Energy Evolution Program

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Gravity – As Viewed Through the Radius (VC)

 It is perfectly possible to produce a negative gravitational field between the earth and a given object on or near its surface by the proper application of moving electric charges.  Such a field would be effective only with respect to the given object. All other matter in the vicinity would remain  within the positive portion of the curve.

Quantum Gravity Unification of Strong Nuclear Force

Nassim Haramein’s and  E.A. Rauscher’s work present an alternative and more precise mathematical view of our micro to macro reality than does the Standard Model of Physics. You will note the strong implications of this more mathematicaly precise view of the universe ties in directly with the ancient symbols passed down through history.


Dual Torus 4 Blackhole / Yin & Yang merger

As with ALL natural laws  (i.e., space-time-mass-mater-energy-gravity) let us now add the CURVE to the law of gravity. It will be noted the same conclusions presented by StarSteps have been derived independently by Haramein/ Rauscher. The foundation for both can be seen arising from Walter Russell’s theories.


Haramein / Rauscher models add clarification details of the vacuum,  opening the doors to unlimited energy access at any point.  


StarSteps adds the application measurement vehicle, the “Radius”, to the non-linearity of physical law and demonstrates precisely, the ‘relativity’ of total interdependence, interrelationships, between the natural laws – the changing of any one or more laws directly affects and causes changes to the others.


And as Haramein / Rauscher derived through separate calculations the equivalence of LIGHT (VC) to MASS, StarSteps shows Light (VC)’s equivalence to mass as ‘the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter’, demonstrating precisely why Light (VC) also turns out to be the Radius of Curvature of All Natural Law . (The Quantity C to be detailed in the next post)


Gravity – As Viewed Through the Radius (VC)

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to man's achievement of his dream of space travel has been a factor which has been given the name of Gravity. Its 'discovery' is usually credited, in elementary school text books, to a seventeenth century mathematician and physicist, Sir Isaac Newton. Actually, of course, every man 'discovers' gravity soon after birth; and the stone age man who first rolled a boulder down upon the head of the cave bear who was attempting to scramble up the cliff after him, was making a practical application of this force. It was, however, Sir Isaac Newton who first made a complete mathematical analysis of the subject. His conclusions were compatible with subsequent observation and test, and were virtually unchallenged until the dawn of the era of relativity.

 In brief, his conclusions were that gravity is a quality which is inherent in all matter, and that it manifests itself as a mutual attraction between all bodies of matter. The value of this attraction between any two given bodies was said to be directly proportionate to the product of their mass, and inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between them.

The attraction between the earth and an object near its surface is an example of this force, although it is usually described as being the 'weight' of the object.

 The difficulty with the statement that the force varies inversely as the square of the distance lies in the implication that if the distance becomes zero, the force should, become infinite. Thus it would at first seem that a man standing or lying upon the surface of the earth would be one of two bodies between whom the distance was zero, therefore, the weight of the man should be infinitely great. The reply to this assumption is that the force acts as though it originated at the center of the mass, called the 'center of gravity', and that the man on the surface of the earth is still some four thousand miles from its center of gravity. This explanation, however, creates a new problem in that, if we accept it literally, we must assume that if there were a well or shaft extending to the center of the earth, and if a man descended this shaft, his weight would increase as he approached the center of gravity, becoming infinite as he reached it. Actually, of course, his weight would decrease, becoming zero when his center of gravity coincided with that of the earth. So we are forced to the further explanation that gravity is inherent, not in 'bodies', but in particles of matter, and since a man at the center of the earth would have an equal number of particles attracting him from every direction, the resultant of the forces would be zero.

 If we assume the gravity to reside independently within each atom, our problem is solved as far as the man and the earth are concerned, but if we look within the atom itself in the attempt to find the point where the distance becomes zero, and the force infinite, we find that the same problem again confronts us. We have not solved it, we have only changed our scale of observation. There is conclusive evidence that the attraction, called the binding energy, which exists between the Newtonian particles, (the protons and the neutrons) is intense almost beyond our ability to describe. This force, however, does not increase uniformly with increasing mass, but at certain points not only reaches zero but actually becomes negative.

 We can demonstrate this fact by adding a single unit of Newtonian mass, a neutron, to the nucleus of an atom of Uranium 235. When this is done, we find that the gravitational force within the nucleus, instead of increasing actually becomes negative, that is, the attraction between its parts becomes a repulsion, and the parts begin to separate with considerable brisance. During the expansion, however, several new centers of gravity are formed, which, because of the smaller amount of mass involved in each, are strongly positive. The result is that two or more simpler atoms are formed, plus a few neutrons which have acquired too great a velocity to be captured by this regrouping process.

