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

*Abraham*,

The lunar influence on earth flybys fits with the problems experienced by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they descended to the moon's surface. Were they in the grip of the lunar exotic matter? I think they were.

Neil Armstrong and the Landing of the Eagle UPDATED

[quote]Eagle had overshot the landing zone, Home Plate, by four miles. A slight navigational error and a faster than intended descent speed accounted for Eagle missing its planned touchdown site in the Sea of Tranquility.[end quote]

Alan,

As noted in the GEM illustrations sent to you the convergent G-field modelled by observations is in fact a EM field close to objects of Matter [Earth, moon etc].

As any object approaches the moon [for example] it will experience a interactive E-field and then a perturbative M-field both of which will accelerate charged Matter in differing strengths and directions.

These affects are predicted by GR [8piG] vs Newtonian [4piG] but not the direction of interactions as GR treats all energies are convergent and are usually ignored in lunar calculations as the G-field is considered to be too weak to model relativistically

Yes even neutral Matter is comprised of charged fascia [see Tetryonic QM - 1 tonne = 1.355e50 charged quanta]

Also of note is the fact that the astronauts had considerable difficulty in removing the lunar soils from their suits at the end of each EVA [due to the lunar soils having a slightly negative charge compared to the Astronauts]

I'd forgotten about the charged nature of the lunar soil. I was always suspicious in the fact that the lunar rock brought back from the surface is better guarded than the gold in Fort Knox. Are there mysteries and inconsistensies which have been overlooked or even concealed I wonder?

Alan,

I suspect the value apportioned to Lunar rocks has something to do with the Apollo program costing $25 billion and only 380kg of Lunar rock was brought back [that's $73.5 million/kg excluding what they made selling the rights to Velcro and Tang]

There's a great TV show called "Million Dollar Moon Rock Heist" where a Salt lake City Uni student stole ALL the rock samples NASA had in a lab at the Johnson Space Labs in 2002 and tried to sell them to an overseas buyer for a few million.

As another interesting fact, if you check out my Chemistry videos on YouTube [specifically CHs 54 & 60 re Isotopes] you'll see how energy increases the mass of Elements like Oxygen etc showing the effect of Solar irradiance on the lunar rocks. The moon has higher O18 & He3 concentrations than the Earth die to is lack of atmosphere etc.

Oh and note that ALL elements have the same number Protons, electrons and Neutrons with differing energy levels [not the extra Neutron models currently used] ie O18 has 8P/8N/8e and 2N worth of energy not 10N as often claimed] see Chapter 52 for 3D models of all the elements.

If Tetryonics has taught me anything thing it is that they are MANY inconsistencies in the current modelling of physics - hence the 1300 illustrations I've produced to date.Attachment #1: Figure_52.08__Oxygen_aufbau_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_54.13__Oxygen_isotopes_800x600.jpg

Abraham,

Okay, thanks for the extra info. So it's the lack of an atmosphere which gives the dust a negative charge and the lunar rocks aren't thought to be anything super extra special.

I even had the idea that the moon might be responsible for the precession of Mercury and make Einstein's solution obsolete. It's either the moon or Mars. The current rover and Mars orbiter should be able to identify the effect of the extra force of Mars' equatorial region. It won't be long before the truth is out.

Alan,

Close, the simplest way to put it is that the moon is a charged body moving through the SUN's EM field [and its soil accumulates a charge in the process].

Einstein's GR is still right but under Tetryonic GEM the strictly convergent force of Gravity is comprised of divergent interactive and perturbative forces closer into the body [and the strength of these interactions are in turn influenced by the amount of Matter in the bodies]

GR [being based on SR] fails to recognise the quantum mechanics underlying the interactive and perturbative components of the Gravitation field. [EM masses are accelerated and Lorentz contracted by E-fields not Gravitational or Magnetic fields]

LeVerrier and others calculated for perturbations of Mercury's orbit just after Neptune was found and couldn't account for it using Newtonian Gravity - that's why Einstein developed GR - and why we had to invent Dark Matter to account for discrepancies in his model.

But you're right, very accurate measurement of G-field with EM waves from Curiosity & Juno etc. will help to prove this never-the-less - as long as they understand the real mechanism for the 'extra gravitational-shifting' they detect.

Given enough time the truth is bound to come out - I just hope they don't want to modify GR again!

