proof it, for if

its possible / not possible. I.e. simply the Radiation pressure caused by the Sun at Mercury

is in order of 60.6 N/m2, which for the Face area of Mercury totals for an acceleration of

0.34 x10-15 m/s2 for the current predicted mass of Mercury; Maybe the mass is only a

fraction of that expected; If the Gravity constant varies linearly (hydrostatic pressure

analogy in Space, buoyancy), then the true mass of Mercury is only 0.39 from that

expected. And the calculated, relatively small values are corrected accordingly. But also the

opposite is possible, as the kinetic forces are growing and growing, it means that the

gravity forces grows more and more, according to the inverse square law, down to the

middle point. This shows that the scale of the forces is the point of the issue here. And the

needed result should be just enough to explain propulsion, and thus to overcome the drag

problem. Its actually not even needed to understand the amount of the drag. If velocity is

zero, the Drag is zero. So if we simply have some propulsion, then it can produce some

velocity, with any imaginable Drag-factor.

Note that the Orbital speed is the important thing. Axial rotation is only the parameter

which optimizes the Temperature difference between day and night, as the efficiency of a

Thermo dynamical machine is defined with this factor. This concludes that the whole

system is self adjusting machinery, which finally produces a circular orbit, while axial

velocity is only random parameter defined by other factors. So why are the Orbits still

elliptic after so long time? I have some idea, (Heat, oribit-jump) which is explained later,

but not in this paper. There seems to be so huge amount of these other factors, which fit in

to this theory that a book could be written from them. Just to give an example of the depth;

ie. The electricity in the Earths Atmosphere[5], Uranus, and Venus.

4.2.1. Introduction to Energy Problem.

The biggest problem of any Gravitational theory is the Energy.

- The Gravitational Force of Earth is 3.56 x 1022 N

Few concepts are such a confusing, that for clarity they are all explained here;

- The Gravitational potential Energy of Earth is 5.31 x 1033J This is the energy which

could be had If Earth falls to sun.

The Gravitational binding Energy of Earth is 2.24 x 1032J, This is the minimum energy

of explosion in the middle of Earth which could disturb the planet completely. It has

nothing to do with the orbits of planets.

These above are not connected to the Energy problem. Its said that there is no work done

when a planet Orbits, as the Potential Energy remains constant. But there is force,

Gravitational Force, which pushes the planets towards the sun. If this force is not hold

together by mechanical connection like in a rigid body where the connection are made

through the clear atomic attraction, then this Force (F) must do Work, this is Energy and

has to go somewhere. This Work (W) is displacement (s) multiplied by Force. W Fs ,

The question is, what is this displacement.

As we need to calculate the Power too, we choose the time which the planet falls towards

the Sun in a second, then we calculate the centripetal acceleration for Earth through its

mass mearth = 5.972 x 1024 kg, the acceleration is 0.006 m/s2 which means that Earth falls

thus 1.064 x 1020 J/s To Compare; The Energy which sun Provides to Earth, 1.74 x 1017 J/s

This is 611.7 times the power provided to Earth by solar radiation. This is the thermal

problem of the Kinetic theory of gravitation.

But its actually a problem for any theory of gravitation. If such a force is present (as it is!)

the entropy must continually increase. Maxwell repeated this criticism of the Fatio-Lesage

concept many times, so he apparently regarded it as the most damning. Also G.H.Darwin

pointed out at his paper from 1905 that Le Sages theory demands a continual creation of

energy at infinity to supply the gravific machinery. So what I want to point out here, is,

that such a criticism should actually not be pointed against the La Sages theory of Gravity,

but simply against the Newtons claim that such a Gravitational Force exists. It is this very

Force which already has these problems. So to truly understand this, and to be able to solve

this General Entropy-problem, we must find an explanation, which I partially give here, by

explaining how the radioactivity is the mechanism to cope this Entropy problem.

4.2.2. Introduction to the explanation to the Energy Problem; Thermosphere.

Thermosphere is the Layer of Atmosphere in approx 100-1000 km altitude. Particles in

thermosphere are typically at 1400 K temperature. But it varies, and can raise up to 2300 K.

It's claimed, that the heating and variation would be caused by a Solar XUV radiation. This

Total heat input is estimated to be 0.8-1.6 mW/m2. (milliWatt / m2!!) When Kirchoffs law

is applicable, the spectral absorption is equal to spectral emissivity. This simple statement

says, that the total heat output must be also in the same range. Thus the temperature of the

gas should be cooled by the radiation and stay in a balance temperature defined by the total

Heat flux. First I have to estimate the amount of particles in Thermosphere. I tried to

calculate it my self, and found a range of 7x108kg to 3x1013 kg. Or if I use plain wiki for

atmosphere, I found that it would be 0.00003% of 5.14801018 kg also 1.54x1014kg.