 In most text books, this phenomenon is described as the 'splitting' of the atom. There is an implication that it is the 'impact', or the kinetic energy of the neutron which causes the atom to split. If this were true, then obviously, a high speed neutron would split the atom more easily and surely than one with much lower speed. Actually, the opposite situation is true. The high speed neutron will not split the uranium atom at all. It must be slowed to thermal velocity so that it can settle into the nucleus before fission occurs.

 Occasionally a neutron will be captured by a uranium atom, without falling directly into the nucleus. The neutron may orbit the nucleus for a very long time (as time is counted in nuclear physics), perhaps several seconds or even minutes. Eventually the neutron drops into the nucleus, and 'delayed fission' occurs, again demonstrating the fact that it is not the impact of the neutron, but its presence in the nucleus, which results in its expansion.

 The expansion and subsequent condensation into several simpler atoms is a completely random process.  Many simpler types of atom can, and do result from the condensation, in each case however, the smaller atoms cannot contain as many neutrons in proportion to the number of protons as the larger atom, so there are always several neutrons left over.

 This phenomenon, if carefully examined and considered, will furnish several strong clues to the nature of gravity itself, but let us for the moment, content ourselves with the observation that it demonstrates that a gravitational field can, under certain conditions, become negative.

 Because of the manner in which our gravitational laws have been expressed, it has commonly been assumed that a gravitational force can manifest itself only as an attraction between two bodies of matter.  This is not, however, a necessity of thought, since there is no logical reason why it should necessarily be true: In fact if it were true, it would set gravitational fields apart as the only force fields with which we are familiar which could not produce a repulsion, as well as an attraction between bodies of matter. The reason for the assumption of a universal attraction is simply that all of our early and limited observations seemed to indicate that this was true. However, as we have already mentioned, any number of observations, if made on a sufficiently limited scale, will tend to indicate that the earth is flat, rather than spherical.

 For many years a school of thought existed which recognized that gravitational fields, like all other fields, must possess a duel polarity.  They called these poles, gravity and levity. They assumed that some objects and materials normally possessed the quality of gravity, while others normally possessed the quality of levity. An object possessing levity would be repelled by all objects possessing gravity. The theory eventually became discredited, and was almost universally discarded, not because it was ever disproved, but because so many attempts had been made to assign this quality of levity to objects and materials which did not actually possess it.

For instance it was, for a time, assumed that gases such as hydrogen and helium possessed levity because when they were contained in a light bag or envelope, they were observed to rise against the gravitational field. It was soon demonstrated, however that their rise was caused, not by any quality of levity, but simply because of the fact that their specific gravity was less than that of the air they displaced. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to assign the quality of levity to specific   materials or objects, the theory fell into disrepute to the extent that the very word levity has become synonymous with humorous nonsense. Nevertheless, the philosophers who developed the theory were perfectly correct in their primary postulate. They erred only in failing to realize that gravity and levity are not properties of specific materials but are conditions under which all matter may come.

 We have now observed negative gravitation in the microcosm (the interior of the atom), we also observe it in the macrocosm, (between the galaxies).

 Many technical articles have been written in recent years concerning "Our Expanding Universe," yet where, in any of them, can we find any logical explanation or reason why it should expand at all? Under the theory of universal attraction, all of the matter in the universe should be rapidly coalescing into one gigantic lump. Instead, we find that every one of the large groups of stars which we call galaxies is rapidly retreating from every other group, at velocities which increase with their distance from the observer. Velocities of recession exceeding 25,000 miles per second have been calculated.

 A number of interesting but hardly convincing theories have been advanced in the attempt to reconcile the observed state of the universe with the existing concept of universal attraction. Some of our cosmic theorists have proposed that at one time all of the matter in the universe was contained in a single tremendous star, or 'atom'. For some reason, which is not given, this atom exploded, hurling outward the matter which has become the star clusters, and imparting to them the motion which we now observe, several billions of years later. This theory, first propounded by Abbe Lemaitre, has become known in colloquial parlance, as "The big bang theory". It becomes apparent that such a theory will not stand up if examined under the existing concept of linear natural laws. In the first place, such an inconceivably huge mass of matter, even at the very great temperature which was assumed for it, would, under Newtonian laws, produce a gravitational field so intense that no velocity less than that of light itself would be an 'escape' velocity. In fact it has been calculated that even the light emitted by this huge sun would not escape completely, but would circle in a comparatively small orbit about it. Through the concept of the curvature of physical law, however, we see that the addition of mass to an existing body does not, necessarily, increase the force of attraction between its parts, but may, under certain conditions, cause the field to become negative, and the attraction to become a repulsion. We can explain the observed actions of the present universe by postulating that an attraction exists between the individual bodies within a galaxy, because their total mass and distance is such that they are within the positive portion of the gravitation curve with respect to each other. In the vast spaces between the galaxies however, the curve dips below the zero line with the result that a repulsion exists between the galaxies themselves.  This also explains why matter, although rather evenly distributed throughout the known universe, is not distributed uniformly, but found in quite similar concentrations at comparatively regular distances.

