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

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

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 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

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