Oops, I meant to say Venus as the contender for Mercury's precession and *not* Mars, due to it being the closer of the two. Schoolboy error!

Abraham,

Why not compromise and call this idea something like "the additional force on the plane of rotation of a planet or moon" and not specify the exact cause? I want to attract some interest from others so that progress can be made with new ideas and some rough calculations perhaps.

I've just read about Venus and think that there is a clue:

[quote]Venus is believed to have previously possessed oceans,[14] but these vaporized as the temperature rose due to the runaway greenhouse effect.[15] The water has most probably photodissociated, and, because of the lack of a planetary magnetic field, the free hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind. [end quote]

It's possible that the planet previously had a magnetic field which ties in with idea that inner convection is created by non-Newtonian matter i.e. by the moon. It sounds as though Earth might have acquired Venus's life giving moon for example. Do you think that this is a contender?

Do you think Venus is the likeliest candidate for Mercury's orbital anomaly as I do?

A knowledge of when the equatorial plane of Venus and Mercury are aligned and for how long is the next step. Any ideas?

Alan,

I don't think it is wise to develop an theory that doesn't have an explanation for its motive force [or for the corrections it predicts], that would put us back to Newtonian gravity with no explanation for its mechanics.

GR obviously attempts to overcome this by giving us the correct answer but couches the answer as being the result of 'space-time' geometry [but it also fails to address how gravity works - undetected 'gravitons and g-waves included]

Tetryonics explains the quantum interactions for Newtonian Gravity and GR through GEM interactions accounting for both theories and paving the way for testable refinements to the nett force of Gravitation.

BUT [and it is a bit BUT], any test using EM waves must accurately calculate the exact interactions these fields have on top of the gravity field [unless you can exclude them]....and that's where Newton and Einstein both failed [they had no explanation of the quantum interactions at play that give rise the nett force of gravitation] because they never differentiated between EM mass and Matter.

In short, call it what you want but you need a solid mechanical basis on which to explain established proven theories so it can be mathematically modelled and physically tested in some way [otherwise it remains a speculative theory like strings etc].

Re: the effect Venus had on Mercury's orbital perturbations - any change in either planet's EM field would have an effect, but no where near as significant as the SUN's GEM effect on Mercury by many orders of magnitude given the relative distances between each of them [G&E fields are inverse squared and dipole M-fields are inverse cubed].

Again it would require the modelling of various the theories against observational data [and if that data is generated from EM waves...well I think you get the point]

Given the GEM interactions and the geometry of the fields I am more than confident that the SUN's M-field is the source of Mercury's orbital precession and that close flybys of spacecraft in Earth's GEM fields will bear it out [but an accurate field model of the quantum GEM interactions is required to prove this and this is beyond my resources at present].

Have you seen my essay?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Neutral Fermions [1 Gluon, 1 Neutrino]

Error: gluon not fermion it is boson

Yuri,

Yes I have read your essay and see many agreeable points.

Charge in our universe is a powerful symmetry resulting from equilateral energy geometries creating all of our fundamental particles and forces including the physical constants.

1. Time is 'cyclic' being formed from equilateral geometries but it can viewed as a 'classical inductive loop' of energy forming the 2 charges [Positive and Negative from which all charged geometries arise]

2. The Universe is dynamic [eternally cycling between gravitational Matter and radiant KEM energies]

The KEM wave is the Kinetic ElectroMagnetic wave comprising the Kinetic Energies & Magnetic moment of Matter in motion [it is this that is Lorentz variant NOT standing-wave Matter].

3. Gravity is fundamental - created from the 3D charged geometry of Matter acting against surrounding vacuum energies to create Einstein's GR pressure gradient.

4. ALL the physical constants are derived from the interaction of equilateral energy geometries with Gravity being the exception (it is circular and results from 3 quantum force interactions to create the nett force we observe as the gravitation of Matter).

Alpha is the equilateral quantised Angular momenta [m^2/s] that forms Planck's constant [kg.m^2/s]

5. While Gravity is limited to c as its propagation speed, it is only 1 [of 3] quantum interactions that form the nett Gravitation we observe and once the GEM field is established it can transfer momenta 'nearly instantaneously' through the energy-momenta of the longitudinal wave geometry of its KEM wave

Thus explaining c as the maximum velocity of propagation [GR] of Gravity and Newton's action-at-a-distance.