 At this point we hear someone say, "These explanations may be very interesting to the astronomer or to the theoretical physicist, but how can they help us in locating and utilizing gravitation's opposite field effect?" The answer is, of course, that we must have some understanding of the physical laws before we can make the proper use of them in attaining our own personal ambitions.

In his dream of space travel, man has generally considered only three possibilities of escaping from the earth. First, gravity must be destroyed. That is, the operation of the gravitational field must cease between the space craft and the earth, so that it will not hinder the departure of the craft. While a number of highly imaginative stories have been written along this line of thought, no theory has ever been evolved, or test conducted which could give us any hope that such a condition can be achieved.

 Despairing of the first possibility, we pass on to the second. Gravity must be shielded. Some type of screening material must be interposed between the craft and the earth to cut off or absorb the gravitational field so that while it still exists, it will no longer act upon the craft. Here again we have found imagination raising our hopes, and reality disappointing, for no material has been discovered which shows any promise of fulfilling such a function. With our hopes considerably subdued, we pass on to the third possibility. Gravity must be overcome.  We must apply a greater force, so that we can rise against the pull of gravity, even though we must pay an exorbitant tribute of energy for each foot of progress. In this last plan, we have achieved a certain degree of success. Rocket motors have fought and struggled their way upward against the implacable, if impersonal, pull of the earth's gravitational field, crawled their way into orbit, some snailed to the moon (i.e. 'snail's pace'), and a few have inched their way to the outer reaches of the solar system with a time count of years.  It does not appear however, that the proper solution has yet been achieved.

 When man attempts to attain his ends by pitting one natural law against another, he usually finds that it is a wasteful and laborious process. While it is true that it is perfectly possible to propel a rowboat by throwing rocks from the stern, it is not a method which an intelligent man would choose if he were aware of other possibilities. In the first place, the thrown rock must accelerate, not only the boat, but all the rocks which remain to be thrown. If a long journey were planned, the greatest problem would be to find enough room in the boat to store the required number of rocks. Since the thrust produced is equal to the mass of the rock multiplied by the velocity of the ejection, it is obvious that there are three limiting factors. First, there is the total mass of the available rocks, which is limited by the size of the boat which contains them. Second, there is the total amount of energy available. (This is a factor only because we have so little understanding of the true nature of energy.) The third, and at the present time the most serious factor, is the limited mechanical strength of the throwing arm.

In a rocket motor, the 'rocks' are represented by a gas produced by combining or 'burning' the fuels within the combustion chamber.  The gas, at a high temperature and pressure, is expelled through an opening or 'venturi' in the stern. Since the amount of fuel is limited by the size of the rocket, the only means of increasing the total thrust is to increase the velocity of ejection, but this can only be accomplished by increasing the temperature and pressure of the gas within the combustion chamber. Regardless of the amount of energy which is available, the amount of thrust which can be produced is limited by the ability of the chamber to withstand the temperatures and pressures involved. Since these limits are reached and often exceeded, by ordinary chemical energies, it is clear that the vastly greater energies available in nuclear reactions are, at the present time at least, of academic interest only to the rocket engineer. In the case of craft which remained in our atmosphere, of course, more ‘rocks’ could be taken aboard while in flight, by scooping up the atmosphere through which the ship was traveling, and allowing the surplus energy to act upon it. In space flight, however, this is not possible, and it is hardly likely that the efficiency of the rocket motor can be increased sufficiently in the near future to permit of practical or economical space travel.

Attempts are being made to overcome this problem through the concept of the 'Ionic' or the 'Photonic' drive, in which ions or photons are used as the 'rocks' to be thrown overboard. Ions and photons have a basic advantage over atoms or molecules in that they achieve much higher velocities without the necessity of higher temperatures or pressures. This was in the 1960's. Apparently, great obstacles to the embodiment of these concepts in practical devices still exist.