This variation is way too big to evaluate anything; range 108 to 1014 is 1 to 1 000 000!

MSIS-E-90 Atmosphere Model is provided by omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov; with this data I did

more accurate analysis. Fist I needed to choose some extreme points to have the most

visible reactions. Most extreme changes in LOD; 12.6.1998 is the end of 1.7 ms

acceleration. (Figure 12 left), The axial tilt, even when corrected, influences the data. Thus

point near equinox, 21.9.1998 is chosen to get clear picture; a point where the acceleration

starts.

time of day, or sun position to make the

observations. For such, I found an

interesting observation from Feynman

Lectures [5]; It shows average daily

variation of the atmospheric potential

gradient on a clear day over the oceans,

Referred to UTC/ Greenwich time.

referred to UTC time.

Figure 14. Axial tilt is roughly corrected,

so that changes are in the Orbital plane.

Please note how the colours describe the

position of the sun.

Yellow is towards, and Blue is away from sun.

Orange is evening and is thus Trailing edge.

Green is the morning, and thus the Leading edge.

- The gases are stratified in space according to their densities; Hydrogen, H; 0.09 g/L ->

Helium, He 0.18 g/L -> Oxygen, O 1.43 g/L

- At the top 700-1000 km is the Lightest gases; H, Hydrogen, has its highest amounts at

night side, And lowest amounts in sun-side. And He, Helium, located as the opposite.

- When we look the range 400-700 km we notice another phenomenon; the lighter gas;

Helium its highest amounts at the morning / Leading edge, and the Heavier oxygen at

evening /Trailing edge.

- Above 400 km, there are practically only single atoms, N2 and O2 remains below.

- Below 300 km, there is practically no difference.

- Below 100 km everything is absolutely constant.

The picture above shows, that there are remarkable changes on the gas amounts, but its not

very easy to read this information from the table above.

I chose some interesting levels; 520 km 620 km- 720 km 1000 km. And made another

diagram from the same data, but now according to sun position;

Figure 15: Thermosphere 19:00 UTC for 12.6.1998, Levels 520-1000, Sun at 12

- Pit and peak for Oxygen at 520 and 620 km height is at 06 and 18.

- Helium makes the counterpart for Oxygen with Peak at 06 and pit at 18.

- Height 720 is transition-zone

- At 860 and 1000 km the peak and Pit for Helium and Hydrogen is at approx 02 14

For comparison the data from 21.9.1998, 04:00 UTC, is presented in Figure 16.

Note how the times for the Morning, Day, evening and night are slightly adjusted.

I observe that Helium goes now approx 200 km higher than on the Figure 14.

To better understand the phenomenon, absolute densities are compared on the Figure 17

Figure 17: Left 12.6.98, 19 UTC and right 21.9.1998, 04 UTC, Absolute densities

in various Heights. Pictures are on scale and not logarithmic. (Thus 2 pics)

I observe how the density varies in order of 3 - 5 times. Thus it needs to be closed out, if

this is temperature related, according to PV=nRT. Figure 18 a, shows that this is not the

case. Also the Temperature is approx 10 % higher at the same time. It should be noted that

Earth is nearest to the Sun at Aphelion at approx 4.7. This means the distance to sun is

greatest. So The Earth is approx 2 500 000 km, or 1.7 % nearer the Sun at 21.9.1998

compared to 12.6.1998.

I can conclude that the density change is not Temperature related, but the pressure and/or

volume should be remarkably higher, as expected by equation PV = nRT, when both n and

T are greater.

What I also observe, is that the daily Temperature difference is bigger. It should be noted

that the cause for this might be the fact that 12.6. data is from 19 UTC and 21.9. is from 04

UTC. To clear this question we compare the 04 UTC temperature to 19 UTC at 21.9.1998

in Figure 18 b.

It seems that there is some, but no remarkable Daily fluctuation in temperature. The shape

of the curve, and also the value remains approximately same. For completeness I compare

the daily fluctuation of the O, He and H according to the sun position. (Figure 19) For full

completeness I add also the values of N in the same table. To maintain readability, I show

only levels 520 km, 620 km and 720 km;

Figure 19: 21.9.1998, Hights 520-620-720 km, O and He, 04-19 UTC;

H, N 19 UTC

My observations;

- N, Nitrogen is there but has very little influence to anything.

- The amplitude is bigger at 19 UTC than 04 UTC

- The density difference can be traced to the smaller amount of H compared to Figure

15; as this must mean an increase in He and O.

- The peaks and pits of these waves are very nicely at 06 (Leading edge) and at 16-17.

The Figure 20 is from 21.9.1998, 19 UTC, it concentrates on O and He, and heights 620 km

660 km-720 km. The view point is below South Pole. Please note that the axial tilt is in

orbital plane as the data is taken at equinox. The yellow dot describes the sun position at 12.