6. I agree Planck units are irrelevant due to incorrect use of c units in their definition (along with the non-existent distinction between mass & Matter in current physics)

Maths without (accurate physical) Models is Muddling [and Maddening]

7. There are NO black holes - the singularities that point to them are the foci of GEM Pinch fields that convert standing-wave Matter to radiant Energy in the cores of Stars and Galaxies. (It is only the mathematical modelling of these GEM fields without accurate physical models that leads physicists to the conclusions of Singularities and Black holes)

8. TIME can be resolved down to a measurement of the total quantised Angular momentum per unit of 2D space [m^2/s / c^2] which equals seconds. Include the Planck energy present [E/c^2 = mass] in this same calculation and you get [kg.s] which is a measurement of Charge.

Thus proving that the equilateral geometry of Planck energy quanta forms the basis of Charge and Time in our Universe

Having solved some many QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology mysteries with equilateral geometry [including Q-Gravity] I know that even with the powerful solutions Tetryonics provides there remain mysteries in science that can only be solved through applying this geometry in even greater detail [as I continue to do daily].

Check out my YouTube channel [Tetryonics] for the full breakdown of all of Physics, I hope you'll join me in furthering the boundaries of Science.Attachment #1: Figure_61.07__3D_SpaceTime_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_70.01__GEM_fields_800x600.jpg

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

Because the inscribed sphere to face of a regular tetrahedron has exactly the same surface to volume ratio, i.e. their "activities" are equal! One represents mass, the other energy.

Hai,

As it is shown to be in Tetryonics mass is a measure of the amount of equilateral Energy found in any time based co-ordinate system. You will note the left and right rotation vectors that I draw on my charge diagrams [see attached] they reflect the 'direction' that the electromagnetic inductive flux moves within the equilateral geometry to produce the 2 charges we know.

Currents in EM Inductors (once established) resist changes to their energy levels - in that they are often called electrical mass equivalents.

Collections of these 'ideal quantum inductors' combine to form charged Bosons [ODD numbered quanta] which in turn combine again to form Photons [EVEN numbered quanta] and standing wave Matter [4n quanta - Tetryons] .

All Matter radiates EM energies [particularly when in motion where it has Kinetic energy and a magnetic moment] which spreads out from its source Matter and interacts to form the physical CONSTANTS that we are familiar with and eventually weakens to the point that it forms the Vacuum Energies that surround everything in the Universe.

It is this ever-present Vacuum energy permeating the Universe that the 3D standing-wave geometries of Matter displace when they are created - in turn the Vacuum energies try to equalise the pressure differential resulting from the presence of Matter creating the force of Gravity.

These two forces [CONVERGENT Gravity and INTERACTIVE Electromagnetism] act in unison at the quantum level to produce a nett gravitational force that we observe as the single force of Gravity between large-scale material objects

This shows us that all mass-ENERGY and Matter throughout the Universe has equilateral geometries and that the interaction of EM inductive loops of energy with their surrounding EM field environment is the source of the property mass [not the Higgs boson as is claimed - in fact the Higgs being a Boson is just an ODD numbered transverse wave-form of a specific mass-energy and on that basis is no more important that a long blade of grass in a meadow]

The entire Universe works on the principle of ElectroMagnetic induction with its equilateral geometries forming the basis for the shapes of everything we can see and sense throughout it.

The energy in every charged EM field has a mass equivalence and these EM fields join to form the charged fascia of all Matter [Matter is made of mass-energies].

Any form of Matter made of inductive masses will create an additional Kinetic EM [KEM] field that is proportional to its velocity [KEM = mv^2] comprising its Kinetic energy and its magnetic moment. It is this field that is Lorentz variable to velocity changes not the Matter [which is always Lorentz invariant due to the fact that its energy is always moving at c in the first place when it is formed]

Any change in mass is not a change in Matter geometry and moving an object from the Earth to the moon will result in differing measurements of its weight [m=F/a] because of the different strength of GEM gravitation at each place. The charged geometries that make up its Matter in both cases remains the same [as does the mass-Energies that create those charged fascia], however the gravitational field of the moon [comprised of G-E-M forces] has a different strength to that on the Earth and produces a different acceleration interaction resulting in the smaller weight measured using Newton's formula. [see attached]

In short all mass-ENERGY-Matter in this universe is made of equilateral energy quanta. If you smash them together [at any speed] all the energies in the impacting bodies will explode outward [think of a Lego block creation breaking up when you smash two together] the individual energies then recombine to form [ODD numbered] Bosons, [EVEN numbered] Photons and [4n number] Tetrahedrons of Matter.

