Important Points in Science

Truths in Science

In theory, the most distinctive feature of science is its reliance upon the established facts as the ultimate authority. Speculation and hypothesis play an important part in scientific research, to be sure, but the products of such activity are not supposed to be considered in any way authoritative unless and until they are verified by experiment or observation.

As it happens, however, scientists are not only scientists, they are also human beings, and in the latter capacity they are subject to the ordinary weaknesses of the human race, including a strong bias in favour of familiar and commonly accepted ideas, a totally unscientific reliance on presumably authoritative pronouncements, and a distinct reluctance to admit ignorance.

All of these add up to a marked tendency to regard general acceptance as equivalent to proof, a tendency that has had the effect of diluting the firmly established factual material of science with a large admixture of matter of an unproved and uncertain character.

Today we have a situation where, the theory does not explain the facts; the facts explain the theory.

Whatever the standing of the relativity theory as a whole may be, if and when it conflicts with a physical fact it is, to that extent, wrong. No scientist can deny this if he faces the issue squarely. But to acknowledge such errors would involve conceding that there are serious deficiencies in the conventional structure of theory, and this the scientific community is currently unwilling to do.

The argument amounts to nothing more than the convenient supposition that something which has not been observed does not exist. It predicates that we know everything [Fred Hoyle].

This may be a difficult idea for those who have grown up under the shadow of conventional scientific thought, but whatever mental anguish this and the other necessary readjustments of thinking may cause is a small price to pay for all of the clarification of the physical picture that is accomplished by recognition of the existence and properties of equilateral energy quanta and fields

There is no sound basis for believing that we occupy any preferred or unique position, or that the region accessible to our direct observation is in any way set off from the rest of the universe. So far as we know, there is only one universe, a single all-embracing universe, and it is reasonable to believe that the laws applicable to any one part of this universe are applicable to all.

Certainly we are not justified in assuming anything to the contrary merely to save some pet theory from collapse, or to accommodate theorists who have failed in their attempt to solve the problems with which they are confronted, which is essentially what the proponents of present-day atomic theory are asking us to do.

The concept of the nuclear atom has been taken as a fixed, unalterable truth, and anything that conflicts with this concept has been given up, no matter how great the sacrifice. But no amount of manipulation, no exercise of ingenuity, no sacrifice of principle, can make a success of a theory that is based on a false premise.

It is not uncommon in scientific practice to have some alleged proof of a theory refuted, without seriously affecting the standing of the theory itself, but here we have the extraordinary situation of a theory being abandoned, leaving its proofs still standing, and still being taught on a wholesale scale in our universities. This has somewhat the same flavor as Victor Borge’s account of the cure for which there is as yet no known disease.

A strong reluctance to admit ignorance is a pronounced human characteristic, and in everyday life one of the most devastating retorts that can be made to a critic is to ask, “Have you anything better to offer?”

It may should be stated that condemning the nuclear theory of the atom on the grounds that it does not present a true picture of the atomic structure is, in a way, somewhat unfair to the originators of the theory, as has been oft quoted “they did the best they could at the time” and in many case their theories were supported for many years before being ultimately replaced with yet another – Tetryonics is no different, it offers numerous hypothesises to explain many disparate facets of science from a simple geometric premise but to declare that it will never be enhanced, bettered or replaced is sheer arrogance [time will attest to that]

Of course, it is the hope of everyone [including myself] who invented a model to represent some physical entity that sufficient factual evidence may ultimately be discovered to advance this model, either in its original form or after suitable modification, to the standing of a picture: a true representation of the facts.

Physics in Science

The question “What is electricity?” like the question “What is matter?” really lies outside the realm of physics and belongs to that of metaphysics.

“What is electricity’?”—so often asked—is… meaningless… Electricity is one of the fundamental conceptions of physics; it is absurd to expect to be told that it is a kind of a liquid, or a known kind of force, when we explain the properties of liquids in terms of electricity, and electric force is perhaps the fundamental conception of modern physics.

This line of demarcation between the physical and the metaphysical that is drawn in current thought is actually a boundary between that which is believed to be understood and that which is not understood.

A force originates in some way from an electric charge. Force is a phenomenon with which the physicists consider themselves reasonably familiar.

Charge is something that they have never been able to bring within their field of comprehension. Mass, the property of matter that determines the magnitude of the gravitational force, is no better understood. Magnetism is explained as being due to the motion of charges, but as long as the charges remain unexplained, the addition of movement does not represent much of an advance in understanding.

The physicists have therefore taken force, the phenomenon that they believe they do understand, as the basic physical reality.

When and if we meet an unusually difficult obstacle of this kind in the development of the consequences of a model, the logical conclusion is that the model itself is inadequate, and we should direct our attention to the necessary reconstruction or replacement of the model, rather than wasting our time and resources on futile efforts to discover by experiment features of a model that actually have no counterparts in the physical world.

Nature will not be coerced; in order to find the correct answers, a theorist must resign himself to the humble role of seeker after the truth, rather than the role of lawmaker, which he has been aspiring to fill

Maths in Science

“A model may be a potential intellectual trap as well as an invaluable intellectual tool.”

[Ernst Nagel]

THE important fact that should be realized, so far as the point now at issue in Science, is that all of the recent relationships discovered are purely numerical in origin, and that the numbers express the full extent of our actual knowledge in this field.

As Feynman observed, “Mathematicians…do not even need to know what they are talking about.” The conceptual interpretation of the mathematics is important primarily because it is one of the essentials for an understanding of the relations between physical phenomena.

Every one of our laws is a purely mathematical statement in rather complex and abstruse mathematics it successes have fostered a tendency to forget that mathematics is NOT physics

There is a sound reason for following this “mathematics first” policy in the normal course of physical investigation. The initial objective is usually to arrive at a result that is useful in practical application; that is, something that will produce the correct mathematical answers to practical problems.

Unfortunately, the validation of the mathematical aspects of any theory has been generally accepted as a validation of the theory as a whole, including the conceptual interpretation that the author gave to it initially.

Acceptance of mathematical validity as complete proof is an unsound practice that is all too prevalent in present-day science. All complete physical theories consist of a mathematical statement, and a conceptual statement, essentially an interpretation of the mathematics. Validation of the mathematics does not in any way guarantee the validity of the interpretation; it merely identifies this interpretation as one of those that could be correct.

A mathematical relation that is unexplained conceptually is of little or no value toward accomplishing these objectives. It cannot be extrapolated beyond the range for which its validity has been experimentally or observationally verified without running the risk of exceeding the limits of its applicability, nor can it be extended to any area other than the one in which it originated.

Many of the frustrated theorists have reacted by abandoning the effort to achieve conceptual validity, and are now contending that mathematical agreement between theory and observation constitutes “experimental verification.” Obviously this is not true. Such a “verification,” or any number of similar mathematical correlations, tell us only that the theory is mathematically correct.

Such a “verification,” or any number of similar mathematical correlations, tell us only that the theory is mathematically correct.

Consequently, the mathematical expressions cannot be relied upon to furnish the necessary clues to a conceptual understanding.

“Eating something Green will kill you - if you want to live forever never eat anything Green.

Everyone that has died has eaten something Green and everyone that eats something Green has died”

While the established mathematical relations may serve the specific purposes for which they were developed, they cannot be safely extrapolated beyond the ranges of conditions over which they have been tested, and they make no contribution toward an understanding of relations in other areas.

Many scientists find it hard to believe that the investigators who constructed the currently accepted theories could have made so many mistakes. It should be emphasized, therefore, that the profusion of conflicts between present-day ideas and our findings does not indicate that the previous investigators have made a multitude of errors. What has happened is that they have made a few serious errors that have had a multitude of consequences.

The history of theoretical physics is a record of the clothing of mathematical formulae which were right, or very nearly right, with physical interpretations which were often very badly wrong [Jeans].

Ultimately the inventive theories of Einstein and his school, like the inventive theories of Aristotle, will accumulate too many ad hoc modifications—too many epicycles, we may say—and they will have to give way to theories, derived inductively, that are both mathematically and conceptually correct

Where the theory stands in direct contradiction to the observations or established physical principles, the contradictions are removed by postulating that they do not exist; where there are discrepancies in numerical values, a Principle of Uncertainty makes such discrepancies legal; where causal connections cannot be found, causality is outlawed.

The statement that the Copenhagen atom-model is purely mathematical and has no physical properties does not signify that the physical atom has no such properties; it merely means that the Copenhagen model is likewise incomplete.

There are reasons to believe that the actual physical atom has some kind of internal structure and that there are logical explanations for the mathematical relationships which this physical atom follows, but the respective models have been so constructed as to exclude these aspects of the physical atom

If we concede to the reality that the theorists are dealing with models whereas the experimenters are dealing with actual physical atoms, it is then apparent to all that the mathematical formulae no longer describe nature itself but our knowledge of nature, in turn modelling it on our imposed units of measurement.

The general tendency has been to glorify the complex and the abstruse. A liberal use of non-commutative mathematics, non-Euclidean geometry, and complicated statistical procedures has come to be regarded as the hallmark of erudition, and any publication, in the field of physics at least, which does not bristle with integral signs and complex equations is looked upon as lamentably deficient in scholarly quality, irrespective of the actual need for anything more than simple arithmetic.

What then can create a physical world where our arbitrarily chosen units can mathematically model the physical world despite whatever units may be chosen for their basis? [The answer can only be its foundational geometry]

Charge

The perennial question, “What is an electric charge?” no longer has to be dismissed as unanswerable. We can now reply that an electric charge is a two-dimensional equilateral scalar geometry, an inherent property of energy itself.

Present-day physics has no understanding of the nature of the electric charge. We are simply told that we must not ask; that the existence of charges has to be accepted as one of the given features of nature.

It is interesting to note that conventional science, which has been at so much of a loss to explain the origin and nature of the charge, does recognize that it is scalar. For instance, W. J. Duffin reports that experiments which he describes show that “charge can be specified by a single number,” thus justifying the conclusion that “charge is a scalar quantity.”

Charges and current in a conductor

It is observed that the conductors are electrically neutral even when a current is flowing. The explanation given for this in present-day electrical theory is that the Negative charges which are assumed to exist on the electrons are neutralized by equivalent Positive charges on the atomic nuclei. But if the hypothetical electrostatic charges are neutralized so that no net charge exists, there would be no electrostatic force to produce the movement that constitutes the current. Thus, even on the basis of conventional physical theory, there is abundant evidence to show that the KEM field energies of moving electrons in a conductor possesses all the neutral energy of motion that results from an emf

The motion that constitutes an electric charge, a distributed scalar motion, is always divergent [outward], but that of a positive charge is divergent from a positive reference point, while that of a negative charge is divergent from a negative reference point.

Equally though, within the divergent scalars of the charged fields there exists convergent energy momenta of opposite charges which lead to the forces that create the foundational, ever familiar] Law of Interaction [nee attraction]

According to Newton’s Second Law of Motion, acceleration is in the direction of the applied force. With Ampere’s Force law the effect is to produce an orthogonal field of M-force which ‘appears’ to violate this law, and in view of the firm position that the second law occupies in physics, a violation is admittedly hard to accept. But, as can be seen by an examination of the magnetic fields of force produced, this effect actually does occur. Conventional physics has no explanation for it. The perpendicular direction of the resultant is merely dismissed as a “strange” effect.

Displacement Current

Because accepted theory requires the “displacement current” to behave like an electric current without being a current, conventional science has had great difficulty in ascertaining just what the displacement actually is.

If one defines current as a transport of charge, the term displacement current is certainly a misnomer when applied to a vacuum where no charges exist. If, however, current is defined in terms of the magnetic fields it produces, the expression is legitimate.

The problem arises from the fact that while the physical observations and the mathematical analysis indicate that a current is flowing into the space between the plates of the capacitor when that space is a vacuum, as well as when it is occupied by a dielectric, such a current flow is not possible if the entities whose movement constitutes the current are charged electrons, as currently assumed. This impasse between theory and observation that now prevails is another of the many items of evidence showing that the electric current is not a movement of charged particles but rather the measurement of the transverse M-dipole field forces that motional Matter creates.

Electricity

In the following chapters Tetryonics will provide a geometric basis for electrodynamics at the quantum level in turn describing the general features of electricity—both current electricity and electric charges—as they emerge from a development of the consequences of the postulates of Tetryonic’s geometric theory of mass-ENERGY-Matter in motion.

This development arrives at a picture of the place of electricity in the physical universe that is totally different from the one that we get from conventional physical theory. However, the new view agrees with the electrical observations and measurements, and is entirely consistent with empirical knowledge in related areas, whereas conventional theory is deficient in both respects. Thus there is ample justification for concluding that the currently accepted theories dealing with electricity are, to a significant degree, wrong.

Erroneous Symmetry

An electric particle gives rise to an electric field, and when it moves it produces a magnetic field as a secondary effect. For symmetry’s sake there should be magnetic particles that give rise to magnetic fields and in motion produce electric fields in the same way that moving electric particles create magnetic fields.

The absence of magnetic monopoles is not a “defiance of symmetry.” The symmetry exists, but a better understanding of the nature of electricity and magnetism is required before it can be recognized.

There is symmetry in the electric and magnetic relations, the symmetry revealed by equilateral geometry in Tetryonics

Constants

A “numerical constant” is actually the magnitude of an unrecognized physical property

The gross structure of many of the familiar systems observed in nature is determined by a relatively small number of universal constants. Had these constants taken different numerical values from those observed, then these systems would differ correspondingly in their structure. What is especially interesting is that, in many cases, only a modest alteration of values would result in a drastic restructuring of the system concerned [Paul Davies]

While theory is capable of producing the right answers, if properly applied, it does not necessarily follow that those who are attempting to apply it properly will always be successful in so doing.

When calculating a single resulting Force in Newton’s gravity formula, the expression mm’ in the gravitational equation is not a product of two masses, but the product of one mass and the number of units of mass in the interacting object

This can obviously also translated to Coulomb’s force equation where mm is simply replaced with qq.

Conservation Laws

We are in a curious situation. We know the conservation laws, but we do not know their underlying dynamic basis; that is, we do not know the kind of symmetries responsible for them

mass-Energy-Matter

It is clear that matter, radiation and energy all have some kind of a common denominator, and if the transformation of entity A into entity B cannot be accomplished directly, present indications are that it can always be done in an indirect way.

At present, we imagine all space to be filled by a superposition of fields, each named after an elementary particle—electrons, protons, various kinds of mesons, etc. As new species proliferate, it becomes more and more desirable that future theory, if it resembles the present one at all, should contain but a single field, with the present types of matter corresponding to different modes of excitation of it [David Park]

The electron is not a permanent “building block” type of entity, but a particle that can be created or destroyed with relative ease.

The currently popular electrical theory postulates that the atoms are held in contact by the electrical forces of attraction, but this does not eliminate the need for a repulsive force; it merely puts this force inside the atom.

Tetryonics shows us that in the case of Leptons the repulsive Strong force gives all Leptons their unique geometries in deference to the attractive force that produces Quarks from the same foundational charge basis; and it is the tetrahedral geometry [one of the strongest forms known to man] that resists deformation in Matter quanta to give us the solidity of material objects.

We have found that both the proton and the electron can be transformed into radiation simply by contact with their respective antiparticles. “All Matter seems to be a form of radiation”

Since all units can be transformed into motion in the form of radiation, we might be inclined on first consideration to express the question in this manner: What is there that can exist in a variety of forms and is equivalent to motion?

The answer is revealed in the equilateral geometry of Planck energy in Tetryonic theory, where the equilateral geometry of the same can be directly related to quantised angular momentum [m^2/s]

Relativity

With ElectroMagnetic radiation. It has been found that this radiation consists of discrete units of an oscillating character—photons—which originate from matter at specific locations and travel outward from these points at a constant velocity, which we recognize as the velocity of light. In empty space these photons travel in straight lines, but when they encounter matter [or EM fields] their direction is subject to various modifications such as reflection, refraction, etc.

Einstein does not say that the properties of objects moving with high velocities, the phenomena with which he is primarily concerned, follow laws that are different from those applicable to objects moving at relatively low velocities.

According to his postulates, all objects follow exactly the same laws, but the expressions of these laws previously deduced for objects moving at low velocities are simplified forms of the generally applicable expressions, and they are valid only where the other terms of the general expression are negligible

Einstein’s answer was to distort the reference system, investing in the Space and Time of any system enough flexibility to conform to his preferred mathematical model of the observed behaviour

It is equally possible to modify the currently accepted space-time concepts and retain absolute motion. There is no a priori reason why one should be preferred over the other, and the experience with Einstein’s choice actually favours the alternative approach, as Einstein found that the denial of absolute motion was not sufficient, and he had to tinker with the space-time concepts as well.

Throughout scientific literature his theory that mass is a function of velocity is described as having been “proved” by the results of experiment and by the successful use of the predictions of the theory in the design of the particle accelerators. Yet at the same time that a host of scientific authorities are proclaiming this theory as a firmly established and incontestable experimental fact, practically every elementary physics textbook admits that it is actually nothing more than an arbitrary selection from among several possible alternative explanations of the observed facts. The experiments simply show that if a particle is subjected to an unchanged electric or magnetic force, the resulting acceleration decreases at high velocities and approaches a limit of zero at the velocity of light. The further conclusion that the decrease in acceleration is due to an increase in mass is a pure assumption that has no factual foundation whatever.

The fundamental nature of electric and magnetic action has the appearance of action at a distance, a concept that is philosophically objectionable to many scientists

The apparent action at a distance resulting from the indifference of scalar motion to location in the reference system is merely one of the ways in which the reality of physical existence deviates from the simple and convenient framework in which the human race has attempted to confine it

There are many places where it is necessary to recognize that scalar fields resulting from motion have special characteristics of their own, and cannot be fully accommodated within the narrower limits of the current rules that apply to vectorial motion.

Spectral Lines

“The principles from which he [Bohr] developed his model were incomprehensible and, in fact, hardly credible.”19 Now after more mature consideration, the front-line theorists, including Bohr himself, tell us that it was all a mistake, that there are no specific orbits, that the electron itself is only a “symbol,” and so on.

The original and most impressive success scored by Bohr was his interpretation of the line spectrum of hydrogen. J. J. Balmer discovered empirically in 1885 that the principal series of lines in the hydrogen spectrum can be represented by a mathematical formula, which in its modern form is expressed as R (1/4-1/b²), the factor taking successive integral values beginning with 3. Subsequently it was found that this Balmer formula is a special case of a general expression R (1/a²-1/b²) in which both a and b take successive integral values. When a= 2, the Balmer series results. Other values of a produce the Lyman series, the Paschen series, the Brackett series, and so on.

This has been a very fruitful concept, and it has provided a solid foundation upon which it has been possible to build a logical and systematic classification of atomic spectra

The quantity which enters into the spectral relations is the quantum of energy [E], which is the product of Planck’s constant [h] and the frequency [f] of the radiation, a relationship that was quickly equated to Planck’s original formulation for quantised energy [E=nhv], but as it turns out was erroneous on a geometric basis [2hv = hf].

Bohr further added to the erroneous assumptions in quantum mechanics when he postulated “that the electrons are able to occupy only certain specific orbits defined by quantum considerations, that they do not radiate while moving in these orbits, and that they possess the ability to jump from one orbit to another and, in so doing, to emit or absorb radiation with a frequency corresponding to the difference between the energy levels of the two orbits”.

While Schrödinger tells us that there really are no electrons in orbit, Heisenberg says that there actually is no physical electron at all, only a “symbol,” and the whole Copenhagen school insists that we cannot conceive of the atom or any of its parts in anything but purely mathematical terms, the spectroscopists tell us just how many electrons there are in the atom and exactly how they are arranged in “shells,” etc., and proceed on this basis with the calculation of spectroscopic terms to an accuracy of eight or nine significant figures.

This utterly ridiculous situation in which one group of physicists is defining specifically and in great detail the properties of entities which, according to an even more eminent group of physicists, have “no immediate and direct properties at all ” and do not even “exist objectively” is another example of the confusion that plagues ‘modern’ atomic theory

Any theory of atomic structure that could be given any serious consideration at all must necessarily make some provision for a quantity corresponding to the atomic number that accounts for all the observed phenomena and provides a physical basis for doing so.

The collapse of the modern nuclear theory will make it necessary to discard all of these current interpretations and go back to the actual observed facts for a fresh start.

It is to be expected that the theorists working in this field will take a very dim view of this conclusion that the products of their labours must be relegated to the wastebasket, but this issue must be faced, nevertheless. Even the highest degree of competence cannot derive the right answers from the wrong premises, and Gamow’s statement, previously quoted, that “not a single successful step has been made” in this area “in the last few decades” shows how completely unproductive the present line of approach has been.

Chemistry

“The most important test which the theory of electronic configurations must meet, in order to satisfy the chemist, is that of providing an explanation for the periodic law,

It is quite obvious that any atomic theory that might be seriously proposed in the light of present factual knowledge must provide for some quantity corresponding to the atomic number: some quantity which, as Moseley says, “increases by regular steps as we pass from one element to the next.”

These findings are consistent with any plausible atomic theory and they cannot be uniquely connected with the nuclear theory unless that theory is first proved correct by some other means.

The mathematical expressions that have been derived from the experimental work are consistent with the currently accepted theories, to be sure, but they are equally consistent with any other theory which arrives at the same numerical values, regardless of the names which such other theory may attach to the units, and since these numerical values are all related to some quantities such as the atomic number or atomic weight, for which any theory must furnish an explanation, agreement with the observed mathematical relations is no problem for any theory.

This means that when the scientific profession is faced with the difficult task of finding some other theory to replace the electrical theory of cohesion, scientists can hardly be expected to welcome against their long held, rigidly taught [if erroneous] established views of Matter and its interactions.

It should also be remembered that the necessity of finding some other explanation of the cohesion of solids has been present all the time throughout Chemistry

When the correct theory finally appears, the situation will, of course, be quite different. The correct theory of atomic structure must necessarily be of such a character that it not only carries with it a “built-in” explanation of the inter-atomic forces, but also an explanation of the periodic groupings, which will permit the theory of the periodic system to be derived directly from the atomic theory without the necessity of any ad hoc assumptions.

Gravity

Newton’s law of universal gravitation is not a defining equation, and cannot be derived from defining equations. It represents an observed relationship

There is no proof of Einstein’s GR theory (the points that have thus far been adduced in its favour are merely evidence)

And there is something incongruous about the acceptance of Mach’s principle by the same scientific community that is so strongly opposed to Newton’s concept of action at a distance.

The fact is that neither Newton’s theory nor Einstein’s theory tells us anything about the “mechanism” of gravitation. Both take the existence of mass as something that has to be accepted as a given feature of the universe, and both require that we accept the fact that masses gravitate, without any explanation as to how, or why, this takes place. The only significant difference between the two theories, in this respect, is that Newton’s theory gives us no reason why masses gravitate, whereas Einstein’s theory gives us no reason why masses cause the distortion of space that is asserted to be the reason for gravitation. As Feynman sums up the situation, “There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.

Newton derived a mathematical expression for the gravitational effect. Subsequently it was found that the range of application of this expression was limited, and Einstein formulated a new expression that presumably has a more general applicability. Both of these were inductive products; that is, they were based on the mathematical aspects of the results of observation and measurement. Neither of the investigators was able to complete his theory by deriving an interpretation of his mathematics inductively.

Einstein’s General Theory is the only major theoretical step taken since Newton, which can even claim to have any factual backing, and while it achieved widespread acceptance initially, doubt as to whether the claims made on its behalf are justified has been increasing as time goes on.

A factor that has contributed heavily to this increasing scepticism as to the validity of the General Theory is that it seems to have arrived at a dead end. One of the criteria by which we are able to recognize a sound physical theory is the manner in which it fits in with existing knowledge in related fields and sheds new light on phenomena other than, and beyond that for which it was originally constructed.

Newton’s gravitational theory, it is said, is grossly deficient in that it merely assumes the existence of a gravitational force without giving us any explanation of how such a force originates, and Einstein’s work is hailed as a great theoretical advance that provides us with the explanation which Newton was unable to supply.

The idea that one mass can exert an influence on another mass at a distance without the benefit of any connecting medium is philosophically unacceptable to most scientists. Newton himself called it “absurd.”

No one has been able to conceive of a mechanism whereby one mass can exert an influence on another distant mass instantaneously, and hence it is generally assumed by the physicists that there must be some kind of propagation of the gravitational effect at a finite velocity, even though there is not the slightest evidence that this is true.

All astronomical calculations and other computations involving gravitation are made on the assumption that the effect is instantaneous, and so far as we are aware, no inconsistencies result from this procedure.

The word “force” normally suggests some kind of a pull or a push and Einstein’s contention, in essence, is that his explanation attributes the gravitational effect to something that is not in the pull-push category. But Newton did not limit his concept of gravitational force in this manner; in fact, he specifically refused to express any opinion as to the nature of the force.

Einstein accounts for the force (or the equivalent of such a force) by a distortion of the space-time structure, but if we subject this explanation to a critical examination, it becomes obvious that Einstein faces exactly the same problem in accounting for the space-time distortion that Newton does in accounting for the gravitational force.

Relation to mass. The gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of the masses involved, and acts in the direction of the line joining the centers of the masses.

Relation to distance. The gravitational force between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the masses.

Gravitational constant. The numerical constant in the gravitational equation based on the mass and distance relationships just stated is 6.67×10-8 when expressed as dynes × cm2 × g-2

Velocity of propagation. So far as is known at this time, the effect of gravitation is instantaneous, and in all practical applications of the gravitational equation the calculations are made on this basis, even at galactic distances. Many theories of gravitation, including the Einstein theory, assume a finite velocity of propagation of the gravitational effect, but there is no experimental or observational evidence to support this assumption.

Screening. The gravitational force cannot be screened off or modified in any way by any means now known.

In addition to listing the things that we know about gravitation, as a preliminary to a critical study of the phenomenon, it will be helpful to list some of the things that we do not know, because there is a general tendency to confuse fact with fancy when the consideration of a problem extends over such a long time and involves so much speculation. The speculative hypotheses of a century or half-century ago are likely to have acquired the standing of axioms by this time where they have remained unchallenged in the interim.

Curved space. There is no evidence that space is, or can be, curved or deformed in any way. It is true that Einstein has set up a system wherein some of the characteristics of gravitation are explained on theassumption that space is deformed by the presence of matter, but the phenomena which an assumption was specifically designed to fit cannot be used as proof of the validity of that assumption, and there is no other evidence of an independent character to verify the existence of a deformation of space.

