Working PaperPDF Available

QED explanation for Gravity and Radioactivity, Theory of Everything

Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Annals of
Manuscript Draft
Manuscript Number:
Title: QED explanation for Gravity and Radioactivity, Theory of
Article Type: Research Paper
Section/Category: Other
Keywords: QED; Gravity; Radioactivity; Photons; Double slit; Relativity
Corresponding Author: Mr. Jouni Jokela,
Corresponding Author's Institution:
First Author: Jouni Jokela
Order of Authors: Jouni Jokela
Abstract: ABSTRACT
Effects of Gravity are explained with QED. There is no mass, it's all
just light (photons). Special Theory of relativity holds, Instead of
infinite mass it produces zero space through Length contraction; result
is a photon emission.
Earth and Other planets rotates and orbits because of photons. This all
means that Le Sage's theory of gravity is, -as an idea- correct. The
Aberration adjusts these orbits. This is actually been the case since the
founding of relativity. As the "Gravity" has only the speed of light. I
explain the Energy problem of this form of gravity and I support this
explanation with observations. I explain the causes for the axial
rotation of planets; they are driven by the Sun through Thermodynamics.
I explain various observed mysteries of physics; like Dark Matter or Dark
Energy, there isn't any; the corrected "gravity-law-without-mass" simply
fits to observations. Sonoluminescence is as natural phenomenon as any
other emission of photons.
This all I made possible through a synthesis of a few well known old
physical laws, I calculate "The moment of momentums" as it is done by
Leonhard Euler in his Pump and Turbine equation. The law of Gravity is
defined as dimensionless like William Froude defined the speed-length
ratio, which I will write in the same dimensions as the . I show through
this Froude number, why the mass ratios between Proton, Neutron and
Electron are almost correctly measured, and where the flaw in
measurements lies. And finally, as there is no mass, the famous Formula
from Einstein, must be rewritten. It's nothing really new or fancy
either, only a synthesis from Stefan-Boltzmann law, something like . The
true problem was rather to define the Energy, without the mass, as to
copy-paste this equation. Thus the real problems reading this paper must
lie on the fact that almost the whole physics is written through mass. So
the reader may have to read this few times, just to learn to talk about
"Force" and "Energy" without mass. The inevitable conclusion is, that SI-
system must be corrected accordingly.
Radioactive decay? -It is the end result of continuous Radiation.
Fine-structure-constant ? -It is 1.
Gravitational Constant ? -It doesn't exist.
Gravitational Waves? -photon waves.
Double-slit experiment? - the result from these "gravitational photon
Theory of Everything? -It is the QED. This paper just rounds it's edges.
- "Let there be light."-
QED explanation for
Gravity and Radioactivity,
Theory of Everything
Dear Sirs,
Please read the paper and the Abstract. I could copy the Preface here, but you find it also from
Best regards,
Jouni Jokela
Aussenmatteweg 22
CH-3714 Frutigen
+41 79 265 4043
+41 33 534 3064
Cover Letter
QED explanation for Gravity and Radioactivity,
Theory of Everything
Jouni Jokela
Effects of Gravity are explained with QED. There is no mass, its all just light (photons).
Special Theory of relativity holds, Instead of infinite mass it produces zero space through
Length contraction; result is a photon emission.
Earth and Other planets rotates and orbits because of photons. This all means that Le Sage’s
theory of gravity is, -as an idea- correct. The Aberration adjusts these orbits. This is actually
been the case since the founding of relativity. As the Gravity has only the speed of light. I
explain the Energy problem of this form of gravity and I support this explanation with
observations. I explain the causes for the axial rotation of planets; they are driven by the
Sun through Thermodynamics.
I explain various observed mysteries of physics; like Dark Matter or Dark Energy, there
isn’t any; the corrected gravity-law-without-mass simply fits to observations.
Sonoluminescence is as natural phenomenon as any other emission of photons.
This all I made possible through a synthesis of a few well known old physical laws, I
calculate “The moment of momentums
as it is done by Leonhard Euler in his Pump and
Turbine equation. The law of Gravity is defined as dimensionless like William Froude
defined the speed-length ratio, which I will write in the same dimensions as the
. I show
through this Froude number, why the mass ratios between Proton, Neutron and Electron are
almost correctly measured, and where the flaw in measurements lies. And finally, as there
is no mass, the famous Formula from Einstein,
must be rewritten. It’s nothing
really new or fancy either, only a synthesis from Stefan-Boltzmann law, something like
"" cE
. The true problem was rather to define the Energy,
without the mass, as to
copy-paste this equation. Thus the real problems reading this paper must lie on the fact that
almost the whole physics is written through mass. So the reader may have to read this few
times, just to learn to talk about “Force” and “Energy” without mass. The inevitable
conclusion is, that SI-system must be corrected accordingly.
Radioactive decay? It is the end result of continuous Radiation.
? It is 1.
Gravitational Constant
? –It doesn’t exist.
Gravitational Waves? photon waves.
Double-slit experiment? the result from these “gravitational photon waves”
Theory of Everything? -It is the QED. This paper just rounds it’s edges.
- “Let there be light.”-
Click here to view linked References
Introduction, Preface
1. Theory; What Gravity is?
1.1 Introduction to this Question.
1.2 Froude number
2. Calculating the consequences.
2.1 Fine structure constant Recalculated.
2.2 Electromagnetic mass
2.3. The Special Theory of Relativity recalculated.
2.4 Radiation, Radioactivity, Radioactive decay
2.4.1. Introduction
2.4.2. Theory for Radioactive decay
2.4.3. Consequences of this theory for Radioactive decay
2.4.4. Observations according to the theory for Radioactive decay
3. Quantum Kinetic Gravity, Supporting Observations.
3.1 Froude number of planets
3.2 Star velocities of Galaxies
4. The Problems of the Quantum Kinetic Gravity
4.1. The drag and aberration problems, why the Planets still keep orbiting?
4.1.1. Earth. Moment of Inertia. -Fluctuations in a length of day. Power. Conclusion;
4.1.2. Mercury Rotation without an atmosphere?
4.1.3 Aberration problem
4.1.4. Conclusions of the Orbital rotation of planets; Drag Problem is not a problem!
4.2. The Energy problem?
4.2.1. Introduction to Energy Problem.
4.2.2. Introduction to the explanation to the Energy Problem; Thermosphere.
4.2.3. Explanation to the Energy Problem; Gravitational Power.
4.2.4. Energy Problem; Conclusions
5. Closing out the doubts.
5.1. Porosity of the material-problem (Wikipedia; Le Sage’s theory of Gravitation)
5.2. Introduction for calculating various constants
5.2.1 Age of the Universe
5.2.2 Planck constant
5.2.3 Gravitational coupling constant
5.3 Double-slit experiment
5.3.1 Wave pattern from the double-slit experiment
5.4. Gravitational waves
6. Consequences of this theory
6.1 SI-units, without mass
7. Conclusions
7. 1 Physical conclusions
7. 2 Practical conclusions
What is Gravity? It’s such a simple law describing how the planets move around the sun.
Force, that keeps the Planets moving on their orbits. “The greatest generalisation achieved
by the human mind”. At the time of the Kepler some people answered this problem by
saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets
around the orbit in tangential direction. This is of course nonsense, as it was shown by
Galileo and Newton; the angels are pushing exactly towards the sun instead of around the
orbit.” Later Einstein noted that also this is nonsense, and showed how “the angels are
pushing the planets on slightly wrong direction, as they are pushing towards the image of
the sun, instead of the true position of the sun.” and corrected our knowledge with the time
which the light needs to send the image to the planets. That is our present knowledge of
Gravity! We have highly accurate measurements, which have proven this law to be correct.
But what is the mechanism? This we do not know. And thus “angels” are as good
explanation as any other word we want to use to cover the fact; “we do not know.”
This equation is almost all we have;
F= Force, m= Mass 1, M= Mass 2, r = distance, G = const.