My Observations;

- It becomes absolutely clear how the heavier Oxygen goes behind, and lighter Helium

goes forward; exactly as happens to a Helium-balloon in an accelerating car.

- This concludes that there is a continuous acceleration and drag present in Tangential

direction.

- This closes out the possibility that Earth has orbited 4.5 Mrd Years without propulsion.

- It can be concluded that the Gravity has Observable Energy Problem.

- With this diagram, it can be seen that the density difference shown before, is not

related only for material properties. If this would be the case, the amounts of O and He

should be presented exactly symmetric.

So its time to calculate more precisely the reasons for the Heat.

Practically all the particles at Thermosphere are single atoms. This means that they are not

influenced by the gravity; as its explained by the present knowledge of Gravity.

From this must be concluded that all the interactions above the 100 km limit are happening

according to the kinetic theory. Further all cooling must happen through thermal radiation.

As the particles are (mostly) single atoms the absorptions and emissions are quite limited to

certain wave lengths as shown in Figure 21.

Calculations, Energy provided by Sun at XUV-spectrum;

Radius of Earth r = 6 371 km + Height of Thermosphere 1000 km.

Area of Radiation; 1.7x1014 m2. Power; 0.0012 W/m2, Total; 0.2 TW

Mass 21.9.1998; 140 km -1000 km; 6.16 x1010 kg. Avg. Temperature; 725 K

Roughly the mass is divided as follows;

O, O2; 252 x109 kg, 16 Molecule amount N = 9.5x1035, Heat capacity; 920 J/(kg K)

N, N2; 364 x109 kg; 14 Molecule amount N = 1.56x1036, Heat capacity; 1040 J/(kg K)

He; 35.2x106 kg, 4 Molecule amount N = 5.3x1033, Heat capacity; 5193 J/(kg K)

H; 1.34x106 kg, 1 Molecule amount N = 0.8x1033, Heat capacity; 14304 J/(kg K)

Total Heat capacity; 61.2 x1012 J/K, XUV Radiation power; 0.2 x1012 J/s,

We can calculate ie. that Heating power is 0.003 K/s, or 12 K/hour.

This is simply impossible, as just the temperature variation is up to 40-50 K/hour!

4.2.3. Explanation to the Energy Problem; Gravitational Power.

First, I needed to estimate what is the Neutral temperature of the Space at the distance of

the planet. If some simple assumptions is made, like expected, that every change in the

parameters of the solar system goes in Inverse-square law. Then, using the short info found

from Wikipedia; Temperatures of Interplanetary medium is 200 K at 2.2 AU and 165 K at

3.2 AU. It can easily calculated that at AU 1 the Temperature is 296 K, and at AU 0.4

approx at Mercury, the Temperature is 468 K

With this expectation it could be assumed, that the Gravitational Power heats the

Temperature form the Neutral 300 K to the average levels measured in Thermosphere, i.e.

800 K. From this info the change in heat is; 61.2 x1012 J/K x 500 K = 30.6 x1015 J

If this heating can be considered as a continuous; Then it needs a power of 30 600 TW

If the 1/3 Of the mass between 500-1000 km is heated additional 300 K, means 300 K to

1100 K,; Heat capacity only 0.018% from the total value above, this would need 3.3 TW

Power, which is 15 x times more than the power of XUV-radiation.

It should be noted that this 30 600 TW is already 18% of the total Solar energy to Earth.

This is already more, than is said to be reflected by the whole atmosphere. Thus the source

of this heat simply cant be the Sun. It should be noted that this is still only the first small

sign of the heat produced by gravitational force; Its still only 0.03% of the Heat Calculated

on the Introduction. Even if we calculate with the density at 1000 km, and with height up to

the moon; 380 000 km we still have only 1.7 % of the Heat. But with 760 000 km radius we

already have 13.5%! If we seek the balance, we found that with 4x the radius to moon, we

have the balance; According to my excel this balance is reached at; 1 487 145 km. So it

seems that the heat Problem is really huge problem. But as Earth travels 29.7 km/s, its

not, Earth goes this distance quite exactly in 50 000 seconds; in just 14 hours, and thus

leaves this heat behind very quickly. Though it dont have the capacity to study this stuff

thoroughly, I just cant avoid the Idea, that Moon (and also planets!) is simply the

condensation product of this heat. As the amounts of the moons in various planets also

seems to fit in this theory. See also chapters 5.3.1. and 5.4.

This is not the whole story, actually the Energy problem of Le Sages theory is even bigger.

Above was only calculated the observed change, and the energy needed to make this

change. In reality this theory predicts that everything is bombarded through these particles

from all directions all the time. As its known, the Gravity works perfectly also to the

comets, which are not travelling on orbital plane.

