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

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.

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.

:) and the polyhedrization tending towards the infinity due to the sphere you know ? it is not possible to create an other form than a sphere in a "pure rational polyhedrization logic".

ps INSERT THE VOLUMES OF SPHERES CONSIDERING THE SERIE, FINITE AND PRECISE, OF UNIQUENESS.Indeed the finite groups are essential for real quantization of our mass. Their rotations are proportional with mass !

ps2 perhaps that the binar system is just a fusioned system, where the stabilities of steps due to volumes, are encoded. if it exists two main sense differciating these bosons and fermions considering the linearity of hv. So we can extrapolate the proportions and so the steps of energies due to volumes and rotations.

We can class all the spheres !so we can class all, becuse all is composed by spheres of light turning in a very incredible complexity. The heat and thermo.are very relevant considering the finite groups and the closed evolutive sphere. The spheres of light and the spheres of mass !!!they build these spheres !

Regards

It is your choice to prefer the Equil.Geom.

But you know they are everywhere these spheres you know.You live even on a sphere, you turn around a sphere and ....all turns relativistically everywhere you know.

Insert my spheres and my spherization theory and my equations and you shall see still better. so your third book will still better.

The improvement my friend, the spherization optimization imrpovement.

Regards

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?

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

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].Attachment #1: Figure_70.05__Gravitational_Tidal_Forces_800x600.jpg

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.

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.

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

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" chart is 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!

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.Attachment #1: Figure_67.11__Gravity_geometry_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_66.03__Charge_vs_Gravity_800x600.jpg

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.Attachment #1: Figure_72.01__The_Plasma_Universe_800x600.jpg

Abraham,

Thanks for responding and explaining - sorry for being so slow. The charts are eventually helpful.

Don't inverse-square relations simply represent a geometric radial dispersion through space?

Doesn't GR's curvature of spacetime actually represent the radial contraction or compaction of spatial and temporal dimensions rather than a pressure gradient?

Can't the 'attractive force' also be represented as the interaction between two opposingly directed fields of radially contracted dimensional spacetime?

At any rate, the one question I would most like you to respond to is this: if any EM charge flow affects the net attraction between objects of mass, wouldn't the attraction produced by the Sun be substantially greater than that produced by the Moon, relative to their individual masses?

Thanks very much for your patience and understanding!

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.Attachment #1: Figure_28.03__EM_radiation_patterns_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Figure_67.11__Gravity_geometry_800x600.jpg

Abraham,

Thanks again for explaining! Sorry if I'm pestering you - I do appreciate your great effort!

Re. the Sun/Moon, as you say, the Sun is an EM emitter, which would seem to indicate that any attractive effect due to EM would increase the Sun's G relative to its mass. That difference in hot vs. cold G/mass should remain constant at any distance, shouldn't it?

Also, as a lay person it seems incorrect to refer to curved spacetime as a pressure gradient, as it is the effects of gravitation that produces pressure within a material medium. There is no pressure in the relative vacuum of space, yet the effects of gravitation persist. The curvature of spacetime seems to describe only gradient abstract dimensional coordinates...

I agree that there is no physical process (quantum or macro) yet described that produces the gravitational effects that have only been (very ingeniously) described mathematically. I'm skeptical that the primary effects viewed as gravitational can be the product of EM emissions, although I agree that they may contribute at short range.

My intuition leans towards a kinetic effect produced by interactions between a 'virtual' vacuum energy of spacetime and localized, potential energy of mass 'crystallized' within the quantum structure of matter. In this scenario, specific particle mass is locally determined at the moment of emission and 'condensation', as a function of then current vacuum energy density. But that's just my guess...

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