The equation shows how Force of Gravity depends only from the mass of the objects and
their distance. This causes certain problems on observations. As Force F is
is acceleration, and this acceleration defines velocity. These velocities are easily
measurable over great distances with Doppler-effect. And many observations from galaxies
far away have provided too high velocities which can’t be explained by this theory. A
theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy was developed to add the “Power of the Engels” in
the appropriate levels. Further, when we look on the quantum level, we don’t see any
gravity. In the scale of Planck mass, approx in the size of flea egg, the effects of gravity
becomes as problematic as with galaxies. Any given name, Dark Engel, Aether, Graviton,
doesn’t change the fact; “We do not know or understand the mechanism of Gravity.”
Le Sage’s theory of gravitation
There is one theory which has been originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duiller in
1690; only 3 years after Newton published his work. This was again proposed by Georges-
Louis Le Sage in 1748.
Richard Feynman explains this story at his Messenger Lectures, I-7-7 as follows;
Many mechanisms for gravitation have been suggested. It is interesting to consider one of these, which
many people have thought of from time to time. At first, one is quite excited and happy when he
“discovers” it, but he soon finds that it is not correct. It was first discovered about 1750. Suppose there
were many particles moving in space at a very high speed in all directions and being only slightly
absorbed in going through matter. When they are absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However,
since there are as many going one way as another, the impulses all balance. But when the sun is nearby,
the particles coming toward the earth through the sun are partially absorbed, so fewer of them are
coming from the sun than are coming from the other side. Therefore, the earth feels a net impulse
toward the sun and it does not take one long to see that it is inversely as the square of the distance
because of the variation of the solid angle that the sun subtends as we vary the distance. What is wrong
with that machinery? It involves some new consequences which are not true. This particular idea has the
following trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are
coming from its forward side than from its hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is
stronger than that on the back of your head!). Therefore there would be more impulse given the earth
from the front, and the earth would feel a resistance to motion and would be slowing up in its orbit. One
can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would not
take long enough for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. No machinery has
ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that
does not exist.
These phenomenon “that does not exist” are mostly stated as;
1. Drag problem.
2. Energy problem; at the Source and in the Target.
3. Porosity of the Material problem.
4. Aberration problem.
At this paper these phenomenon are worked out thoroughly and explained. There are few
main aspects which are combined to make this possible. Reader must be therefore familiar
with these issues. The most important is the Froude-number. It’s dimensionless number
which defines the ratio between inertia and external field. This way the Mass is removed
from the Gravity law. It provides the idea how the Masses of the planets are not relevant,
and helps to understand the “Dark-stuff” and Quantum-gravity" -problems. But this aspect
still doesn’t say anything about the Machinery behind the Gravity. To get this machinery
right, we need to combine the Kinetic theory of gases and the photon pressure and
understand how the “heat” of the solar system increases with hydrostatic pressure analogy
from the minimum at the Heliopause, to maximum in the centre of sun. For immediate
“reality check”; this theory predicts i.e. relatively higher atmospherical pressures near the
Sun, as can be verified from Venus.
As I do realize, how in this paper presented quite unconventional thoughts might be very
difficult to absorb, I feel necessary to say few word about how this paper was born, just to
light it out. At 2012 I saw the explanation to Turbulence. And I even produced one A4
where it was explained. While studying this issue, together with my Turbine project, I
looked planetal scale vortices, and I realized that the Earth must rotate true the Sun. As this
was not a “main stream” idea, I just hold it myself until 2014. At the meantime the idea
gathered momentum, in form of supporting observations. As my understanding in physics
was verified in the lab-test of my turbine, as I i.e. created the Euler’s Pump & Turbine
equations from the Newtons laws by my self, I had to first win some confidence about my
skills. As this was achieved, I started to talk more about my idea about the “Earth rotation”
and “Turbulence”, just to notice that my arguments are holding. My turbine project did not
aloud me to use much time for the “physics”. But as my marriage ended, I encountered the
same craziness as Einstein and others. The divorcing in Swiss is still quite medieval. With
all costs I want to avoid that my Children are facing the same fate as Eduard Einstein. So
while trying to do things “different” and sorting out my private-life, I have had the time to
study QED. After I gathered the needed understanding from the Feynman lections, found
from YouTube. It’s been really just straight forward. Just studying and sorting the
supporting observations, and writing the equations new, simultaneously as I have read
them. But As I am writing this, I haven’t met my children for over a half year. And my
main concern right now is, that we would be finally relieved from this crazy inquisition
against my “heresy as a father.”
1. Theory; What Gravity is?
Short, simplified answer; The Gravity can be partially thought to be as a hydrostatic
pressure, produced as it is explained by the Kinetic theory of gases. At space these “walls”
are replaced just by the radiation pressure. The Gravitational force is thus produced by the
photons (light). But this light is not only the visible light, but also radio waves and ULF
waves, down to
max 6c
, or wavelengths up to almost 1/40 of the size of “Milky
Way”. Though these waves does penetrate enormous deep, the Gravitational energy and
its effects are also transferred by the atomic interactions similar to Newton cradle or
electricity. I would be lying by claiming that I understand this perfectly. So more
importance should be given to the more easily explainable facts that, the law of Gravity is
valid without the mass, and that it’s electromagnetically aspects, the consequences of this
beautiful theory are observable. I name this theory as Quantum Kinetic Gravity (QKG), to
avoid confusion with “QG”.
1.1 Introduction to this Question.
As already stated few times; ”We do not know or understand the mechanism of Gravity.”
We just have a perfect equation (1) which explains and works very well with the observed
nature. So let’s just see what kind of things we can calculate with this equations and theory
for i.e. Planets. The Average orbital speed
can be calculated, with small eccentricity the
equation is simply;
In this equation the mass of planet m, is in most
cases negligible and variations of r are dominant, thus the formula is often written simply;
Kinetic energy of Planet is Thus;
Ekin 22
Gravitational Potential Energy is;
If the small
is again left away as a
negligible, and the
is replaced with M; the Solar Mass,
 
)1(14 yrGAU
it’s noted that AU = r, and “1 yr”; is unit of time; T. The “Energy” equations can be written
as follows;
 
Ekin 2)1( 14
"" 2
22 2
And thus the Total “Energy is
potGkin EEE """"""
This above equation gives as the unit of Energy the same, as the square of velocity;
distance2 / time2. This means we might want to use the speed of light here to define the
distance “r” and “T”; This can be done many ways, ie. as
As seen in the equation (2) and (3), there is a need to redefine Energy”, because of the
dimensions. Even the conventional kinetic energy can be made dimensionless. Such a game
with dimensional equations would not bring us any more understanding about the
phenomenon. So it’s more practical to go back to basics. We need something truly
1.2 Froude number
, and this Kinetic energy
22 c
I could immediately notice, how the equations above follows the Froude’s Law;
Dimensionless Ratio of Inertia to external field. This ratio is at optimum at FR= 1, at this
point the kinetic energy is 1/3 and the Potential energy is 2/3 of the total energy. This aspect
opens quite a new idea about what “gravity” really is. The FR=1 is mostly known as the
state of minimum energy. This is the state of flow where the nature finds its balance. From
this can be concluded, that it might rather be so, that the kinetic energy, or velocity
provided by some propulsion mechanism, is the machinery which defines the optimum
distance of the planets to the sun. As basically, all the equations above, can be written just
/)2/(2 22 FR
rmMG rmMG
without masses and the G. It can be noted that actually
; is the formula for radial
acceleration in circular motion. And acceleration is the Force without the Mass.
Thus the “r/T” analogy of energy should be understood by Wavelength,
where the
v is speed of light, and frequency; f is 1/T. (But what is the Time, T??)