But its not quite so complicated. The atoms of the solar system are of course travelling in

all directions, but they are also colliding to other atoms. Even if the Mean free path of the

molecules would be really high, like 150 Million km; equal the distance from Sun to Earth,

these particles would still collide 100-150 times before they reach the Earth, and 70-120

times, before they reach the first planet; Neptune. This means that the pressure, as

explained by the Kinetic theory, would increase in similar steps together with the

Temperature. The problematic Energy is radiated away long before it even reaches any

planets. But this statement is here only to give an idea about the fact that the Energy

Problem is not such a problem, which closes out this Gravity theory. When I combine the

Energy Problem, with the idea of Radioactivity, its rather so, that the Energy Problem

is not a problem at all, its the cause why there even is any material or mass in the Solar

System!

5. Closing out the doubts.

5.1. Porosity of the material-problem (Wikipedia; Le Sages theory of Gravitation)

A basic prediction of the theory is the extreme porosity of matter. As supposed by Fatio and

Le Sage in 1690/1758 (and before them, Huygens) matter must consist mostly of empty

space so that the very small particles can penetrate the bodies nearly undisturbed and

therefore every single part of matter can take part in the gravitational interaction. This

prediction has been (in some respects) confirmed over the course of the time. Indeed,

matter consists mostly of empty space and certain particles like neutrinos can pass through

matter nearly unhindered. However, the image of elementary particles as classical entities

who interact directly, determined by their shapes and sizes (in the sense of the net structure

proposed by Fatio/Le Sage and the equisized spheres of Isenkrahe/Darwin), is not

consistent with current understanding of elementary particles. The Lorentz/Thomson

proposal of electrical charged particles as the basic constituents of matter is inconsistent

with current physics as well.

Explanation; as concluded by this paper, there is no mass. Thus the needed extreme

porosity of matter is actually even absolute porosity of matter. There is no matter, its only

energy, and it depends only from the wavelength how these energies are interfering and

resonating with other materials. So the principal problem on this idea, which must be

explained, is how does the gravity work in Submarine, in the bottom of the Sea? Or how

does it work in the deep tunnels down the Earth?

The above explained theory of emitting photons actually means, that any particle which is

moving radiates, and the direction of this radiation is backwards from the direction of the

movement. But it also means that the wavelength of this radiation is depends on the

velocity, which can be also described as temperature. Of course most of the particles are

moving with low velocity, which means that most of the radiation must be those with huge

wavelengths, 1 Hz to 30 Hz corresponds for wave lengths of (299 792 458 m) 300 000 km

to 10 000 km. Such wavelengths are able to go through Jupiter. It also seems that the size of

a smallest sun is approximately 2 Hz.

5.2. Introduction for calculating various constants

Maybe there is similar absolute limit for wave length as there is for the speed of light? The

gravitational Coupling constant might give us some light to the issue. I studied this a bit and

realized that the longest wave length might be 1/c2 or 89 875 517 873 681 800 m. But this

seems quite a problematic.

There is so much , 2 , 4 and after implementing this new theory, even 2/3s, not to

forget that we are observing from a moving platform, that we need to add the relativistic

aspects too, that I decided to skip all the old stuff. I am not trying to explain how to

calculate Gravitational coupling constant or Planck constant. As I did to Electron, Proton

and Neutron mass. Instead of that, I make a statement that these all can be found, from the

powers of the speed of light.

c 299792458

1 / c 3.336 10 9

c 2 8.988 1016

1 / c 2 1.113 10 17

c 3 2.694 10 25

1 / c 3 3.711 10 26

c 4 8.078 1033

1 / c 4 1.238 10 34

5.2.1 Age of the Universe

Ie. The age of the universe is somehow funny number, as after this study I dont believe

to any Big Bang, and thus the age would be simply the maximum time which we can see

to the past. And the true age could be infinite. This age is now defined to be some

13.8 109 years At this time light travels approximately 1.3 1026 m which is logically

3

4.845 c3 , so with

4.71 factor, we are already in the +/- 3% range, or other vice

2

9

said the age 13.4 10 years But this is just playing with numbers, and doesnt bring

3

anything. I have no explanation why this would be so. Maybe its simply 2c , then I could

say that volume has its 4th dimension; time, and of course we se the time only as it

returns, so it must be 2-times. So c Yes, its plausible. But 3 / 2 ; -Why? I dont know.

Maybe someone has just calculated it this much wrong.

3

Reduced Planck constant, is already divided with 2 , its unit is Js kg

m2

s is

s2

almost Ok, as the extra second may become from frequency, the mass is c and the velocity

is already there; so I would expect it to be x

1

where x=0.85 This 0.85 could be then

c4

explained with many things, but I see that the basic logic is this.