 Actually, the rocket has been obsolete for centuries. There has not been a single basic advance in the rocket concept since the year 1214 A.D., when the invading hordes of Genghis Khan were met by the military ordnance rockets of the Chinese defenders in their walled cities, more than seven hundred years ago. True, we have produced stronger combustion chambers, we have improved slightly the shape of the venturi, and we have developed fuels with considerably higher specific impulse, but we have done nothing to advance the basic concept. We are still propelling our boat by throwing rocks over the stern.

 Men now living will stand upon the surface of Mars and Venus, but they will not go there in a rocket. There are better and simpler ways.

 It is time to reexamine our position to see if there is not something we have overlooked. Have we forgotten the old saying, "If you can't lick 'em join 'em?"  

We have tried for centuries to `lick' the force of gravity. We have tried to destroy it, and failed. We have searched for some method of shielding ourselves from its effect. We have not discovered it. We have attempted to overcome it by opposing it with superior force, and found it a wasteful and cumbersome process. Isn't it about time we gave up the idea of fighting the force of gravity, and began to consider the possibilities of making use of it?

 We have learned that gravity, like all natural factors, has a negative, as well as a positive value. If after building our space craft, we could arrange conditions so that the ship was in the negative portion of the gravitational curve, it would fall away from the earth as easily and as naturally as a stone dropped from a tower falls toward the earth.

Of course, we hear at once the objection that, while negative gravitational fields have been shown to exist, they have been found only within the atom and at inter-galactic distances. How can we place a space ship within the negative portion of the curve, with respect to the earth? The answer to this question lies in the fact that, as we have already learned, the natural laws are not absolute, but relative. That is, the size and shape of the curve of one law is dependent upon the value and position of the others. We have seen that the nucleus of the atom of uranium 235 dips below the zero line with the addition of only one mass unit, making a total of 236, yet the nucleus of the atom of uranium 238, although close to the zero line is still on the positive side of the curve because of the fact that the shape of the gravitational curve is modified not only by the mass present but also by the number and position of the electrical charges.

 Lest someone charge us with ignorance by pointing out that there are the same number of electrons (92) in each of these atoms, we will make haste to state that we refer not only to the charges in the outer shell of the atom but to those within as well, and especially to the fact, not always realized, that the neutron possesses both a positive and a negative charge, although when united within the neutron they are not discernible as charges, but exist as energy which produces the gravitational field .

 When we acquire a better understanding of the laws, we will be able to produce any shape of curve we desire, with the earth as one reference point and the spacecraft as the other.

 Suppose you were to hand a bar magnet and a similar bar of soft iron to a man who was intelligent, but uneducated, with the request that he examine and test the two objects in order to determine their properties. One of the properties which the researcher would be certain to list would be the 'inherent' property of mutual attraction between the two objects. He would observe that when either end of one bar was approached either end of the other bar, a condition of attraction was observed.  He would probably conclude that the attraction was an inherent quality of these objects, and that it would continue to persist regardless of anything which could be done.

 We know, of course, that if a length of insulated wire were wound around the soft iron bar, and flow of electrons were induced in the winding, the two bars could be made to exhibit a repulsion as readily as an attraction. Note that in this case we have not destroyed the field of the permanent magnet, we have not shielded the field, nor have we overcome it. We have simply produced a field which is in opposition to it, or to state the case more concisely, we have polarized the field, by placing one end of the soft iron bar within the negative portion of the magnetic curve with respect to each end of the permanent magnet which is already so polarized.

 The same possibility exists with respect to gravitational fields except that the results are not obtained in quite the same way. It is not too difficult, however, to work out means of polarizing a gravitational field, once we discard the old assumption that it is impossible.


 To sum up as concisely as possible, the conclusions reached in our discussion of the factor of nature which we call gravity, we will propose the following corrections and additions to the gravitational theory as it is now commonly taught.

 1. The law of gravity is not a linear law but follows a curve common to all factors of nature.

 2. The gravitational field does not diminish precisely as the square of the distance as Newton believed, but because of the curvature of natural law, it diminishes normally at a slightly greater rate so that it reaches zero value, not at infinity as is usually supposed, but at a finite distance or degree of separation. Beyond this distance or degree of separation the force becomes negative.

 3. We can define a gravitational field as negative when the application of the factor called time tends to increase the degree of separation between any two reference points in the factor called matter.

 4. The value of the gravitational field at any given point is controlled by the values of the other factors of nature at that point.

 5. The electric charges within the atom are a factor which modulates the shape of the gravitational curve of the nucleus.