From this observation, one can come to an idea, where the whole mass could be just a
vision. What if there is no mass at all? Maybe it’s just the counter force for radial
acceleration; as we know there is the known atomic attraction/propulsion depending on the
distance of separation. This attraction varies linearly and then inversely as the seventh
power of the distance, or F = k/ r7 where k is a constant that depends on the molecules. [1]
The variation after critical distance can’t have much of a practical meaning for “Gravity” so
the linear part must be the one which is important. At this point some one might think that
the Earths gravity depends on the axial rotation and notes that the poles have also quite
remarkable gravity. This is indeed true, but as this paper tries to explain, there isn’t any
Gravity. It’s only QED combined with the kinetic theory. The atomic attraction/propulsion
is important, as through it, we can understand how the atoms transfer the energy in their
collisions. So on above, we are not talking about Gravity, but from Mass, or rather how
energy can be rearranged in a form which can be experienced as a mass. This was actually
already explained by Einstein.
The equation (4) above;
FR 2
which actually only describes the ratio, can also be
changed a = m and r = E”, (*Why?) and v = c so it comes
which is of course
?"" cmE
or as we are interested about the mass;
"" ?
added to the original Equation of Einstein;
will make
"" c
and further
?"" cEEE
which has a very clear analogy with Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Of course the mathematic says that this is also
which, as a first thought, seems
impossible, as
22 cmcE
But what is actually really new here? It’s a known fact, that
photon has no mass, though it has no energy. This means
, which can’t be true
simultaneously. So it’s needed to start to define what energy is here actually meant; Total
Energy? Potential energy? or Kinetic energy? This all above seems to be completely
useless for any practical purpose. And Energy is just defined with some new unit, though
there is enough units already. So where is the whole point? The point of this all is to see,
that these energies has a natural ratio of balance!
PotentialkineticPotentialkineticTotal EEEEE 2
or also
Potentialkinetic EE 2
as already shown in equation (5).
Above it was said that a = m and r = E, without any explanation “Why?”
The Explanation is that acceleration (a) and mass (m) are different aspects of Force (F), we
can think like “mass/potential Force” and “acceleration/kinetic Force”
And r is the main aspect of energy, so when we dived to Force to “mass force” and to
“acceleration Force”, the displacement still remains as the main aspect of the potential
energy. It seems pretty difficult to explain this with the present words used. As they (words)
do not quite fit in this theory. So if it irritates, that the units doesn’t quite “fit” above, pls.
just get over it, and read forward. As the only thing which really counts, is how the theory
is supported by the observations. The Language can, and will be written afterwards.
2. Calculating the consequences.
2.1 Fine structure constant Recalculated
From the previous chapter, I concluded that the Fine structure constant; “strength of the
electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles” must also be redefined.
It might first sound amazing, as it’s dimensionless. If you look at it carefully, you found
that it actually isn’t. It just seems as such. Exactly as might be expected from the simplified
Equation (3). Because of the historical reasons, the mass is just everywhere, as it’s written
inside the Force; Newton,
and is thus directly or indirectly used in every
possible definition there is;
And none of them are actually defining the Strength without the Force; and thus without the
mass. I.e. the elementary charge,
is defined in Coulombs, which is Ampere
times second. The formal definition of the ampere, states that the ampere is the constant
current that will produce an attractive force of 2 × 10−7 newtons per metre of length
between two straight, parallel conductors of infinite length and negligible circular cross
section placed one metre apart in a vacuum. The same goes to it’s unit is Js and J = Nm!
This leaves us only the last option, but if you look what is the “Vacuum permeability; it’s
0/104 AN
Ampere again, and thus we have also Newtons all over again..
The definition of Fine-Structure constant through Natural units doesn’t either change
anything, as it doesn’t define this constant; it just defines the elementary charge to be
To turn this around; I would rather define the mass through this elementary charge and this
way the mass of an Electron. Let the mass of an Electron be 2/3 of the total energy, and the
Elementary charge of the Electron to be 1/3 of the total energy. But this is all too early,
before we even start to talk about what defines which. We rather need to establish a unit for
this “new energy. In SI-units it will obviously be expressed in a form of,
22 /sm
which is
actually the well known unit for Specific Work of a Turbine;
. To avoid implementing
some new funny “Jo-unit”, the well established letter
is used to describe this new
energy-unit. This unit also needs a better name than “Specific Work”, so I will call it
For clarity and understanding the Total “Energy”, Strength of an Electron is dimensionless
eYEEE masskinTotal 32
and this can be divided to the rest-mass
energy, which is
eYE kin
and to the kinetic Energy part; basically the
elementary charge, which s
eYE mass
This pretty much rewrites the Physics; as what would now be the truly dimensionless
“strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles”?
What is “strength”? It’s Y! And what is Field? It’s also Y!
Truly dimensionless fine structure constant is
2.2 Electromagnetic mass
After concluding this work above, and while seeking word, I googled for “Electromagnetic
mass” and found out that Richard Feynman has already reported about the “troubles” in his
lecture II-28, named “Electromagnetic mass”[2]. I feel lucky to find these supporting words
about the 2/3 ratio in his Equation 28.4. and these texts;
283Electromagnetic mass
Where does the mass come from? In our laws of mechanics we have supposed that
every object “carries” a thing we call the masswhich also means that it “carries” a
momentum proportional to its velocity. Now we discover that it is understandable that
a charged particle carries a momentum proportional to its velocity. It might, in fact,
be that the mass is just the effect of electrodynamics. The origin of mass has until
now been unexplained. We have at last in the theory of electrodynamics a grand
opportunity to understand something that we never understood before. It comes out of
the blueor rather, from Maxwell and Poyntingthat any charged particle will have
a momentum proportional to its velocity just from electromagnetic influences.
285Attempts to modify the Maxwell theory
So today, there is no known solution to this problem. We do not know how to make a
consistent theoryincluding the quantum mechanicswhich does not produce an
infinity for the self-energy of an electron, or any point charge. And at the same time,
there is no satisfactory theory that describes a non-point charge. It’s an unsolved
In case you are deciding to rush off to make a theory in which the action of an electron
on itself is completely removed, so that electromagnetic mass is no longer meaningful,
and then to make a quantum theory of it, you should be warned that you are certain to
be in trouble. There is definite experimental evidence of the existence of
electromagnetic inertiathere is evidence that some of the mass of charged particles
is electromagnetic in origin.
It used to be said in the older books that since Nature will obviously not present us
with two particlesone neutral and the other charged, but otherwise the samewe
will never be able to tell how much of the mass is electromagnetic and how much is
mechanical. But it turns out that Nature has been kind enough to present us with just
such objects, so that by comparing the observed mass of the charged one with the
observed mass of the neutral one, we can tell whether there is any electromagnetic
mass. For example, there are the neutrons and protons. They interact with tremendous
forcesthe nuclear forceswhose origin is unknown. However, as we have already
described, the nuclear forces have one remarkable property. So far as they are
concerned, the neutron and proton are exactly the same. The nuclear forces between
neutron and neutron, neutron and proton, and proton and proton are all identical as
far as we can tell. Only the little electromagnetic forces are different; electrically the
proton and neutron are as different as night and day. This is just what we wanted.
There are two particles, identical from the point of view of the strong interactions, but
different electrically. And they have a small difference in mass. The mass difference
between the proton and the neutronexpressed as the difference in the rest-energy
mc2 in units of MeVis about 1.3 MeV, which is about 2.6 times the electron mass.
The classical theory would then predict a radius of about 1/3 to 1/2 the classical
electron radius, or about 10−13 cm. Of course, one should really use the quantum
theory, but by some strange accident, all the constants—2π’s and
’s, etc.—come out
so that the quantum theory gives roughly the same radius as the classical theory. The
only trouble is that the sign is wrong! The neutron is heavier than the proton.
So through this correction to theory; the Neutron is heavier than the proton;
Quick view to the Masses shows;
n (neutron) 939.5654133(58) MeV/c2
p (proton) 938.272046(21) MeV/c2
n-p 1.2933673 MeV/c2
e (electron) 0.510998910(13) MeV/c2
The present Mass difference of Neutron is 2.531 times the mass of electron; The sign and
the order of the result is now correct. The scale of the mistake might be possible to simple
be explained just by the Measuring difficulties, as the mass of a neutron simply cannot be
directly determined by mass spectrometry due to lack of electric charge; If the “1=2/3x1.5
mistake” is also there, then we just correct the math and it should fit. This predicts that the
“correct” neutron “mass” would thus be approximately 939.5495 MeV/c2, though I would
not even like to speak from the “mass” anymore, as it is just not there!