5.2.3 Gravitational coupling constant

This is really crazy. a mess. But I take a shot, maybe I hit, though probably not. The

reason why I do this is that it gives the Idea about the gravity. It helps us to think. So just

shut your eyes from the horrifying mess of units which this Damn-number provides;

G 666 10 13

m3

m2

13

N

666

10

kgs 2

kg 2

To have some Humor, I just rounded it up to 666 & ^-13, but this should not afraid any true

scientists, as they are just numbers.

So what is this all about? The idea is, that the If I think that its the weakest possible

photons, which have the biggest wave lengths by definition, which are responsible for the

2

gravity? And as all photons are 2 dimensional; or 1+time dimensional. So I want to use c .

and I should some how get this number

1 / 310,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 3.217 10 42

2

16

2

17

through c 8.988 10 or 1 / c 1.113 10 Though it sounds easier to start with

1 / c 2 I take the c 2 and assume that it defines the longest wave length of photon, The

hc

, and so I have a nice number like;

energy of this is photon is thus E

1 / 452,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 2.210 10 42

And I see that I could correct out number with just factor 1.455 or 0.687; means almost

with just the 2/3 rule, but this is not the problem! I am still actually about

13

But I still havent used the damn number, so I take the damn number; G 666 10

and I dived The number with it, and my numerology lies on;

2.210 10 42

/ 1.238 10 34 267.50

G

***humor*** This multiplied by 1.2 gives me then a countdown 321.00 ***humor***

2

It seems that through the biggest wave length is c -something analogy I do got somehow

the correct range. If we look the Equation (2) we note that we should use 6 , so when we

2

calculate 267.5 / 6 4.517 We are really close. And though it might be enjoyable to

2

play with Stuff like e 264.785 I will stop this play here, as it would probably only

confuse. Though support for using e can be found from Plancks law or from Wien

4

approximation, not to forget the Rayleigh-Jeans law, which proposes the usage of 1 / and

4

as

2v

16 4v 4

So I just expect, that measurements are correct, and thus the maximum wave length is in

order

This wavelength fits i.e. with factor 40x to the size of milky way, having thus some

similarities in the Chapter 4.2.3. Observations I made about the moon and the 4x radius of

heat absorption. So I stop this Philosophical discussion and those who wants to continue

with working with these kind of questions and ask But how is the exact constant-x

calculated, I just show the Feynman lectures I-38-6 or III-2-6 And I simply try to found

my ability to go forward by simply predicting something through Ideas.

Like what this wavelength actually is?! Do we even know what we are trying to define?

5.3 Double-slit experiment [6]

I have an Idea about why the Double split experiment behaves like it does. So gravity is

waves, and these long waves penetrate the most of the material. The double slit experiment

is (mostly) not made in vacuum, and certainly not in quantum-vacuum, as such might not

even exist. Its quite difficult to imagine how I could prevent some wave lengths size of

Jupiter. So these waves cant be prevented, but they are still interacting with material and

diffracted. This interaction is still wavelength dependent. So the opened second slit simply

passes through these longer wavelengths, and thus there is synchronised interference from

these longer Gravity waves present. This is not the case with one slit open. See Figure 22.

The second slit aloud some radio waves to go through and to catch and carry these electrons

on their way to detector. This theory could be proved by adding another detector to the

detector which detects also these longer wave lengths. They must be there even without

electrons. To save some time, its reasonable to search only wave lengths that fit to the

particle, i.e. with Hydrogen search for 1420.405751786 MHz. Or maybe the cyclotron

resonance, the small angle change in slit might be important too.

Any how this experiment is actually the independent proof for the Quantum Kinetic

Gravity, but it would be inacceptable to claim it as the sole proof. Thus its left in such a

minor role in this paper, as its explanation is finally as simple as that.

The Wall causes interference to these waves. The slit doesnt. When just one slit is open,

these waves are synchronised with the particles. Of course there are also other waves,

which are not synchronized with the particles, but these waves dont interact with the

particles. When the second slit is open, these synchronized waves have two sources, and as

they do interact, the particles are carried witht them and thus they are also detected as

shown in Figure 22-c.

5.3.1 Wave pattern from the double-slit experiment

So I want to look closer this wave pattern from Figure 22-c. Look Figure 23.

So we have a sort of Kelvin Wave with one slit, and Rossby Wave with double slit.

The wake of a boat is like Kelvin wave. This gives me an Idea, that this interference of

Quantum kinetic Gravity could be tested with Double pole experiment, sort of a

negative wall arrangement compared to the double slit experiment.