Gravitational fields. There is no evidence that a gravitational field exists in any physical sense. All that we know is that a test particle placed in a particular location experiences a gravitational force due to the proximity of a mass. So far as we have any actual knowledge, the only participants in this phenomenon are the two masses; any theory that calls for an intermediate effect on or by a field, a medium or space itself, is purely speculative.

Mediums. There is no evidence of the existence of a medium of any kind through which gravitational effects could be propagated. Furthermore, there is no evidence that space has the properties of such a medium.

Gravitational units. There is no evidence of the existence of “gravitons” or any such gravitational unit.

Variability with time. There is no evidence that the strength of the gravitational effect has varied or is varying with time.

On the basis of the foregoing, a satisfactory theory of gravitation must produce an explanation of how two masses can exert a force on each other instantaneously, without an intervening medium, and in such a manner that the effects cannot be screened off or modified in any way.

The essence of Newton’s theory is the assumption that a force of attraction exists between each mass and every other mass. But merely assuming the existence of such a force leaves us with two unanswered questions: (1) How does the force originate? and (2) How does it work?

Einstein’s gravitational theory still leaves us in essentially the same position. This theory rests on the assumption that the existence of mass causes a deformation of the space-time structure which, in turn, accounts for the gravitational attraction. Here again we have the same two unanswered questions: (1) How does the deformation originate; that is, what is there about the property of mass that deforms space or space-time? and (2) What is the mechanism of the deformation; that is, how does it operate?

In the case of gravitation, we want to know how the gravitational force, or gravitational effect, originates and how it operates, not only because we have an innate desire for knowledge, but also because we are confident on the basis of past experience that this additional knowledge of the gravitational phenomenon will open the door to further advances in related fields. [Particularly in light of the fact Newton’s formulation for Gravity is mathematically identical to Coulomb’s law for Electric force and yet is equally described in General relativity in a completely different manner]

“To say instead that gravitation is a manifestation of the curvature of four-dimensional geometrical manifolds is to account for a mystery by means of an enigma." [G. C. McVittie]

The radiant energy of an impinging photon may, for instance, be converted into kinetic energy (heat), or into electrical energy (the photo-electric effect), or into chemical energy (photochemical action). Similarly, any of these other types of energy which may exist at the point of emission of the radiation may be converted into radiation by appropriate processes.

Now let us ask, are these the characteristics of gravitation? The answer must be an unequivocal No!

Gravitational energy, or potential energy, is a measure of energy of position; that is, for any two specific masses, the mutual gravitational energy is determined solely by their spatial separation and the ratio of the mass-energies of their respective Matter.

But energy of position in space cannot be physically propagated in space, it is a potential energy – Tetryonics solves this by revealing the true mechanics of Gravitation [ie Vacuum energy displacement and the KEM fields of Matter itself]

All in all, gravitation and electromagnetic radiation are about as dissimilar as any two physical phenomena can be, and the attempts that have been made to draw conclusions from an assumed analogy between the two are simply meaningless. What should had been done was the recognition of the fact that Gravity and EM radiation are two distinct forces acting in unison at any instant of time and are related through the amount of Matter any system has.

Gravitational and Inertial mass

If acceleration and gravitation are equivalent, we must apparently also be able to imagine an acceleration field, a field formed by inertial forces. lt is easy to realize that no matter how we try, we will never be able to get such a field to have the same shape as the gravitational field around the earth and other celestial bodies . . If we want to save the equivalence principle…if we want to retain the identity between gravitational and inertial mass, then we are forced to give up Euclidean geometry! Only by accepting a non-Euclidean metric will we be able to achieve a complete equivalence between the inertial field and the gravitational field. This is the price we must pay

Einstein’s assumption of an equivalence between the two therefore forced him to introduce a geometrical distortion in order to compensate for the partial error in the equivalence assumption

Before clarification can be accomplished it is necessary to understand that gravitation is not only equivalent to an accelerated motion; it IS an accelerated motion, but it is a motion of a special kind: a distributed scalar motion produced by Vacuum energies acting against the displacement created by 3D charged geometries [Matter]

The sources of inertial and gravitational mass is the same in both cases, but the directional force characteristics of the two types of mass are altogether different

Space-Time

Up to about the beginning of the present century it was generally believed that space and time are independent. The increase in knowledge since then has revealed that this is incorrect, and that there is actually some kind of a connection between the two.

The current opinion is that one dimension of time joins with three dimensions of space in some manner to form a four-dimensional space-time continuum.

Inasmuch as the universe is three-dimensional (a fact of observation), any position in space is a loci of an energy wave-form in three-dimensional space. Its position in time that is altered by any change to the energy-forms that are being measured or observed.

Energy’s ‘motion’ is time, it has only 2 directions of spatial motion, but it has a property that corresponds to the electrical flux of energy in a circuit [Charge], and can logically be called direction in time +/- angular momenta per spatial co-ordinate. Time is therefore an inherent property of 3D Matter [it provides the basis for its charged geometry].

There is no space outside the spatial frame of reference, as this is, in principle, unbounded (even if it is finite, as in Einstein’s theory)

The ability of the spatio-temporal reference system, to combine a spatial coordinate based on the motion of divergent energies with the measurement of intervals of time as measured by the ‘ticking’ of any clock, and to represent any region of measurement (or the motion of energies within it correctly) is strictly limited to the co-ordinates defined by that system.

Einstein’s theoretical conclusion that the speed of light cannot be exceeded will therefore have to be modified to assert that motion in space in the dimensions of the currently utilised reference co-ordinate systems cannot take place at a speed greater than that of light.

Reference systems in general use, both by scientists and by the public at large, are arbitrary systems. These arbitrary spatio-temporal system recognize the scalar progression of time, and treats time as continually moving forward at a rate indicated by a clock. The observable spatial motions are mainly motions relative to some particular object, or set of objects, and, for convenience, these objects are treated as stationary for definition of the reference system.

The Speed of Light

It was found that where the applied electric charge is held constant, the acceleration does not remain constant, as Newton’s Second Law of Motion, a = F/m, seems to require. Instead it is found to decrease as a function of the speed at a rate indicating that it would reach zero at the speed of light. The conclusion that was drawn from this experiment is that it is impossible to accelerate a physical object to a speed greater than that of light.

What the experiments demonstrate, therefore, is not that it is impossible to accelerate physical objects to speeds in excess of that of light, but that it is impossible to do so by electrical means – and this has been born out by the equilateral geometry of EM mass-energy that provides the foundational geometry of Tetryonics, each increase in velocity must be accompanied by an increasing ODD boson of energy to provide the ‘square’ energy momenta required for any velocity required.

Equilateral scalar geometry does not, however, preclude acceleration to higher speeds by some other process, such as, for example, the sudden release of large quantities of energy by a violent explosion

The point that now needs to be recognized is that the speed limitation does not come from these confirmed mathematics; it comes from the untested interpretation of the math uses to describe the physics observed.

The law of diminishing returns, bars infinities—actually it is one expression of the principle that there are no infinities in nature—and it is just as applicable to the acceleration equation as to the many other physical situations due to the equilateral geometry of the fields involved.

This law tells us that the ratio of the incremental output of a physical process to the incremental input does not remain constant indefinitely, but decreases in line with the equilateral geometry of energy momenta as the velocity of any particle in the field increases.

There is nothing in the mathematical relations that would prevent acceleration to higher speeds where means of applying greater forces are available, and in fact the geometry shows us that this is indeed the case.

The mathematics of Einstein’s theory of relativity describe the process of acceleration by means of an electric force. They do not apply to the maximum possible acceleration by other means

Measurements that appear to indicate that some components of certain quasars are moving apart with speeds up to eight or ten times the speed of light are not accepted as authentic, even though the astronomers are becoming more and more confident of the validity of their measurements, can now be shown to be the result of the release of stupendous amounts of energy in a short period from Matter-Energy conversion at the core of such stellar phenonema.

Doppler shifts and Lorentz corrections

(1-v2/c2)½. In the acceleration case, the magnitudes calculated from Newton’s Second Law of Motion exceed the speed of light at high speeds, whereas the direct measurement approaches a limit at that speed. The reduction factor is therefore applied to the calculated magnitudes to bring them into agreement with the direct measurements. In the composition of velocities, the magnitudes calculated from the relation of coordinate differences to clock time exceed the speed of light, whereas the direct measurements approach a limit at that speed. The reduction factor is therefore applied to the calculated magnitudes to bring them into agreement with the direct measurements. The Doppler shifts above 1.00 again confronted the physicists with a situation in which a speed greater than that of light was indicated. The same expedient was therefore employed to keep the indicated quasar speeds within Einstein’s limit.

The success of this mathematical expression in the earlier applications, together with the preeminent status accorded to Einstein’s limitation on speed evidently conspired to prevent any critical consideration of the justification for applying the same mathematics to the Doppler shift, as it can easily be seen that the Doppler situation is altogether different from the other two. ln both of these other cases, the direct measurement is accepted as correct, and the adjustment factor is applied to the results computed by means of certain relations that hold good at low speeds to bring these calculated results into agreement with the direct measurements. In the Doppler situation there is nothing that needs to be adjusted to agree with the direct measurement. The only magnitude involved is the shift itself, and it is the direct measurement.

There is no valid reason for assuming that the Doppler shifts above 1.00 are anything other than direct measurements of speeds greater than the speed of light. It should be noted, however, that on the basis of the points brought out in the preceding discussion, the speed that can be represented in the spatial reference system, the speed that causes change of spatial position, is limited to the speed of light. The increment above this speed, corresponding to the increment of the Doppler shift above 1.00, is a scalar addition to the speed represented in the reference system. It appears in the Doppler shift because that shift measures the total magnitude of the speed, not the change of spatial position

Matter~anti-Matter symmetry

We are now confronted with the awkward fact that the existence of positive and negative charges in contact or in very close proximity is totally foreign to the known behavior of electric charges. Everything that we actually know about such charges indicates that they destroy each other on contact, and that mixtures of oppositely charged particles can exist only under conditions such as those in solution, where the charges are created as fast as they are destroyed.

Seeing the Light

One of the major elements in the situation is the fact that, as science is now set up, evaluation of new ideas is left almost entirely to the individual scientists.

In view of the high degree of specialization now existing, this means that the evaluation is carried out by the specialists in the area affected, more particularly, by the recognized authorities in that specialized field.

In the final analysis, therefore, the verdict on a new idea is pronounced by the very individuals who are the least likely to give it the unbiased consideration that is necessary in order to arrive at an accurate evaluation: individuals who are busy with their own affairs and not inclined to be bothered with trying to understand new points of view, who are fully immersed in the details of their own specialties and thoroughly indoctrinated with the currently accepted theories, and who have a definite vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo in the theory of their subjects.

If the new proposal is a minor addition to or revision of existing knowledge, of such a nature that it can be evaluated quickly and easily, appraisal by these specialists serves the purpose quite adequately, but the more a new line of thought diverges from currently accepted concepts (and consequently, the more important the new idea is, if it is valid) the less likely it is to get any hearing at all, much less the kind of a careful and unbiased evaluation that is needed.

The Science Council

One corrective measure is to set up some kind of an agency, under scientific society, university, or government auspices, which would undertake the task of giving a preliminary hearing to new scientific proposals, not as a matter of coming to a decision as to their merits, but merely to determine whether or not they appear to be worth more extended consideration by the scientific community.

This kind could provide a remedy for one of the most serious weaknesses of the present system, which stems from the fact that the originator of a new idea normally has no opportunity to present a rebuttal to any adverse opinion that is reached, unless he already has an established standing which enables him to secure publication irrespective of adverse opinions. For the ordinary investigator, the decision of the “authority” in the particular field, or of the publication committee or the book publisher’s advisor, is essentially final.

A favourable decision by such an agency would not be in any sense an endorsement of the idea; it would simply state that, in the opinion of the agency staff, the new idea has enough merit of one kind or another to justify further and more detailed examination by the scientific profession at large.

Every significant new experimental discovery should initiate a scaled review of all portions of existing theory that are in any way affected so that errors of interpretation and extrapolation can and will be detected before so many years of effort have been wasted in following false trails.

Another move might be the establishment of a new profession, that of scientific critic, analogous to music or literary critics: individuals who are not performers themselves, but who make a business of passing considered judgment on theories put forward by others.

What the research worker needs is not this clear picture of today’s best guess that he gets from the ordinary textbook, but a frank and honest presentation of the basic elements of the theoretical structure, so that he can know which of these elements he must necessarily accept and which are open to possible modification if his findings seem to require some change.

A good professional dramatic critic is a better judge of a theatrical performance than a good actor, and a good professional scientific critic would be a better judge of a scientific theory than a good theorist, for exactly the same reasons.

The existence of some type of independent first tier professional appraisal and critique in the scientific field would go a long way toward minimizing the undesirable and detrimental practices, and would greatly facilitate such projects as the development of a new and better atomic theory.

Certainly it would be extremely helpful to the innovator to have his new and unconventional ideas appraised by someone who welcomes the opportunity of making such an appraisal and who has no personal axe to grind, rather than, as at present, being completely at the mercy of individuals who prefer not to be bothered with making the appraisal at all, and whose personal interests are strongly identified with maintaining the existing structure of scientific thought intact.

New ideas are the most important raw material of scientific progress, and the procedures of Science should be so set up that development of such ideas is not opposed or passively accepted, but actively and positively encouraged.

Science is not properly organized unless and until it sets up procedures which insure prompt recognition of meritorious new ideas even if they are poorly expressed, timidly presented, and without adequate factual support at the time they first appear.

It is the scientific community, acting through whatever agencies are required, that should display the aggressiveness—actively seeking out and encouraging new developments rather than accepting only those that force their way in—and it is the scientific community that should be quick to perceive the value of any new thought that is advanced, regardless of whether or not it agrees with established theories.

====================================================================

These Chemistry 'aufbau' illustrations of all the chemical elements reflect the quantum geometries that create their elemental family groupings. They are an adjunct to the previous release of the same elements where I revealed the rest mass-energy of each element's Matter geometry.

All of these properties and the periodic regularity that you see presented here are the result of 5 years of dedicated work that started when I speculated on Planck's constant having an equilateral geometry and postulated that this triangular geometry was the foundational quantised angular momenta [m^2/s] of quantum mechanics itself.

From there I have applied this simply geometry to Quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, Chemistry, Cosmology and even mathematics itself revealing a wealth of new information and insights that will drive our understanding of Science to new heights.

The geometric basis of Tetryonic theory removes many of the long-held assumptions that have crept into the mathematical development of science [providing as I put it, Grammar to the math in use at present]. It is the rigid geometry of tetryonic theory that provides most of the visual regularity you remarked on, in turn providing us with visually intuitive models of the quantum universe we inhabit for the first time ever.

I am currently completing a review of my work and from there I will conducting practical experiments on new sources of clean energy and other practical technologies that we can put to use for all of Humanity.

There is a wealth of new information and corrections within Tetryonic theory and I invite you to join the FB & Google+ communities, check out my Tumbr & Pinterest postings and join us on this journey as we explore a part of our Universe we will never be able to physically set our eye on.

Tetryonic periodic chemistry and the elementary family groupings

“The most important test which the theory of electronic configurations must meet, in order to satisfy the chemist, is that of providing an explanation for the periodic law,

It is quite obvious that any atomic theory that might be seriously proposed in the light of present factual knowledge must provide for some quantity corresponding to the atomic element number (and its associative properties): some quantity which, as Moseley says, “increases by regular steps as we pass from one element to the next.”

The mathematical expressions that have been derived from the experimental work are consistent with the currently accepted theories, to be sure, but they are equally consistent with any other theory which arrives at the same numerical values, regardless of the names which such other theory may attach to the units. Accordingly, since these numerical values are all related to quantities such as the atomic number or atomic [and/or molar] weight, for which any theory must furnish an explanation, agreement with the observed mathematical relations is no problem for any theory.

Developing mathematical models by extrapolating from known answers (or values) in lieu of building upon a sound foundational postulate and seeing where it leads is one of the most serious flaws in the modern approach to physics at the quantum level.

Whilst maths is the language of science, without the correct rigid geometry to serve as its guiding grammar it produces only gibberish.

This means that when the scientific profession is faced with the difficult task of finding some other theory to replace the current theories of elemental chemical properties and their interactions, scientists can hardly be expected to welcome Tetryonics (or any new theory) against their long espoused, if erroneous views of Matter and its quantum level interactions.

Niels Bohr only added to the level of confusion that existed in Chemistry when he pointed out “that the electrons are able to occupy only certain specific orbits defined by quantum considerations, that they do not radiate while moving in these orbits, and that they possess the ability to jump from one orbit to another and, in so doing, to emit or absorb radiation with a frequency corresponding to the difference between the energy levels of the two orbits”.

Then Schrodinger added more erroneous assumptions to the modern quantum mechanical model of atoms when he told us that there really are no electrons in any specific orbit, with Heisenberg contributing by adding that there actually is no physical electron at all, only a “symbol,”. The whole Copenhagen school then goes on to insist that we cannot possibly hope to conceive of the elemental atom or any of its parts in anything but purely mathematical terms.

Chemists themselves then proceed to tell us just how many electrons there physically are in any atom and exactly how they are arranged in “shells,” etc., and proceeded on this basis to calculate the element’s chemical properties (to an accuracy of eight or nine significant figures).

This utterly ridiculous situation in which one group of physicists is defining specifically and in great detail the properties of entities which, according to an even more eminent group of physicists, have “no immediate and direct properties at all ” and do not even “exist objectively” is another example of the confusion that plagues ‘modern’ atomic theory

Any theory of atomic structure that should be given any serious consideration at all must necessarily make some provision for a quantity corresponding to the atomic number that accounts for all the observed phenomena and provides a physical basis for doing so.

The collapse of the ‘modern nuclear theory’ will make it necessary to discard all of these current interpretations and go back to the actual observed facts for a fresh start.

Tetryonic theory’s model of an elemental building block – a quantum-scale synchronous converter [Deuterium] - carries with it a “built-in” explanation of the periodicity & groupings of elements, as well as the observed quantum and chemical properties of all atoms and their bound electrons. This will permit the development of a new and entirely consistent theory of periodic chemistry directly from quantum theory itself, free of the necessary adhoc assumptions which have long been so much an integral part of ‘standard’ chemical models.

It is to be expected that the theorists working in this field will take a very dim view of this conclusion with the seemingly productive models of their (sometimes life-long) labors finally relegated to the wastebasket, but this issue must be faced nevertheless if our understanding of chemical processes is to advance further.

‘Even the highest degree of competence cannot derive the right answers from the wrong premises’.

Tetryonic chemistry is an adjunct theory that builds on the quantum mechanical & electrodynamical foundations already provided by Tetryonic theory and develops them into a consistent explanation of the larger-scale Matter & its stored kinetic mass-energies which has been sought since the development of Chemistry as a separate physical discipline of Science itself.

Nostradamus in CVII-14

He will come to expose the false topography,

the urns of the tombs will be opened.

Sect and holy philosophy to thrive,

black for white and the new for the old.

The false topology -- Old Quantum theory is replace with Tetryonic geometry.

The urns of the tombs -- Our dead bodies without EM fields

Sect & holy philosophy to thrive -- Science & Religion will be united and a whole new understanding of the Universe will emerge

Everything is Energy and if you are aware of this fact and what geometry it takes, it makes it easier to block out things that are not productive or detrimental to your own EM field, aura, soul etc...

The Geometry of Electricity

Once in every generation a change occurs. The 17th Century saw the Industrial revolution. The 18th gave us the Electrical revolution. The 19th century gave rise to the Age of Technology and the 20th saw the birth of Global Consumer societies.

For over a century now Science has advanced at a broken, but ever quickening pace, striving to meet the ever growing needs of our society and the technologies that fuels its growth.

All the time in search of some key piece of information that could unite the disparate disciplines into a unified whole – something that would provide a foundation to our understanding of the source of our Laws of Physics and the Constants of Nature.

The question “What is Electricity?” like the question “What is mass or Matter?” is often claimed to lie outside the realm of physics, belonging instead to that of metaphysics.

It is meaningless to the modern scientist. It is one of the fundamental components of our modern world and perhaps THE most fundamental part of modern physics that we have yet to explain in any meaningful way.

A force that originates in some way from an electric charge, a phenomenon with which the physicists consider themselves reasonably familiar, if only mathematically [its actual physics remain clouded in a quantum shroud of mystery].

The first to hint at foundations of this element was Benjamin Franklin, whose insights were quickly followed by the practical foresightedness of Michael Faraday and the mathematical brilliance of James Clerk Maxwell leading us headlong into our current electrical Age of Technology.

On December 21st 2012 our understanding of the physical Sciences changed forever with the release of the geometric theory of charged mass-ENERGY-Matter [Tetryonics].

In one bold stroke our understanding of the Universe forever changed, with the realization that at the smallest scale imaginable the SQUARE numbers of our physics result from the EQUILATERAL quantum geometry of electromagnetic energy itself.

A trinity where the Electric field is bound by the two poles of a Magnetic dipole within an equilateral geometry and interacts with countless others just like it to form all the Matter and Forces in our Universe.

From the two charged equilateral fascia of the quantum ‘Energy coin’ comes the radiant light that fills our Universe with colour; ceaselessly moving, pausing only to create the Matter that made our Stars, created our Planet and gave life to us.

A single geometry that has lain before our very eyes as we searched for a measure of understanding in the Sciences so we could tap the power that runs the Universe and bend it to our will for our own purposes.

Electricity has ushered in an age that has seen us replace the day-labourer and his horse for a new unseen source of untiring labour – Electricity, which toils for us day and night meeting our needs.

Charge [Q], the basis of electricity is something that scientists and engineers have never been able to bring within their field of comprehension; along with a formalised distinction between the physical properties of mass [m] and Matter [M] that determine the magnitude of the gravitational force [G].

Electromagnetism [and magnetism in particular] is explained as being due to the motion of Electric charges, but as long as the charge itself remained unexplained, the addition of movement did not represent much of an advance to the understanding of quantum source of Electricity and the role it plays in building and powering our Universe.

The physicists have therefore taken force, the phenomenon that they believe they do understand, and developed from it a model of physical reality that fails to provide a clear, coherent explanation for all its observed properties and the phenomena it in turn creates.

Present-day physics have no understanding of the nature of the electric charge. We are simply told that we must not ask; that the existence of electric charges (and the forces they create) has to be accepted as one of the given features of nature, along with the physical constants.

As Feynman observed, “Mathematicians…do not even need to know what they are talking about.” The geometric interpretation of the mathematics is important primarily because it is one of the essentials for an understanding of the relationship between mathematics we invent & the physical phenomena it seeks to describe for us.

While Mathematics is the language of Science – Geometry is its Grammar.

To not pause every now and then, take stock of our theories and subject them to a rigorous analysis invites us to wander down blind alleys and cul-de-sacs of experimentation when our resources and efforts could be better utilized elsewhere bettering the Human condition.

Since the discovery of Electric and Magnetic forces, and their unification with Mathematics we have sought to describe their effects and developed in-numerable electrical technologies that have advanced the standard of living for many across the planet as the electric genie took up the grindstone for us in our technological society and brought us all closer together than ever before.

Imagine what could have been achieved had we a consistent, realistic model of the quantum forces at work that gave rise to the wonder that is electrical energy and could control it at that level.

Only equilateral geometry can unite the duality of electric and magnetic forces that give rise to the known observables and the mathematics that describes them so eloquently - a triangle

This new take on the role of an old and familiar geometry is now presented to the reader so as to reconcile the known observations with the mathematics of physics; in turn uniting the two and correcting the assumptions & errors that have crept in during the nascent development of the Sciences and prejudiced our understanding of this force of Nature to this day.

Within its regular geometry hides a trinity of forces – One Electric and Two Magnetic – each acting in their own directions, but uniting to form a singular geometry that can give substance to our dreams.

This new quantum model of the Universe gives us immediate access to clean, limitless energy as harmful stockpiles of radioactive Matter are converted into radiant heat and light - replacing older carbon fuelled power plants and meeting the energy needs of growing countries while at the same time reducing our carbon footprint on this planet dramatically.

In time, as our knowledge of the atomic structure of elements is developed, we will even be able to convert excess energies back into elements and compounds of our own choosing – the final step in achieving Science’s original dream of the transmutation of elements.

A step that is all too critical to our long-term survival as a technological species; the time of endless consumption of finite resources to meet our ever growing needs is rapidly drawing to a close as our populations increase and our limited resources dwindle through non-sustainable consumption.

We are desperately in need of a new scientific revolution, a technological solution that will allow the exponential growth of our current energy dependent industrial civilization beyond that of the current resource base we have inherited.

A simple solution that can be put into place rapidly and further developed over time; even as it re-writes some of our oldest scientific truths and pre-conceptions along with our mathematics.

Giving us answers to “What is the foundation of our Universe and how does Nature power the Stars and form all the elements that make us?

A doorway into the future has opened, it is up to us to dare peer through it and take our first steps into a new age of Humanity for all – where our Energy and resource needs can, and will be met.

Where we can strive together for the betterment of all species on Earth.

[ABRAHAM]

Introduction

Given the range and applied scope of Quantum Physics in today's Technological World there remains a driving desire to rationalize our numerous disparate scientific theories into one coherent discipline that can be applied equally to the Quantum and Cosmological scales of our Universe.

Such a theory would need to preserve the currently observed outcomes and present established theories in a new light, offering additional testable predictions of its own, and ideally do so in a manner that is simpler than that of the established quantum theories and hypotheses.

Many Foundational properties of Quantum Mechanics remain unaddressed by scientific theory and in the following pages an overview of the key quantum properties challenging our current scientific advancement will be highlighted, including a number of assumptions that currently impede the development of a fully realized, coherent solution to all of our current scientific questions.

While Mathematics is the language of Science it remains a language that lacks a well-defined physical model on which to test it and further its many and varied solutions to Quantum Mechanics. It is this lack of any rigid, enforceable GEOMETRY that has allowed the flourishing of numerous statistical and probabilistic solutions to physical problems in turn impeding our scientific advancement of quantum processes.

The Standard Model has many observed and testable components to it but more recently new theories have emerged to contest it without being rigorously testable themselves. They rely on the established foundation provided by the Standard Model but try to explain its various deficiencies ad-hoc without any solid footing of their own.

The only way to progress further in our scientific endeavors is to retrace our footsteps in Quantum Mechanics and develop new physical models on which we can discern our known results and observations thus excluding any false mathematical assumptions.

In doing so there exists the promise that a simple underlying geometric foundation can be found, revealing new and exciting advances in Science that will allow us to usher in a new age of scientific and technological advancement for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

'Tetryonics - the Charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter' whose founding principle is that of EQUILATERAL energy is the foundation geometry for all quantum mechanical processes is presented here as just such a solution to the current quandaries of Quantum Mechanics.