 6. Gravity is not the enemy of space travel. It is a friend, but there must be true understanding before the friendship can bear fruit.

 7. It is perfectly possible to produce a negative gravitational field between the earth and a given object on or near its surface by the proper application of moving electric charges.  Such a field would be effective only with respect to the given object. All other matter in the vicinity would remain within the positive portion of the curve.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Space as Observed through the Curve of Radius Light

Space as Observed through the Curve of Radius Light

Leo Smolin writes in Time Reborn, “nothing is more commonplace than space, yet when examined closely, nothing is more mysterious”. He believes that time is real and is essential for a fundamental description of nature, but that space will likely turn out to be an illusion based on current studies in casual dynamical triangulations, quantum graphics, loop quantum gravity….
Haramein’s work penetrates directly into the common sense fundamentals of space, demonstrating that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space; space being the sole criterion, linking everything in the universe, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity.

While both Smolin and Haramein question the fundamentals of our incorrect interpretation of space, with Haramein’s results profoundly more accurate, let us take a look at Space through the curvature of natural law, symbolized by the ancient Yin Yang icon representing the +/-  (positive/negative) curve characteristic whose radius is the quantity C (light); in effect demonstrating why light is the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter. As this correctly interpreted application of E=MC2  continues to unfold, "beam me up Scotty" will seem like child's play.



Chapter 4, StareSteps 3  (My apologies, Fuel2000 StarSteps site and links are down for the moment – please use below links)


If we exchange our postulate of linear laws and a "curved space" for a concept which incorporates the curvature of natural law, we find that we have not thereby destroyed or invalidated any of our present mathematics, but we have achieved a position from which the operation of the natural laws can be pictured by the mind and can be charted upon paper. Thus we have taken a great stride in the direction of understanding.

Among all of the great basic factors of the Universe, perhaps the most difficult to explain is that which we call space. While many of our greatest philosophers and scientists have attempted definitions, few have succeeded in offering anything which the average mind could readily grasp. The German mathematician Leibnitz said, "Space is simply the order or relation of things among themselves." Several centuries afterwards, the late Dr. Einstein used almost identical terms. "Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the objects we perceive in it."

The average man's definition of space is: "That in which matter can be placed" or "that which matter occupies." This last definition is subject to dispute by those who maintain that matter does not occupy space, but is itself, only a warp or distortion in space. Another school of thought insists with equal vigor, that while matter does occupy space, it creates a warp or distortion in the space surrounding it. Since both of these concepts are subject to the same set of mathematical laws, the same laws can be offered in support of either. There is little, however, in either of these postulates which seems to furnish a good foundation for understanding and it is understanding rather than algebraic formulae that we are seeking in this discussion.

For our purpose a simple definition will suffice. Space is that which separates bodies of matter, whether these bodies be atoms, galaxies or any component part of either. We can extend his definition by stating that the degree of separation which exists between any two bodies is determined by the degree of curvature of the natural laws which exist between them. In making observations, of course, we must remember that, since the natural laws are relative, the mass of the body itself influences the degree of curvature. In the theories of relativity given to the world by Dr. Einstein, the natural laws, in general, retain their linearity, but the space in which they operate is considered to be curved. This concept offers the simplest mathematical presentation, since all of the observed deviations from linearity can thus be explained by a single postulate. Unfortunately, like most of our mathematical presentations, the concept offers but little for the mind to grasp. A curved space can not be pictured mentally, nor can it be drawn upon paper. There is always something remaining outside the curve.  Furthermore, attempts to rationalize this concept lead to many paradoxical statements which become more and more evident, the greater the effort to explain.

One of the best efforts to bring to the average mind an understanding of the principles of relativity, was made by Lincoln Barnett in his well known book, "The Universe and Dr. Einstein." Because of its careful preparation and its explicit presentation of present theory however, it brings out very clearly the paradox which must exist between successive assumptions. For instance: reference was made, as has already been noted, to the theory of Abbe Lemaitre, which supposed that at one time all the matter in the universe was contained in one huge lump or star. Since the curvature of space is considered to be determined by the amount or density of the matter present in it, at that time the universe was very small. That is; it had a very high degree of curvature. Light and other forms of energy do not move outward from this curve, but follow the circumference, so that the light emitted by this body, after a comparatively short journey, returned to its starting point. No attempt was made to speculate upon the length of time in which this body had existed, or the origin of the matter and energy of which it was composed. The theory merely supposed that, after perhaps an infinity of quiescence, this body suddenly exploded. Portions of the mass moved outward in all directions and thereby enlarged the radius of space. If the radius of space was increased, it is obvious that the matter did not follow the curvature of space, but actually moved perpendicularly to it, (or perhaps at a tangent). At any rate, we see that while the radiated energy followed the "curvature" of space whose radius was determined by the mass and density of the matter, when the matter itself expanded, instead of following the curve, its motion increased the radius.