On the right diagram of Figure 23 I added red lines, and numbers, and green numbers to

visualize the results. Note that the Y-axle is not counts/s (amount) but Volts, and describes

thus intensity. We see that (red numbers) wave Amplitudes U goes by the rule

1

3

U 2 U 3 3U 4 and thus also U 3 2U 4 which might continue U n x n 3

2

2

So we have Equations;

U

2

3

U 2 U 3 3U 4 or 2 U 3 U 4 and

(6)

3 3

2

1

(7)

U n x n 3

2

Equation 7 supports the usage of e in the numerology practiced while guessing the math

behind gravitational coupling constant. And Equation 6 is quite the same as the Eq. 5.

As the Mathematic behind this is quite complicated, I active try to simplify this as much as

I can and I thus avoid such equations, as was seen in Wien approximation. I rather want to

understand this completely, and not just approximately. So if I just look the right side of

figure 23 further, and I make following conclusions;

- 3 high peaks in the middle covering the wavelength 3

- having 4 pits; green numbers 1 and 2

As such must be universal, I test them with something. I take one solar-system (my own),

and see if it follows these rules.

The radius of sun, And then the distances to the planets. Short play with excel, and I have

the following table;

r (m)

4x r

Sun

6.957E+08 2782800000

1/3 & 2/3,

r / 4xrr/r-sun

sun

Mercury 5.815E+10

83.6

20.9

18.96 1/3

Venus

1.073E+11

154.3

38.6

37.93 2/3

Earth

1.491E+11

214.3

53.6

56.89 2/3

Mars

2.266E+11

325.8

81.4

85.33 1/3

Jupiter 7.753E+11

1114.4

278.6

256

Saturn

1.422E+12

2044.5

511.1

512

Uranus 2.866E+12

4119.0

1029.8

1024

Neptune 4.482E+12

6442.1

1610.5

1536

From this table I can make following observations (error %);

- Radius of Venus is ~ 2/3 compared to Earths radius. (-9.3%)

- Mercurys ~1/3 compared to Earths radius. (-1.7%)

- Radius of Earth is ~2/3 from Mars (+6.2%)

- Radius of Mars is ~1/3 from Jupiters Theoretical 256-radius. (+4.8%)

- Jupiter is located closely (-8.1%) by the Equation 7

- Saturn is located exactly (+0.2%) by the Equation 7

- Uranus is located exactly (-0.6%) by the Equation 7

- Neptune is not quite by the rules; Radius 3xJupiter, (-4.7%)

It shout be noted that this is highly simplified calculation, and it should be first carefully

studied what is the nominal amplitude and wavelength of this solar-system. I.e. the error of

Earth would be just 1.3%, if the 2/3 is calculated from the True value of mars, instead of

being 2/9 of the theoretical value of Jupiter. And if we calculate the Venus from true value

of Earth, instead of being 4/27 of the theoretical value of Jupiter, we have an error; -7.4%.

It would be reasonable to do the same exercise to the atom model, i.e. to Bohr-model. But I

rather leave this fun to some one else.

5.4. Gravitational waves

This chapter is added after 11.2.2016, as the Observation of Einstein Gravitational waves

were published. I just want to conclude that there are no gravitational waves. They are

photons, or electromagnetic waves. Other vice these observations simply supports the views

presented in this paper. This supports the idea, where Planets and moons are growing in

these waves. So rings of Saturn and Jupiter might be the place to make more observations

about this issue

6. Consequences of this theory

This is a Philosophical question. What changes through this theory? The answer is quite

simple; Nothing changes! But some one might say that this theory shows that Newton was

wrong, as there is no mass. But what is mass. Its finally nothing else than a word in

our heads. And the true meaning of mass is exactly the meaning which we give to this

word in our own heads, nothing more and nothing less. We can only change the way we

think. And this new way of thinking does open us new possibilities. But these possibilities

have been there all the time. And its only our old thinking which has limited us from

taking an advance from these possibilities. Even today, some people think world is flat. Is

this even wrong, as most of the people arent never able to travel the needed 10 000 km

from home to the edge.

6.1 SI-units, without mass

This all has some quite dramatic consequences; I.e. the need to redefine all the SI-units to

mass-less units. So I make a proposal how this could be done, based on the definitions of

the current SI base units. As the Caesium Cs, is on the base of time, the units are named

xCs-units. as its not practicable to destroy all the presently used units, the system is tried to

been build in away that the current measurement system can be preserved as it is, and only

the Mass will be redefined such a method, which is not based on a prototype.

Time; T

1 sCs; The Duration of 1 periods of the radiation corresponding to the

transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the

caesium 133 atom.

sCs

1

s

9 192 631 770

Length; L

1

s 0.0326122557174941 m

9 192 631 770

And thats it! There wont be any other basic units needed! All the rest can be calculated

through these two units. Note that the Force just must be recalculated through Strength; Y

Mass; M

Ampere; I

Kelvin;

mole; N

calculated through Force, Mass; Force divided by Acceleration.

