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

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

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.

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

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

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?