Energy

Energy, in Physics, is an indirectly observed quantity of a system that imbues it with the ability to exert a Force or do Work.

It has been measured and quantifies through numerous methodologies over the centuries, most notably through its associated characteristics such as mass, velocity, and ElectroMagnetic fields.

The most recent attempt to quantify its characteristics (with respect to heat and light) led to the discovery of Planck's constant and the development of Quantum Mechanics.

The application of a simple premise (that Energy has an equilateral geometry) opens the door on a greater understanding of the mechanics of the quantum world, a realm that will be forever beyond the reach of our physical eyes.

The myriad of perplexing properties of quantum particles (such as Charge, mass, Matter) and the astonishing outcomes of quantum experiments (Interference and Wave-Particle duality) can now all be readily modeled and explained rationally on a solid geometric footing.

Paving the way for new discoveries and a greater understanding of our Universe and its mechanics.

Building on the prior definition of equilateral energy quantization it can be quickly demonstrated that any energy measurement per unit of Time results in a geometric unit of measurement that has historically been taken to represent rotational motion (specifically Angular momentum).

This unit of motion is found throughout Quantum Mechanics and is directly related to the square energy levels in nuclear processes.

The equilateral EM fields of energy quanta are constrained by its geometry and this geometry lies at the heart of understanding the quantum world in all its beauty.

It determines properties such as Electric permittivity and Magnetic permeability, the vector direction of linear momentum and relates the scalar property of electromagnetic mass quanta directly to velocity.

A fundamental property of all mass-ENERGY-Matter that gives rise to the Forces of electrical interaction has eluded physical explanation by Physicists since its discovery and led to many 'band aid' additions to the Standard Model in attempts to explain its observed properties.

The most recent attempt at an explanation was Special Relativity which in turn led to the development of Quantum Mechanics itself.

SR explains Charge as an invariant property of electrostatic bodies and that the motion of charges creates an additional magnetic moment through the relativistic distortion of spherical bodies.

Equilateral energy geometries offer a completely different explanation for the source of electrostatic charges and their associated magnetic moments.

Positive and Negative Charges are the opposite side of the same quantum energy 'coin' , and can be modeled electrically as ideal quantum inductive loops. It is equilateral geometry that gives rise to the physical properties of inertial mass, the elemental charges and even the geometry of matter itself.

In a planar 2D form they form a neutral EM energy geometry but it is when they form the fascia of 3D Matter they are expressed as either Positive or Nagative electric charge fascia.

ODD number energy quanta [W Bosons] combine via their magnetic bases in fixed quantum steps to create the 'square' nuclear energy levels so familiar to quantum mechanics and form the basis for ElectroMagnetic Induction.

It is their rigid equilateral geometry that provides the basis for relativistic charge invariance and the quantum mechanism for photo-electron transitions in atoms while the net energy momenta quanta in charged geometries provides the electromotive force known as Voltage.

Equilateral geometry reveals an intrinsic connection between EM Energy and Charge.

As separated charges seek equilibrium they provide motive forces and the quantum scaffolding for large scale Matter and interaction throughout the Universe.

All Energy has an EM mass equivalence and equally any object with EM mass has Energy equivalence. But there has never been a formal scientific definition and associated equation to distinguish the property of EM mass from that of Matter.

Using Tetryonic geometry it can be clearly demonstrated that ElectroMagnetic mass is NOT Matter - it is the Energy content of a system per unit of time [E/c^2] in total agreement with Einstein (and all before him ) however lacking a formal definition of either the two terms have become mired with each other so much that they are often used for each other inappropriately even in scientific literature.

ElectroMagnetic mass is the two dimensional (planar) measurement of Energy per unit of Time whereas Matter is a measure of the tetrahedral energies found in a spherical volume of 3D space.

Mass-Energy can be viewed as the paper from which 3D Matter is created when it is folded into a tetrahedral shape (the Quantum canvas covering the geometry of Matter).

The often used term of 'massless' is now shown to be a misnomer that should be removed from the scientific vocabulary except where it specifically refers to empty space (devoid of any energies).

Matter is now formally defined geometrically as 4n[pi] tetrahedral standing waves of EM energy and it is their tetrahedral geometry of tetryons that forms the foundation for all large scale Matter in the Universe (not spherical geometries).

Charge allows EM masses to form a Tetryonic geometry giving volume to Matter and Energy momenta provides the interactive forces between them imbuing motion to our Universe.

Matter at rest in comprised of EM energies that are always in motion propagating in a tetrahedral EM standing wave geometry.

Rest mass can now be defined as the EM mass-Energies comprising stationary Matter geometries, better reflection their distinct physical properties.

Using equilateral energy all the geometries of quantum EM mass-Matter particles can be physically modeled revealing the known Standard Model particles.

Bosons are shown to be transverse EM fields that facilitate EM induction and Photons are revealed as longitudinal dual-charge pairs possessing a neutral EM charge and inherent magnetic moment.

The net unidirectional momentum of bosons then distinguishes them from the Photons that possess a bi-directional momentum.

Closer examination of the geometries highlights a long-standing error in the mathematical formulation of QM energy formulas, namely the mistaken interchanging of Planck's quanta [v] for Einstein's frequency [f] in relation to Energy.

2D EM masses [Bosons-Photons] do not possess the physical property of 3D Matter [Fermions].

Fermions can now be defined as the standing wave energy geometries that create all the known sub-atomic particles - the building blocks of large scale Matter and structure in the macro world.

Historically these particles have been classified according to their charges and masses, Tetryonic geometry now provides a 3D physical model of all the particles highlighting the physical source of the 1/3 charges of Quarks revealing charge to be the foundational geometry of all Matter.

Tetryons are 4[pi] charge geometries that are the foundational quanta of Matter and surprisingly have a mass-charge ration identical to that of Leptons explaining how these particles have remained hidden from accelerator experiments.

Quarks are 12[pi] charge Matter geometries where the attractive strong charge interactions between their fascia results in entirely different properties to that of Leptons.

Leptons also have 12[pi] charge but with repulsive fascia geometries that result in them forming the quantum equivalent of a 6 loop rotator.

Protons and Neutrons are 36[pi] geomtries and have identical masses [against the current model of baryonic masses derived from an entirely different process where Neutrons are formed by Protons absorbing electrons].

Leptons and Baryons then seek to combine into neutral charge elements that are the quantum electrical equivalent of synchronous rotating convertors enabling them to absorb, store and release quantum energies in the familiar forms of Photons and EM mass.

Baryons - the building blocks of atomic nuclei can be formed from many tri- quark combinations and energy levels and this is of particular note when modern accelerators are used to probe atomic structures.

The higher energies they employ when colliding particles together results in higher 2D kinetic energies (and increased energy quanta) which recombine after collisions into a plethora of similar particles called the Particle Zoo.

A sound understanding of EM mass-Energy and the charged geometries of all Matter reveals the true genesis of all the Baryons in the particle zoo.

Tetryonic geometries will facilitate the precise 3D modeling of all the periodic elements, allotropes and compounds enabling the development of new classes of materials and medicines providing us with many new insights into Quantum Chemistry and large scale Matter in general.

Adding to the mysteries of quantum mechanics is a number of well-known QED effects that have also eluded physical explanation - to date.

In 1865, James Maxwell Clerk unified the then disparate theories of Electric and Magnetic fields into a theory of Electromagnetism and related then to the velocity of light.

The exact quantum geometry of EM wave geometries ( and the Photons comprising them) that explains their Wave functions and observed interference patterns represents one of the greatest challenges to developing a concise fully realized quantum theory of EM radiation.

Wave-Particle duality dating back to the 17th century is perhaps the best known example of quantum behavior that has defied precise modelling despite intense effort by scientists around the World for over two centuries.

The application of equilateral energy to the charged geometries of Photons and EM waves not only explains these long standing mysteries but also removes the quantum fuzziness introduced by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

Clearing the way for Science to develop an advanced understanding of Electricity, its role in Quantum ElectroDynamics and provide new clean forms of energy from the quantum processes.

The physical relationship between Spectral lines, Rydberg's Constant and the Kinetic energies of Photo-electrons as they interact with photons and atomic nuclei is quickly revealed when equilateral energy geometries are employed.

It is the rigid geometry of equilateral Energy momenta that gives rise to the invisible forces of Faraday's Electric and Magnetic fields and Newton's Action-at-a-Distance.

Quantized Angular Momentum, a direct measure of the long hidden equilateral geometry of Energy, is revealed as the source of Charge, the physical constants and even the geometry of EM mass-Energy and Matter itself.

Charge interactions resulting from equilateral EM energy geometries have been mistakenly developed into three disparate nuclear forces:

The EM Force is the result of 2n[pi] charge geometries acting along transverse or longitudinal directions (or in superposition) in the forms of Bosons and Photons.

The Weak Forceis the inductive coupling of the magnetic permeability of adjacent energy geometries.

The Strong Force is the attractive force between opposite charged fascia of Tetryonic Matter. It can also form a repulsive force between similar charged fasciae resulting in charged Leptons [electrons].

Gravitation (mathematically identical to Coulomb's Force save for strength and source) can also be modeled as the geometric mean of super-positioned EM waves.

All of which are determined by the Find Structure Constant - the mysterious hand of GOD - setting the strength of EM interactions and determining Charge on the quantum level.

Applying equilateral geometry to energy momenta quanta the Tetryonic model of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter quickly resolves to explain many additional electrical properties such as Voltage, Current and Power.

Applying equilateral energy geometries to quantum chemistry leads to a number of significant advances in the understanding of chemical processes most notably:

Accurate models for all periodic elements and their associated allotropes.

Advanced molecular orbital plots

Exact rest masses for all elements and

A new Periodic table based on the charged geometries of Matter

Improving the Aufbau principle with charged geometries leads to many refinements in chemical engineering and facilitates the building of accurate 3D models of all elements, isotopes and compounds.

Every element can be analyzed from the quantum level upwards revealing its exact 3D geometry, quark configuration, rest Matter-energies and chemical properties.

And a number of misconceptions can be quickly clarified and corrected in turn advancing our understanding to the physical mechanics underlying chemical processes like chemical bonding, element family properties and the structures of complex chemical compounds.

Hydrocarbons and Carbohydrates have already been modeled using equilateral charge geometries with the results matching a number of established chemical models of Nobel Gases, Core electrons, Lewis diagrams and compound symmetries.

Even DNA can be modeled in 3 dimensions leading to a greater understanding of the role of quantum mechanics in biological processes and the interaction of EM radiation on organic compounds.

A highly developed quantum model of chemical elements and compounds will allow us to model chemical and biological structures in hitherto unimagined detail and facilitate the building of complex (and increasingly accurate) models of all chemical compounds and biological processes.

In physics a Unified Field Theory is a type of theory that allows all that is usually thought of as a fundamental force or elementary particle to be formulated in terms of a single equation that explains all their disparate properties.

It is considered the holy grail of Science, offering the promise of advances in Technology, Energy, and Medicine unparalleled in Human history.

Equilateral energy provides the foundation for the creation of a single equation that expresses EM mass-ENERGY and Matter as the result of geometric charge interactions.

Applying equilateral geometry to Energy quanta has been shown to firmly resolve many of the current mysteries plaguing the Standard model and provides a firm foundation for the development of a single unified quantum theory uniting all quantum and macroscopic forces and structures.

In addition to revolutionizing our understanding of Quantum geometries and interactions, Tetryonic Theory facilitates the development of a whole new field of Physical maths based on equilateral triangles in lieu of the spherical geometries historically employed.

It effortlessly merges the tested features of Classical mechanics with the statistical probabilities of quantum mechanics and scales up to the cosmological scales of General Relativity.

Equilateral charged energy geometries provide a quantifiable foundation for advances in:

Quantum Mechanics

Quantum Electrodynamics

Quantum Chemistry

Quantum Cosmology

Explaining the quantum mysteries of mass and Matter, Wave-Particle duality and gravitational Singularities by challenging the very foundational assumptions of Relativity and the role of charge in our Universe.

Mathematical principles such as re-normalization, probabilities and square roots of negative numbers can all be geometrically modeled through Tetryonics leading to further advances in fields such as biology, medicine, quantum computing and telecommunications.

Through the charged geometries of Tetyoncis many of the erroneous theories that have been developed during the last 100 years can be falsified at last, providing a solid foundation for further advances in science and mathematics.

The force of Gravity has been long-held to be the mysterious force that holds our Universe together, shaping the Stars and holding us to the Earth as we orbit our own SUN.

Using Tetryonic Geometry it is revealed in its quantum glory to be the result of electromagnetic fields and the effect produced by the geometry of Matter in these fields.

Newton saw Gravity as a force that acts instantaneously on distant bodies of Matter while Einstein dismissed the force between the bodies and explained it as the result of the curvature of Space-Time.

In fact the Gravitational field is comprised of 3 separate components, each of which has differing interactions, but all combining to produce the nett Gravitational field that we observe and describe as Gravity.

Gravity fields are created by the geometry of Matter as it displaces and distorts the Vacuum energies surrounding it.

Electric fields diverge radially from all Matter as it is heated, or placed in motion by other forces creating an interactive field with divergent and convergent equatorial regions of acceleration.

Dipole Magnetic fields located in the Polar Regions create a perturbative force on bodies close to them.

Although both Newton's and Einstein's theories were correct in their respective analysis of the forces at work they both failed to define and distinguish between mass and Matter leading to the century-long debate as to the true nature of quantum gravity.

These are the quantum forces that combine to produce the field of gravitational acceleration so eloquently modeled by Newton back in the 16th century through his inverse square law.

And these 3 distinct forces combine to produce the stellar mechanics that poser the Stars - a Gravito-Electro-Magnetic pinch.

The force of Gravity, created by the geometry of Matter draws Matter toward the core of Stars.

And the EM pinch at the core of the Star destroys Matter (collapsing its 3D geometry), turning it into radiant 2D ElectroMagnetic radiation (Light).

Virtual particles, Dark Energy, and Dark Matter (all developed to explain the observed mechanics of our Universe) can now be revealed to be differing manifestations of the electromagnetic force interacting in various ways with the standing-wave geometries that it created.

Quantum fields of Energy combine to create charged 2D geometries of radiative ElectroMagnetic fields that in turn spread out interacting with each other to give us the fundamental laws of Attraction and Repulsion.

The 3D standing-wave geometries of Matter provide a rigid structure that displaces the surrounding Vacuum energies and creates a pressure gradient which we call Gravity.

And the destruction of these Matter geometries in turn creates radiant energies that propagate our into the surrounding space to weaken and form the Vacuum energies that permeate all of Space.

The eternal cycle of Matter creation and destruction within Stars and Galaxies is what drives the Universe we see today causing it to contract as it forms gravitational Matter and to expand as it restructures the standing-wave Matter into radiant forms of Energy (Light and heat).

The same process offers us clean, limitless energy for all our needs as well as unlimited resources from the restructuring of this energy into it's varied elemental and compound forms.

Our toxic stockpiles of radioactive wastes can be completely eliminated from the environment and electrical poser can be safely stored as mass within large-scale models of the deuterium nuclei and distributed worldwide to any location without the need for transmission lines.

Even hydro-electric storage schemes can be eliminated, returning water courses to their natural states of flow in turn reducing conflicts stemming from the flow of this precious resource worldwide.

Through the geometries of equilateral energy and the application of the Tetryonic unified field equation of mass-ENERGY-Matter in motion to meet our needs for the first time in Humanity's history, we have the chance to advance our civilization to new pinnacles of technology and to leave the world a better place than what we found it.

The age old dilemma of technological advancement versus environmental pollution is at an end.

We stand on the threshold of realizing one of the greatest advances in scientific understanding ever witnessed but we must also endeavor to redress our current social challenges with an equally rigorous determination to ensure all of Humanity benefits from this discovery.

Chapter 1

This is the foundation of everything. Once you get your head around the equilateral energy and its geometry, you can start putting things together without the math, and equally you can start using it to check the math of what people are telling you.

What I'm going to describe today is the equilateral tile that makes up everything. What I'll go through is the geometry, how the square roots of the momentum come about and how they relate to the current formulations of quantum mechanics. There is a bit of re-wiring of the brain that has to take place in order to follow what's going on. As you abandon the math and switch to the geometry, you'll find that you don't even think about which is which and what property is what. I look at the triangle and look where the arrow is and the rest of it just happens. It orientates around where the square root of the energy is, the angular momentum. From there you can figure everything else out.

What's been missing from the Standard Model of physics today, as it's been developed, is a tangible geometry in order to further develop a lot of our math. The current math at the moment relies on Gaussian formulations, where 4[pi] geometries are assumed to be spherical just like planets and stars. What Tetryonics will show and further elaborate on, is that the geometry or the [pi] geometry of energy is in fact equilateral triangles. It's the tessellation or joining together of these equilateral triangles that creates the quantum mechanics that we formulate our math on. It then goes on to create all the large scale Classical interactions of Newton and gravitation.

All the material that we are going through today is covered in the Tetryonics PDF's, predominantly Quantum Mechanics and then ElectroDynamics. They are the first two books in the Tetryonics series. The first one obviously being the foundation of Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein said it best when he pointed out that our understanding, everyone's understanding of physics and mathematics is basically a preconception. It's how we have come to understand either the math or the physics as it's been explained to us. The universities do just that. They explain math to us the way they understand it and then they test us to make sure we've understood the way they understand it. Unfortunately, in order to break out of the mold and create new and exciting developments in science, inevitably we have to break out of the mold. We have to move out on different paths. We have to explore and we have to come up with new testable hypothesis that we can then apply and further develop science and physics in particular.

Tetryonics takes quantized energy and angular momenta, which is normally expressed in the form of Planck's Constant, and says there is one form with two properties either side of that one form. The form being an equilateral triangle and the two properties being positive and negative charge. Any neutral energy quanta, or triangle will have a positive side and a negative side when floating in free space and being measured. As its charge measurement goes, even though it has the properties of positive and negative, it will in fact be neutral. This has led to a lot of problems in the detection and formulation of Quantum Mechanics from our Classical viewpoint.

What must be stressed and what will be seen as you go further and further into Tetryonics, is that the entire universe and everything in it boils down to just one geometry. As we've discussed that geometry is an equilateral triangle. It is positive and negative charge on either side and as soon as large quanta of those geometries are broken up into separate charges, all they want to do is seek equilibrium. It doesn't matter if it's charge equilibrium or if it's energy equilibrium, they just want to equalize out into the most stable state they can find. In doing so they create all the nuclear interactions we are familiar with along with the large scale interactions such as gravity. They are also responsible for the Familiar Law of opposites attract and similars repel.

Tetryonics itself has 3 main laws. The first one being that Energy itself is equilateral. The second one is that the law of interaction and all energy in whatever form it is will seek equilibrium. The third law states that once the system is in motion and it's seeking equilibrium, it will continue indefinitely as it cycles through it's various forms backwards and forwards.

You'll quickly see the relationships that come out through the geometry as opposed to classical formations of what angular momentum is.

Throughout Tetryonics, I'm constantly referring to mass as defined by 2D and Matter as 3D standing wave geometries.

mass and Matter are not the same thing, and it's one of the big things in Tetryonics that stands it apart from Relativity and all the other formulations of physics in our current science.

Tetryonics, through it's geometry, allows us to distinguish between mass, ENERGY, and Matter.

In a short form, just to bring you into the Equilateral Energy. If you view energy as being [(kg)x(m^2)]/s^2 , that's a form of Energy, Joules.

If you were to measure that per seconds squared which is the circular dimension around the triangle, and do the Algebra you will find that you have a unit of Kilograms, a unit of mass. That leads to Einstein’s formulation of E=Mc^2.

It's more of an Equivalence factor. mass is ENERGY and ENERGY is mass. The difference between the two is simply that mass is ENERGY per unit of time, in this case c^2. C^2 can also be related to seconds. That's where Planck's constant comes in.

Where Physics in some case has used per second for it's units of time, in other cases, (particularly relativity, because it's based on the speed of light) one second becomes c^2.

So that figure at the top left hand corner could be written exactly as you see it there, or it can conversely be rewritten as just second. If you take it as c^2 as being one second and divide the energy by a second, you end up with what we have in the middle. Planck's Constant. Just kilogram square meters per second.

Matter is a completely different form. Matter is a 3-Dimensional standing wave form of Energy. So where you have planar or 2-Dimensional mass energy coming together forming a 3D tetrahedron, you then have matter.

They are completely distinct. Matter can have mass by virtue of it having charged energy sides. mass will never have the property of Matter. mass is a planer wave of energy. Matter is 3-dimensional so Matter can never be a property of mass.

Throughout Tetryonics, you will see the Golden Triangle. Gold stands for Charge. Where you see a Golden triangle you have charged geometries.

All energy triangles have quanta, hence quantum mechanics or quantized energy or quantized angular momentum.

Picking any number represented by n in normal number theory, you'll quickly find that all equilateral energies follow a set geometry and from this we get all our formulations for physical math. At the top we have a v which can stand for velocity, it can stand for quanta. It can even stand for meters if you wish to swap the v for an m.

To the right hand side, you'll see that there is v squared be it meters or be it velocity. any amount of energy to achieve that velocity or that area of space requires a square number of smaller triangles within the larger one that is taking up the space or creating that velocity.

That is the essence of Quantum Mechanics. That's what Planck was trying to get to when he started black body radiation. You'll note a small orange or golden V to the left hand side. We're coming to that later on, but basically that is just highlighting quantum levels. If you were to multiply Planck's constant by odd numbered quanta you have a quantum level. If you add sequential odd numbers together, you get a square number. That geometry on the left there, is the guiding geometry for all of physics so far as how much energy, how much velocity, what shape fields take, and what the momenta in the fields are doing in order to create the final forces.

To the right hand side you will see a one second circle, and we've done it in the classical explination. This way is one second for the circle. Within that we have a golden triangle that represents square meters in this case. Square areas, square numbers are all equilateral. If you check the definition of equilateral, it just means equal angles. Squares have equal angles. Triangle have equal angles and so do hexagons. In this case we are referring to what most people think of when they see equilateral geometry and that's an equilateral triangle. X square meters per second. That's a measure of angular momentum.

Historically and even up to now, Physicists, particularly quantum physicists will tell you that square meters per second is a rotation around a point. A vector rotation, left to right moving about a central point. Tetryonics shows that square meters per second, is in fact a triangle measured in a radial unit of time, be it seconds or be it how fast a cow moves.

It doesn't matter what the units of time are, what it comes back to is the geometry. Throughout Tetryonics you'll see that the geometry dictates what the math is. What's happened Classically and historically is that we've investigated quantum mechanics and worked things out via the math. But where it has failed us in the last century is that we've then tried to apply the math and mathematical rules to create new directions to go. Even though it is a logical framework, Mathmematics has no rigidity so far as which direction to move in. All things are possible hence mulitverses blackholes and things like that.

Whereas the geometry that underlies the mathematics that we use, puts very rigid constraints on what you can and cannot do. It's a tangible fixed geometry. You can cut them out with little pieces of paper and you can build things. You can then use the math to describe what you have built, but in no way can the math suddenly say that a triangle is a square or a triangle exists in higher dimensions. The geometry is the foundation of our math.

As you get further and further into Tetryonics you will discover more and more examples where mathematics has errored on it's assumptions and the geometry sets it straight again.

Again, just a quick slide to show that in the top left hand corner. You have the quantum levels that are all made up of odd numbered bosons. If you ever see an odd number of planck quanta you know immediately that it's a quantum level anywhere and that sequential quantum levels all add up together to form a square number which is represented on the right hand side with colored lines instead of the yellow quantum lines. They all have a color code that they follow and they all produce square numbers down the right hand side of the equilateral geometry.

The symbol in the middle is just a generic symbol that's developed over time to represent quantum mechanics, particularly quantum energy. The pattern of the colors inside, you'll come across in quantum Electrodynamics where it actually represents the probability statistics of energy within the wave or a normal distribution of energy in a bell curve.

Even Bell curves, the nice curving shape within quantum mechanics that you'll be tested on time and time again by your physics teachers in reality aren't nice curving rounded slopes. They are equilateral triangles. They have just been measured by us in chunks to produce nice rounded curving slopes, or in many cases in quantum mechanics, the physicists have taken the measurements and then extrapolated the nice curve from the jagged lines to produce the bell curve.

They are all [pi] geometries, or [pi] radians and through the equilateral geometry of energy, we can explain mass Matter and ENERGY in all it's forms.

Again, as I touched on before, square areas, despite the name of 'square' can be any geometry. They can be circular. They can be square themselves. They can be in fact triangular, and it is the triangular geometry that forms the foundation of all the geometries. Even a spherical geometry in our large scale or classical physics is just made up of larger and larger increments of smaller and smaller equilateral triangles as they are Tessellations. Just as they do in video games, they are all made up of polygons. In this case the universe uses equilateral. They don't use irregular polygons.

Again, here's the larger explanation. You'll see this crop up time and time again. It's what I call the "learning to count" symbol for mathematicians. As quantum mechanics rewires your brain, you'll slowly get used to relaying colors to number and square numbers to triangular geometries. Of note here is, down the center, or along the height of any triangle, any square number triangle, or any equilateral triangle, you'll find a pink line in most cases, or pink numbers. They represent the square root. If you do the math and then just look at the numbers, on level 9, looking across you have 81 triangle. If you have a square energy distribution of 81, the square root is 9. So the square roots in all equilateral geometries form the integers for all the math that comes out of it. They also happen to be the linear momentum. If you have an equilateral triangle of n energy, the square root of n is simply the height of the equilateral triangle. There is no more complicate math, you don't have to worry about the formula for the square root. It's just root 3 on 2. You don't have to know that. You just have to know the geometry. Odd numbers down the left, square numbers that arrive from adding up the odd numbers on the right. Square roots in the middle. As I touched on before, if you then look at all the distribution of your energy triangles you'll find that they form an even distribution which is along the bottom. That even distribution when you put two equilateral triangles together, forms the wave function and the geometry of photons.

All photons, 2 pi or tau pi energy geometries, and electromagnet waves are made up of photons, so every electromagnetic wave will have an even distribution of energy. Whereas a triangle or charged Boson geometry will be made up of a square number. It can be even and or odd. One little quirk that comes out later on as we do light, is you'll find that, to go from one quantum level, one square number to another, within the atom to release light, or to transition in quantum jumps, requires to get rid of sequential odd numbers of energy.