It is interesting to note that the statement is repeatedly made that this sudden expansion began about two billion years ago, yet in the preceding paragraphs it has been stated that the calculated radius of the universe is now 35 billion light years. Simple calculation would indicate then that the universe, or at least that portion which we call space, must have moved outward at an average velocity equal to about seventeen times the velocity of light. Either this velocity of expansion is still maintained or at some period in the past it must have been greater*

·        It has since been announced by Walter Baade of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories that, as a result of the recalibration of the cephid variable stars, the previously calculated size of the universe must be increased by a factor of 2.8  * However the correction factor also applies to the time of expansion, so that the rate of expansion remains the same. * Note that these statements about the size of the universe were made in 1965 and subsequent discoveries and recalculations would merit the same consideration regarding the rate of expansion. ______

 These statements raise some perplexing questions. In our theories of relativity it is assumed that light follows the "curve" of apace. Yet it is difficult to picture a photon following a curve whose radius is expanding at a rate equal to seventeen times the velocity of the particle.

In the book "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" it is also stated that: while space is expanding rapidly, the matter of the universe, which is likened to “inelastic patches on the surface of an expanding balloon” is not expanding with the space, since if it were,  we could not detect the expansion.

If it is space that is expanding, it is difficult to understand why we have never detected the increasing distance between the earth and the moon or the sun. No attempt was made to explain why the space which exists between the individual atoms, and between the component parts of those atoms, should not expand also. 

None of these difficulties, of course, invalidate any of the mathematical laws from which the concepts have been derived, but they do emphasize the great need for explanations which are more compatible with reason and understanding. For instance, in the above case would it not be simpler to assume that the degree of separation which exists between the galaxies, when considered as individual bodies, is apparently increasing because they occupy opposite portions of the sine curve of natural law?

If we exchange our postulate of linear laws and a "curved space" for a concept which incorporates the curvature of natural law, we find that we have not thereby destroyed or invalidated any of our present mathematics, but we have achieved a position from which the operation of the natural laws can be pictured by the mind and can be charted upon paper. Thus we have taken a great stride in the direction of understanding.


 In summing up our discussion of space we should recall__

 1. Our definition: Space is that which separates bodies of matter. This separation is a vector function of the time, energy and mass differentials.

 2. The degree of separation which exists between any two bodies, or reference points, determine the degree of curvature of the natural laws between them.

 3. The natural laws are relative. That is, the value of one can be altered between any two reference points by altering the value or relationship of the other. This last fact should always be borne in mind when we hear some dogmatist solemnly declare that we are forever barred from reaching the stars by the hopelessly great degree of separation which exists between us.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass

THE CONNECTED UNIVERSE    Trailer for the upcoming documentary by Malcom Carter on Nassim Haramein's new peer-reviewed paper:


Quantum gravity Download the Paper.


Kilauea, Hawaii (May 7, 2013) - A groundbreaking paper published last week sheds new light on the theory of gravity and the potential to significantly impact global issues facing the human race, including alternative energy sources. Nassim Haramein, Director of Research at the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics (HIUP), has authored a paper titled “Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass,” which has been validated and published in the peer review journal, Physical Review and Research International.

This paper discusses Haramein’s “Connected Universe” theory, which offers a new and alternative understanding of gravity through basic algebraic and geometric equations. Haramein’s work indicates everything in the universe is connected, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity. He demonstrates that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space. “Remember that matter is made up of 99.9 percent space,” Haramein said. “Quantum field theory states that the structure of spacetime itself, at the extremely small level, vibrates with tremendous intensity. If we were to extract even a small percentage of all the energy held within the vibrations present in the space inside your little finger, it would represent enough energy to supply the world’s needs for hundreds of years. This new discovery has the potential to open up access and harness that energy like never before, which would revolutionize life as we know it today.” (read more
Kodie at Blue Ridge fs Peter Jocis shared The Resonance Project's photo.
4 hours ago ( peer reviewed published paper) Nassim Haramein “The irony of it all is that this solution has been right under our noses this whole time thanks to many ancient cultures encoding this geometric relationship right into their monuments and documents: the Flower of Life ! ............”