2.3. The Special Theory of Relativity recalculated.
“…For over 200 years the equations of motion enunciated by Newton were believed to
describe nature correctly, and the first time that an error in these laws was discovered, the
way to correct it was also discovered. Both the error and its correction were discovered by
Einstein in 1905. Newton’s Second Law, which we have expressed by the equation
was stated with the tacit assumption that
is a constant, but we now know that
this is not true, and that the mass of a body increases with velocity. In Einstein’s corrected
has the value
/1 cv
where the “rest mass”
represents the
mass of a body that is not moving and
is the speed of light. For those who want to learn
just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of
relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the
It’s obvious, that if mass” is used on calculations, instead of a fixed natural ratio, between
Inertia and External field, this mass amount also needs to be corrected accordingly to fit
in to the concept. But it’s doubtful, if it is even reasonable to recalculate the relativity
theory, as there is no actual need for a correction factor to the mass, if the mass is simply
left out from the calculations. According to Froude
, so the need for relativity is
obvious, when energies are calculated with the mass, as
. What if we just leave the
mass out and that’s it? No more “Lorentz transformation” for mass, no Relativistic
momentum or kinetic energy? But this is not all; what about Length contraction and Time
dilation? The importance of these aspects asks us to proof also the concept of relativity.
The Length contraction and Time dilation can be understood very simply when thought how
the electrons are going around the atom on elliptical orbits. The Equations for the Lorentz
22 /1
and for the elliptic eccentricity,
22 /1 abe
seems even very similar. This aloud us the make an analogy between semi-major axis
speed of light
and semi-minor axis
and speed
. Let’s have a closer look on the ellipse;
And the Eccentricity equation, as it can be written many different ways;
22 1/1 aba
But the simplest way to write it, is;
is the distance from the
center to the focus and
is the distance from
the center to the farthest vertices. Note that on
the picture
(a-b-c triangle, NOT speed
of light)
Analogy to the relativity and Lorentz
transformation is obvious;
which can
be written also
22 /1
which means that nothing grows to infinity
with growing
, as was the previous expectations. Instead of that, this predicts that
something goes to zero! It’s a known fact that photon has zero “mass”. (What mass?) This
reveals us how the mass growing to “infinity” when approaching the speed of light, was a
pure illusion. There isn’t even anything which can grow to infinity inside an ellipse. There
isn’t even any mass, and it’s just similar pseudo/Fictitious force as ie. Centrifugal force is,
thus also all mass related derivatives; like momentum or kinetic energy, are (by definition)
also only fictitious things. Their appearance, the vision of a mass, might grow, and logically
even grows, as the radius around the focus get smaller when eccentricity approaches one.
Smaller radius with same velocity causes more acceleration, which is felt as a more mass.
What truly happens is that the space/volume goes to zero; the eccentricity goes to one, and
the ellipse bursts to a line, a ray. Though e=1 predicts a parabola, you cant burst the ellipse
to a parabola without going through line. It’s quite difficult to think how the energy
oscillates in the direction of the velocity. It
might be doing something like the Trammel of
Archimedes, or something like Hypotrochoid,
and this ofcourse in 3-Dimensions. Or maybe
it’s a hypocycloid, or “Hypoellipsoid” or
“elliphypoid”. What I mean is the light forms
a sort of “Deltoid-curve” (Red) inside an
Ellipse (Blue) when the velocity causes the
relativistic effects. But as the smartest readers
must have already noted, the semi-minor
cant actually be the speed
, as this
causes that we have zero space or line in v = 0
and sphere in v = c? Well that’s true, please
read also the chapter “Radioactivity”.
Figure 1: Ellipse
Figure 2: Deltoid
This must be the mechanism how an atom emits a photon. It could think to be like a balloon
filling the space in side an atom. Actually if the photon needs certain space for certain
movements the whole can be also thought as the well known Length contraction. If “mass”
is only a observation which follows, from the “ar” component of Equation 4, then
contracting length needs the growing mass as a counterpart, if the energies are calculated
“mass” included. But without mass, it’s only the acceleration which grows. This all means
that there is no “spontaneous Emission”, but a clear mechanism how and why a photon is
emitted; always when the orbit collapses. Against this explanation the phenomenon called
“sonoluminescence” becomes simply obvious; when the volume of atoms goes zero,
photons goes out. The conclusion which follows from this all, is, that instead of saying that
photon has zero “mass”, it has zero “volume”, as already explained by Length contraction.
This is the only “recalculation” needed to make for the Special Theory of Relativity; thus
all the space-time effects it predicts, remains exactly the same, though all the mass related
effects are turned up-side-down;
I.e. the question “Can we travel with the speed of
light? Would still be “no”, as in this speed, all the matter would be simply emitted away.
And the most important thing to observe is, that photon is emitted in the counter direction
compared to the movement. This observation opens us the logical step to Radioactivity.
2.4 Radiation, Radioactivity or Radioactive decay
2.4.1. Introduction
I am really not able to explain completely the logic how the energy oscillates inside an atom
when the atom is moving. I have an idea, related to Radioactivity, and I will try to explain
it, but to get forward, we need to think these physical laws first.
Physical Law 1. The Statement; The present Relativity theory predicts that the mass
grows with velocity, and reaches infinity at the speed of light.
Consequence 1.1; Infinite mass with speed of light consumes infinite amount of
Consequence 1.2; Also the other way must be true; reducing the velocity should
reduce the mass to zero, and this infinite energy would be released.
Observation 1.1; There is no such known phenomenon, which releases infinite
amount of energy. Even Black holes, -if they exist- are counter-examples.
Observation 1.2; Any change in velocity, would thus violate the law of conservation
of Energy.
Physical Law 2. The Statement; The gravity is a force. And force is energy. This
statement is valid, regardless how force and Energy is defined. And this
energy/force/strength is acting in all directions over all distances,
Consequence 2.1; If “gravity” is working with “pull”, the energy will be finally
gathered to a single point.
Consequence 2.2; If “gravity” is working with “push”, the energy will be finally lost
and disappeared.
Consequence 2.3; If the topology of the space is “continuous”, the objects own
“gravity” will pull/push the object from all directions with same force, and the result
must be “No net force”. The amount of the objects doesn’t make here any difference.
Observation 2; …but there is measurable “gravity” which seems to remain infinitely.
These laws above are not correct. They can’t be. It seems that thinking “Mass” and
“Gravity” is way too complicated, so I want to think something more simple; like
Radiation, Radioactivity or Radioactive decay; Radiation is energy emitted from an atom.
In most cases this happens in form of Photons. The Energy of photon is depended from its
wavelength, but the mechanism why or how a photon is emitted must be exactly the same
for radio waves and for gamma radiation. For all wavelengths.
On process named radioactivity / radioactive decay is emitted also particles like alpha and
beta but also plain neutrons and protons. And this decay happens randomly, but still
predictably. Let’s just get this straight. The beta particles are electrons. And the alpha is
helium nuclei, having two protons and two neutrons. So basically, the whole “radiation” is
just photons and “atoms”. These atoms are the Hydrogen and Helium, the simplest atoms.
But WHY is these atoms radiating? Why radioactive decay? Why half-life?
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that,
according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.
The converse of half-life, is Doubling time and it might help to understand, what is going
on; Doubling time” is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size, when the
relative growth rate is constant. It’s applied to the population growth. From the population
growth rate, it is also impossible to predict how a particular family would grow. From this I
can produce an idea, how the population growth is dependent only from the surrounding
environment. But what could be “Surrounding environment” for atoms? The only and
obvious answer is photons. It’s a fact, that only high number atoms are able to emit highest
energy photons, gamma rays. The very same must also go to absorption. But the high
energy photons are scattered also from the lower atomic number particles, and the lower
energy particles are thus always able to receive the energy needed to maintain their
existence. Through this logic, it could be thought, that no material is actually stable, or
otherwise said, all material is “Radioactive”. The ones which are not “Radioactive”, are just
able to absorb more energy from the surrounding environment than they are emitting
themselves, and thus these don’t decay.