To give you a quick example of why I choose 100 squared. If you look at energy level of 81 or 9 squared, and you were jump all the way down to energy level 1 which is 1 squared, you would need to get rid of 80/81st or 80 out of the 81 triangles that are there. So you've got 81, get rid of 80 you're left with one. That's an energy transition in quantum mechanics from level 9 down to level 1. If you divide 80/81 you'll actually find a number that's rather coincidental and amazing, the number in your calculator will come out to be .987654321. A pure quirk, it's just something that comes out and because of that I have based all the geometries you see there, usually on level 9 so that you get that lovely sequence. You'll see that geometry come up time and time again.

Without the circle around it, this geometry in your own mind should immediately mean Energy geometry. Were it to have a circle around it be it seconds or c squared it would immediately be mass. That's the only distinction between mass and ENERGY in quantum mechanics is measuring energy in a unit of time. If you see a circle around it you know it's mass. If you see no circle it's ENERGY. In all cases, 2 dimensional energy or mass energy will always be represented in Tetyronics Unified Field Equation as n [pi]. n meaning 2 dimensional or planar. If it's referring to the energy or the geometry of matter it will always be referred to a T (tau) [pi] to represent Tetryonic or 4 n [pi] geometry. So if you see an n [pi] it's mass energy, radiant expanding outwards usually. If you see T [pi] or Tetryonic [pi] you know it's immediately a standing wave geometry of matter.

All energy or equilateral geometries or square geometries are made up of integer number triangles. You don't get 1/2 a triangle or a 1/4 of a triangle. You will get 1/2 photons and things like that, but again photons are larger geometries. So far as a single equilateral triangle it's always whole numbers or integers in any other geometry that you'll come across in physics.

The odd numbers comprise each level. Counting down the left side again, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, on-wards. Odd numbers in every quantum level, they have a name in physics. The name for odd number geometries is Bosons. If you read Bosons anywhere you know immediately it must have an odd number of triangles in it. They have a completely different geometry to photons.

As pictured here, photons are tau (T [pi]) or two [pi] geometries. They always come in pairs of plus and minus charge and the plus and minus charge are even numbered quanta. You will find half quantas of them. In fact you will find the formulation for zero point energy in all the current physics is one half hf, or half the frequency. Half of an even number is an odd number, that's a boson.

The first lesson, is that a single unit boson, 1, is what they have been chasing for close to 60 years now is the zero point energy, or the zero point field as I like to call it because it really is an electromagnetic field. It does contain energy and it also has properties of mass when measured per unit of time.

Square numbers, run down the right hand side, and consist of sequential combinations of odd numbers. In this case you are starting to see the odd numbers just follow the color coding. 1,3,5,7 and what happens when you get to black and then zero is a lighter shade. It repeats again, 11 is a lighter shade of red, and orange for 12 and it keeps stepping through. You can in fact generate the full color spectrum over and over with the number code using our decimal counting system.

Odd numbers are quantum levels or Bosons. Square numbers are Energy and they are the sum of the bosons. When you have electromagnetic induction, Bosons are emitted from an energy geometry to lower that energy and they are added together to create a larger energy geometry somewhere else. That's electromagnetic induction.

The square root, mathematics will say square root of positive or negative imaginary numbers. It's just a quirk of mathematics and how it's written in it's logical grammar as they like to say. I or n whichever one prefers. The plus and the minus although in mathematics they are imaginary so far as the square root of negative one and things like that. In physics and quantum mechanics you'll see that the square root of negative one has a real physical properly namely the square root of negative charge.

There is more in the 5th book that I wrote, Geometrics, where I lean heavily towards the math and relating the geometry to it to explain things for everyone.

Again, you can represent a plus or a minus number sequence however you wish, but if you were to build it out of energy starting with no energy going plus or minus, you would use equilateral geometries to create a larger equilateral geometry. If you were to plot those, break them into electromagnetic fields instead of just pure energy and plot it, you would end up with a sin curve in this case. It doesn't look like one but that's what you would actually measure, measuring that as geometries.

Irrational numbers pop up everywhere. They have been a constant frustration and a source of many theses for mathematicians investigating where they come from in physics and what their source is. All of the source of mysteries and problems in mathematics within physics come back to equilateral geometries of energy.

A lot of the irrational number are simply the square root of 3 on 2 or the height of an equilateral geometry. Sin 60, Cos 60 crop up because our mathematics has a hard time rationally or correctly explaining what geometry can show you. The math will just go on and on for the square root for the square root of 3 on 2, and for sin 60, however the geometry when you draw the altitude of an equilateral triangle, or the angle within an equilateral triangle, it's fixed. It doesn't go on and on. It is what it is, and that's why geometry is superior than the mathematics when learning quantum mechanics and QED. In fact all science as we move further and further on and apply Tetryonics.

In my development of the theory in testing and applying it, eventually I discovered that it was best to put a color code to all the numbers as we've hinted on. You'll see that they just follow the color code of the spectral lines. It takes a little bit to get used to it. It does apply naturally and after awhile you will become slightly intolerant of people that mix up the colors in the color code for the sake of it. Particularly where they apply to number sequences. They become very helpful when we do quantum chemistry and we talk about the energy levels in atoms and how they are built.

All the math you want, all accurate, nothing wrong with the math. The problem with math is it's hard for people to visualize and then to understand as they are learning it. It's harder to grade people on it, so far as their understanding of what's been going. And when it comes to extrapolating from the math, there is no rigid guideline as to what can and what cannot be done. All things are equally possible. And that's led to our past 50 or 60 years of many wild theories and possibilities such as string theory, M theory, Black Holes. They are all extrapolations of the math where it's not precluded until you use the Equilateral Geometry of Tetryonics. In which case suddenly a lot of things become precluded and we then have a rigid framework to build our mathematics even further.

Just quickly, that covers Equilateral Energy and it's Quantization for Quantum Mechanics. We will quickly touch on what free space is because as I've mentioned before, seconds can be c^2, depending on which form of math you are using in physics. In this case, Tetryonics defines free space as any region, or volume that is free of energy in whatever form that energy may take. Whether it's charges, bosons or photons, or Matter. It has absolutely no energy in it. It is devoid of anything in the way shape or form of equilateral energy.

Through that region we can then define spatial coordinates and various unit of time( ways of measure time) and we can measure what moves through that region. That forms our perception of time. Every definition, of time, every measurement of time in physics or metaphysics, relies on us perceiving the motion or change of a state of something. In which case, no matter whether it's Energy or Matter, it has to be a measurement of a change in the energy forms. If you have no energy forms in any region of space, or any volume, you have no perception of time. You have no way of measuring time, even if you did, you have no way of determining if something moved. That's critical. Empty space, or free space has no energy forms.

When Relativity came along and set the speed of light as a fixed constant and a fixed velocity in a vacuum, it then became convenient to measure things like distance and units of set time (seconds) and the rest on the basis of the fixed speed of light. What grew out of that was a radial Time Geometry which has never been expressed as a radial Time Geometry. If you measure one second of the speed of light propagating for one second, you'll have c as noted in the top left hand corner. It's almost 300 million linear meters per second in a straight line from the source at the center.

If you measure truly one second of light radiating from the source, the first thing you will note is that light spreads in two directions at once. It has opposing momenta. It's 2[pi] geometries. One pointing one way and one pointing the other. So far as the area covered in one second, you'll find that the same measurement ( one second of time) we have 300 million linear meters in that one time, but that same measurement of one second gives us 8.98 X 10^16 square meters (Radial Square Meters).

So in one second of time you can measure as linear meters or linear momentum within that time, or you can measure the energy contained within that radial unit. Again, square meters, this time it's a circular geometry

====

There a number of issues raised here:

1. The Primer field model of interactions, and their bowls in particular, only model the M-fields of the interactions taking place – a common problem with most experimentalists. If you look at their toroidal shaped fields and realize they are only models of M-fields you’ll notice that they match the equilateral m-fields of Tetryonics but fail to model the e-field energy that they are applying to them in order to achieve their results.

2. That said they still remain an accurate model of the processes [albeit only half the picture]

3. Current theories struggle in many ways to account for the creation and evolution of our Universe in light of the currently observed features – the largest problem they have and the most conveniently skipped over is the FTL problem of Inflation – FTL is impossible under the tenets of relativity theory, yet it is the core mechanism for inflation the bed rock of the current model of how the Universe got to have such an homogenous CMBR radiation pattern.

4. The CMBR results from an ‘almighty’ electrical discharsge from two electrodes with the longitudinal waves produced reaching out between the electrodes to collide and interact within a region between the two electrodes concerned

5. This is the only way to produce Matter and forces in the early Universe, as you delve into Tetryonic theory in depth you will note a number of key points that firmly point to the above scenario being the most plausible mechanism for the creation of our Universe.

6. Light itself can be easily formed from the same discharge process along with Matter

[but the reverse is not true nor possible, Matter cannot be created from Light or EM waves].

7. All Matter is created from Electrostatic discharges – neutral photons and EM waves have charge arrangements that are in-correct for forming Matter – so a DC discharge is how you form Matter not from light.

8. The energy density of these primordial discharges is high enough to produce FTL velocities under E=mv^2 geometries and to result in inflation where the Vacuum energies and light produced will initially propagate at >c for a period of time and then ‘slow’ down to c when the energy densities permit.

9. The interactions that create the Matter component of our Universe are the result of longitudinal energy momenta slamming into each other at various angles – only longitudinal waves produce physical forces [Tesla] and these forces create Matter, EM fields and gravity in the nascent Universe.

10. As time progresses the region of interaction will grow in size [the Universe expands] to fill empty regions of space creating SOME of the observed CMBR pattern – this CMBR pattern can also be heavily influenced by localised regions of creation

11. If a solar system [ours] was created later we would observe the CMBR pattern only by viewing it through the local MBR bubble produced by the creation of our Solar system – any attempt to model the CMBR without taking these effects into account just leads to erroneous models and predictions – to date there have be 4 [FOUR] math models that predicted the CMBR energy level [temperature] each one was proclaimed the most accurate model possible until measures returned temperatures that differed from the model – at which point the model was re-adjusted and proclaimed to be the most accurate model again.

12. Fiddling with math to match an observed outcome is not science – it is fiddling – and should never be done. Tetryonics has littered Science with the remains of such work that has lead physics to many an erroneous conclusion – atomic models, relativity theory, gravity, the role of charge and the geometry of energy itself are but a few that come quickly to mind.

13. The Ying-Yang geometry is simply a well-known symbol that can be utilized to convey a basic message of how the Universe was created, many others are no doubt possible as well – the truth of the matter (as I see it) is far more prosaic, to make a Universe all you need is enough equilateral Planck energies compressed into two points and a region of empty space in which it can expand. Dollard has done similar experiments and noted mini-galaxies and stars in light bulbs as a result of large voltages discharges into them.

Hope this aids in helping you to develop an understanding of where Tetryonics differs from current models, its explanation of the creation and subsequent formation of Matter and physical forces in our Universe, if you have any other questions or feel I didn’t explain any particular point in enough detail just let me now and I will elaborate further on any point .

Cheers,

ABRAHAM

====

TETRYONIC GEOMETRY – THE MECHANISM BEHIND THE MYSTERIOUS PROPERTIES OF QUANTUM MECHANICS REVEALED

B.RANJITH REDDY, D.V. PRIYANKA

MALLA REDDY ENGINEERING COLLEGE

[email protected],[email protected]

ABSTRACT: Tetryonics is a newly developed quantum theory of mass-energy Matter, stemming from a radical reinterpretation of what square numbers are in physics and their application to Quantized Angular Momentum (QAM). It can now be shown through the geometry that the QAM of Planck’s constant is in fact the result of its quantized equilateral triangular geometry, not a vector rotation about a point.

The equilateral geometry itself gives rise to the physical properties of charge, electrical permittivity, magnetic permeability and the rigid physical relationships between inertial mass-energy and moment in physical systems at the quantum level. Charge(QAM/C2) ,in addition to its role as the geometric source of physical properties, also provides the quantum framework for radiant 2D mass-energies to become 3D standing waves Matter geometries facilitating the development of large scale physical systems of atoms ,compounds, stars and galaxies throughout our universe.

Hitherto unexplained and mysterious properties of quantum mechanics are now revealed as having their origin in the geometry of Planck’s constant itself.

I. INTRODUCTION

“The scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother’s milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of this concept. He uses this conceptual material, or speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted.

In the interest of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them.

Given concept and applied scope of quantum physics in today’s technological world there remains a driving desire to rationalize our numerous disparate scientific theories into one coherent discipline that can be applied equally to the quantum and cosmological scales of our universe.

Such a theory would need to preserve the currently observed outcomes and present established theories in a new light, offering additional testable predictions of its own, and ideally do so in a manner that is simpler than that of the established quantum theories and hypothesis.

Many foundational properties of quantum mechanics remain unaddressed by scientific theory and in the following pages an over view of the key quantum properties challenging our current scientific advancement will be highlighted, including a number of assumptions that currently impede the development of a fully realized, coherent solution to all of our current scientific questions.

While mathematics is the language of science it remains a language that lacks a well defined physical model on which to test it and further its many and varied solutions to quantum mechanics. it is this lack of any rigid, enforceable geometry [grammar] that has allowed the flourishing of numerous statistical and probabilistic solutions to the physical problems in turn impending our scientific advancement of quantum processes.

The standard model has many observed and testable components to it but more recently new theories have emerged to contest it without being rigorously testable themselves. They rely on the established foundation provided by the standard model but try to explain its various deficiencies adhoc without any solid footing of their own.

The only way to progress further in our scientific endeavors is to retrace our footsteps in quantum mechanics and develop new physical models on which we can discern our known results and observations thus including any false mathematical assumptions.

In doing so there exists the promise that a simple underlining geometric foundation can be found, revealing new and exciting advances in science that will allow us to usher in a new age of scientific and technological advancement for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

‘Tetryonics-the charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter’ whose founding principle is that EQUILATERAL energy is the foundation geometry for all quantum mechanical processes is just such a solution to the current quandaries of quantum mechanics.

Tetryonics has various demonstrated applications in many fields; some of them are given below

1. Quantum Mechanics

2. Quantum Electro Dynamics

3. Chemistry

4. Cosmology

5. Geometrics

Three laws of Tetryonics:

a) Energy itself is equilateral

b) The law of interaction and all energy in whatever form seek equilibrium

c) Once the system is in motion and it’s seeking equilibrium, it will continue indefinitely as it cycles through it’s various forms backwards and forwards.

II.QUANTUM MECHANICS

a)QUANTUM PARICLES: using equilateral energy all the geometries of quantum EM mass-Matter particles can be physically modeled revealing the known standard model particles.

Bosons are shown to be transverse EM fields that facilitate EM induction and photons are revealed as longitudinal dual-charge pairs possessing a neutral EM charge and inherent magnetic moment.

The net uni directional momentum of bosons then distinguishes them from photons that possess a bi-directional momentum.

Closer examination of the geometries highlights a long-standing error is the mathematical formulation of QM energy formulae, namely the mistaken interchanging of planks quanta [v] for Einstein’s frequency[f] in relation to energy. It, in fact, takes 2 charged Bosons [hv] to create a neutral Photon [hf] mathematically equating the two [as historically has been the case] is the same as saying 2=1.

Like-wise the differentiation between mass and Matter in physical systems has lead to a state of confusion - 2D EM masses [bosons-photons] do not possess the physical property of 3D Matter [fermions] Fermions can now be defined as the standing wave energy geometries that create all the known sub-atomic particles-the building blocks of large scale Matter and structure in the macro world.

Historically these particles have been classified according to their charges and masses, tetryonic geometry now provides a 3D physical model of all the particles highlighting the physical source of the one-third charges of Quarks revealing charge to be the foundational geometry of all Matter.

Tetryons are 4pi charge geometries that are the foundational quanta of Matter and surprisingly have a mass-charge radio identical to that of leptons explaining how these particles have remained hidden from accelerator experiments.

Quarks are 12pi charge Matter geometries where the attractive strong charge interactions between their fascia results in entirely different properties to that of leptons.

Leptons also have 12pi charged geometries but their repulsive fascia geometries result in them forming the quantum equivalent of a six- loop rotor.

Protons and Neutrons are 36pi charge geometries and have identical masses [against the current model of baryonic masses derived from an entirely different process where Neutrons are formed by Protons absorbing electrons].

Leptons and Baryons then seek to combine into neutral charge elements that are the quantum electrical equivalent of synchronous rotating converters enabling them to absorb, store and release quantum energies in the familiar forms of photons and EM mass.

b) ROOTS OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS:

In this particular case the square root of Negative One is that of a charged energy geometry.

Despite it being a negative charge geometry it still possesses a real [non-negative] linear momentum.

[It is only the orientation of M-dipole fields that determines the ‘charge’ of any energy moment quanta]

The root of a negative charge is equal in magnitude and identical to that of a positive linear momenta [In fact it is the opposite side of the same quantum energy geometry.

Geometrically, Tetryonics reveals that the square root of a negative charge geometry has a real [non-negative] integer linear momentum value identical to its Lorentz transformed Positive value [the square root of -1 can never be a negative].

It reveals one of the inherent weakness of using math without the foundational ‘grammar’ of geometry in physics.

III. TETRYONICS REPLACING RELATIVITY:

a)SPECIAL RELATIVITY:

Planck-Einstein equivalence hv= E = hf is incorrect [should be 2hv=E=hf by tetryonics]

Charged particles are NOT spherical point particles - they are 4nPi charged geometries

Magnetic moments are not the result of the velocity distortions of spherical point charges in motion.

Lorentz correction is a geometric relationship of Electrical Energy [wavelength -frequency] quanta per charged geometry And is not limited to c [except in case of Matter-energy conversion and Photons in a vaccum] . Einstein's E=mc^2 is a specific case of Leibniz's general E=mv^2 equation, emf created in conductor-magnet motion is not a result of relativistic frames of reference - it is the result of equilateral geometry of EM fields [M dipole with neutral E-fields]

b) GENERAL RELATIVITY:

mass-Matter is lumped into a stress-ENERGY tensor and not differentiated. GR is built on SR without EM differentiation [SR corrected] kEM fields are mistaken as part of Gravitational field. GR [8piG] is in fact Newton's [4piG] + SR [4pi kEM] Tetryonic energy momenta geometry [as provided in all eBooks and videos]

unites QM, QED, Chemistry & Cosmology [inclusive of Relativity] though equilateral geometry and provides corrections to current Math and explanations as to the origin of the statistical

probability mechanics of QM-QED. Tetryonics corrects all misconceptions of SR & GR

IV.GEOMETRY OF EARTH:

A the quantum level the Earth’s spherical geometry is the result of the tessellation of countless tetrahedral standing-waves [Tetryons – the 3D quantum of Matter] – each in turn comprised of equilateral mass-Energy charged facias, Its just like a computer game - the Euclidean [planar] geometry of equilateral triangles ‘bend’ to fit the observed data using curvi-linear [Riemannian] geometry – it is only our scaled perspective that prevents us from seeing the true equilateral quantum geometry of our Universe. When you draw a hexagon in a circle to estimate Pi>3 and then increase the number of edges of the polygon from 6 sided to 6,000 sided – the estimate for pi will be much closer and the polygon looks like a circle but is still comprised of triangles. this is one of the areas Einstein got it wrong. he tried to make the triangles fit the round sphere of the Earth and had to use a different geometry to achieve it When he should have used flat Euclidean triangles [equilaterals at that] and realized that there were so many he just couldn't see the difference

e.g.; there are 6.02 e23 hydrogen atoms in a gram - and each side of a Hydrogen atom has 6.25 e21 Planck mass-energy quanta on it so that's 1.335 e47 equilateral triangles of mass-energy to make 1 gram. that's a huge amount of triangles to make something can barely see.

Einstein used Riemannian curve-linear geometry.

V.UNI-FIED FIELD EQUATION

All forms of mass-ENERGY-Matter are defined by their charged geometries and the spatial co-ordinate systems used to measure their physics

T – tetryonic geometry

EU symbols-electro magnetic field

mΩV^2- equilateral planks quanta – Scalar Energy fields

Energy geometries with in physics including special relativity and lorentz corrections historically been incorrectly illustrated as having the geometry of right angled triangles.

There are three ways to look at geometry-mathematically,verbally and visually. Of these visually will be shown to the initiative understandings of physics, chemistry, electrodynamics and gravation along with other aspects of nature.

VII.CONCLUSION:

Tetryonics corrects all the misconceptions of the present theories that we have been using from the years and also the mysterious or unknown properties even at quantum levels. It revealed the mistakes theories of what we are using presently, the fission properties, the relativity and so on..The misconception that where the future time travel is possible is completely proved as a false statement by tetryonic geometry.

tetryonics showed through the geometry that the QAM of planks constant is infact the result of its quantized equilateral triangular geometry .The tetryonic geometry geometry laid a strong math foundation proving the concepts of pythagerous,the roots to the irrational numbers..thus tetryonic theorey revealed the secrets of the universe. the theorey is going to get approved by universities and we can expect this theories in future in our education systems.

I. REFERENCES

Tetryonic geometry by Kelvin Abraham

Thesis on tetryonics by Ranjith Reddy

======

From Email correspondences,...

Hi Richard,

The speed of Energy is determined by the Electric permittivity [Eo] & Magnetic permeability [Uo] of any medium that energy propagates through – in a vacuum that speed is 299,792,458 m/s.

Tetryonics shows Planck energies [h] to be equilateral quanta of mass-energy momenta and it is these quanta arranged in specific n[pi] geometries that give us all the mass-ENERGY –Matter of our Universe along with the forces between them.

I suspect the comment below may have latched onto one point of GR and tried to expand upon it at the expense of a consistent, holistic understanding of all the forces at work [quantum & otherwise] that go into giving us gravitational mechanics.

Again, building on the QM premise of equilateral Planck energy momenta [kg.m^2/s] Tetryonic theory shows us that GR is a model of Newtonian Gravity & SR corrections for EM propagation in a plasma medium [whereas Newtonian theory models Gravity alone]. GR’s relativistic corrections are simply Lorentz corrections of EM waves ‘hidden’ in the GR formulation and tested by using EM radiations [radio waves, light] without an understanding of the true mechanics at work.

‘c’ is most certainly correct, changing only where the permittivity and/or permeability of the medium it passes through changes [gases, solids, liquids, plasmas and other EM fields]. Lorentz corrections remain valid for EM propagation through any medium [but importantly do NOT apply to Matter itself]

To say that the speed of light is different for different planets etc. hints at the Lorentz [SR] correction component for EM radiations incorporated in GR [as explained above & in more detail in T[4] –Cosmology] but fails to explain why. The Tetryonic explanation is the only one I know of that starts from quantum scale Planck energies and builds a complete picture of the mechanics of our Universe and in turn explains the errors of using EM radiation to test GR claims when the mechanics of GR itself are poorly understood at best.

‘c’ – 29929,7,458 m/s [exactly] - The speed of EM energies in a vacuum

‘h’ – 6.629432672 e-34 kg.m^/s [exactly] – the equilateral geometry of Planck scale energies

‘G’ - 7.489625 e-11 Nm/kg^2 [exactly] from the work contained in T[4]- Cosmology

Gravity is a strictly convergent force created by the presence of 3D standing wave mass-energies [Matter] in the Vacuum energies of our Universe [as the energy density gradients seek a pressure equilibrium].

ElectroMagnetic fields and radiation create interactive [divergent & convergent] forces that are grow stronger as you move closer to material bodies [Matter] hence the need for Lorentz corrections close to ‘gravitating’ bodies of Matter.

The model of Gravity developed by Newton is correct [as it has no need to account for small perturbations of EM fields around Matter on any scale only the cosmological scale total motions created by these forces].

Einstein’s model equally is correct [as it is based on Newton’s model for G, with Lorentz corrections for the motion of EM radiation within the EM fields of large-scale Matter] – it is a historical fact that Einstein developed GR from SR foundations without a full understanding of the mechanics he was modelling or differentiating EM masses from Matter [choosing instead the easier path of utilising a general stress energy tensor for all energies].

While both approaches excel in their own limited ways the time has come to clarify the misconceptions present in them and to correct the errors of this mathematical approach that has served so us well to date – with an even better geometric understanding of the forces at work in our Universe.

Gravitation is the net convergent force of Newton’s [G] + Einstein’s SR corrections for the interactive [EM] component for fields/medium that surrounds all Matter. Both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravitation stand correct for their respective understanding of the mechanics involved but it is Tetryonic theory with its understanding of equilateral energy geometries that unites both to the quantum mechanics of our Universe allows us to see into the hearts of Stars and Galaxies and to tap the forces of Nature at work in them.

ABRAHAM

Re: Primer fields and Tetryonic theory.

A number of points jump at regarding the intersection of Tetryonic & Primer field theories:

1. Primer is experimentally based – Tetryonics is theory based.

2. Both can aid and expand on the work of each other and in fact this should be encouraged if possible

3. There is a case of strong agreement between Tetryonic theory and the Primer field experimental results that I have seen in this videos [and that is what excited me]

4. I congratulate him in using EM discharges as this is where Tetryonic theory shows me our future advances lie in energy generation and resource creation.

5. Obviously his focus has been on practical results while my focus was on developing and refining a theory that shows great promise in expanding on his work to date.

6. Tetryonic theory can greatly expand his understanding of the plasma physics of the discharges that he is working with presently, in turn enabling the rapid development of new experimental designs.

7. In fact, Tetryonic theory has many discharge designs that can be readily provided to further his experimental work on discharge plasmas etc. [leading inevitably to the GEM pinch designs that I will be commencing work on myself in the coming months once these revisions are finalised]

8. CAD modelling of equilateral E&M fields shows that the electrode designs he has found effective [and was utilising in the videos] are fully reflective of Tetryonic M field geometries, leaving scope to expand on his current theoretical modelling and suppositions through the inclusion of Tetryonic field theory [not sure where the toroid comment came from – I do remember suggesting his cup designs closely match m-fields]

9. Obviously there is scope to develop the E-field components of the fields as this is where Tesla found much application. This is where real physical forces can be easily created and real horsepower can be transmitted over great distances near-instantaneously [as Tesla noted]

10. It is only current science’s fixation on electrical oscillations & transverse waves that creates our current impediment to many new technologies that can be rapidly developed and made available to all.

11. I couldn’t agree more with his statement that practical outcomes are a necessary step – but equally, so is a solid understanding of the physics involved from a theoretical stand point [some development of a theoretical understanding of the results and its application to current sciences was attempted in his videos but found only limited success as key pieces of theory were missing [the equilateral geometries of Planck energies and the theoretical advances made possible by my theory’s geometric approach to electrical energies and physics in general]

12. From a mutual understanding of each other’s work an even greater understanding can be developed as from my point of view presently there is much in common

13. I have attached a basic EM field geometry for EM field discharges in the hope it highlights my comments about his theory being ‘limited’ to M-field at present and that Tetryonics can reveal much more the interaction dynamics taking place than he is theoretically aware of at present.