Defined through Force.

Can be defined through Stefan-Boltzmann law and with speed of

light.

Is defined through the mass; But as there is no mass, this should

be defined as a plain amount.

candela; J

defined as a plain amount of photons. Ie. a mole of photons

radiating with wavelength 1 mCs.

As it must be somehow confusing, to define the units without a mass, but its actually very

simple, we actually need only;

Strength; Y

v 2 ar mCs

sCs 2

2

Elementary charge, e v ar , which actually shows, that it might

be even possible to define also length and even time through this

elementary charge. Thus, before implementing any new units as

proposed above, this possibility must be investigated thoroughly. At

least it is obvious that elementary charge can be defined through

Strength; or Strength through elementary charge. The Fine structure

constant, Strength / Field = 1, but the needed Energies, to produce

Strength is 1 e and to produce Field is 2 e, when the energy is

conventionally defined with the mass.

This would give an easy way to define mass;

2e

Mass , which

c2

charges, if e is defined with Y.

The rule of this all is; ETotal 3e , Emass 2e

7. Conclusions

7.1 Physical conclusions.

Its easy to proof if a theory is wrong, as the reasons for this are mostly found immediately.

But we cant actually never proof that some theory is right. The rightness of any theory is

hold mostly through our own incapability to prove it wrong. This aloud me to claim

(assuming that I havent made a mistake, and this theory is immediately proved wrong) that

I am still not proving any theory wrong. I am just expanding them. With just few new

definitions. And thats all there is. Even if this becomes as THE Theory Of Everything. Its

only a theory, and It doesnt change anything in the Reality. It only changes our capability

to understand the reality. The physical conclusions of this, is that we may now better

understand where the limits of our possibilities actually are.

7.2 Practical conclusions.

We can still calculate with mass, its even practical to do so. The basic physics teaching can

also remain as it is. Making it too complicated, would only isolate more people outside the

science. 15% of the Adult Population of the world cant even read. So maybe; 30% cant do

math with multiplication and 50 % cant do Algebra 60% exponential function. 80 %

doesnt understand the physics of Newton. 95% doesnt understand the Physics of Einstein.

I remind that 5% from 7000 Million is still 350 Million! 99.5% of the world Population

doesnt understand the basics of QED. So If I am going to claim to this paper changes

something. I, myself dont understand too much of the reality.

So, as said before, the fact that a lot of people think that world is a flat, and doesnt rotate,

as i.e. Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari announced year ago, doesnt mean they are wrong, as

according to their own ability to think, they are right, completely right. And there is nothing

we have to do for this. Its not such a problem which needs to be solved. Its actually a

problem which even cant be solved. What practical usage some poor boy in some jungle

has for knowledge that the world is round? He can never travel the needed 10 000 km

which would make the difference in his reality. Of course if you pay his travel, he can do it

but if you dont pay, such a problem is not only solved, but even better it doesnt even exist.

So its not wrong to say world is flat and it doesnt rotate and the sun goes around it. Its

just more simple description of the same thing. And the only thing we need to do is to let

these creatures live their life peacefully where they are in. We should not disturb them with

technical challenges over their abilities. Of course we could produce an I-Pad, which would

be enjoyable to dogs, but our ability to do this doesnt make us responsible to buy an I-pad

for every dog in the world. Or even to send these dogs to school to learn this stuff. We can

do it to our own pet-dog. But that will be our pet. And it doesnt mean the dog-society

should be mixed with our society. Dogs are living in they own universe, and so be it.

Richard Feynman said it well in The QED Lecture at University of Auckland, New

Zealand, 1979

And then theres the kind of thing which you dont understand. Meaning "I dont

believe it, its crazy, its the kind of thing I wont accept. Eh. The other part well this

kind, I hope youll come along with me and youll have to accept it because its the

way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works, we looked at it,

carefully, ha? Thats the way it works. You dont like it, go somewhere else! To

another universe! Where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more

psychologically easy. I cant help it! OK! If Im going to tell you honestly what the

world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to

understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like. And I cannot make it any simpler,

Im not going to do this, Im not going to simplify it, and Im not going to fake it. Im

not going to tell you its something like a ball bearing inside a spring, it isnt. So Im

going to tell you what it really is like, and if you dont like it, thats too bad.

Albert Einstein is claimed to said We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking

if mankind is to survive. And here you have it. Lets just stop forcing any truths to other

people. If they dont like something; thats too bad and we might just say as Feynman;

You dont like it, go somewhere else! To another universe! with just a small

adjustment; creatures whose world is flat, must just stay on their flat world, until they learn

and work the things out themselves; You dont like this? No problem. Pls. just stay on

your own universe! and if you die on hunger, thats too bad and I cant help it! OK!

Henry Ford said it politely; If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing,

you're right.