2.4.2. Theory for Radioactive decay
The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be
slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects. They are mostly unaffected by
external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment, and electric,
magnetic, or gravitational fields. But I.e. Radon-222 exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak
seasonal variations. [4] Some others having small variations, while many materials having
any such effects. This above is logical; affecting to decay rate needs exactly correct kind of
radiation wave length. This theory would be easy to prove in lab. I just take it as proven, so
we can go forward with bigger picture. It was explained in chapter 2.3 why a photon is
emitted from atom. And in Figure 2, it was tried to explain, how this emission happen to the
opposite direction from the velocity. This means that if a particle travels enough distance
without colliding to any another particle, or receiving the correct radiation, which recovers
its energies, it will decay. This decay process is thus exponential. The emitted photons
increase the velocity of the particle, which decreases the wave length of emitted photons,
which means more and more energy is emitted, until the whole particle is emitted.
2.4.3. Consequences of this theory for Radioactive decay
This means that there are no stable Isotopes. There are only stable environments. If particle
is send away from this environment, it will finally decay. This means that even Hydrogen
will decay to a photon when send away. The consequence of this is that there should be
some specific radiation which is produced through this decay of Hydrogen. And this decay
should not be observed in our environment.
Another consequence would be, that the objects trailing edge would experience more
radioactive decay then the leading edge; Why? It’s about energy absorption; particles are
able to absorb the energy of photons of any wavelengths through scattering, but also
through collisions. At the leading edge, there is always something colliding; so new energy
supply is simply higher. But to be accurate, there must be a stagnation point, where this is
quite not true.
2.4.4. Observations according to the theory for Radioactive decay
It’s amazing how the Observations can be made in 0.2 seconds with Google to find the
needed Wikipedia article. There indeed is such a radiation present; Hydrogen line,
This electromagnetic radiation is at the precise frequency of 1420.405751786 MHz, which
is equivalent to the vacuum wavelength of 21.10611405413 cm in free space. The
microwaves of the hydrogen line come from the atomic transition of an electron between
the two hyperfine levels of the hydrogen 1s ground state, that have an energy difference of
5.87433 µeV. This transition is highly forbidden with an extremely small rate of 2.9×10−15
s−1, and a lifetime of around 10 million (107) years. A spontaneous occurrence of the
transition is unlikely be seen in a laboratory on Earth.
The bigger trailing edge decay is more difficult to observe. Though the seasonal variations
of the Radon-222 decay already supports this idea, I would rather like to see how even
some stable isotopes are decaying more in the trailing edge. These observations are
impossible to do in our environment, as we can’t produce the needed QED-vacuum. The
objects in space are also mostly not observable, as theirs shapes are random, and they
mostly don’t even hold their position compared to the movement. Or they are simply
covered with flowing fluids. But there are few objects, big enough to be spheres, but small
enough to be without fluid cover, called atmosphere. So we have Moon, Mercury, maybe
Figure 4: Moon, North pole, South pole, and part of face/equator
Figure 3: Mercury, North pole, South pole, and part of face/equator
Figure 5: Mars, North pole, South pole, and part of equator
Mars, and 18 another known natural satellites that are massive enough to have lapsed into
hydrostatic Equilibrium. I just list the ones, not having too much atmosphere, say 1 kPa.
They are; Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa, Rhea, Iapetus, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus,
Mimas, Titania, Oberon, Umbriel, Ariel and Miranda. Mercury fits to theory, and so does
the moon. From Mars (Figure 5 and 6) it’s difficult to say; there is clear difference between
the South and North, the only problem is that the crust; 45 km on average, is thicker on
south; 58 km, than it is in north; 32 km. Though Mars seems highly interesting, I want hold
me mentally clear and avoid it because it’s complexity. Of course even Earth fits in the
theory too, with as it’s northern Landmasses.
But I want to see a third moon, with “radioactive craters”. In Figure 7 is Mimas, from
Saturn. But Nothing… what a disappointment! The Wikipedia says, that Most of the
surface is covered with craters larger than 40 kilometres (25 mi) in diameter, but in the
south polar region, there are generally no craters larger than 20 kilometres (12 mi) in
diameter. wait, here is something!
Figure 6: Mars, “Martian dichotomy
Figure 7: Mimas
Figure 8: Mimas Temperatures
Yes, Even these observed temperatures fits in theory. It must be noted that Mimas is
moving synchronous/tidal locked compared to Saturn, which means that it’s orbiting
movement has always the same leading edge and trailing edge. The velocity is also quite
high, 14.28 km/s; 14 time the velocity of the Earths moon. The Surface of Mimas offers yet
another details proving, that the most of the craters is caused by radioactive decay, instead
of impacts. Radioactivity can be considered as “solved”.
3. Quantum Kinetic Gravity, Supporting Observations.
3.1 Froude number of planets
As I am here replacing one really well established formula, which works with astonishing
accuracy with the observations, the new rules just must work in reality too. Tough it’s
actually obvious (purely from the known equations) that the Froude-number of Planets is
one. These calculations are presented here, as they were the eye-opening stuff, which
convinced me to trust to this 1= 2/3 + 1/3 rule;
From the far right can be read, how accurately the “E=mMG/r0” and “Kinetic Energy”
follows the Ratio 2:1, which then produces 2/3, 1/3 energy rule from William Froude. Or
1:1 rule, when comparison is made the way Froude has it described. This means that the
planets had flowing Froude numbers; Mercury 1.02, Venus 0.96, Earth 0.99, Mars, 0.98,
Jupiter 0.99, Saturn 0.99, Uranus 1.00, Neptune 0.99. Of course if we calculate them
through “v2 / ar” we have always exactly 1. There is interesting anomaly to be seen at “B-
E”; There is calculated the difference between “Gravitational Binding energy” minus
“Gravitational Potenential Energy”, and as it can be seen, this value is negative for Mercury
and Venus; Venus having the most Negative value of them all. This seems to have some
Figure 9: Mimas Temperatures, with visible-Light Map
Binding E
radius r
B- E
Kinetic energy
48 271
34 497
Earth (a)
29 705
24 017
13 024
9 619
6 796
5 418
connection to the amount of moons. To limit the length of this paper, this subject is simply
left out. Though it’s Principe becomes clear from chapters 5.3.1. and 5.4.
3.2 Star velocities of Galaxies
This theory explains easily the Observed velocities of the outer stars of Galaxies. No “Dark
Energy” or “Dark Matter” is needed to correct the error. It’s just the spiral form of the
Galaxy which causes the Outer stars to have more electromagnetic radiation as the stars,
which are nearer the centre and positioned on each other’s shades. I don’t have the capacity
to study the observations of galactic rotational curves. But I am convinced, that the
mathematical rules to explain the velocity distribution of these spiral formed structures, can
be found through this ratio. The principle is easily understood by simply comparing the
equations. At the old equation the bigger radius means smaller orbital velocity with the
same mass;
but with the new equation the Velocity is,
which means that it grows on a square-root to radius, as observed.
4. The Problems of the Quantum Kinetic Gravity
4.1. The drag and aberration problems, why the Planets still keep orbiting?
This problem can be “solved” with two ways. First way is to find the machinery which
produces the movement. And second approach is to see if there is observable drag, which
would make it impossible to maintain the velocity over the time which is already passed. In
Figure 9. are already quite remarkable signs from drag to be seen. But I want to investigate
this issue thoroughly. We will look Earth and Mercury as examples. It should be noted that
the Drag influences for both; axial- and orbital rotation. It is also possible, that the total
velocity is a combination of multiple causes. In this paper I am only trying to show, that
these mechanisms exists, and their scale is in correct range to close out the “drag problem”.
So this paper is not trying to make a complete clearness from the causes. Aberration
problem is also discussed under this chapter, as it actually offers a partial solution to the
Drag problem.