Of course this has been the broadest overview of all the mechanics and dynamics possible (and much more detailed illustrations on these topics are on my YouTube channel Tetryonics) but I hope it was what you were seeking - feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions - I'll take a look at your essay as well.Attachment #1: Charged_massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_62.11__mass___gravity__weight_800x600.jpg

Ted,

Your 'inscribed spheres in Tetrahedrons' are better reflected in Tetryonics as follows:

Tetrahedral mass-ENERGY

circumscribed by

Spherical co-ordinate system

This gives us:

2D mass - equilateral energy bounded by c^2 circle [E/c^2]

3D Matter - tetrahedral energy waveform bounded by sphere [E/c^4]

SO while you prefer a sphere IN a Tetrahedron I say a sphere AROUND [or encompassing] a tetrahedron [see attached]Attachment #1: Figure_61.01__Spatial_geometries_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_69.02__EM_mass__G_Matter_800x600.jpg

Hai,

What you are alluding to [I think] is the distinction between mass and Matter, where it is Matter that experiences the force of Gravity to create weight.

Tetryonics has VERY rigid definitions of the terms EM mass and Matter with the former being a 2D radiant energy geometry and the later being a 3D tetrahedral standing-wave geometry possessing volume.

EM masses do not experience gravitational forces - due to their planar radiant nature whereas Matter on the other hand is subject to the force of Gravity as it is a standing-wave geometry

Of note is the fact that Bosons and Photons are Matter-less [not massless as often stated as they have Energy/c^2 geometries] - so the Higgs boson although it possessed mass will be weightless.

It is an ODD numbered equilateral energy geometry that represents only a fraction of any Matter geometry that is destroyed in LHC collider collisions [of any energy level] - with all Matter possessing multiple odd number bosons to form their square energy levels [n]

I know many will say that GR shows that Photons experience 'gravitational shifting' due to their mass in a gravity field - but Tetryonics clearly shows the quantum interactions at work that form the nett convergent force we call Gravitation are in fact EM and Gravitational - finally revealing the fact that gravitational shifting is in fact the result of the Lorentz contraction of EM masses in a GEM field.

The Higgs boson [as you point out] is simply one particular energy level that contributes to the total mass of any Matter [or Kinetic EM field] geometry - until the geometry is destroyed in a collision and its EM mass-energy is released.

Interestingly, it is not the massive HIGGs Boson that creates the observed property of mass - it is the many smaller inductive loop [ZPF] geometries of the individual quanta that make up the ODD number geometry of all bosons.

I hope I have explained this clearly for you, if not post an additional comment [my YouTube channel has much more detail on these points].Attachment #1: 1_Charged_massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_73.08__The_Bending_of_Light_800x600.jpg

Hai,

I realise that it can be difficult to follow what I put in words in response to your enquiry on the HIGGS boson and its relationship to mass-Matter and weight [particularly with the finer points of the mass-Matter relationship - after all physics has never differentiated between the two properties in a formal basis like Tetryonics does].

So please note the attached illustration that I created to be read in conjunction with the previous answer posted.

I hope it will help you in understanding the relationship between the charged geometry [Zero point inductive loops] of Energy and the physical properties of mass-Matter and weight.

In short the HIGGS is just another boson like the W's that is PART of the charged fascia of all Matter but with a higher mass-energy geometry [I would prefer that the whole concept be dropped as it just adds confusion to the standard model and is not required]

As always, should you have any further questions on this matter feel free to post me with your enquiry.Attachment #1: massMatter__weight_800x600.jpg

Hai,

Thanks for you input of the past days, as always a second-point of view always serves to help advance scientific topics (for those enlightened enough to consider another's point of view).

No man is an Island and Science should be careful to not become to dogmatic in its position on things like geometry etc, lest it run the risk of creating its own religion of black holes and multi-Verses.

Perhaps one day soon both Science and Religion will come to see they have more in common then they ever suspected - and then I pray we can move forward as Humanity in the search of more enlightened outcomes of our scientific endeavors.Attachment #1: EM_massENERGYMatter_in_motion_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Let_there_be_Everything_800x600.jpg

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin