Tetryonics - The Charged Geometry of EM Mass-Energy-Matter by Kelvin Abraham

James,

You are on the right track but bear in mind that EM radiation [mass] from the SUN is longitudinal and comprised on convergent AND divergent momenta which combine in their geometries to form a NETT Divergent force [the broken symmetry of Charge].

Matter on the other hand produces a convergent gravitational force result from MATTER's geometric interaction with the vacuum energies comprising its environment.

Re Hot/G etc. you're right except as you get closer to the source of the GEM fields - the stronger divergent E field forces become apparent & closer still the M field becomes dominant as well [E fields are inverse squared strengths while M fields are inverse cubed]

Einstein's GR is broadly based on formulations of pressure [hence my referring to it as that] but as you point out it is really an energy gradient that results from the energy differentials created by the interactions of the "nullspaces' of Matter with their surrounding vacuum energies [a lot more detail on the quantum foundations behind these terms and their exact mechanics will be revealed in Tetryonics QG].

Note: Radiative EM masses do not affect the gravitational force of Matter - they are distinct properties of each - but we mathematically model the nett motional forces that results from their combined actions - hence why Newton G rules at large distances from large-scale Matter and GR correct for EM mass perturbations close to Gravitational Matter - Photons skimming the SUN's limb proves this but it is a test of the SR refraction of EM masses in the SUN's plasma environment not proof of the photon being gravitationally bend from its path.

I cannot stress how important it is to clearly understand the differences between EM masses and Matter [as defined throughout Tetryonics] - Matter gravitates - EM masses interact

Your last comment is close again but you must remember Matter is s 3D tetrahedral geometry with absolutely nothing inside that geometry [ie it is a tetrahedral clothed with planar 2d mass-Energies with a totally empty core geometry. All Matter has these empty cores and they create Newtonian gravity through the differential energy gradient it creates with the vacuum energy surrounding Matter geometries.

Matter in motion creates KEM fields and they are the divergent EM fields spoken of above whose E-field strength drops off as an inverse square law [just like gravity] and their Magnetic field drops off as an inverse cubed law.

Your last statement could be better re-worded as follows "the specific mass-Energies of Matter [at rest] is locally determined at the moment of creation, as a function of the charged geometry of that particle - the gravitational force that this material particle produces is a result of the surrounding vacuum energy environment seeking to equalise the internal 'nullspace Energy density' of Matter [via its mass-Energy fascia]"

The Vacuum energy field is very real - and all mass-Energy-Matter quanta are comprised of ideal quantum inductive loops - to summarise all of this - Newton's maths models Einstein's curved space-time model very well, where Einstein's maths fails to recognise the quantum fields ad forces that are present in his GR Stress-Energy tensor. Tetryonics geometry corrects all of this.

A lot of verbiage has been generated in this response - I hope it helps to clarify things - else Tetryonic QG will when its released.

ABRAHAM,

Thanks once again for your effort & explanations! This is very interesting, but I'm admittedly handicapped by my inadequate background. You have helped a lot!

Thanks,

Jim

ABRAHAM,

Sorry, but I must return to one critical point regarding 'attraction' vs. 'interaction', especially as used in your attachment "Galaxy Rotations". It is incorrect to imply that gravitation alone (without EM mass-Energy) would produce the erroneously expected Keplerian rotation curve characteristic of the Solar system. As I explained in my essay, the idea that gravity's effects can be approximated by determining the attraction between a discrete galactic object and any central object or center of mass is patently false. As Newton showed, the perturbational effects of all significant masses must be considered: the Solar system's motions within the Milky Way are not determined by any attraction to its center of mass, ignoring gravitational interactions with millions of nearer more massive objects.

This is demonstrated by the success of models using only Newtonian dynamics and gravitation to properly representing the correct distribution of galactic mass.

You may reasonably assert that EM effects contribute to the observed gravitational effects imparted by large scale aggregations of massive objects, but improper Keplerian relations should never be employed to represent their gravitational effects.

I strongly urge you to carefully reconsider your presentation regarding galactic rotation. I'd be happy to discuss this further in the context of my essay if that would help.

Sincerely,

JimAttachment #1: Figure_71.07__Galaxy_Rotations_800x6001.jpg

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

James,

Perhaps this will help allay your concerns regarding the quantum nature of Gravitation [it is always the nett force resultant from G&EM interactions of many bodies in a system - quantum scale upwards].

I am currently reviewing all my QG work prior to its release and will endeavour to ensure that the illustrations convey their specific points as clearly as possible so that the overall dynamics may be understood by all.

I am always happy to receive feedback and advice on these matters.

Thanks again.Attachment #1: Figure_70.01__GravitoElectroMagnetic_gravitation_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_70.03__GEM_Spacetime_800x600.jpg

ABRAHAM,

Very good!

Thanks

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!

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.

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!

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,

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.

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 answers@tetryonics.com 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.

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 .

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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