Figure 10: Galaxy Star velocities
4.1.1 Earth. Moment of Inertia. -Fluctuations in a length of day.
There is precise measurement data available about the Length of day of Earth. I have
chosen one extreme example, Year 1998, 23.May, the Earth rotated in 86400.0023738
seconds. At 9.July the rotation time of the Earth was 86400.0000159 Seconds. This
acceleration happened in just 47 days. What does this small change mean in form of
Rotational Kinetic Energy? Erot = 2.138 x1029 J (J, kg m2/s2) I calculated this and I got a
comparable values of Approx 2.12597562 x1029 J and 2.12597574 x1029 J, and though you
don’t almost see any difference, it’s 11.6 x1021 J
Is it much? Well, if you want to store this energy with the mass of atmosphere;
matm = 5.15 x 1018 kg, you need to have the whole Atmosphere to first move with a velocity
of 8.2 m/s or 30 km/h and then bring it to the full stop to make this difference. And the
power you need to do this in 47 days, 47 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 4060800 Seconds?
11.6 x1021 J / 4060800 s = 2.85 x 1015 W. This is 1.6 % of the Power of the sun.
Almost 200 times the power used through whole mankind. With this rate it would take only
389817 days to accelerate the Earth’s rotation to current speed. This is only 1067 Years.
Another example can be made through long term changes. The slowest rotation speed ever
was measured 18.3.1973; 86400.0041340 seconds, the fastest rotation speed after this was
measured at 5.7.2005; 86399.9989263 seconds. The difference means that 25.6 x1021 J of
Kinetic energy has been stored for 32 years. Close to amount what Mankind has ever used
energy. It might not be necessary to calculate this further. Such a accelerations either
violates the law of conservation of energy, or there must be an externals source; this
external Source must be the sun. Power.
- Sun radiates on earth with 174 000 TW or 174 x 1015 W
- 30 % of this power, 26 118 TW produces steam/rain.
- Yearly rainfall is 505 000 km3, calculated to 365 days, it makes 1.383 x 1015 kg daily
- The volume of this vapour is 1.383 x 1015 kg / 0.804 kg/m3 = 1.72 x 1015 m3
- The volume of Troposphere Averages 17 km x 510 x 106 m2 = 8.67 x 1015 m3
- The volume of the Troposphere “pumps” 12.8 % in a daily cycle Conclusion;
The axial and orbital Rotation of the Earth can be caused by the daily cycle on Atmosphere.
The deeper study of this issue is out of the scope of this paper, but the author is prepared to
present a more precise paper of the mechanisms.
4.1.2. Mercury Rotation without an atmosphere?
So the Plantar movements can been caused by the sun through the atmosphere. This would
be other vice perfect, but Mercury has practically no atmosphere! So either the theory is
wrong, or the rotation of the Mercury can be explained other way. It should be noted that
Mercury has few aspects very different than other planets. Mercury has the most eccentric
orbit of all the planets. This varying distance to the Sun, combined with a 3:2 spinorbit
resonance of the planet's rotation around its axis, result in complex variations of the
surface temperature. This resonance makes a single solar day on Mercury last exactly two
Mercury years, or about 176 Earth days. -Says the Wikipedia. The Atmosphere is merely
an Exosphere, but it’s containing very interestingly water-related ions. Owing to the high
Orbital speed, there must be a continuous source for these ions. Further we need to know
that the surface is mainly constructed from magnesian basalt.
The thermal conductivity of basalt is extremely low, in order of 2 W /mK. Its Specific heat
is in order of 1 kJ/kgK. this means that the max radiation power of 14500 W/m2 cant be
absorbed; with maximum Temperature difference of 600 K, only 1200 W can be transferred
to stone through conductivity, and as the distance grows, even less. So it's not probable that
surface would be heated very deep at all. This closes out any possibility of material-
expansion driven mechanisms, as explained to Earth. So, either the whole theory is wrong,
or there is another mechanism. There is a curious spot in Mercury; “Caloris Basin”, place
which is even found to be a significant source of gases. The place is also excessively heated
through sun at Perihelion. This must lead to an excessive overheating of the surface. And it
could be the explanation to the High amounts of water related ions like O+, OH−, and
H2O+ and other gases.
So it can be seen that all the stuff found from the atmosphere of Mercury, can be resulted
by the melted and boiled basalt-stone; which shoots the atoms towards the sun like rocket
engine. We May calculate the rough amount of this "rocket engine"; the average solar
radiation is 10412 W on Mercury; If 10 % is absorbed, the rest will "burn the rock". Let's
calculate with 10 kW/ m2, and with silicon. Heat of fusion and Vaporisation 50+383 =433
kJ /mol, Molar mass 28 g, W = J/s, so it means with 10 kW we are shooting atoms away
with a 10/433 = 0.023 mol and 0.023 mol X 28 g/mol = 0.64 g/s per m2 of Mercury. This
means that the Mercury's sun side is shooting atoms with an average rate of 12 Mio tons in
second. If we calculate the speed (vrms) of these molecules, with the Kinetic energy formula,
just to have some scale with the same Silicon. Boiling temperature 3538 K gives a velocity
of 1775 m/s, and thus a small, but real impulse of 2.12 x 1013 kgm/s. Please note that this
calculation is here only for providing the principe and scale for this mechanism. Ie. the
Thermal expansion of the core might easily explain the 3:2 spinorbit resonance. Though
this particle flow would lead the Mercury to be burned away in just 865 000 years, it can
rather be expected that these high velocity particles are colliding to lighter atoms and
photons and are finally landing on the other side of Mercury giving even a second impulse,
and even gaining on mass.
4.1.3 Aberration problem
As shown by Laplace, another possible Le Sage effect is orbital aberration due to finite
speed of gravity. Unless the Le Sage particles are moving at speeds much greater than the
speed of light, as Le Sage and Kelvin supposed, there is a time delay in the interactions
between bodies (the transit time). In the case of orbital motion this results in each body
reacting to a retarded position of the other, which creates a leading force component.
Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from
each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate
much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been
suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast,
general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by
Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity,
the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the
interaction. -Wikipedia.
Explanation; With aspects presented by this paper, it can be rather seen, that this aberration
problem is part of the solution. Maybe it’s even a crucial part which is holding the
movements of the planets on exactly at
. I don’t quite understand how “aberration
is cancelled by velocity dependent term” as the main problem/solution is the leading force
component, which comes from the simple fact that it takes some time for the forces to
arrive on goal, which causes a small angle difference. I have calculated what this
Aberration would be for Earth; as the diameters of the planet compared to Sun has an
influence, this force must vary from planet to planet. But as smaller force means lower
velocity, which means greater distance, which means grater aberration, this really seems as
a “missing link”. The aberration angle, sort of “COS phi” for Eath would be 0.005657
degrees; “COS phi” 0.999999995 which means that the Leading force would be
0.00009873 times (SIN or TAN) the Gravitational Force 3.56 x 1022 N. And for clarity, here
I mean Newton’s with mass. So the Leading force component would be approx 3.5 x 1018N.
This aloud us to easily calculate acceleration; As one aspect about “Gravity” is, that the
velocity is changing compared to radius, which further means that what ever mechanism
Gravity has, it must be able to produce this acceleration. From the value above, we get an
acceleration of 5.9 x 10-7 m/s2 The Change of Orbital velocity is 30.29-29.29 =1 km/s.
The time for this change is half year; approx 1.6 x 107 s, which concludes that the velocity
would change because of “aberration” merely a 9.3 m/s; when a change of 1000 m/ is
needed. But I think my model is far too simple. This effect is naturally affecting all the
particles in all distances, and thus this effect is cumulative. I can see it as a connection to
Galactic spirals. But to limit the length of this paper I leave this subject here.
4.1.4 Conclusions of the Orbital rotation of planets; Drag Problem is not a problem!
It should be noted that one of the consequences of this theory is, that the gravitational
constant G, is not a constant, und thus the mass of the Mercury is probably wrong defined.