Completing this relationship will be the ancient Yin Yang symbol representing the +/-  (positive/negative) curve whose radius is the quantity C (light), in effect demonstrating why light is the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter. As this correctly interpreted application of E=MC2  unfolds, "beam me up Scotty" will seem like child's play.

We have reviewed in the recent previous posts some perceptually corrected definitions, looked at The Nonlinearity of Physical Law, and beyond A Uni-dimensional Perception of Time through the ‘curve’ of natural law view which merges with common sense, measurement and observation; we have noted the radius of this curve becomes apparent in all the factors of nature through scale invariance, as we move toward the very small (micro) and very large (macro) realms.

With both Nassim Haramein’s alternative understanding of gravity through basic algebraic and geometric equations, and Leo Smolin’s “trading the relativity of time for the relativity of size, the history of the universe can be described in the language of general relativity or the language shape dynamics”, the ‘curve’ of natural law with the radius of the quantity C is beginning to shed its light. Prior to concluding with Space, Gravity and the Quantity C, let us do a retake of the distinction between ‘mass’ and ‘matter’  and their roleplay in the scale invariance curve of radius C across macro, micro scales.

Matter and Mass
Much of the confusion which exists in our scientific concepts today is brought about by our failure to distinguish carefully between matter and mass. Until a comparatively few years ago, it was assumed that mass was a property which was exhibited only by matter. Upon closer examination, however, it appeared that energy also possesses mass, since when energy was added to a body of matter, the mass of the body was increased.
We should, perhaps, pause at this point to define the terms which we are using lest we add to the confusion instead of resolving it. Mass is defined as resistance to change in the existing state of motion. It is measured by the amount of the energy which is required to produce a given change in velocity. All matter has the property of mass, but not all mass has the properties of matter. For the purposes of this discussion, we will postulate that there are two types of mass, inertial mass, which is simply the property of resistance to change in a state of motion, and the mass inherent in matter, which we will call Newtonian mass, because it includes all mass which obeys the original laws laid down by Sir Isaac Newton.

Since the reader may be under the impression that all mass obeys the Newtonian laws, let us pause here long enough to examine the facts and to point out the differences in the properties of inertial and Newtonian mass. All physicists of today are agreed that the electron has mass. Yet if it were possible for us to hold an electron between two of our fingers and then suddenly release it, we would find that there was not the slightest tendency for the electron to fall to the earth (unless the surface happened to be positively charged at the moment). The electron is not in the least affected by the gravitational field of the earth, so long as it is at rest with respect to that field (if the electron is moving through the field, however, the direction of the motion will be affected).

 The electron has mass only because it has an electric charge. As we know, when an electric charge is accelerated in space, a magnetic field is produced, and energy is required to produce this field. The energy 'spent' in producing this field, is said to be the 'mass' of the electron, since it is the entire cause of its resistance to acceleration. The greater the degree of acceleration, of course, the more intense the field, and the greater the amount of energy required to produce it. So we say that the electron gains 'mass' with every increase in its velocity. If an electron could be accelerated to the velocity C, (commonly called the velocity of light), it would have acquired the maximum velocity with which energy can be propagated.

It is obvious, therefore, that no amount of energy could further accelerate this electron. (with respect to its original reference point), so it would be considered to have acquired 'infinite mass.'

 Let us take time to examine this statement carefully, since it is a point upon which there is much confusion. The electron would have acquired infinite mass only in reference to its original energy level. If observed from a reference point which had itself received the same degree of acceleration, the mass of the electron would not have changed a particle. This increase of inertial mass with increasing velocity is simply the measure of the kinetic energy differential between the observer and the point which he is observing.

 We will attempt a simple analogy, in the hope of making this more readily understood. An observer is stationed in 'free space' far from any gravitational or other fields which might affect the results of the experiment which he proposes to make. He has in one hand, a sphere of cork or other light material which has a mass of 10 grams. In the other hand he hand he has a pistol which fires bullets also having a mass of 10 grams and a velocity of 1000 feet per second. The man holds the ball out at arms length, and fires a bullet from the gun into it. We will postulate that - the bullet is not absorbed by the cork, but shares its kinetic energy with it, so that after the impact, the bullet and the cork ball each have a velocity of 500 feet per second. The observer now fires a second bullet at the cork. This bullet also has a velocity of 1000 feet per second with respect to the observer, but now the target has a velocity of 500 feet per second in the same direction, so that there is a differential of only 500 feet per second which the bullet can share with its target. After this impact, the bullet and the ball each have a velocity of 750 feet per second. When the observer fires the third bullet, he finds that now there is a differential of only 250 feet per second between it and the target, so that the velocity of the target is raised by only 125 feet per second, and so on. 

The observer notes that each succeeding bullet, although it has the same energy with respect to him, produces a smaller and smaller acceleration in the target. He would observe that the 'mass of the target' (its resistance to acceleration) appears to increase with its velocity. If he made mathematical calculations based upon his observations, they would show that the greatest velocity which he could ever induce in the target would be 1000 feet per second (the velocity of the bullets), and that to produce this velocity it would be necessary to fire an infinite number of bullets. His experiment demonstrates conclusively that as the velocity of the target approaches 1000 feet per second, his ability to further accelerate it approaches zero.

 Persons with lesser intelligence or insight than our observer might be convinced that this figure of 1000 feet per second was an absolute and inescapable limit. The observer, however, as we said, has greater understanding.  After he has accelerated his target to the 'limiting' velocity of 1000 feet per second (by firing an infinite number of bullets), he steps aboard a small apace ship (with which he has thoughtfully provided himself), and takes off in the direction of the target. He accelerates his ship to a velocity of 1000 feet per second, with respect to his starting point, and now finds that he is back upon exactly the same energy level as his target. 

If there were no other bodies of matter in the universe, there would be no way in which he could determine that either he or the target were in motion, since there would be no relative motion between them, and no other reference points from which motion might be determined. In fact, he finds that the situation is exactly the same as it was before he fired the first shot, and he can now begin his shooting all over again. He does so and observes that his first bullet accelerates the target to a velocity of 500 feet per second with respect to his new reference point, and he notes that the 'infinite mass' of the target returns to its original 10 grams, as soon as he reaches the same energy level. He realizes then that the 'increasing mass' of the target is only the measure of the kinetic energy differential which exists between them.

The mass approaches infinity only as the energy level approaches that of the accelerating force. (In this case it is 1000 feet per second.) In the case of the quantity C, usually called the velocity of light, the differential is equal to 3 x 10(10) centimeters per second, or if we convert this velocity to its equivalent energy we would have 9 x 10(20) ergs per gram. It is therefore, a maximum or limiting velocity, but only with respect to a given reference point.

In our discussion of non-linearity of physical law, it was pointed out that the energy inherent in a gram, or any other quantity of matter is precisely the quantity of energy necessary to accelerate its mass to a velocity equal to the quantity C by energy conversion. This statement may be hotly disputed by some students who have not yet learned to distinguish between matter and mass. Their argument is to the effect that no mass can ever be accelerated to the velocity of light since the mass would then be 'infinite' and consequently the energy required to produce the velocity would also be 'infinite'. The incorrectness of this assumption can be demonstrated simply by pressing the button of a pocket flashlight. A beam of light will be produced which any physicist will agree has mass and which, by its very definition, is moving at the velocity of light.  Yet all the energy required is released by a small amount of chemical change taking place within the cells of a battery For those that wish to read ahead: 1.  General Definitions – critical     2.  The Nonlinearity of Physical Law     3.  Gravity     4. Matter and Mass     5.  Space    6.  The Quantity C      7.  Time
  cea22-starstepsbutton  StarSteps1    StarSteps2    StarSteps3

Extended Applications of a Simple Unified Field Theory

    Extended Applications of a Simple Unified Field Theory 

    whose foundations are being re-confirmed with the integration of the  Resonance Project, Walter Russell’s work, and StarSteps to Einstein's 1928 incomplete, but testable, unified field theory – with refinements provided by the penetrating investigations of such notables as: Tom Bearden, Eugene Malove, Nikola Tesla,  Biefeld-Brown, Moray B King, Burkhard Heim, Paul LaViolette….to name a few
    Peter Jocis shared a link via Modern Qigong.
    Extending the Radius of Curvature, Yin Yang structure of Energy Flow application in more subtle arenas - recalling the power off just ONE atom in E=MC2
    • Extending the Radius of Curvature, Yin Yang structure of Energy Flow application in more subtle arenas - recalling the power off just ONE atom in E=MC2
      Uploaded by ROBABEKIATV
      Step by step , learn Tai chi in a perfect simple way from the beginning :)
    • Extending the Radius of Curvature, Yin Yang structure of Energy Flow application in more subtle arenas - recalling the power off just ONE atom in E=MC2
      Uploaded by BigSpeak Speakers Bureau
      Thomas Crum is an author and presenter in the fields of conflict resolution, peak performance, and stress management. He is known throughout the world for "The Thomas Crum Approach," designed to help people become more centered under conflict, more resourceful when facing challenges, and more effective under stress. For over 30 years, Tom Cr...