======

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1382

This is an interesting and ambitious paper. But it doesn't mention what in practical terms is (quoting Jan Zaanen) "the nightmare of modern physics," namely the fermion minus-sign problem.

Can strongly-interacting fermions be bosonized and mapped to Monte Carlo simulations? Or is strong fermionic interaction, as Matthias Troyer and Uwe-Jens Wiese believe, computationally NP-hard and mathematically intractable? Does your geometrical approach afford a work-around that might explain in sufficient detail the emergence of condensed matter?

Abraham

Firstly I am not a Mathematician - I would prefer the term Geometer.

As I understand it the crux of the minus-sign problem is finding a physical way to determine, sample and use both Positive and Negative probability distributions [please correct me if this is wrong]

Using my work [www.youtube.com/tetryonics] you CAN solve for this problem by using Charge geometries. Negative and Positive charge geometries result from the non-neutral component bosons of any charge [equilateral] geometry. The Bosons [odd number] components form a transverse quantum level and the Photon geometries [even numbers]form a longitudinal probabilistic geometry.

Square roots are the heights of each 2D equilateral geometry leading to a physical representation of Euler's formula for the square root of Negative one.

Super-positioned KE [electric]component geometries of each charge geometry are easily achieved resulting in our familiar physical Force constants.

These functional geometries all combine to form the familiar quantum mass-energy wave-function probabilities [as formulated by Schrödinger etc]

Fermions [4npi Matter geometries] can be Bosonised [ODDpi Charge geometries] as this is simply converting standing-wave Matter into radiant mass-Energy with all resultant charge geometries having a probabilistic n-distribution reflective of the [+/-] charge geometry and their [square n] energy content. (see attached)

To me this is all much easier to view geometrically rather than explain mathematically here but you will find much of the geometry described here on my webpage in the Bosons and Photons/EM wave chapters.

Applying these basic geometries to the problem the NP=P problem can be resolved physically through the geometry of Charge [both Negative and Positive] and forms the basis of my work on quantum computing [to be released].

Kelvin

Please see my essay in last competition about Tetrahedron Logic

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

====

Abraham

Your paper on the 3:1 ratios in Physics is reminiscent of many who seek to understand the 1/3 charges of Quark etc. and in fact was the starting point for my journey of discovery.

Where I differed was that upon discovering the 'SQUARE' geometry of equilateral triangles I resolved Quarks to be 4 or 8 charge geometries [4/8] & [10/2] respectively.

I then resolved 2D CHARGE geometries to be equilateral triangles [a major jumping off point] and built all 3D Matter geometries from them then allowing me to realise the physical geometries of all mass-ENERGY-Matter as outlined in my work to date.

This charge geometry then allowed me to define Quarks & Leptons to be 12pi geometries with differing resultant net charges and Baryons to be 36pi geometries [see attached].

The quantum building block of all Matter was then revealed to be a 4pi Tetryon which surprisingly has a mass-charge ratio identical to that of Leptons explaining how it has been overlooked for so long in particle accelerator results.

The creation of all mass-ENERGY-Matter is the possible from the one geometric element of a neutral Z Boson [single equilateral triangle with positive and negative sides] or as I term it a Zero Point EM field with a Energy of hv.

Note - of extreme importance was the precise and rigorous definitions of terms such as 2D mass-Energy and 3D Matter along with the clarification of the distinction between Planck's transverse [hv] mass-Energies and Einstein's longitudinal[hf] mass-Energies [Charge vs Photons respectively].

Many patterns similar to the 3:1 ratio you noted can now be resolved down further to their base 12:1 charge geometries providing both a physical basis for CHARGE and highlighting its foundational role in the formation of all mass-ENERGY-Matter geometries in quantum mechanics

As Wheeler alluded the result is a beautifully simple geometric explanation for all the Forces and EM mass-ENERGY-Matter that are currently described by many disparate and dis-jointed quantum theories.

The asymmetry of equilateral Energy creates Positive & Negative Charges and Charges seeking equilibrium create EM field/particle geometries.

[See previous attachment for table of charged particles]

2D mass-ENERGIES

2 Charged Bosons Charge carriers [vector +W, -W]

1 Neutral Boson [Z boson]

1 Photon EM force carrier [bidirectional]

3D Matter

4 Charged Fermions [1 Tetryon, 2 Quarks, 1 Lepton]

2 Neutral Fermions [1 Gluon, 1 Neutrino]

1 Charged Baryon [Proton]

1 Neutral Baryon [Neutron]

......and their anti-particles resulting from nett Charge geometries of the same

2D mass-Energy content of each charged fascia creates the particle families.

Your 3:1 Tetrahedron ratio expands to become 12:1 CHARGED fascia ratio [with charges adding up to nett particle charge]

It is the definition of equilateral CHARGE geometries and their role in creating 3D Tetryon[ic] Matter geometries that lies at the heart of my theory.

The equilateral CHARGED geometry of ENERGY proves a clear foundation for all EM mass-ENERGY-Matter particles of the Standard Model

It may be helpful to visualise this equilateral geometry as an ‘ideal quantum inductive loop’ of EM energy which forms the basis for inertial mass etc but it is also equally important to also note that 2D mass & 3D Matter are different properties of ENERGY and must be clearly defined.

2D mass-Energy is a planar radiative charge geometry and

3D Matter is a standing-wave mass-Energy geometry that is relativistically invariant

Vectors are in fact the result of the longitudinal [linear] momenta [SQUARE ROOT] of all 2D Kinetic Energy geometries that result from 3D Matter geometries in motion.

It is the 2D Kinetic Energy fields that undergo Lorentz contractions as a result of acceleration NOT the 3D Energy standing-waveforms of Matter has been supposed under SR and GR since their formulation by Einstein.

As you allude to in your paper it is the invariant 4npi tetrahedral standing-wave geometry of EM mass-ENERGY that is the quantum of all Matter, with its various net charge fascia producing the many fractional ‘elemental’ charges of Quarks etc and neutral charges of Photons and Gluons etc.

The quantum property of SPIN is the result of the geometrically enforced EM properties of 2D mass-Energy quanta of the 2D KEM fields of Matter in motion. [historically incorrectly viewed as the relativistic distortion of spherical point charges]

Leptons have a unique geometry that is reflective of a quantum 6 pole electric rotor [see attached] that permits the development of larger magnetic moments than that of either Quarks or Baryons

My YouTube pages go into these specific properties in greater depth that I can here [www.youtube.com/tetryonics]

==

I agree the Photon is not a particle ...it is a 2D EM wave consisting of 2 charged geometries. I must point out here as I always to the Photon is not 'massless' as is often claimed..it is better termed Matter-less as it is a 2D Em geometry not a 3D Matter geometry.

I have uploaded Tetryonic templates onto PirateBay that you can use to make the Tetryon[ic] quanta of Matter to give you a better feel for the real geometry of the theory [or just create your own using 4 ZPF geometries in 1 larger equilateral triangle and then fold into a tetrahedral geometry like nature does]. I do suggest this approach as I used it extensively when I was training my mind to visualise equilateral geometries and how it all works.

The drawings [whilst in 2D] do actually reflect the 3D geometries when you look closer [ie positive and negative fascia are marked on them]. In attachment 2 you will note the 2D planar geometries of Matter compared to the representative 3D models on the right of the picture. Creating a paper Tetryon and holding it up will help see what I talking about here.

But suffice to say close examination of all my work will reveal a lot of 'hidden' details resulting from applying and refining my work over the past 4 years - even the colours used are specific - Pink of velocity, Green for Matter, Orange for Charge, Aqua for Magnetic fields etc etc.

The E you identified as East is in fact the Electric field [permittivity] of the charged geometry either Positive of Negative with differing Magnetic dipoles

So the Corners of all Tetryons are either North or South Magnetic poles as each fascia has a charged E field and an associated Mag dipole arrangement. .

It is through the interaction of these charged fascia that large-scale Matter forms. ie Weak interact is via Magnetic dipole induction [Bosons] and Strong force is the result of parallel charged fascia coming together and binding. The nett charges then create the multiples of the elemental charge recognised in the Standard model.

To summarise N-E-S is a Positive charge field and S-E-N is a Negative charge field...a bit hard to describe here, hence the many illustrations on the web [note 1st attachment]..

Care always has to taken with letters symbolising things... I always use m for mass and M for Matter but unfortunately E can stand for Energy as well as Electric fields. [That's English for you]. You will note that in QM I tended to draw rotational EoUo vectors reflective of the classical flow of Energy in an ideal inductive loop to help illustrate Charge polarities. This drops away in QED as the reader should be more familiar with the true geometry of Energy by then and hopefully can distinguish it automatically from the Mag dipole polarity at that stage.

Hope this help clear things up.

====

Photons must be clearly defined against common physical interpretations.

They are 2pi EM energy geometries that radiate bidrectionally from a point.

They are EM mass-Energies when mass-ENERGY-Matter are all clearly defined.

Photons are Matter-less not mass-less [All Energy per second is mass].

Historically the very poor definitions of mass and Matter have led to a very confusing picture of what the 2 are.

2D mass is radiant ENERGY/c^2 [in a planar form] and

Matter is a standing-wave Energy geometry [Tetrahedral].

You will note that I repeat this point incessantly throughout my work.

So depending on your definitions your comment can be viewed as correct but in order to gain a geometric view of quantum mechanics and to gain a precise understanding of the two forms of Energy [mass & Matter] my definitions are better.

My youtube channel [Tetryonics] has expansive explanations of W/P duality, Photons and EM waves and QED itself is dedicated to the complete explanation of Electricity and all the nuclear Spectral lines.

Equilateral charged Energy geometry is the essence of everything - Light is a secondary form [2pi radiant] and the first physical manifestation of Energy perceivable by us.

Dear Kelvin Abraham,

We have the same view on modern physics and it's many inherent problems. I agree with you that matter is a standing wave geometry, although I also believe in the emission and re-aborption of graviton particles as well. You have presented an outstanding essay with professional diagrams to aid in your vision of reality.

I have made a potential discovery which shows matter to have a certain geometry with respect to it's gravitational field of influence. You would surely gain something from visualising what I have to say in my own essay entry: Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality

Kind regards,

Alan

===

Abraham responds

Your paper gets to the crux of a couple 'sticky 'points in Physics namely the transfer of Energy throughout Space and our current models of how things work of a cosmological scale.

I too have spent quite some time looking into this matter in order to develop a consistent and accurate quantum theory of Gravitations [as derived from Tetryonics].

Without giving too much away [as I have yet to release all my work on Gravitation] I would like to point out that you have fallen into the trap of trying to explain Energy on the cosmological scale through Gravity alone.

Einstein and all others have also fallen into this trap - Newton developed Gravitation from observations of the motions of celestial bodies, Einstein revised it with GR [an extension of SR] once more accurate observations revealed some inconsistencies. But both assumed that Gravity was the only force at work between celestial bodies.

Quantum mechanics tells us something completely different, hence the problem to date find a quantum theory of Gravitation that can unite Classical and Quantum physics.

Gravitons [along with Dark Energy/Matter] are just the results of trying to explain gravitation through a math that lacks a formal model of its quantum geometry and interactions.

I encourage you to continue thinking about these points as the answer is there [while the Forest has many trees it also has just as many shrubs and they both contribute to its total character]...I will release my QG work around October.

Having perused you paper I agree that the WEP has its limitations at the quantum level. I spent many days struggling to explain this very point when I applied Tetryonics to Gravitation at both the quantum and Cosmological scales. But once I realise what Einstein had done and what GR was really representing all the pieces fell into place.

In short GR corrects for the observed fine perturbations of Mercury etc. but goes on to make erroneous assumptions as Einstein corrected for the motions but failed to recognise what was really causing the deviation from Newtonian gravitational mechanics. A shame as GR was based on SR after all.

This along with a number of other subtle but important mistakes in the modelling of the mathematics of quantum field equations and GR theory has resulted in almost a century of misdirection in determining a true quantum theory of Gravitation.

Gravitation is not on the web yet [a couple months time when I have finished reviewing it] but Tetryonic gravitation shows the true mechanism for Solar 'fusion' and points the way to clean limitless Energy using current technologies as I alluded to in this paper.

Ted Erikson wrote

Whee! First one looked at in the same ball park! Carried well beyond my entry.. Kudos!

1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing selected works for adding End Notes. You extend my notions with different balls.

I am pursuing consciousness, as Panpsychism which exists in ALL things to avoid Thermodynamic entropy,..Carnot's motive force of heat as primary to produce work energy.

First,, mass and energy, respectively, as the inscribed sphere, tangent to the face of a regular tetrahedron where sphere and tetrahedron have equal surface-to-volume ratios at ANY size, e.g. equivalent "activity" as free energy , unbounded as size approaches zero. Conclusion, Tesla's birth and death of ALL things at a a frequency.

Second, E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present?

Comment? (may use in end notes)

Abraham responds

1. Important key here is the fact that Energy has an EQUILATERAL geometry and TIME as measurement by us [Physics] is the radial distance travelled by light in a unit of Time.

Remember that light is bidirectional radiant Energy - thus in 1 second = c^2 radial.

This leads us to mass = Energy per c^2

ie An equilateral triangle [ET] circumscribed with a circle.

[Energy is just an ET without a circle]

2. The AREA covered by mass-Energy's ET geometry per second has the physical dimension of [m^2] which historically has been mistakenly viewed as classical angular momentum [ie a rotational vector] it is in fact a triangular geometry

3. Quantised Angular Momentum [QAM] as I refer to it, (to distinguish between the two]is revealed thus to be is a ET geometry and its Energy content per second forms EM mass. Its two possible directions create the two forms of CHARGE [Pos & Neg]

4. Linear momenta is simply the SQUARE ROOT of any Energy geometry [ie Vector Height of triangle] and as you point out it is then physically possible to represent the square roots of both Positive AND Negative EM mass-Energies.

[The SQR of Neg One is a physical reality] and Time is simply a measure of the QAM/Second of any physical system.

ie QAM/c^2 = [m^2/sec / sec^2/m^2] = seconds [pos or neg]

These points form the foundational [priori] points of Tetryonics that must be clearly understood by the reader so sense can be made of quantum physics.

More illustrations on these points are available in the opening 2 chapters on my webpage

Ted Erikson

I was inclined to approach the problem as a sphere inscribed, tangent to face of tetrahedron..where surface-to-volume of both are equivalent! Repeating this structure within and without carries on to cosmos and microscopic size.

Abraham...

Understand the model you are portraying....

But I would say why would Nature have two identical 'particles' based on different geometry.

Tetrahedral geometries have 4 fascias of interaction for each Matter quanta.

Tetryonics creates everything out of ONE shape [a Equilateral Triangle] and it is only in the micro/macroscopic world that we can't see the triangulated fascia.

{just like a video game or movie CG etc.)

And as my models works for QM, QED, Chemistry and QG I feel it is the better approach to Q-geometry....but I always remain open to new ideas, it is funny where inspiration for QM solutions comes from

Frank Makinson

Abraham,

As one elec. engr. to another, I like the photon definition and related descriptions you provide in your essay. I did not use the term "photon" in the IEEE paper I cited in my essay, 1294, I described the phenomenon using wavelength and frequency. Your geometric approach to describing physical law is supported by a statement I made in the IEEE paper.

"The basic tenets of electromagnetic waves were applied to the mathematical structure of algebra abut 200 years ago, wherein the methodology herein substitutes the mathematical structure of geometry. If one fundamental physical constant can be identified by a pair of simple right triangles based upon mathematical constants, it raises the issue that other fundamental physical constants might be identified using the same or other geometric structures."

That statement passed peer review because I demonstrated unequivocally that a pair of right triangles, dimensioned with physical constants, allowed the velocity of electromagnetic waves to be defined mathematically. It made it difficult for the peer reviewers to state it cannot be done.

Abraham Replies

Absolutely agree here.

In fact the mathematical exploration of quantum mechanics is hopelessly lost with a rigid definable geometry to guide it.

It leads to all sorts of outcomes [multi-dimensions, black holes, no distinction between mass & Matter etc.]

A lot of time was taken up correcting small [but important] 'errors' arising from geometry-less maths. [Maths may the language - but geometry is the Canvas surface on which it is written].

See attached for the geometric explanation of all Physical constants. Many more examples [Coloumb' Law, Newton's G Alpha etc] are found in Chapter 16 on my YouTube channel.

Frank Makinson

Correction:.

That statement passed peer review because I demonstrated unequivocally that a pair of right triangles, dimensioned with mathematical constants, allowed the velocity of electromagnetic waves to be defined mathematically."

I had stated erroneously "physical constants". The title of the IEEE paper is, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants".

nmann

"As I understand it the crux of the minus-sign problem is finding a physical way to determine, sample and use both Positive and Negative probability distributions [please correct me if this is wrong]"

Not wrong so much as not complete. It's more than a computational problem designed to give numerical simulators headaches. It appears to be a fundamental barrier to progress in condensed matter physics. It's plain awful.

"Using my work [www.youtube.com/tetryonics] you CAN solve for this problem by using Charge geometries. Negative and Positive charge geometries result from the non-neutral component bosons of any charge [equilateral] geometry. The Bosons [odd number] components form a transverse quantum level and the Photon geometries [even numbers]form a longitudinal probabilistic geometry."

Okay ... without evaluating your video let me say this: you need to appreciate the goldmine you might be sitting on top of. If you're right, and you can get someone to mathematize your geometry, you may have managed to put strongly-interacting chiral fermions on the lattice and bosonize them for Monte Carlo simulation, and in addition (by disproving Troyer-Wiese) proven P=NP. That last could be worth a million dollars (US) from the Clay Mathematics Institute. Seriously.

Abraham Speaks

I understand...and that is exactly what I am saying.

The longitudinal Energy quanta comprising Positive and Negative Charge geometries [photons] form n distribution patterns.

Their transverse ODD numbered [bosons] distributions form Quantum levels

and their total Energy [sum of the Odd numbers] are SQUARE numbers.

Also note that super-positioned Charge geometries then interact via their E fields with their geometric SQUARE ROOTS forming the well known Physical constants.

So through Charge geometry I can physically represent and model Odd numbers, SQUARE numbers, Square Roots, n Distributions, geometric MEANS, perform MULTIPLICATION via super-positioning and physically product the SQUARE ROOT of Plus or Minus One [Hello Euler - a physical model of your formula art last].

Plus all of these results can be generated instantly through the physical measurement of any number of super-positioned EM waveforms [multi-input computations]

All of this work forms the basis of a real quantum computer [as along with the geometric results above you also have to be able to build a real quantum sized computer element to store and manipulate data etc].

And I am only too happy to explain all of this in detail personally in order for the Science & Maths community to understand how it all works. But it required detailed explanations of the pertinent points and space in this forum is limited [hence all my videos].

Tetryonics really is the holy grail of Physics and Maths providing a clear consistent and testable way forward for Science in general and Humanity in particular.

Frank Mikanson

Kelvin,

I have been sifting through your essay in an attempt to find correlation between what I understand as compared to what you present about Tetryonics. During the discovery process for the concept presented in the IEEE reference in my essay, 1294, the value of 4Pi was extracted. I realized that the 4Pi value was representing a more complicated EM concept than that presented in the paper, which uses the 2Pi concept. I made the following statement in the paper, "Using the value of 2Pi for intrinsic frequency is not intuitive to the general scientific community, except perhaps to electrical engineers, who use 2Pi to represent a generic wavelength."

I take exception to your continued use of SI units to represent dimensions. If you truly want to redress our technological deficiencies, you need to utilize "intrinsic units", and derivatives thereof, as your Tetryonics units of measure. I demonstrated that the geometric-mathematical concepts in the IEEE paper directly link time, distance (space) and energy to a single mathematical equation, and it is simple.

You started your essay by quoting Einstein, and I will end this with another of his quotes, "Everything should be simple, but not too simple." Linking all the base units of measure to a simple mathematical abstraction, one that use mathematical concepts that are taught in K-12 schools, is about a simple as it needs to be.

Abraham Speaks

Tetryonics has many layers of detail not obvious to the first time viewer of the theory [particular the 9 page introduction submitted here].

As you point out many simplistic terms (and units) can be further resolved to reveal increasing levels of detail and complexity but a trade off has to be made.

You may view it as being similar to Einstein's use of a rubber sheet to depict curved Space-Time [while useful to help grasp the concept of Reimannian curvature it is completely incorrect as a physical model and does not represent the quantised nature of Gravitation in any way suitable for the formulation or development of a quantum theory of gravity].

In seeking a consistent methodology to present Tetryonic geometries I chose to highlight the generalised geometry of CHARGED Energy [ie Pos & Neg EM fields] as it is the interactions of charged geometries [through their E&M fields] that creates 3D Matter.

Hence the term Tetryonics - The CHARGED geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter.

For example the 2pi geometries of radiant Energy [Light] can be further resolved to 8pi geometries of the same [4pi longitudinal Electric fields with a transverse 4pi Magnetic moment see QED on my YouTube channel]

In short in order to convey the beauty of the theory in 2D illustrations [major details of the theory can only be understood by building 3D physical models of what I represent as 2D illustrations and physically manipulating them - and this I encourage].

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT

Kelvin,

"In seeking a consistent methodology to present Tetryonic geometries I chose to highlight the generalised geometry of CHARGED Energy [ie Pos & Neg EM fields] as it is the interactions of charged geometries [through their E&M fields] that creates 3D Matter."

I agree, specialized forms of EM fields represent what we call 3D matter. One of my mentors, since deceased, a Prof Emeritus of Elec. Engr., stated that we are a "specialized form of energy." This agrees with the discredited theory of "energetics", which was supported by Max Planck, everything is a form of energy.

Consider the billions being spent in an effort to break apart particles, when in reality they are attempting to separate different EM field structures (EM geometries) from each other, very inefficiently.

I just looked at one of your Utube videos on EM waves, QED-28. Longitudinal EM waves are not like sound waves. Examine Laguerre-Gaussian beams with longitudinal components.

Have you examined Bob Palais' Pi page?

He published an article in the Mathematical Intelligencer, "Pi is Wrong!"

Your 2Pi and 4Pi descriptions match material I have in a couple of papers. My IEEE paper uses the 2Pi description, but I avoid using the 4Pi term in my other papers, not because it is not correct, I describe the characteristic in a different manner.

Abraham

Max Planck's theory of 'Energetics'was on the right track - but it became complicated with things like Maxwellian waves, Transverse mass & Longitudinal waves, quantised energy and probabilistic wavefunctions etc as you point out).

Lacking a formally defined and visual model for their Mathematical solutions to the same,the situation then became even more confused as numerous answers [sqr Neg one, probabilities etc] became accepted scientific answers to quantum math.

Maxwell [had he lived ] would have been one of the first to point out that you must be able to build a physical model of any quantum system in order to justify the theory's accuracy and completeness.

I too agree with the comments concerning pi [C/D] vs Pi radians - it is a fine example in science of using 1 name for 2 distinct properties and as pointed out in Tetryonics we have been mistaking EQUILATERAL Pi radians for spherical Pi ratios in QM for over a century now.

This situation became very more complex in tetryonics where Pi [normally the property of a circle/sphere] becomes a property of Equilateral geometries. However in ET 1/2 pi really is 1/2 of the triangle and 2 ETs have internal angles adding up to 360 degrees so you win some - you lose some.

Fortunately TIME (having a spherical geometry) is usually measured by us as the time is takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres so it units are usually s. s^2 or c^2, c^4. [even though they are drawn as spheres.

I was tempted (early in my work) to use 'Tau' in lieu of Pi for my unified equation but dropped it as I thought it would create confusion in understanding my theory. [ie 4Pi & 36Pi quickly create the impression of geometry in most minds whereas 4T & 36T etc don't] and who am I to re-write mathematical descriptors - I am doing so much now correcting subtle but important misconceptions that arise from using Math without physical Models..

Sometimes you have to go with the accepted terms in order to have a new theory viewed seriously and to be understood by minds used to those particularly quirky

inconstancy...perhaps when the theory develops we can change these poor definitions .... after all seriously QUARKS, UP, DOWN, STRANGE, CHARMED, TOP, BOTTOM, GLUONS??

Perhaps when the theory grows in acceptance we can hold a international council to review some of the sillier names of fields & particles in Physics...I have gone far enough naming the tetrahedral quantum of Matter [the Tetryon]

Frank

Kelvin,

"Fortunately TIME (having a spherical geometry) is usually measured by us as the time is takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres .... "

You need to reexamine how you have defined TIME. TIME is a manifestation of the existence of energy. You do not need TIME unless you have energy. I don't know if you looked at the IEEE paper I cite in my essay, topic 1294, but TIME is the result of the relationship between an EM wavelength and its duration, otherwise it seems TIME has no requirement to exist. This is a mathematical argument for the existence of TIME.

Before the concepts in the IEEE paper were identified, time was never expressed in relationship to energy, it was tied to the 1/86400th division of the rotation of the planet Earth, the second. The second duration is okay for domestic use but it has no validity as a scientific unit of measure.

Abraham

I agree Time is simple the measurement of Energy's motion in empty space.

If you take the equilateral geometry of Energy/second you have Planck's constant [kg.m^2/s] - ignoring the mass (which is Energy per second [c^2] you will find you have m^2 left over. I introduce the reality of this unit as the area of an Equilateral triangle. so Plancks' constant is really reflecting EQ.Energy/sec

ie Quantised Angular Momentum = m^2/s

mass = Energy /second = Energy/c^2 = kg

put the two together you have Planck's Constant [kg.m^2/s]

TIME is thus revealed as a measurement of the measure of the QAM

equilateral geometries] of Energy in any region of Space

QAM/c^2 = [m^2/s]*[s^2/m^2] = seconds

As you rightly point out no Energy means no QAM geometry per region of Space

this no TIME.

And no changes to Energy means no changes to its QAM quanta [h] - without changes to the Energy content of a region of Space there can be no measurement of what we perceive and measure to be TIME, and from that we can clearly identify the 2 'directions of Time' as being what causes the 2 forms of Electric CHARGE to arise.

'Travel forward in Time' - Positive Charge

'Travel Backward in Time' - Negative charge

To illustrate that point I drew rotational vectors onto the geometries of equilateral Energy geometries. You can then view them as the Energy flow in idealised quantum inductive loops. [remember inductors are the electrical equivalent of inertial mass]

It is important to remember here that Angular Momentum [as viewed currently by Physicists] is a measure of the rotational velocity component of a system - in Tetryonics it it a reflection of the EQUILATERAL GEOMETRY only - there is no rotational component only changes to the Energy quanta per unit of Time.