The logical consequence of this is, that any incoming migration should be tested by simply

IQ tests. And the people should be able to reach more than the average, or then just stay on

their own universe and try improving it. Another logical consequence of this idea is, that

the best way improving our own universe is the Swiss-kind Direct Democracy.

Jouni Jokela, Frutigen, Switzerland 11.2.2016

References;

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Feynman lectures on physics II-28

Feynman lectures on physics I-15-1

Analysis of Gamma Radiation from a Radon Source: Indications of a Solar Influence

Feynman lectures on physics II-9-2

Feynman lectures on physics III

Feynman Lectures on physics I-10-5, I-12-2 and I-15-9

- January - Thoughts for LifeUploaded byFrancois du Toit
- Unit 5 Physics Nuclear Decay QuestionsUploaded byareyouthere92
- Alpha Beta Gamma Nuclear Decay Activity SheetUploaded byArlo Rivas
- CH11SB026Uploaded byQuach Pham Thuy Trang
- Chemistry 2nd QuarterUploaded byAmica Dela Cruz
- Lab Manual Radioactivity_Gamma decayUploaded byFiroz Khan
- MME309 Lectures FirstUploaded byBiodun Bisiriyu
- RADIOACTIVEUploaded byLittle Zi Ling
- Edexcel GCSE Physics 2011 Topics P3.2 and P3.3 test 15_16 with mark schemeUploaded byPaul Burgess
- 0625_w13_qp_23Uploaded byAsha D'sa
- Principle of Structural GeologyUploaded bydenimentos
- Simulation of Radio Active DecayUploaded byCyrene MBolaños
- Telling Geologic TimeUploaded byDavid Alexander Cuellar Montoya
- 6ht929jcbx89j preatomicUploaded bywilliamtopping
- 2009 cbse pmt 2Uploaded byRahul
- 11physics2-130508121354-phpapp01Uploaded byHenri
- etovos.pdfUploaded bysumit11235
- Microsoft Word - C18 PS1a.docUploaded byabcdelolol
- BiologyUploaded byelle
- Cape Chemistry U1 P2 2015Uploaded byNaomiKerryaThompson
- Name Two Sources of Natural BackgroundUploaded bytharanga
- Physics Papers 2000 - CSS ForumsUploaded byMansoor Ali Khan
- RadioactivityUploaded byUmesh Patil
- Alpha 4Uploaded byirenellemedalla
- nuclear decay wsUploaded byapi-252900678
- MGH CP MinitestUploaded by0hitk0
- Chapter 1hahaUploaded byBro Mochi
- WM_General Science Part 3Uploaded bynitesh
- 12.pdfUploaded byl34ngle
- CommunicationUploaded byTnrei Ramu

- Assignment 2 EW18Uploaded byYuna Ika Dewi
- journal131_article10Design and Construction of a Motorized Tricycle for Physically Challenged PersonsUploaded byBhausaheb Botre
- Photovoltaic PvUploaded byabosheeba
- Final Year project (thesis)Uploaded byMisgates
- Biggles in 'the Turkey'Uploaded byapi-3701253
- How to Read AusGrid PlansUploaded byBin Chen
- Nwr Brochure Noaa Pa 94062Uploaded bywoodman99
- Indian Electronics and It IndustryUploaded byPrince Satish Reddy
- DoDIT AcquisitionUploaded byAre Bee
- Begin Excel 2002Uploaded byrussgoom
- GuestOS GuideUploaded byvenki00
- BS 5000-11Uploaded byJeff Anderson Collins
- electro static charge in gen rotorUploaded bymontanad
- _4 Gauge Fixture StandardsUploaded byeldibujante
- Pool,Car,Policy, ,March,2018 DECEMBERUploaded byRiyaz Basheer
- STEAM DISTRIBUTIONUploaded bymohsen2000m
- IS 3370_1Uploaded byUmesh Chikhlikar
- SAP SD Functional Analyst ResumeUploaded bydavinku
- Archana Inf.docUploaded byShiva CH
- 12 test SEUploaded byHâm Giai Đoạn Cuối
- 7th-sem-web-programming-lab-viva-questions-and-answers.pdfUploaded bySWATHI ACHARYA 105
- En Matrox MuraControl Windows User GuideUploaded byNope
- MX80 3D Universal Edge Router Hardware GuideUploaded bymrx
- Yaswanth Resume.Uploaded bynagaraju1234567
- HempShive PresentationUploaded byNabeelAhmed
- Inst 09-2aCOURS.pptUploaded byAshfaaqDargaye
- Iran Reyes Fleitas CV InglesUploaded byIránReyesFleitas
- iTN2100 Datasheet 130823Uploaded byJuan
- textreadrUploaded byVikram Venkataramanan
- DBACUploaded byovelho