Therefore it’s not even reasonable to try to be very accurate. It’s enough to proof it, for if
it’s possible / not possible. I.e. simply the Radiation pressure caused by the Sun at Mercury
is in order of 60.6 µN/m2, which for the Face area of Mercury totals for an acceleration of
0.34 x10-15 m/s2 for the current predicted mass of Mercury; Maybe the mass is only a
fraction of that expected; If the Gravity constant varies linearly (hydrostatic pressure
analogy in Space, buoyancy), then the true mass of Mercury is only 0.39 from that
expected. And the calculated, relatively small values are corrected accordingly. But also the
opposite is possible, as the kinetic forces are growing and growing, it means that the
gravity forces” grows more and more, according to the inverse square law, down to the
middle point. This shows that the scale of the forces is the point of the issue here. And the
needed result should be just enough to explain propulsion, and thus to overcome the drag
problem. It’s actually not even needed to understand the amount of the drag. If velocity is
zero, the Drag is zero. So if we simply have some propulsion, then it can produce some
velocity, with any imaginable Drag-factor.
Note that the Orbital speed is the important thing. Axial rotation is only the parameter
which optimizes the Temperature difference between day and night, as the efficiency of a
Thermo dynamical machine is defined with this factor. This concludes that the whole
system is self adjusting machinery, which finally produces a circular orbit, while axial
velocity is only random parameter defined by other factors. So why are the Orbits still
elliptic after so long time? I have some idea, (Heat, oribit-jump) which is explained later,
but not in this paper. There seems to be so huge amount of these other factors, which fit in
to this theory that a book could be written from them. Just to give an example of the depth;
ie. The electricity in the Earths Atmosphere[5], Uranus, and Venus.
Figure 11: Wave Strucutres seen in Jupiter; “the motor running”
4.2. The Energy problem?
4.2.1. Introduction to Energy Problem.
The biggest problem of any Gravitational theory is the Energy.
- The Gravitational Force of Earth is 3.56 x 1022 N
Few concepts are such a confusing, that for clarity they are all explained here;
- The Gravitational potential Energy of Earth is 5.31 x 1033J This is the energy which
could be had If Earth falls to sun.
- The Gravitational binding Energy of Earth is 2.24 x 1032J, This is the minimum energy
of explosion in the middle of Earth which could disturb the planet completely. It has
nothing to do with the orbits of planets.
These above are not connected to the Energy problem. It’s said that there is no work done
when a planet Orbits, as the Potential Energy remains constant. But there is force,
Gravitational Force, which pushes the planets towards the sun. If this force is not hold
together by mechanical connection like in a rigid body where the connection are made
through the clear atomic attraction, then this Force (F) must do Work, this is Energy and
has to go somewhere. This Work (W) is displacement (s) multiplied by Force.
The question is, “what is this displacement”.
As we need to calculate the Power too, we choose the time which the planet falls towards
the Sun in a second, then we calculate the centripetal acceleration for Earth through it’s
mass mearth = 5.972 x 1024 kg, the acceleration is 0.006 m/s2 which means that Earth falls
, s= 0.003 m in a second towards the sun; The power of Earths gravitation is
thus 1.064 x 1020 J/s To Compare; The Energy which sun Provides to Earth, 1.74 x 1017 J/s
This is 611.7 times the power provided to Earth by solar radiation. This is the thermal
problem of the Kinetic theory of gravitation.
But it’s actually a problem for any theory of gravitation. If such a force is present (as it is!)
the entropy must continually increase. Maxwell repeated this criticism of the Fatio-Lesage
concept many times, so he apparently regarded it as the most damning. Also G.H.Darwin
pointed out at his paper from 1905 that Le Sage’s theory “demands a continual creation of
energy at infinity to supply the gravific machinery”. So what I want to point out here, is,
that such a criticism should actually not be pointed against the La Sage’s theory of Gravity,
but simply against the Newton’s claim that such a Gravitational Force exists. It is this very
Force which already has these problems. So to truly understand this, and to be able to solve
this General Entropy-problem, we must find an explanation, which I partially give here, by
explaining how the radioactivity is the mechanism to cope this Entropy problem.
4.2.2. Introduction to the explanation to the Energy Problem; Thermosphere.
Thermosphere is the Layer of Atmosphere in approx 100-1000 km altitude. Particles in
thermosphere are typically at 1400 K temperature. But it varies, and can raise up to 2300 K.
It's claimed, that the heating and variation would be caused by a Solar XUV radiation. This
Total heat input is estimated to be 0.8-1.6 mW/m2. (milliWatt / m2!!) When Kirchoff’s law
is applicable, the spectral absorption is equal to spectral emissivity. This simple statement
says, that the total heat output must be also in the same range. Thus the temperature of the
gas should be cooled by the radiation and stay in a balance temperature defined by the total
Heat flux. First I have to estimate the amount of particles in Thermosphere. I tried to
calculate it my self, and found a range of 7x108kg to 3x1013 kg. Or if I use plain wiki for
atmosphere, I found that it would be 0.00003% of 5.1480×1018 kg also 1.54x1014kg.
This variation is way too big to evaluate anything; range 108 to 1014 is 1 to 1 000 000!
MSIS-E-90 Atmosphere Model is provided by; with this data I did
more accurate analysis. Fist I needed to choose some extreme points to have the most
visible reactions. Most extreme changes in LOD; 12.6.1998 is the end of 1.7 ms
acceleration. (Figure 12 left), The axial tilt, even when corrected, influences the data. Thus
point near equinox, 21.9.1998 is chosen to get clear picture; a point where the acceleration
I also need to choose some interesting
time of day, or sun position to make the
observations. For such, I found an
interesting observation from Feynman
Lectures [5]; It shows average daily
variation of the atmospheric potential
gradient on a clear day over the oceans,
Referred to UTC/ Greenwich time.
So I chose 19:00 UTC for 12.6.1998;
Figure 14. Axial tilt is roughly corrected,
so that changes are in the Orbital plane.
Please note how the colours describe the
position of the sun.
Yellow is towards, and Blue is away from sun.
Orange is evening and is thus Trailing edge.
Green is the morning, and thus the Leading edge.
Figure 12: 12.6.1998 and 21.9.1998 compared to the LOD change
Figure 13: Earths average potential
referred to UTC time.
Figure 14: Thermosphere 19:00 UTC for 12.6.1998
I notice these aspects In Figure 14;
- The gases are stratified in space according to their densities; Hydrogen, H; 0.09 g/L ->
Helium, He 0.18 g/L -> Oxygen, O 1.43 g/L
- At the top 700-1000 km is the Lightest gases; H, Hydrogen, has it’s highest amounts at
night side, And lowest amounts in sun-side. And He, Helium, located as the opposite.
- When we look the range 400-700 km we notice another phenomenon; the lighter gas;
Helium its highest amounts at the morning / Leading edge, and the Heavier oxygen at
evening /Trailing edge.
- Above 400 km, there are practically only single atoms, N2 and O2 remains below.
- Below 300 km, there is practically no difference.
- Below 100 km everything is absolutely constant.
The picture above shows, that there are remarkable changes on the gas amounts, but it’s not
very easy to read this information from the table above.
I chose some interesting levels; 520 km 620 km- 720 km 1000 km. And made another
diagram from the same data, but now according to sun position;
My observations for Figure 15;
- Pit and peak for Oxygen at 520 and 620 km height is at 06 and 18.
- Helium makes the counterpart for Oxygen with Peak at 06 and pit at 18.
- Height 720 is transition-zone
- At 860 and 1000 km the peak and Pit for Helium and Hydrogen is at approx 02 14
For comparison the data from 21.9.1998, 04:00 UTC, is presented in Figure 16.
Note how the times for the Morning, Day, evening and night are slightly adjusted.
I observe that Helium goes now approx 200 km higher than on the Figure 14.