Additionally, you may find a lot more information of what I am explaining here in my QED video on You Tube particularly the Spectral line calculations and the work on Photons wavelengths and frequency.

CH29 illustration 17 shows clearly how frequency, wavelength and wave numbers are all directly related through mass to QAM geometry.

see attached

CH60 may be of help in understanding how QAM is the source of the Fine Structure, various coupling constants and Charge itself

I'll look over your paper and get back to you.

Frank

Kelvin,

'Travel forward in Time' - Positive Charge

'Travel Backward in Time' - Negative charge

Only in "physics fiction" can time travel backwards. This would imply that an event can have a less than zero duration.

I would like to know of a reference dating from the period of Tesla's spark gap oscillation process where someone measured the presence of longitudinal EM waves.

It is not difficult to build an antenna that can efficiently detect longitudinal EM waves, but the same structure will detect transverse wave equally. I am unaware of receiver-signal processors of the Tesla era that could provide discrimination between longitudinal and transverse EM waves.

Abraham

Frank,

You're right about the antenna for either design being able to receiver each type of wave.

As I see it the longitudinal wave would act as a carrier signal like we already do, you could encode information as frequency variations on top of this carrier signal [as we already do in AM] of use the LW own momenta as information[by varying the voltage that produced it - a LW version of FM].

Either way, if we were to filter out the information superimposed on the LW carrier frequency we would measure it has a couple of different features to a typical AM carrier signal.

The measured carrier wave would be a longitudinal wave and its momenta (at the receiver) would be varying in a way that contains information. This signal variation would be a fluctuation in the Voltage per second [E=hv]rather than a Frequency per second variation[E=hf] as is normally employed in radio communications.

In short it would be a Longitudinal variation that decodes into intelligible information that you would be looking to discriminate for [ie Voltage fluctuations]

All that is needed for such a system to work (and transmit information of vast distances instantly) would be a source of constant LWs - may I suggest our own SUN. It has been doing that since its birth and its LW should have reached a few billion light years out by now. [perhaps SETI has been looking in the wrong direction all this time - ET uses stars to communicate with each other]

Frank

Kelvin,

You did not respond to the statement I made in my Aug. 15, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT post, "I just looked at one of your Utube videos on EM waves, QED-28. Longitudinal EM waves are not like sound waves. Examine Laguerre-Gaussian beams with longitudinal components."

For an EM wave with a field component aligned with the axis of propagation, you now get a variation in the intensity in the direction of the axis during the wave cycle, but the frequency of the wave stays constant.

Anonymous

Frank,

Apologies if the response was delayed somewhere but I did reply - perhaps my being in a AUS time zone [GMT+10] had something to do with that.

Re Longitudinal wave correct they are directional EM waves with their E fields aligned with their direction of propagation[DOP] and are produced by spark gaps as utilised by Tesla at the turn of the century.

Whereas Hertzian/Maxwellian waves are Transverse EM waves produced by accelerating/oscillating electrons and have their E fields orthogonal to their DOP.

Tesla attempted to persuade Hertz of this when he first announced his discovery but when the photoelectric effect was discovered transmission technology switched to accelerating electrons instead of spark gaps and the debate died down.

Transverse waves are like sound waves in that they create a pressure gradient in any region of space, while Longitudinal waves have their momenta aligned to their DOP [consider one a slap to the face the other a karate jab to the eye].

Additionally, (and this is hard to explain here] the Energy intensity of a Transverse wave is a function of its instantaneous Frequency [E=hf] while a Longitudinal wave's energy is more appropriately described by [E=p^2] because it is the momenta aligned to the DOP that does the work [hence the above analogy]..

It is Longitudinal waves with their aligned momenta that can produce real damage as well being able to produce 'instantaneous action-at-a-distance'.

You can produce EM waves with identical EM Energies (which only differ in the polarization of their constituent Energy momenta) but it is the Longitudinal wave that will kill you [ask Tesla' assistants or anyone struck by lightning].

Reading up on Gaussian beans etc will also take me some time so I trust this helps.

Abraham,

Thank you for your earlier replies. I have a question for you which will hopefully tell whether we have a hypopthesis overlap or not: "How do you explain the well known Flyby anomaly?"

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 10:48 GMT

In the simplest terms:

The SUN (and all Planets etc) emits radiant energies throughout the heliosphere in addition to the convergent gravitational energy produced by their Matter.

These divergent energies have already been included in the Newtonian model of Gravitation (as well as GR) because both are based on observations not first principles [and so have not been noticed].

Neither theory differentiates between EM mass and Matter [in fact GR - based on SR - must accommodate it in its formulation but simply lumps Energy in all its forms into the Stress-Energy tensor - EM mass is completely distinct from Matter]

I propose the term Gravito-Electro-Magnetism [GEM] to reflect the three distinct forces produced by all Matter (particularly Matter in motion]

The radiant energies produce a net DIVERGENT interactive component to gravitation that that diminishes under the inverse square law and as all Matter is comprised of charged energy fascia interacts with it BUT because our current models of gravitation do not include a quantum model of its source of mechanics (only the observations of the motion it creates) we cannot model the true interactions of the GEM fields of Matter in motion with the GEM fields produced by Planets as they move in their orbits and rotate on their axis.

The divergent [radiant] components of GEM field [specifically the E field] accelerate charged particles, and as Matter is comprised of charged fascia [even neutral Matter] it creates a force on all Matter moving past another.

These charge interactions are also responsible for other puzzling aspects of Cosmology namely Dark Matter and Dark Energy and is similar to the Pioneer anomaly [see attached]

Much more detail will soon be released by me in my next release Tetryonics [4] -Quantum Cosmology [including the true mechanical dynamics of Gravity both at a quantum scale as well as the Cosmological].

I trust this helps.

attachments: Figure_74.06__Pioneer_anomaly_800x600.jpg

Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT

Kelvin,

"Much more detail will soon be released by me in my next release Tetryonics [4] -Quantum Cosmology [including the true mechanical dynamics of Gravity both at a quantum scale as well as the Cosmological]."

Your Hertz vs Tesla diagram, Figure 28.07 (post Aug. 16, 2012 @ 04:16 GMT) does not explain how a longitudinal wave produces instantaneous action-at-a-distance. The notation below the Teslian wave, "The E fields are co-linear with the axis of propagation" would result in a negation of the field and action-at-a-distance because the positive and negative phases cancel in a collinear beam.

I have a paper that explains how a longitudinal EM field produces action-at-a-distance. The paper is an iteration of six different papers, produced over several years with slightly different titles, that were submitted to five different publications, three being IEEE publications, two to the Gravity Research Foundation (GRF) contest (two different years), and one an ARRL publication. The GRF does not provide peer review rejection comments. Only one IEEE publication, of the two that went to peer review, provided me with the actual peer review comments, except the comments were truncated from one reviewer. The ARRL provided a simple rejection statement.

The paper provides a simple EM explanation for the force of gravity. The paper contains a statement why a longitudinal EM field, if it is collinear, cannot produce a net force in the direction of propagation (DOP). I didn't use the term collinear, as I illustrated the vector condition with a simple Cartesian figure with the E field aligned with the DOP. The accompanying statement, "Even if a way was found to generate one of the fields to be aligned with the axis of propagation, such as EZ in Fig. 1b, the positive and negative EZ field vectors would be aligned and there would be no net force measurable in the axis of propagation."

Helical Electromagnetic Gravity Field

Except for the GRF entries, the other papers provided specific application processes that were topical to the IEEE and ARRL publications, the core helical electromagnetic (HEM) material was essentially the same.

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT

Kelvin,

I didn't mean to post the above, Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT , as anonymous.

Frank

show all replies (5 not shown)

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 11:30 GMT

Thank you for the Flyby anomaly post. Your Pioneer diagram was impressive, although I'm still befuddled by your reasoning of course. I think we *do* have a potential overlap in our ideas. I'm about to engage in calculations using the Wikipedia data on Earth flyby anomalies as a way to confirm my exotic matter hypothesis. I believe that an additional force exists on the plane of rotation of the earth which interacts witht the iron of the spacecraft due to it's centre bodied cubic geometry. I'll show you my workings just as soon as I can.

[quote]An analysis of the MESSENGER spacecraft (studying Mercury) did not reveal any significant unexpected velocity increase. This may be that MESSENGER both approached and departed Earth symmetrically about the equator (see data and proposed equation below). This may suggest that the anomaly is related to Earth's rotation.[quote]

Kind regards

ABARAHAM replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:36 GMT

Hi Alan,

It would interesting to see if both of our ideas can bring about a clear and concise model and explanation of the quantum mechanics at work in this area of celestial mechanics.

I understand that the intricacies of my work are a bit daunting on first impressions but you are obviously working on problems that I can model directly with my quantum theory of Gravitation.

Not quite sure if I follow what you mean by 'centre bodied cubic geometry' but based on my definitions you would be right in saying that any model of Matter using Cartesian co-ordinates (ie c^3) would deviate mathematically from a spherical [c^4] second squared co-ordinate system - but I hasten to add that if done properly they both should yield the same force vectors on the body involved.

The crux of Tetryonic QG is that the force of Gravitation [as historically modelled by Newton and in SR] is based on observations of the bodies concerned and not the real quantum mechanics that create the gravitational force between the bodies.

There are convergent [attractive] force vectors and divergent [interactive] force vectors that present to us as the net Gravitational force we observe, until all of these quantum interactions are accurately modelled there will always be 'perturbations' and disagreements with respect to accepted theory.

My work explains the quantum fields and forces responsible for 'Gravitation' but is beyond my abilities and time at present to develop a full computer model of the processes and present it.

Tetryonic's Unified equation is all you need, but you need experience in writing the 3D CAD models for the computer along with a good overall grasp of Tetryonic theory. [remember Garbage in - Garbage out]

Which brings me back to why I entered the competition - I am only one person with a clear, succinct answer to many of Science's questions - imagine what we can achieve when the whole World understands this geometry and starts using it.

I have attached my definitions of Spatial co-ordinate systems (wrt Energy propagation [c]) along with an accurate 3D Tetryonic model of Iron for you - hope it helps you in some way..

I am completing, what I hope will be, the final revision of my QG eBook as we speak and as soon as it is 'ready' I will release it and then I trust my explanations will become clearer for you and your work.

attachments: 2_Figure_01.03__Spatial_geometries_800x600.jpg,Figure_52.26__Iron_aufbau_800x600.jpg

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:45 GMT

Alan,

This wikipedia quote has an additional sentence.

"The anomaly may be due to the rotation of the Earth. This rotation induces an azimuthally symmetric gravitational field."

If you would consider that the gravity field is EM, and has a helical field structure, with Earth's particular gravitational angular phase position, a host of odd spacecraft anomalies might be explained.

Helical Electromagnetic Gravity Field

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 13:24 GMT

Alan,

Frank is close here but I'd like to point out that there is a real convergent gravitational force created by all Matter, as well as a divergent interactive force created by the EM field of any Matter in motion.

EM mass & Matter must be clearly and rigorously defined (as I do throughout Tetryonics) as radiant energies and Tetrahedral standing waves respectively if a quantum theory of gravity is to be developed that can account for the motions of space craft etc. as you seek to do.

Both the divergent and convergent forces result in the nett force we observe as gravitation.

It is the quantum mechanics of Energy momenta that provide all the macroscopic forces we know of, and there is much more at work than only the gravitation of Matter on the cosmological scale, hence why terms like Dark Matter & Dark Energy have become popular.

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT

Frank,

I believe that the rotation of the earth is important because the exact location of the closest approach of a flyby is relevant. The exotic matter distribution within the earth is irregular due it's existence being due to exotic matter comets impacting from supernovae events. It's all speculative, yes, but also reassuringly consistent. This is why the data from Wikipedia is inconclusive. I believe that a spacecraft crossing the equator at a shallow angle and low speed will give the greatest energy increase. This because it spends the greatest amount of time in earth's 'equatorial exotic band of influence'. The results don't quite reflect this due to irregularities within the innermost core as well as exotic matter comets embedded within the crust, but will be confirmed in the future with more data such as Juno imo.

We think similarly with regard to your helical field structure, but I detail this with imagery of a self creating universe [P.S. which author spoke about SCUs? I can't find it now!] given in my last FQXi competition entry Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?

Abraham,

I don't mean to be rude, but my thinking is very back-to-basics and fundamental. I'm putting myself in the shoes of Newton as if he'd thought of an additional force to explain the flyby anomaly *before* reaching a conclusion on planetary motion. The combination of explaining the ice age data as well as the flyby amomalies as well as the galaxy rotation curves would have convinced him of additional *anisotropic* matter interaction on planetary scales, I'm sure. This is in addition to his ideas on ordinary matter interaction. Why not have this 'exotic matter' at the centre of planets and stars? Why does it have to be in a hypothetical'halo'?? (Ans: because science has already made the assumption of isotropy and equivalence for *all* matter, therefore it *has* to be in a halo)

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 10:12 GMT

You're on the right track but you don't have to create new exotic Matter to explain the accelerations. As you point out if Newton had been given the data he would have pointed out F=ma [so any acceleration of mass/Matter must be the result of an additional force - other than what he had already modelled]

In fact that is what happened with Mercury, and Einstein then came along with GR and corrected for the force giving GR 8piG as opposed to Newtonian 4PiG. ie twice the acceleration for EM masses that come close to a gravitational body than what was expected by Newtonian mechanics.

GR reduces to Newtonian gravity far away from the bodies - where the 'curvature' is weaker. But GR is based on SR and any Physicist will tell you Gravity is the only force acting between planetary bodies so what causes the additional 2pi of G-force close to Planets etc?

Back to what GR was based on.....SR.....

'when to impossible is removed - what remains however improbable must be true'

All Matter not only creates a convergent [gravitational] force but also possesses interactive [divergent] forces - Black-body radiation is well established in physics and these two forces apply to all Matter [as defined in Tetryonics].

Also of note is that Tetryonics gives us the geometry for these 'missing' fields and shows how it applies to all material bodies in the universe regardless of scale. ie it explains Mercury's perihelion, the bending of Light, galaxy rotation curves, and many other phenomena current using Dark Matter as an explanation.

And the force it creates is strongest in the equatorial region of a gravitational body [defined wrt to its magnetic axis of course] just as you propose.

So why do we struggle to explain this acceleration?

Gravity to date has been mathematically modelled on the observations of the motion of large scale Matter. As the observations get better the theory must be 'adjusted' in an attempt to explain these tiny inconsistencies but I believe I am the first to present a theory from first quantum principles that coherently explains the processes at work and agrees with current observations without the need for DM halos etc.

I am half-way through my final review of my QG illustrations and then it will be released for all to comment on.

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 18:37 GMT

Abraham, Alan,

On a close approach to earth, or any large solar body, it is no longer a point source. There are gravity influence maps that show irregularities in the force of gravity due to material density changes. Do any of the studies of a flyby anomaly examine the flyby path in relationship to these known variations in the force of gravity?

Many papers that are attempting to describe some spacecraft anomaly do not identify all the parameters about the spacecraft or the spacecraft/object relative dynamics.

One of the parameters that should be identified is whether the spacecraft is or is not spin stabilized, and if spin stabilized, the angular direction of the spin and its angular rate. What is this spin direction relative to the objects rotation? Secondly, on a close encounter, is the spacecraft going in the same direction of the objects rotation or opposite to it? And as Alan pointed out, what angle did the spacecraft pass by the object relative to the objects equator? This also has implications on the force of gravity, as it will be influenced if the object has an equatorial bulge.

Can I assume a flyby anomaly study accounts for the position of any nearby object(s), such as a moon?

ABAHAM replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT

Ah POINT particles, the bane of modern physics.

Resulting from the mathematical modelling of force vectors of all kinds back to their origin without providing an detailed material explanation of what created the forces in the first place.

It is given us spherical [4pi] quantum particles and other great wonders like Black holes and Singularities - Feynman best summed up the problems arising from this approach to physics in his lectures on electron QED.

Frank, you are right to point out that the distribution of Matter [made from charged Energy geometries] in an object under investigation is important and should always be modelled as accurately as possible in order to provide a full account of all the forces present and acting on (and between) material bodies in motion [irrespective of their scale] see attached.

As all Forces are mediated by Photons in 2D planar EM fields and Matter is a 3D charged geometry [never a point] the distribution of charges in any object in motion is extremely important (at the quantum scale upwards) if we want to give a full account of the influence of all interactive forces on any material body in motion - I believe that the true geometry of the electron was the source of inspiration for Tesla invention of the rotating synchronous converter.

Many of the parameters you mention must be modelled if a full account of physical dynamics on any scale is to be developed - otherwise any theory we develop to explain finer and subtler inconstancies in gravitation etc will have to be corrected again as more refined measurements are made [as we have historically done].

And that is what excites me about Tetryonics - it provides a quantum basis for ALL forces and particles and dictates a rigid geometry for the mathematical modelling of physical geometries and interactions that no other theory can provide.

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT

Mr Baez and Mr Witten are in bar with Penrose and Hawking. They discuss about the rule of pi in our universe. Penrose and Hawking explain to Witten and Baez that the computing and the algorythmical encodings permit indeed to create all forms. Penrose and Hawking them explain that the universe is rational. Me I say that we can create all the forms with the spheres if we respect the ultim entanglement.This serie of uniqueness. So we have an interesting serie where the lattices between spheres disappear if we consider the decreasing of volumes for this universal fractal. It is very relevant for the quantization and the building of all forms !!! The volumes are so essential. The singularities appear....

The strings can converge. The rotations can be correlated with the oscillations, harmonical. The simulations can be very relevant.

ps, the computing can converge !!!

Regards

ABRAHAMq replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT

Steve,

With all due respect to the aforementioned scientists, I think the paper I submitted for this essay competition covers it with regard to whether spheres or tetrahedrons rule as the base geometry on the quantum scale.

Science's current obsession with circular pi geometries instead of equilateral pi radians is understandable given that our mathematical formulations of physics have pi peppered throughout them - but I ask that you step out of the dogmatic mindset of pi as being the ratio of a circle to its diameter and consider what happens when you use equilateral pi radian geometries.

All the Math remains the same and you get a sensible geometry for all the particles and forces [see my paper - I believe it is a good summary of the 1300 illustrations I have produced to date covering all of physics] - and it solves so many of science's current mysteries in a clear concise way through geometry.

In short I didn't change the Math - I changed the geometry it is based on - hence Tetryonics - revealing the electro-mechanical geometry of quantum mechanics through the charged geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter.

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT

that seems interesting for the taxonomy.

You seem thinking like Mr Witten. In 2d of course. we can converge in 3D.

The real ask is so , binar system or fusioned system for the serie of polarization. I prefer personnaly the second, it is more logic. The volumes and the density so are keys for the separtion m/hv. The rotations and the sense make the rest.

Pi is relevanty indeed, it is a constant like many constants. The groups and the classments of thse groups become relevant considering my equations.

Frank and Abraham,

You've both made some very good points that I've found useful, so thank you. My jigsaw puzzle methodology has drawn me to the exotic matter hypothesis, so I intend to stay with it due to the innumerable mini-clues as to the final picture of reality. Maybe you two are both right and I'm wrong. The possiblity of exotic matter comets accessible in the earth's crust is too much to dismiss imo though. The world economy would be instantly revived. Maybe the 'philosopher's stone' of the bible is in fact exotic matter? Maybe there's more of them located at sites of Gravity & Magnetic Hills throughout the world? Worth a dedicated look imo.

ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT

Alan,

There is never only one path to scientific discovery and that is what makes it exciting. Keep working on your ideas and if you need another person to bounce ideas off (or to offer their theory's point of view on a problem you have) feel free to get in touch

The exchange of ideas is an important foundation to the development of scientific theory.

And every idea [no matter how off-beat] has the potential to spark a revolution in how we perceive the Universe and our place in it [even equilateral energy].

I hope the attached will help you view the quantum field geometry of the forces (as dictated by Tetryonic theory) that I described previously in my correspondence on your fly-by modelling.

attachments: Figure_65.04__Graviational_Field_800x600.jpg,Figure_69.13__The_Perihellion_of_Mercury_800x600.jpg

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT

Thank you Abraham, I might take you up on that offer. I'd like you to consider the ice age data as being rather spikey swift changes in global air tempaeratures in a 100ky cycle as well as quasi-millennial cycles. See attached. Your extra force from ordinary matter doesn't fit as well with the ice age data discovery imo. The 5 Milankovitch problems are solved so that it is shown that the inclination cycle is the most likely driver. My model suggests that the shape of the global air temperature curve is steeper than would be expected with your extra quantum energy with density hypothesis. My model proposes Jupiter's irregular matter equatorial band of influence creates additionl ocean and atmospheric tides when the earth crosses in a 100kyr cycle. Jupiter's irregular matter to Earth's irregular matter interaction is estimated to at least double the current earth tidal ocean energy. My band is much narrower and steeper than your more bell-shaped curve. The evidence is in the ice age data graph attached imo. Controversial, I know.

Another reason for these mega dense matter comets is their impact craters left behind which don't fit the regular comet impact energy. I propose that the Africa Rift valley and lakes was one such mighty impact collision event. Only exotic matter could create the Madagascan bulge which was carved into an island. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congo's world no1 copper and cobalt deposits as well as precious metals are due to this impact. The entire nuclear fusion model of the Sun's interior and "we're all made of star stuff" is most likely complete baloney! What do you say to that possiblity?!

attachments: IceAge_data_svg.png

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 22:24 GMT

Alan,

I see where your coming from - but here's my two-bobs worth.

All EM radiation is subject to the inverse square law.

The distance from the SUN to the Earth is 1AU (or 150M KM on average)

The distance from the EARTH to JUPITER is 4-6Au [778M km)

Making EM influences from Jupiter many orders of magnitude weaker that that received from the SUN.

The SUN is s giant arc furnace and the dominant source of Energy for the entire solar system and it is its fluctuations that I say drive your graphed variations of Temp & CO2 levels in the Earth's environment.

Re FUSION [and the WE'RE STAR STUFF claims] I agree complete baloney!

Stars convert Matter into Energy not by fusion but by 'collapsing' the Matter in their cores, turning it into radiant energies. Tetryonics dictates processes from the quantum level up - Forces, Constants, Matter geometries, Chemical compounds, DNA etc etc - and shows that the Proton-Proton chains energy model is wrong. [scientists know this as well that's why the coulombic barrier presents such a problem for them - and why their fusion reactors don't work)

Matter to Energy collapse is 100% efficient [as opposed to

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:42 GMT

Abraham,

I'm delighted that we agree on the baloney of "star stuff". I also agree on the solar collapsing of ordinary matter into something very different. It should also be remembered that the mechanism of supernovae is a complete mystery to modern science. My hypothesis is that gravitational radiation from this collapsed matter *isn't* subject to the inverse square law simple because it isn't emitting isotropically, but is concentrated on the plane of rotation of the star. Distance isn't as big an issue as with ordinary matter.

It took me around 6 months with deep discussion with Andre from Holland to appreciate the fallacies of modern ice age data interpretation. The evidence for warm waters regularly pushing into the Arctic basin is published in scientific reports. This can only be achieved by an substantial increase in global tidal energy imo. Milankovitch cycles, or sunlight only forcing models, have one significant problem which my hypothesis solves and yours doesn't unfortunately, namely, *the unsplit peak problem*.

[quote]The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies,[15] but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100ka periodicity. [end quote]

The evidence is extremely clear imo.

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT

Alan,

This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together.

I must confess to my ignorance to the finer details of this matter [Milankovitch cycles etc] as to date I have been consumed with getting Tetryonics out of my head onto paper so it can be shared but the topic does raise some interest with me.

As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present.

I would however point out that Tetryonics clearly shows that collapsed standing-wave Matter-energies form radiant EM energies - which have Electric & Magnetic components to their divergent energies and as such are indeed subject to the inverse square laws (with the E field being equatorial and in alignment with the solar ecliptic). In fact the E field does all the interacting with the planets and the B field causes perturbations in orbital mechanics closer into the SUN [as noted by Le Verrier and corrected for in GR]

As the SUN is a charged body moving through space it is subject to variations due to its interactions with its surrounding environment [as evidenced with its CME, sunspots cycles etc.] - modelling the causal field dynamics in order to be able to develop a predictive model is another matter [we can't even to a 5 day weather forecast].

I can obviously offer advice as to what Tetryonics dictates from the quantum level to the cosmological scale regarding EM interactions etc. but I am a long way off developing a fully fledged hypothesis on all the interactions at work.

But it does intrigue me as part of my work on my next eBook [Tetryonic Cosmology]

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 15:04 GMT

I should also add as a footnote that all EM fields follow the Biot-Savart law [see attached].

ie from any radiative 'point' source

E fields follow inverse square law &

B fields follow inverse cubed law

and that is why B fields produce fine perturbations close to the radiating bodies while E fields are a longer range force [with their distinct Tetryonic EM field geometries affecting their regions of influence as well].

Another fun fact often overlooked by students [or not taught at all]

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 09:23 GMT

Abraham,

We think very similarly when you say "This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together." and "As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present."

Yes, I totally agree on the necessity of a detailed simulation model of the solar sytem and the climate. As I've mentioned before in my own discussion area, I think we should start with the correct modelling of the creation of the moon. Not a simple task.

Good luck with your new book and Tetryonics.

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT

Thanks Alan,

And Yikes!!!

A computer simulation of the creation of the moon, and I thought unifying QM, QED, Chemistry and GR was ambitious.

But modelling all those processes are possible now that we have a complete quantum theory of mass-ENERGY-Matter...it just requires time and coding skills...hopefully in the process it will help explain why the moon happens to be the exact right size to create solar eclipses for us to view the solar coronas.

Surely that's not a co-incidence of nature ....but that's another story.

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 13:47 GMT

Ha, the moon's exact fit over the sun is a co-incidence imo, but more of one than you might think. I believe that not only is the moon receding from the earth, currently at 3.7cm/yr, but that it also approaches our planet as well in the 1,500yr millennial cycle. This is the spikey peaks in the ice age data already seen. The moon's irregular matter interacts with our earth's when it crosses the equator every 2 weeks, hence the spring tides! The maximum tide raising forces of the moon occur on a calculated cycle of 1,800 years, but this hasn't been adjusted for dark matter interaction which will speed-up the cycle.

I hope you can appreciate the interconnectedness of this irregualr matter hypothesis. One last point: How do you suppose that mountains are formed? By the ultra-slow plate movements as given in school text books? Think again. This uplift would be quickly eroded by weathering, wouldn't it?

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT

Alan,

You're right about the moon receding from the Earth - this is easily confirmed with laser ranging - but the current model of attractive-only gravitation cannot explain it.

Under that model the moon should spiral into the Earth [unless a force was acting on it to give it a velocity increase] and that is exactly what is happening.

By modelling the Math of Gravity on observations [instead of its quantum foundations] you model a NETT attractive force between large-scale Matter - in fact there are a number of forces including EM [as any nuclear scientist will tell you].

But to not acknowledge the presents (and effect) of the Earth's EM field on its own satellites is a bit like saying the Earth is flat [despite the evidence to the contrary].

A fully fledged quantum theory of Gravity must rely on a quantum foundation else it will need to be corrected every time better observations are made of the motion of planetary bodies as has historically been the case [Newton, Le Verrier, Einstein, Dark Matter].

I would argue [and will prove in Tetryonic QG] that your Dark matter halo can easily be replaced with the interactive, inverse forces generated by the Earth's own EM field, or at the least that this should be done before any other components like DM are considered.

Re- the mountains - I haven't given it much thought.

I do note that the Himalayas are made up of soft marine limestone that should have weathered as you say but it also had to form from a sea-level sedimentary deposit so it had to be transported up into their current location by some process over a relatively short period of time [another consideration for me to keep in mind].

attachments: Figure_70.05__Gravitational_Tidal_Forces_800x600.jpg

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 11:43 GMT

Abraham,

I'm glad we agree on the irregular nature of the moon's recession which can't be simulated with conventional gravity models. I was alarmed when I read "..that your Dark matter halo..", no(!), not a halo outside the matter, but condensed irregular matter *INSIDE* the planets and stars! This is a major difference between mine against other DM models. I understand that you are pursuing extra EM forces as the solution and I was heart-warmed when you said "..can easily be replaced with the interactive, inverse forces generated by the Earth's own EM field, or at the least that this should be done before any other components like DM are considered." Yes, I respect your position and hope that one day one of us will be shown to be right.

Thank you for the limestone/Himalaya info. I was unaware of that particular case. The irregular matter comet impact scenario is the best fit imo of course. This is the only viable model of mountain building if one is stringent enough in the analysis.

Kind regards

James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 17:02 GMT

Alan & Abraham,

There are many misconceptions about dark matter, but from the standpoint of it's justification as evidenced by the conflict between galactic and Keplerian rotation curves, as I understand only a specific configuration of dark matter that both increases total galactic mass AND significantly extends the peripheral boundary and its mass distribution can fit the observed rotation curves within the context of the laws of planetary motion.

Characteristic Keplerian rotation curves produce rather flat curves for the planets relatively close to the Sun - they diminish markedly at increasing radii. Since galaxies only exhibit relatively flat curves, it is considered that they must represent only the inner radius of the actual galaxy mass distribution. In this way it's thought that the characteristic diminishing Keplerian rotation curves at the outer radii (comprised of dark matter) would be exhibited (if only they could be observed).

As I understand then, configurations that increase the mass within the visible galaxy, such as dark matter within massive objects, would not produce the observed flat rotation curves, unless the amount of dark matter outside the visible galaxy were commensurately increased and the galaxy periphery is also significantly extended.

Of course I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think the references in "Supplemental Information" section of my essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1419, under the heading "Dimensional constraints for any possible galactic Dark Matter halo" address this issue. If I recall, it's thought that the dark matter halo must extend to a radial distance of 300,000 light years in order to resolve the conflict with Keplerian rotation curves. Of course, if it doesn't do that, galactic dark matter serves no purpose!

I hope this helps, and wasn't too tedious...

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 23:49 GMT

James,

I agree with your summary about the distribution of DM in galaxies to produce the observed rotations and Matter distributions.

As a quick way to provide a reply response to this point see attached. I think it sums it all up in one picture [note the Matter distribution wrt the galactic EM field]

The geometry of energy [GEM] fields is fixed resulting in many things historically modelled mathematically in Physics [Constants, mass-Matter geometries, Forces etc] and in this case (when fully revealed) explains DE and well as DM.

attachments: Figure_72.01__The_Plasma_Universe_800x600.jpg

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 21:45 GMT

James,

You right in your comments [save where you use mass instead of Matter] and I suspect your concern may be arising from the fact that the illustration I sent you is one of 200 on the topic.

Its main point was to convey that Gravity only modelled galaxies will have reduced Matter motions at the edges of their Matter distributions while the EM forces predominant in all Matter distributions will create the flat velocity profiles that G cannot explain.

In fact there is no such thing as a purely G or EM field it is always a combination of the two [GEM fields]. Both fields exist and act to produce all the motions we observe.

My unified formula for EM mass-Energy-Matter, when applied to QG reveals that there are in fat 3 distinct forces making up the nett gravitational effect we currently attempt to model with Newtonian G or GR.

But at its heart lies a poor historical definition and understanding of EM mass and Matter [and their various interactions]. Perhaps I could of placed a G on the right-hand illustration to make it reflective of all the interactions at work. But I am confident that all my illustrations produced for my GR book will paint the full dynamics at work.

Thanks for the feedback, which is always appreciated

Abraham et al,

I'm just a pedestrian passerby, but these discussions have been very interesting. I also agree that there is some physical process that produces gravitational effects that has not been identified - only the end results have been ingeniously described, that errors can and have occurred as a result of this incomplete understanding.

Kelvin, if you are hinting that EM processes contribute to the effects attributed solely to gravitation, I suspect you are correct. However, I think there is a physical process directed associated with mass that produces most gravitational effects.

Wouldn't an EM contributing factor to gravitational effects produce varying results relative to mass for the hot Sun and the cold Moon? While I think the proximity adjustment included in GR for Mercury's orbit could be the product of a short range EM effect, but I also agree with Frank Makinson that in classical terms a very proximal object, even if its is a perfectly spherically symmetrical distribution mass, cannot be treated as a single point mass. As I understand, if the 'surface' of the Sun occupied much of an observer's horizon in the sky, many vectors of attraction would have to be calculated and then vector summed to accurately determine the attractive force between the two bodies.

As I have said, I think that the crucial issue identified in the referenced "Galaxy Rotations" chartis that "Newtonian gravitation" (actually Kepler's laws of planetary motion) is perceived as describing only a central attraction. As I referenced in my essay's "Supplemental Information" section, several physicists have produced models successfully describing galaxy rotational characteristics without relying on any simplistic centralized attraction. For example, please see:Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies. The chart is also incorrect in stating that "Gravity can only produce spheres or ellipsoids" - it obviously also can produce spirals galaxies, and the gravitation of interacting galaxies is 'interactive'.

The Galaxy Rotation Problem was erroneously manufactured by applying Keplerian rotation curves to spiral galaxies (as shown in the "Galaxy Rotations" chart Abraham referenced). That error does not actually represent Newtonian gravitation, as shown in my reference above. It's interesting to me that whoever produced that chart also recognized that it was (the idea that) gravitation's effects are only centralized that produces the requirement for galactic dark matter - Kelvin?

If you plan to explain the erroneously identified 'gravitational effects' now attributed to dark matter with some long range EM effect, I'm afraid that you might be grossly overestimating EM's contribution to gravitational effects...

I'm always the naysayer, so realize that I'm just looking to make sure 'the system works before its implemented.' I certainly can't evaluate all the really incredible work that you've done - I'm just trying to help!

Best wishes in your ambitious endeavor!

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 23:39 GMT

James,

You're right in stating that I am asserting that there is more to gravity than a single attractive force as historically formulated in the Math itself.

Of course that is what science has been searching for ever since GR was formulated but 'our' current understanding of QM doesn't permit this. [Enter Tetryonics - the CHARGED geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter].

Gravity is comprised of 3 distinct forces which have been modelled as one attractive force because we built our mathematical model on observations not a quantum model of the interactive forces at play [Maths without Models is Muddles].

- The attractive force of Matter [tetrahedral standing--wave energy geometries] created by the interaction of its geometry with the surrounding Space-Time environment and

- The interactive forces of EM masses [2D radiant energies] in it associated radiant fields [heat, temp, KE energies]

But G fields and E fields obey inverse squared laws but

M fields obey a inverse cubed law [and is a much shorter range force].

Newton modelled the nett force of G as a weak super-positioned E field

[which implies that G is just a weaken form of an E field - ie both can modelled as a energy gradient - hence why Newtons G formulation looks so much like Coulomb's Q formulation]

Einstein modelled it as a curvature of Space-time around a material body [which is the correct model] - Tetryonics proves this and the quantum reasons how Matter generates this curvature [and the geometry itself].

Newton's model works because it only seeks to model the observed motions [hence "I offer no hypothesis"] and GR corrects the finer EM perturbations that result from forces close to large-scale Matter but fails to identify what causes these perturbations as the Stress-Energy tensor GR employs offers not distinction between mass & Matter. [Tetryonics builds this definition into it foundation and enforces it clearly through geometry].

That's why GR reduces to Newtonian G at distances away from Matter [where the "relativistic G" fields are weaker]. the use of Photons & EM waves as a method of testing 'gravitational bending" and similar must stop - they only test SR effects inherent in GR's formulation.

Matter at the macroscopic scale may be spherical but it comprised entirely of equilateral charged fascia and emits a radiant EM field proportional to its temperature, mass and motion in space. Tetryonics provides the charged geometries for ALL the Elements, Allotropes and compounds possible in book 3 - Quantum Chemistry (on YouTube)] facilitating the accurate modelling of Matter from the quantum scale up..

In summary regarding the quantum source and strength of gravitational attraction my next eBook - Tetryonic Cosmology will go through all of these points in much greater detail than here but it will reveal the Gravitational Constant to have a 'stepped' pi value - (4pi) - Newtonian G only - (6pi) - G&E field interactions - (8pi) - GEM field interactions wrt to their combined equilateral quantum field geometries [that result in our observed Gravitational force of attraction].

I hope this helps to clarify things.

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT

James,

Yes to all of your replies above BUT it all depends on your viewing perspective.

For example re: Inverse Square relations (when viewed from a polar perspective above the source - ie looking down) will produce the radial dispersion you speak of BUT if viewed 90 degrees to that perspective (ie a equatorial perspective) it will be revealed that they are in fact equilateral EM energy forms with a linear momentum component [see attached].

Note: this is not a change in the frame of reference - it is a change of perspective (or EM phase)

In all the cases you mention the measured geometry is simply the result of how you're measuring the wave's properties - the measurement of a EM wave's electric or Magnetic field strength will reveal a varying energy density as it propagates past your point of measurement - but if you track a specific energy density points [or points] it will reveal the radial geometry & motion that you note

Its really down to what you are measuring & how you measure it as to what geometric result you obtain.

Remember Tetryonics changes the underlying foundational geometry in physics [Equilateral vs Spherical objects and fields] - not the Math [unless it's in error].

You're close on the two opposed fields - equilateral CHARGE fields are comprised of opposing linear momenta [source of inertia] but due to their equilateral geometry the nett force is always a divergent force away from the source [strangely enough the symmetrical geometry of ETs is what gives physics its 'broken symmetry' of charges].

Where Gravity differs it that Matter produces a strictly convergent force due to its charged Matter geometry, and its black-body and motional energies are nett divergent - the two fields [G&EM] act in unison to produce a nett attractive force [except when close to the body - perturbations, accelerations] Current observationally based Math models of G cannot distinguish between these GEM forces [or mass & Matter] hence the need for QG which Tetryonics provides.

I am final proofing my QG eBook as we speak but it is still a few weeks off from release yet.

Re your final question absolutely - IF THEY WERE SIDE BY SIDE - but their respective distances from us and the inverse square law [inverse cubed for M fields] 're-scales' their respective effects on us. Also remember that the SUN is a Matter-Energy generator while the Moon is a 'reflector' of the same and its radiant EM fields are practically nil [1/100th of Earth].

All of this can be easily revealed as being true wrt to Gravity - Newton saw it as a FORCE acting radially between Matter - Einstein saw it as a CURVATURE of Space-Time - both models are mathematically correct but neither was a true model of the quantum mechanics of gravitation [only a reflection of their differing views on the observed motion of Material bodies in Space and their effects on each other]

I hope this helps you.

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:13 GMT

Abraham!

Sorry for my delay in responding, but I didn't have internet access over the UK bank holiday weekend. Hey, I had a eureka moment on the bus Saturday afternoon! The moon's spring tidal effect occurs every 2 weeks, when the moon is on the same plane as the sun, i.e. the equatorial plane. This would be the biggest irregularity factor in the flyby anomaly and would account for *negative energy increases* if the moon is behind the direction of the spacecraft! The idea can be checked against the moon's position for the flyby data given in Wikipedia. It can be checked again with the future Juno flyby. We have evidence at our fingertips! Abraham, think about it!

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT

Yes Alan,

Amazing isn't it - when you have the right quantum geometry -you can develop a unified theory of QM, QED, Chemistry and gravitation.

Now we're back to a Tetryonic clockwork universe [like Newton's] when we can visualise the real mechanics at play and don't have to use relativistic tensors or Riemann's curved geometries.

All we have to do is a 'simple' analysis of Matter's gravitational force and super-position it with the radiated EM fields of the bodies in motion in order to calculate the effect on the satellite.

No DM, DE, thermal emissions from space-craft, perturbations from unseen sources etc. just plain old [G]EM field calculations. Newton would be proud [of course he could have figured this out if he had access to our current data sets]

Welcome to the new World of Tetryonics where answers are found everywhere you look - I can't wait for the rest of the World to catch up.

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 10:54 GMT

I've just checked the phases of the moon with the dates of the flybys and it fits! The biggest positive energy changes were when the moon was in it's last quarter, before a new moon. This is the same side of the planet as the sun when the flyby occurs. This is given as evidence for the irregular matter hypothesis. More data such Juno will confirm this, I'm sure. Remember where you heard it first!

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:05 GMT

Alan.

This gives us about a year to 'educate' all concerned as to the real gravitational mechanics at work so we can propose testable refined models of the GEM interactions at work.

Fortunately Juno's GS experiment uses radio waves to test GR gravitation - it will reveal the SR EM mass contributions to the nett GEM field dependent on space-craft's position wrt Jupiter's G & EM fields.(ie polar or equitorial positions)

Without Tetryonic geometry to model the individual GEM field components they will get confusing results, similar to the anomolous flyby accelerations you have previously noted (as M fields are inverse cubed fields vs G & E fields which are inverse squared)

Guess I'd better release Tetryonic Gravitation ASAP

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:26 GMT

Alan

Can you explain how the 'phases' of the moon can directly relate to the flyby's gravitationally, which were on varying trajectories and planes?

As you may recall I'm also a yacht master so have to predict tides all the time from astronometric data. (flow rates, heights and times are all critical). The sun/moon model does very well to first and second order, By the time we get to higher orders many other trivial effects come into play. The main ones are air pressure and wind, in fact when combined and with neap tides and weak flow these can become first order! They are also only approximate, coming within Navier Stokes uncertainties.

Even taking a single 'Port' and wide database there is then indeed still room for other, if quite trivial, effects. The other planets are small and less dense. I've done only approximations but they certainly seem to come within the category 'trivial'. I'd be interested in any other data you have.

As far as Flyby's go, they fit a model including our planet's dense bow shock. This includes the most recent one which had almost zero effect. The moons potential is of course allowed for (have you checked where the moon was then wrt it's track?)

I'm a very practical bloke and remain to be convinced by hard data, accurate application and logical interpretation. Do send such. Simply correlating flyby dates with 'moon phases' does not seem able to reproduce what is already done with great precision.

Peter

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT

Peter,

I appreciate you taking an interest in the flyby anomaly and how it can relate to the current gravity problem in physics. I'm a sea kayaker so too am familar with reading tide tables and having a deeper knowledge of the weather. I've also studied astronomy, physics and simulation modelling.

The Flyby anomaly has a number of clues to it's origin:

(i)An analysis of the MESSENGER spacecraft (studying Mercury) did not reveal any significant unexpected velocity increase. This may be that MESSENGER both approached and departed Earth symmetrically about the equator. This implies that an additional force occurs on the plane of Earth's rotation, the equatorial plane. The moon traverses this plane, making it a likely candidate.

(ii)There are a few cases where a negative change in speed is recorded. Some cases have a high increase in speed. The moon provides this ability to give *both* an increase and decrease in flyby energy depending on it's relative position. It could be in front or behind the approaching spacecraft. This information is vital to further confirm this new hypothesis. I'll endeavour to find out just as soon as I can.

Do you get the gist? The phases of the moon dictate it's position above and below the equatorial plane in a 2 week cycle. I'm proposing that when the moon crosses this plane irregular matter interacts with irregular matter within the earth, creating additional tides and is responsible for the Bond event. This additional force also interacts more weakly with the iron of a flyby craft, due to it's centre-bodied cubic geometry. So when a craft flyby occurs with the moon in front of it and on the same plane, then a maximum energy increase occurs. If the moon is above or below the equatorial plane then no additional effect occurs. If the moon is on the same plane but behind the craft relative to the earth, then a decrease in energy is observed. This technique can give a *prediction* for the Juno flyby.

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:14 GMT

Alan,

Well done, you have got me generating a whole new chapter for my upcoming cosmology eBook [A chapter on multi-body gravitational mechanics].

Send me your email address to [email protected] and I'll return email a couple of draft illustrations on SUN-Earth-moon system GEM interactions, so you have a clearer picture of the exact field mechanics that I've been describing to you in this forum.

I'll know they'll get you excited and I'd appreciate your feed-back on them.

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:49 GMT

Abraham,

I'm honoured to have influenced you for the better and given something new for your upcoming book. I'll happily take a look at your draft illustrations and give you some feedback.

I'm still waiting for Peter's assessment of the claim of a new discovery and the potential for a scientific prediction for Juno's flyby. Here's my latest thoughts:

The giant impact hypothesis is a vital part of the moon conunudrum imo.

(i) The moon appears to be more influential for flyby accelerations than the earth itself. This implies that the moon has more irregular matter than the earth, yet much smaller in size. I propose that Theia, the large impact body, had a high concentration of irregular matter for it's size and consequently acquired earth's irregular matter as it passed *through* the protoplanet. This could be the reason for life on earth. Less irregular matter means less comet impacts from iron and other irregular matter comets. The moon would also act as a 'soak-up' for these incoming orbital comets. It's similar to how Jupiter acts as a 'soak-up' for comets in the region.

I even had the idea that Theia passed through the Arctic basin, creating Antarctica on it's exit! The moon then interacted with Venus, causing it to flip and was then captured by earth in a return orbit. The earth then flipped itself by 90 degrees so that the comet entry became the north pole as we are familiar with today. Pure speculation of course.

There's many unknowns with the moon's creation. The issue is far from being resolved, much like the ice age theory fundamental problems .

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT

Abraham,

I can't see how Tetryonics can explain the flyby anomaly being determined by the moon's position and not simply due to the much nearer earth.

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT

Hi Alan.

Here's where the 'simpler' Gravitational fields of Newton and Einstein are revealed in their true nature.

Firstly, you will note that the circular fields represent the Newtonian 4pG fields the all Matter produces.

Secondly, the E^2 fields [the diamond ones] are geometric reflections of the super-positioned E-field components of the same field that Newton modelled with his formula for Gravitation [and Coulomb modelled for Charge interactions - hence their similarities]

Leaving the M-Fields to contribute the last 2pG perturbation fields that affect only objects very close to gravitation Matter bodies [of course all of this is further complicated by the rotations of these same bodies]

ie Newtonian 4pG becomes 8pG closer to Gravitational Matter where objects are influenced by G,E & M fields all at once.

In short - all GEM fields are comprised of 4p CONVERGENT fields + 2p INTERACTIVE E-fields and 2p PERTURBATIVE M-fields. [additionally complicating these fields is the fact that G&E fields follow the inverse SQUARE law whilst M fields follow the inverse CUBED law].

Re: the moon interactions wrt to the Earth's on flybys - the E-fields will create an interactive force between each body of Matter in addition to the convergent force created by the gravitation of Matter alone.

The SUN, Earth and moon all produce these 3 quantum level interactions which is normally accounted for in Newtonian & GR math BUT it does not model any interactive forces, only the observed net convergent we term gravitation, thereby ignoring the possibility of any interactive E-field forces at the quantum level.

Accordingly, the moon [when positioned on the same side as the SUN during fly-by] will produce a interactive E-field force on a satellite's charged Matter geometries additional to the Earth's and when it is a Full moon it will create a small force in opposition to the GEM field of the Earth during fly-by.

You can get the same result using the current Newtonian & GE models but they ignore the interactive forces present during equatorial fly-bys and the perturbative forces present in higher inclinations.

In short - by geometrically modelling the 3 fields [and all their quantum] interactions additional forces come into play [ie INTERACTION - opposites attract - similar repel & perturbations] which has an effect on the motion of Matter in the GEM fields of other material bodies.

This is all very 'simple' to explain but much harder to illustrate

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT

Okay, I'll have to digest the explanation that you've given me and get back to you as soon as I can. I'm glad we both agree on the mysterious influence of the moon on earth flybys.

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT

In the meantime I'm still perplexed that you can have a model which describes the *extreme* irregular nature of the flyby discovery which an exotic matter comet hypothesis can explain. The moon can be represented as a pea held at arm's length infront of one's eye, which represents the size of the earth. How can the moon which is so much smaller and *so* much further away affect the satellite when it skims the earth's atmosphere? My model has the moon's composition to be much different to that of the earth, having a much higher concentartion of irregular matter. How does tetryonics account for this apparent discrepancy between the moon's internal composition and the earth's?

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT

The key is to recognise that the attractive pull of Gravity is really the net force created by Gravitational Matter fields, Interactive Electric fields and Perturbative Magnetic fields and that these forces are all distinctly different both in strength and geometry from the Matter that creates then.

In short the force between all material bodies [Matter] on any scale are the result of 3 distinct force field interactions that Science has mistaken for the single attractive force of Gravity [time for this to be corrected].

Geometrically the EM fields are equilateral fields and greatest when objects are closest to Matter while Gravitational fields are a radial inverse square force.

Additionally all Matter is comprised of charged fields and subject to charge field interactions according to the distribution of Matter within the objects.

Even quantum scale electrons [much smaller in scale to us than the moon to the Earth] can produce macroscopic EM fields of considerable effect when they are accelerated.

All our physical measurements are based on a unit of time [seconds] and this forces our measured GEM fields to be all of the same dimensions [ie 1sec = c^2 & sec^2 = c^4]. So the Earth's GEM field has the same dimensions as the moon's [and the same dimensions as the SUN's] but they differ in strength and intrinsic quantum field vector geometries [G vs E vs M] but to fit in my illustrations I had to rescale them as noted on the pages.

These points are what makes modelling the full interactions so difficult but historically the way around that is to model the resultant motion we can observe between Material bodies [and that we call Newtonian Gravity] but it fails when we get more accurate data from flybys closer to the material bodies as their EM interactions create additional forces, other than that described by a convergent only Gravity field [that we call General Relativity] which in turn needs modification to explain flyby data.

Finally, I agree with the differing compositions of the Earth and moon but that is the result of the creative processes and mechanics that formed them [and to date outside of the scope of Tetryonics as it deals with the geometric-mechanics of mass-ENERGY-Matter in motion]

Hope this helps.

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT

I'm happy that you agree that the earth and moon must have vastly different internal compositions to account for the moon's influence on satellite earth flybys at such a long distance away.

I think we need a third party to assess our conclusions so far. I'll request Brendan take a look at this potentially groundbreaking discovery.

Cheers for now,

Alan

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT

Alan,

I suggest it would be more appropriate to say that flybys are affected by the 3 quantum interaction fields of the Earth proportional to the crafts' distance from the Earth during Flybys [with the moon contributing as well via its GE fields]

GR tries to account for the fields by defining all Energy in the Stress-Energy tensor [Tab] as gravitational when in fact there exists interactive E-fields and perturbation M-fields at the quantum level of all Gravitational fields between Matter.

Hence GR's 8piG vs Newtonian 4piG. (remember Gravitational-shifting of EM waves is a SR measurement of E-field component of nett G-field).

Look forward to Brendan's input on the topic [particularly as Tetryonics can also explain QM, QED & Q-Chemistry mysteries as well - got to add weight to the argument for Equilateral Energy].

ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:29 GMT

Very soon, the Quantum Gravity eBook will be publicly released bringing to conclusion the major re-working of the foundations of classical, quantum and relativistic physics on a new truly unified foundation from which we can forge a better understanding the mechanics of our Universe and develop a better relationship with its Creator.

But it won't end there - already behind the scenes I have begun developing a 5th Book - Tetryonic Solutions - highlighting the advances derivable directly from theory that Tetryonics can provide us now [using our current technology] in meeting the current demands of Humanity in the 21st century.

It will overview all aspects of Tetryonic geometry as it applies to our current Math of physics and provide a new geometric foundation for physical Mathematics that can be taught from the earliest stages of schooling.

Excitingly, it will reveal new sources of clean, limitless Energy derived directly from Tetryonic theory, along with its safe generation, storage and distribution for people and industry anywhere on the Planet.

And finally, a way will be revealed to rid our world of harmful radioactive & biological wastes once and for all, cleaning-up degraded land and waterways; restoring our world to its pre-industrial splendour for all future generations.

The promise of a better world with clean, limitless Energy, unlimited resources, astounding medical advances and new forms of communication and transport is now at hand as promised in the closing statement of my essay.

I am only one person revealing the geometric mechanics underlying the true physics of the Universe we live in - I look forward with great anticipation to the wonders we can achieve when scientists and engineers worldwide start applying this understanding to their fields of expertise and strive to make the World a better place.

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 16:37 GMT

:)After hundreds of years of dedicated research why do we not have a quantum mechanical model of sub-atomic particles and forces that explains all their observed properties and interactions?

because my theory was not still there, but now the big gut toe is found.....from a small humble Spherical Jedi from Belgium speaking french of 37 years old.

:) one day we shall see the truth and all wa shall say, oh my god, but how it was possible that we have not seen that before.....

QUANTUM SPHERES.........COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES.........UNIVERSAL SPHERE AND ITS CENTRAL SPHERE.

It was so simple that that. eureka so .

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:20 GMT

Steve,

Very well you may talk about spheres but that just reflects the point that you are following the herd and refusing to see what is before your very eyes.

Equilateral energies form the Universe we inhabit - Equilateral mass-Energies and Tetrahedral Matter [see attached].

On my YouTube channel I offer you detailed explanations for QM, QED, Q-Chemistry and Quantum Gravity for your consideration [all united under Tetryonics] - something 300 years of spherical geometry has failed to achieve.

I trust with time you will open your mind to the answers it provides and see spheres for the what they really are [a macroscopic construct resulting from the quantum tessellation of equilateral energies]

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 23:10 GMT

Ahahah yes of course, a small string perhaps in a compactification of pure reductionism in 11 dimension with a bridge in 7 to 8 and 12 after, of course.And also the 2d M theory is convergent with the pi extrapolation for the equivalence peinciple between mass/E. and what after ?

a beer from Belgium and our planet are tetryon, and our stra also, our eyes are teryonical mass energy brane.And also the brains are not spherical and also a water drop is not a sphere, our universal sphere is ion a tetryonic superimposing of dimensionalities.because the fractal of spaces in a pure numerical way is entropical.Of course also, the mass is not proportional with rotating spheres because the tetryonisation of extradimensions are ina pure Pauli principle. Now of course the rotations are not important and the angles also are not important.The tetryon is the answer and the favorate sports of humans are not with spheres.Of course the arrogance is not important inside the sciences community and the humility is in the extradimensionalities of complexs numbers.of course the BH are not spheres but tetryons and our particules elemenatry also are not spheres.The flowers them are tetryons of Entropy.And the primes are in a parallelization of primes.Now of course the sphericality is on the road again ...and the tetryonix is a mTheorization of branes of diemsnionalities.Of course .Equilateral energies , and what after they do not turn also?

ps you do not explain the gravity, me yes ! with humility of course.

Regards :) let's play like children, innocent and arrogant.

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT

That said, I see on net that you want save the world.Me also, it is well, we have the syndrom of the savor, let's collaborate so.

1 composting at Big Scale, WE MUST REBUILD THE SOILS !!!are you ok ?

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 00:32 GMT

Steve,

With all humility, I think the World should save itself, all I offer is the tools to do so.

Gravity is covered [see attached] but just not released yet. To that end Tetryonics reveals Gravity to be 3-fold quantum GEM [convergent/interactive/perturbative] forces that have been modelled mathematically, from physical observations, as a single nett convergent force.

Once QG is revealed the true mechanics of 'fusion' can be replicated and all radioactive wastes and contaminated soils etc. can be turn into pure energy and recycled back into useful elements [as per Tetryonic Chemistry] as you agree.

But no Strings or Black holes or Time Travel [at all] even Pi is just Pi radians of equilateral geometries, of course many will seek to see their own theories in the work I have done after all how many times have scientists proclaimed "but we knew that all the time" after a discovery was made.

Finally, I would rather the World benefited from my work than to be personally recognised for it [hence why it is all on the net for all to see].

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 10:22 GMT

Well, if you want to solve the world, you must have concrete solutions.The composting is essential. The thermophile phasis is essential. The system can be o^ptimized, furthrmore I have invented a correlated natural motor. The biomass is not a probelm when the adds of parameters are inserted with rationality. The soils must be redynamised. The composting at Global sale is a priority, all governments must take a specific strategy correlated with the increase of vegetal mass. That , it is a solution, yours no. The soils must rebuild and the composting is essential for our earth.

If your solutions are concrete, you shall be recognized, if not, learn simply :)

C/N for the compsoting .....bacterias, heat,methan,.......I accelerate the processus ....very relevant you know.

Regards

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT

I know that it is well, thanks. You know Abraham, don't be too much jealous and envious, you know it is not serious if a young belgian has found. The jealousy and the vanity you know are not the good partners for correct universal extrapolation, but it is just a suggestion of course.Don't be touched, I just explain how I see. I don't need to read your publications, fqxi is sufficcient to show me that you are just not foundamental and general. Probably the syndrom of the searcher.

Insert my equations and my theory of spherization, you shall be better, you shall see.

Regards thinker of tetryonics. And forget a little your strings and chains and think by yourself ina pure spherical road.

the spherical Jedi.

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:17 GMT

Steve,

I note the tone of your comments and question why you didn't enter an essay outlining the full details of your spherical theory to let others comment on your work [and let it speak for itself]

We all appreciate a new way of interpreting the physics we know.

Perhaps you should read the publications you comment on - so you may make better informed comments [Tetryonics has nothing to do with strings].

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:48 GMT

Mr Abraham,

Why I should make this contest or why I should publish ?

It is indeed a good question. In fact I don't know, perhaps that it is not important for me the competition.Or perhaps that I have difficulties to focus on topics.Or perhaps that I have difficulties to resume the generality.Or perhaps I have too much things to pubklish, so I don't know how I must do.Or perhaps that I need a team to help me.Or perhaps thatI lmike to see the copycats.Or perhaps I like to learn on this platfrom. Or perhaps for me that the only one importance is the sharing in a total transparence.Or perhaps I am too much occupied with my equations also and its derivations in my head.Or perhaps I smoke too much.Or perhaps my meds are too much strong.Or perhaps I need to find a girlfreind.Or perhaps I need to be less parno.Or perhaps that I need to find a job.Or perhaps that the number is finite for the uniqueness :)

Spherically yours, they turn so they are.:)

The spherical Jedi.

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT

*Abraham*,

The lunar influence on earth flybys fits with the problems experienced by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they descended to the moon's surface. Were they in the grip of the lunar exotic matter? I think they were.

Neil Armstrong and the Landing of the Eagle UPDATED

[quote]Eagle had overshot the landing zone, Home Plate, by four miles. A slight navigational error and a faster than intended descent speed accounted for Eagle missing its planned touchdown site in the Sea of Tranquility.[end quote]

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT

Alan,

As noted in the GEM illustrations sent to you the convergent G-field modelled by observations is in fact a EM field close to objects of Matter [Earth, moon etc].

As any object approaches the moon [for example] it will experience a interactive E-field and then a perturbative M-field both of which will accelerate charged Matter in differing strengths and directions.

These affects are predicted by GR [8piG] vs Newtonian [4piG] but not the direction of interactions as GR treats all energies are convergent and are usually ignored in lunar calculations as the G-field is considered to be too weak to model relativistically

Yes even neutral Matter is comprised of charged fascia [see Tetryonic QM - 1 tonne = 1.355e50 charged quanta]

Also of note is the fact that the astronauts had considerable difficulty in removing the lunar soils from their suits at the end of each EVA [due to the lunar soils having a slightly negative charge compared to the Astronauts]

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT

I'd forgotten about the charged nature of the lunar soil. I was always suspicious in the fact that the lunar rock brought back from the surface is better guarded than the gold in Fort Knox. Are there mysteries and inconsistensies which have been overlooked or even concealed I wonder?

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:07 GMT

Alan,

I suspect the value apportioned to Lunar rocks has something to do with the Apollo program costing $25 billion and only 380kg of Lunar rock was brought back [that's $73.5 million/kg excluding what they made selling the rights to Velcro and Tang]

There's a great TV show called "Million Dollar Moon Rock Heist" where a Salt lake City Uni student stole ALL the rock samples NASA had in a lab at the Johnson Space Labs in 2002 and tried to sell them to an overseas buyer for a few million.

As another interesting fact, if you check out my Chemistry videos on YouTube [specifically CHs 54 & 60 re Isotopes] you'll see how energy increases the mass of Elements like Oxygen etc showing the effect of Solar irradiance on the lunar rocks. The moon has higher O18 & He3 concentrations than the Earth die to is lack of atmosphere etc.

Oh and note that ALL elements have the same number Protons, electrons and Neutrons with differing energy levels [not the extra Neutron models currently used] ie O18 has 8P/8N/8e and 2N worth of energy not 10N as often claimed] see Chapter 52 for 3D models of all the elements.

If Tetryonics has taught me anything thing it is that they are MANY inconsistencies in the current modelling of physics - hence the 1300 illustrations I've produced to date.

attachments: Figure_52.08__Oxygen_aufbau_800x600.jpg,Figure_54.13__Oxygen_isotopes_800x600.jpg

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 11:43 GMT

Abraham,

Okay, thanks for the extra info. So it's the lack of an atmosphere which gives the dust a negative charge and the lunar rocks aren't thought to be anything super extra special.

I even had the idea that the moon might be responsible for the precession of Mercury and make Einstein's solution obsolete. It's either the moon or Mars. The current rover and Mars orbiter should be able to identify the effect of the extra force of Mars' equatorial region. It won't be long before the truth is out.

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 12:30 GMT

Alan,

Close, the simplest way to put it is that the moon is a charged body moving through the SUN's EM field [and its soil accumulates a charge in the process].

Einstein's GR is still right but under Tetryonic GEM the strictly convergent force of Gravity is comprised of divergent interactive and perturbative forces closer into the body [and the strength of these interactions are in turn influenced by the amount of Matter in the bodies]

GR [being based on SR] fails to recognise the quantum mechanics underlying the interactive and perturbative components of the Gravitation field. [EM masses are accelerated and Lorentz contracted by E-fields not Gravitational or Magnetic fields]

LeVerrier and others calculated for perturbations of Mercury's orbit just after Neptune was found and couldn't account for it using Newtonian Gravity - that's why Einstein developed GR - and why we had to invent Dark Matter to account for discrepancies in his model.

But you're right, very accurate measurement of G-field with EM waves from Curiosity & Juno etc. will help to prove this never-the-less - as long as they understand the real mechanism for the 'extra gravitational-shifting' they detect.

Given enough time the truth is bound to come out - I just hope they don't want to modify GR again!

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 09:20 GMT

Oops, I meant to say Venus as the contender for Mercury's precession and *not* Mars, due to it being the closer of the two. Schoolboy error!

Abraham,

Why not compromise and call this idea something like "the additional force on the plane of rotation of a planet or moon" and not specify the exact cause? I want to attract some interest from others so that progress can be made with new ideas and some rough calculations perhaps.

I've just read about Venus and think that there is a clue:

[quote]Venus is believed to have previously possessed oceans,[14] but these vaporized as the temperature rose due to the runaway greenhouse effect.[15] The water has most probably photodissociated, and, because of the lack of a planetary magnetic field, the free hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind. [end quote]

It's possible that the planet previously had a magnetic field which ties in with idea that inner convection is created by non-Newtonian matter i.e. by the moon. It sounds as though Earth might have acquired Venus's life giving moon for example. Do you think that this is a contender?

Do you think Venus is the likeliest candidate for Mercury's orbital anomaly as I do?

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT

A knowledge of when the equatorial plane of Venus and Mercury are aligned and for how long is the next step. Any ideas?

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:24 GMT

Alan,

I don't think it is wise to develop an theory that doesn't have an explanation for its motive force [or for the corrections it predicts], that would put us back to Newtonian gravity with no explanation for its mechanics.

GR obviously attempts to overcome this by giving us the correct answer but couches the answer as being the result of 'space-time' geometry [but it also fails to address how gravity works - undetected 'gravitons and g-waves included]

Tetryonics explains the quantum interactions for Newtonian Gravity and GR through GEM interactions accounting for both theories and paving the way for testable refinements to the nett force of Gravitation.

BUT [and it is a bit BUT], any test using EM waves must accurately calculate the exact interactions these fields have on top of the gravity field [unless you can exclude them]....and that's where Newton and Einstein both failed [they had no explanation of the quantum interactions at play that give rise the nett force of gravitation] because they never differentiated between EM mass and Matter.

In short, call it what you want but you need a solid mechanical basis on which to explain established proven theories so it can be mathematically modelled and physically tested in some way [otherwise it remains a speculative theory like strings etc].

Re: the effect Venus had on Mercury's orbital perturbations - any change in either planet's EM field would have an effect, but no where near as significant as the SUN's GEM effect on Mercury by many orders of magnitude given the relative distances between each of them [G&E fields are inverse squared and dipole M-fields are inverse cubed].

Again it would require the modelling of various the theories against observational data [and if that data is generated from EM waves...well I think you get the point]

Given the GEM interactions and the geometry of the fields I am more than confident that the SUN's M-field is the source of Mercury's orbital precession and that close flybys of spacecraft in Earth's GEM fields will bear it out [but an accurate field model of the quantum GEM interactions is required to prove this and this is beyond my resources at present].

hoang cao hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT

Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 00:41 GMT

Hai,

As it is shown to be in Tetryonics mass is a measure of the amount of equilateral Energy found in any time based co-ordinate system. You will note the left and right rotation vectors that I draw on my charge diagrams [see attached] they reflect the 'direction' that the electromagnetic inductive flux moves within the equilateral geometry to produce the 2 charges we know.

Currents in EM Inductors (once established) resist changes to their energy levels - in that they are often called electrical mass equivalents.

Collections of these 'ideal quantum inductors' combine to form charged Bosons [ODD numbered quanta] which in turn combine again to form Photons [EVEN numbered quanta] and standing wave Matter [4n quanta - Tetryons] .

All Matter radiates EM energies [particularly when in motion where it has Kinetic energy and a magnetic moment] which spreads out from its source Matter and interacts to form the physical CONSTANTS that we are familiar with and eventually weakens to the point that it forms the Vacuum Energies that surround everything in the Universe.

It is this ever-present Vacuum energy permeating the Universe that the 3D standing-wave geometries of Matter displace when they are created - in turn the Vacuum energies try to equalise the pressure differential resulting from the presence of Matter creating the force of Gravity.

These two forces [CONVERGENT Gravity and INTERACTIVE Electromagnetism] act in unison at the quantum level to produce a nett gravitational force that we observe as the single force of Gravity between large-scale material objects

This shows us that all mass-ENERGY and Matter throughout the Universe has equilateral geometries and that the interaction of EM inductive loops of energy with their surrounding EM field environment is the source of the property mass [not the Higgs boson as is claimed - in fact the Higgs being a Boson is just an ODD numbered transverse wave-form of a specific mass-energy and on that basis is no more important that a long blade of grass in a meadow]

The entire Universe works on the principle of ElectroMagnetic induction with its equilateral geometries forming the basis for the shapes of everything we can see and sense throughout it.

The energy in every charged EM field has a mass equivalence and these EM fields join to form the charged fascia of all Matter [Matter is made of mass-energies].

Any form of Matter made of inductive masses will create an additional Kinetic EM [KEM] field that is proportional to its velocity [KEM = mv^2] comprising its Kinetic energy and its magnetic moment. It is this field that is Lorentz variable to velocity changes not the Matter [which is always Lorentz invariant due to the fact that its energy is always moving at c in the first place when it is formed]

Any change in mass is not a change in Matter geometry and moving an object from the Earth to the moon will result in differing measurements of its weight [m=F/a] because of the different strength of GEM gravitation at each place. The charged geometries that make up its Matter in both cases remains the same [as does the mass-Energies that create those charged fascia], however the gravitational field of the moon [comprised of G-E-M forces] has a different strength to that on the Earth and produces a different acceleration interaction resulting in the smaller weight measured using Newton's formula. [see attached]

In short all mass-ENERGY-Matter in this universe is made of equilateral energy quanta. If you smash them together [at any speed] all the energies in the impacting bodies will explode outward [think of a Lego block creation breaking up when you smash two together] the individual energies then recombine to form [ODD numbered] Bosons, [EVEN numbered] Photons and [4n number] Tetrahedrons of Matter.

Of course this has been the broadest overview of all the mechanics and dynamics possible (and much more detailed illustrations on these topics are on my YouTube channel Tetryonics) but I hope it was what you were seeking - feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions - I'll take a look at your essay as well.

hoang cao hai replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 14:27 GMT

Dear ABRAHAM

Is grateful for your answer,but the problem is:

If the Higg particle contains the mass (is "heavy")

So: in multi-dimensional space,way or direction was it will be "heavy" follow ?

and why it is "heavy" follow that way or that direction?

Regards.

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT

Hai,

What you are alluding to [I think] is the distinction between mass and Matter, where it is Matter that experiences the force of Gravity to create weight.

Tetryonics has VERY rigid definitions of the terms EM mass and Matter with the former being a 2D radiant energy geometry and the later being a 3D tetrahedral standing-wave geometry possessing volume.

EM masses do not experience gravitational forces - due to their planar radiant nature whereas Matter on the other hand is subject to the force of Gravity as it is a standing-wave geometry

Of note is the fact that Bosons and Photons are Matter-less [not massless as often stated as they have Energy/c^2 geometries] - so the Higgs boson although it possessed mass will be weightless.

It is an ODD numbered equilateral energy geometry that represents only a fraction of any Matter geometry that is destroyed in LHC collider collisions [of any energy level] - with all Matter possessing multiple odd number bosons to form their square energy levels [n]

I know many will say that GR shows that Photons experience 'gravitational shifting' due to their mass in a gravity field - but Tetryonics clearly shows the quantum interactions at work that form the nett convergent force we call Gravitation are in fact EM and Gravitational - finally revealing the fact that gravitational shifting is in fact the result of the Lorentz contraction of EM masses in a GEM field.

The Higgs boson [as you point out] is simply one particular energy level that contributes to the total mass of any Matter [or Kinetic EM field] geometry - until the geometry is destroyed in a collision and its EM mass-energy is released.

Interestingly, it is not the massive HIGGs Boson that creates the observed property of mass - it is the many smaller inductive loop [ZPF] geometries of the individual quanta that make up the ODD number geometry of all bosons.

I hope I have explained this clearly for you, if not post an additional comment [my YouTube channel has much more detail on these points].

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 06:07 GMT

Hai,

I realise that it can be difficult to follow what I put in words in response to your enquiry on the HIGGS boson and its relationship to mass-Matter and weight [particularly with the finer points of the mass-Matter relationship - after all physics has never differentiated between the two properties in a formal basis like Tetryonics does].

So please note the attached illustration that I created to be read in conjunction with the previous answer posted.

I hope it will help you in understanding the relationship between the charged geometry [Zero point inductive loops] of Energy and the physical properties of mass-Matter and weight.

In short the HIGGS is just another boson like the W's that is PART of the charged fascia of all Matter but with a higher mass-energy geometry [I would prefer that the whole concept be dropped as it just adds confusion to the standard model and is not required]

As always, should you have any further questions on this matter feel free to post me with your enquiry.

hoang cao hai replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 03:49 GMT

DEAR ABRAHAM and TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

WAIITING FOR SCIENCE HELPS IS VERY LONGTIME,

LET PRAY TO GOD OR A CERTAIN DEITY SOMETIMES EVEN FASTER !

ABRAHAM replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:13 GMT

Hai,

Thanks for you input of the past days, as always a second-point of view always serves to help advance scientific topics (for those enlightened enough to consider another's point of view).

No man is an Island and Science should be careful to not become to dogmatic in its position on things like geometry etc, lest it run the risk of creating its own religion of black holes and multi-Verses.

Perhaps one day soon both Science and Religion will come to see they have more in common then they ever suspected - and then I pray we can move forward as Humanity in the search of more enlightened outcomes of our scientific endeavors.

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is

and

was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have

of points. After it anyone give you

of points so you have

of points and

is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have

of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:

or

or

In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points

then the participant`s rating

was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

ABRAHAM replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:59 GMT

You can only hope that the essays are assessed on their scientific merit and overall readability....not just their final rating.

After all don't we have enough popularity contests?

roger muldavin replied on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 02:24 GMT

December 3, 2012, Arcadia, Michigan

Thanks for all the comments. I scanned [visual and some reading] and am impressed how much thought and art has been given. If the LA Times blog is still open, there are a few of my observations:

(1) gravity is a force that travels longitudinally along a string of equal lateral triangles (elts) with point masses of smaller elts; and, the math model is thus an regular tetrahedral.

(2) the string's origin can be connected to the Higgs Boson, conceptually, as connected to all other point particles in the universe;

(3) coordinates for taking measurements assume that the speed of light is constant at the point of measurement for the increments of time and space [special and general relativity];

(4) The Higgs Boson's concept connects "all" point masses to each other, thus I choose a helix that travels longitudinally along the string as it is displaced from a single source, or a collection of sources bound strongly to all distant distant ones (thus all others to each other);

(5) Confusion is an important life-form motivation, at the least for my way of trying to figure how things work, including body/mind;

(6) Time appears to be on the side of distance, and locally we assume Albert Einstein and others have conveyed such, perhaps because, survival is essential. Thanks prof Higgs.

Best of converging knowledge with understanding, rm

ABRAHAM replied on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 03:38 GMT

Roger,

1) Gravity is the result of vacuum energies seeking to equalise the 'null-space' lower energy densities found within all charged standing-wave energy geometries [tetrahedral Matter]

Newton modeled the motion as a force between two bodies of Matter [similar to Coulomb's Charges] whilst Einstein modeled the actual energy density gradient with his stress tensor Math.....

2) The Higgs boson is simply any ONE of the charge fascia that make up Matter geometries, with their inductive EM loop geometry giving it the property of mass

It is the motion of a Higgs inductive loop energy geometry [Matter fascia] through vacuum energy fields that creates the property of mass [inductors resist changes to their energy levels]

Each Matter fascia contains Compton frequency number of smaller elts each contributing to mass [E/c^2] with any tetrahedral arrangement of Higgs bosons creating the physical property of standing-wave Matter [E/c^4]

3) I agree - the assumption is for a 'natural' speed of light when using it as the foundation of a temporal-spatial co-ordinate system... but that system was forced onto my by the math used in relativity more than anything so I felt it wise to explain it to everyone.. besides it does help distinguish between energy in its forms of mass & Matter [c^2 vs c^4 co-ordinate systems per second]

There is much more information available now on Tumblr, YouTube and Pirate-bay to help with your understanding of these comments,.... feel free to contact me with any of your inquiries... and see the attached illustrations

ABRAHAM replied on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 03:43 GMT

Higgs Boson illustration and

Spatial co-ordinate system illustration attached

Should they fail to post (or you need a higher res copy of the same

go to Tumblr or Google+ and im me at Tetryonics and I re-post them there.......

Tetryonic periodic chemistry and the elementary family groupings

“The most important test which the theory of electronic configurations must meet, in order to satisfy the chemist, is that of providing an explanation for the periodic law,

It is quite obvious that any atomic theory that might be seriously proposed in the light of present factual knowledge must provide for some quantity corresponding to the atomic element number (and its associative properties): some quantity which, as Moseley says, “increases by regular steps as we pass from one element to the next.”

The mathematical expressions that have been derived from the experimental work are consistent with the currently accepted theories, to be sure, but they are equally consistent with any other theory which arrives at the same numerical values, regardless of the names which such other theory may attach to the units. Accordingly, since these numerical values are all related to quantities such as the atomic number or atomic [and/or molar] weight, for which any theory must furnish an explanation, agreement with the observed mathematical relations is no problem for any theory.

Developing mathematical models by extrapolating from known answers (or values) in lieu of building upon a sound foundational postulate and seeing where it leads is one of the most serious flaws in the modern approach to physics at the quantum level.

Whilst maths is the language of science, without the correct rigid geometry to serve as its guiding grammar it produces only gibberish

This means that when the scientific profession is faced with the difficult task of finding some other theory to replace the current theories of elemental chemical properties and their interactions, scientists can hardly be expected to welcome Tetryonics (or any new theory) against their long espoused, if erroneous views of Matter and its quantum level interactions.

Niels Bohr only added to the level of confusion that existed in Chemistry when he pointed out “that the electrons are able to occupy only certain specific orbits defined by quantum considerations, that they do not radiate while moving in these orbits, and that they possess the ability to jump from one orbit to another and, in so doing, to emit or absorb radiation with a frequency corresponding to the difference between the energy levels of the two orbits”.

Then Schrodinger added more erroneous assumptions to the modern quantum mechanical model of atoms when he told us that there really are no electrons in any specific orbit, with Heisenberg contributing by adding that there actually is no physical electron at all, only a “symbol,”. The whole Copenhagen school then goes on to insist that we cannot possibly hope to conceive of the elemental atom or any of its parts in anything but purely mathematical terms.

Chemists themselves then proceed to tell us just how many electrons there physically are in any atom and exactly how they are arranged in “shells,” etc., and proceeded on this basis to calculate the element’s chemical properties (to an accuracy of eight or nine significant figures).

This utterly ridiculous situation in which one group of physicists is defining specifically and in great detail the properties of entities which, according to an even more eminent group of physicists, have “no immediate and direct properties at all ” and do not even “exist objectively” is another example of the confusion that plagues ‘modern’ atomic theory

Any theory of atomic structure that should be given any serious consideration at all must necessarily make some provision for a quantity corresponding to the atomic number that accounts for all the observed phenomena and provides a physical basis for doing so.

The collapse of the ‘modern nuclear theory’ will make it necessary to discard all of these current interpretations and go back to the actual observed facts for a fresh start.

Tetryonic theory’s model of an elemental building block – a quantum-scale synchronous converter [Deuterium] - carries with it a “built-in” explanation of the periodicity & groupings of elements, as well as the observed quantum and chemical properties of all atoms and their bound electrons. This will permit the development of a new and entirely consistent theory of periodic chemistry directly from quantum theory itself, free of the necessary ad hoc assumptions which have long been so much an integral part of ‘standard’ chemical models.

It is to be expected that the theorists working in this field will take a very dim view of this conclusion with the seemingly productive models of their (sometimes life-long) labors finally relegated to the wastebasket, but this issue must be faced nevertheless if our understanding of chemical processes is to advance further.

‘Even the highest degree of competence cannot derive the right answers from the wrong premises’.

Tetryonic chemistry is an adjunct theory that builds on the quantum mechanical & electrodynamical foundations already provided by Tetryonic theory and develops them into a consistent explanation of the larger-scale Matter & its stored kinetic mass-energies which has been sought since the development of Chemistry as a separate physical discipline of Science itself.

QC 41 - Nuclei bonding Building on the residue Electric field geometry of all Baryons the attractive force that instigates the bonding of separate Baryon[ic] particles and their arrangement into know atomic nuclei is revealed. Insulators and conductive properties are explained along with the electron configuration of elemental nuclei

41.01 - The Residual EM force created by the 2D E fields of quarks that constitute all Matter at the quantum scale. It facilitates the binding of Baryons & leptons to form large scale elements & compounds

41.02 - Nucleon residual EM fields at the quantum scale are created by the E field geometry of quarks and are commonly termed chemical bonds at the macro-scale

41.03 - Insulators and Conductive materials are the result of how electrons bind to various locations in periodic elements and compounds

41.04 - The arrangement of quarks constituting Nucleons facilitates both the chemical bonds and electron orbitals familiar to all Chemists

41.05 - Each quantum level [or atomic shell] is the result of EM charge 'bond points' located around each atom [and is addition to the Strong force that hold the nuclei themselves together]

41.06 - electron configurations of elements & compounds [determine many chemical properties of each material substance]