Figure 15: Thermosphere 19:00 UTC for 12.6.1998, Levels 520-1000, Sun at 12
To better understand the phenomenon, absolute densities are compared on the Figure 17
I observe how the density varies in order of 3 - 5 times. Thus it needs to be closed out, if
this is temperature related, according to PV=nRT. Figure 18 a, shows that this is not the
case. Also the Temperature is approx 10 % higher at the same time. It should be noted that
Earth is nearest to the Sun at Aphelion at approx 4.7. This means the distance to sun is
greatest. So The Earth is approx 2 500 000 km, or 1.7 % nearer the Sun at 21.9.1998
compared to 12.6.1998.
Figure 16: Thermosphere 04:00 UTC for 21.9.1998
Figure 17: Left 12.6.98, 19 UTC and right 21.9.1998, 04 UTC, Absolute densities
in various Heights. Pictures are on scale and not logarithmic. (Thus 2 pics)
I can conclude that the density change is not Temperature related, but the pressure and/or
volume should be remarkably higher, as expected by equation PV = nRT, when both n and
T are greater.
What I also observe, is that the daily Temperature difference is bigger. It should be noted
that the cause for this might be the fact that 12.6. data is from 19 UTC and 21.9. is from 04
UTC. To clear this question we compare the 04 UTC temperature to 19 UTC at 21.9.1998
in Figure 18 b.
It seems that there is some, but no remarkable Daily fluctuation in temperature. The shape
of the curve, and also the value remains approximately same. For completeness I compare
the daily fluctuation of the O, He and H according to the sun position. (Figure 19) For full
completeness I add also the values of N in the same table. To maintain readability, I show
only levels 520 km, 620 km and 720 km;
Figure 18 a, Delta T 12.6.->21.9.1998, Figure 18 b, Delta T, 21.9.98, 04->19 UTC
Figure 19: 21.9.1998, Hights 520-620-720 km, O and He, 04-19 UTC;
H, N 19 UTC
My observations;
- N, Nitrogen is there but has very little influence to anything.
- The amplitude is bigger at 19 UTC than 04 UTC
- The density difference can be traced to the smaller amount of H compared to Figure
15; as this must mean an increase in He and O.
- The peaks and pits of these waves are very nicely at 06 (Leading edge) and at 16-17.
The Figure 20 is from 21.9.1998, 19 UTC, it concentrates on O and He, and heights 620 km
660 km-720 km. The view point is below South Pole. Please note that the axial tilt is in
orbital plane as the data is taken at equinox. The yellow dot describes the sun position at 12.
My Observations;
- It becomes absolutely clear how the heavier Oxygen goes behind, and lighter Helium
goes forward; exactly as happens to a Helium-balloon in an accelerating car.
- This concludes that there is a continuous acceleration and drag present in Tangential
- This closes out the possibility that Earth has orbited 4.5 Mrd Years without propulsion.
- It can be concluded that the Gravity has Observable Energy Problem.
- With this diagram, it can be seen that the density difference shown before, is not
related only for material properties. If this would be the case, the amounts of O and He
should be presented exactly symmetric.
So it’s time to calculate more precisely the reasons for the Heat.
Practically all the particles at Thermosphere are single atoms. This means that they are not
influenced by the gravity; as it’s explained by the present knowledge of Gravity.
From this must be concluded that all the interactions above the 100 km limit are happening
according to the kinetic theory. Further all cooling must happen through thermal radiation.
As the particles are (mostly) single atoms the absorptions and emissions are quite limited to
certain wave lengths as shown in Figure 21.
Figure 20: 21.9.1998, 19 UTC, Hights 620-660-720 km, O and He
Calculations, Energy provided by Sun at XUV-spectrum;
Radius of Earth r = 6 371 km + Height of Thermosphere 1000 km.
Area of Radiation; 1.7x1014 m2. Power; 0.0012 W/m2, Total; 0.2 TW
Mass 21.9.1998; 140 km -1000 km; 6.16 x1010 kg. Avg. Temperature; 725 K
Roughly the mass is divided as follows;
O, O2; 252 x109 kg, “16” Molecule amount N = 9.5x1035, Heat capacity; 920 J/(kg · K)
N, N2; 364 x109 kg; “14” Molecule amount N = 1.56x1036, Heat capacity; 1040 J/(kg · K)
He; 35.2x106 kg, “4” Molecule amount N = 5.3x1033, Heat capacity; 5193 J/(kg · K)
H; 1.34x106 kg, “1” Molecule amount N = 0.8x1033, Heat capacity; 14304 J/(kg · K)
Total Heat capacity; 61.2 x1012 J/K, XUV Radiation power; 0.2 x1012 J/s,
We can calculate ie. that “Heating power” is 0.003 K/s, or 12 K/hour.
This is simply impossible, as just the temperature variation is up to 40-50 K/hour!
4.2.3. Explanation to the Energy Problem; Gravitational Power.
First, I needed to estimate what is the Neutral temperature of the Space at the distance of
the planet. If some simple assumptions is made, like expected, that every change in the
parameters of the solar system goes in Inverse-square law. Then, using the short info found
from Wikipedia; Temperatures of Interplanetary medium is 200 K at 2.2 AU and 165 K at
3.2 AU. It can easily calculated that at AU 1 the Temperature is 296 K, and at AU 0.4
approx at Mercury, the Temperature is 468 K
With this expectation it could be assumed, that the Gravitational Power heats the
Temperature form the Neutral 300 K to the average levels measured in Thermosphere, i.e.
800 K. From this info the change in heat is; 61.2 x1012 J/K x 500 K = 30.6 x1015 J
If this heating can be considered as a continuous; Then it needs a power of 30 600 TW
If the 1/3 Of the mass between 500-1000 km is heated additional 300 K, means 300 K to
1100 K,; Heat capacity only 0.018% from the total value above, this would need 3.3 TW
Power, which is 15 x times more than the power of XUV-radiation.
It should be noted that this 30 600 TW is already 18% of the total Solar energy to Earth.
This is already more, than is said to be reflected by the whole atmosphere. Thus the source
of this heat simply can’t be the Sun. It should be noted that this is still only the first small
sign of the heat produced by gravitational force; It’s still only 0.03% of the Heat Calculated
on the Introduction. Even if we calculate with the density at 1000 km, and with height up to
the moon; 380 000 km we still have only 1.7 % of the Heat. But with 760 000 km radius we
already have 13.5%! If we seek the balance, we found that with 4x the radius to moon, we
have the balance; According to my excel this balance is reached at; 1 487 145 km. So it
seems that the “heat Problem” is really huge problem. But as Earth travels 29.7 km/s, it’s
not, Earth goes this distance quite exactly in 50 000 seconds; in just 14 hours, and thus
leaves this heat behind very quickly. Though it don’t have the capacity to study this stuff
thoroughly, I just can’t avoid the Idea, that Moon (and also planets!) is simply the
condensation product of this heat. As the amounts of the moons in various planets also
seems to fit in this theory. See also chapters 5.3.1. and 5.4.
Figure 21: Absorbtion/Emission Spectrums
4.2.4. Energy Problem; Conclusions
This is not the whole story, actually the Energy problem of Le Sage’s theory is even bigger.
Above was only calculated the observed change, and the energy needed to make this
change. In reality this theory predicts that everything is bombarded through these particles
from all directions all the time. As it’s known, the Gravity works perfectly also to the
comets, which are not travelling on orbital plane.
But it’s not quite so complicated. The atoms of the solar system are of course travelling in
all directions, but they are also colliding to other atoms. Even if the Mean free path of the
molecules would be really high, like 150 Million km; equal the distance from Sun to Earth,
these particles would still collide 100-150 times before they reach the Earth, and 70-120
times, before they reach the first planet; Neptune. This means that the pressure, as
explained by the Kinetic theory, would increase in similar steps together with the
Temperature. The “problematic Energy” is radiated away long before it even reaches any
planets. But this statement is here only to give an idea about the fact that the “Energy
Problem” is not such a problem, which closes out this Gravity theory. When I combine the
“Energy Problem”, with the idea of Radioactivity, it’s rather so, that the “Energy Problem
is not a problem at all, it’s the “cause” why there even is any material or “mass” in the Solar
5. Closing out the doubts.
5.1. Porosity of the material-problem (Wikipedia; Le Sage’s theory of Gravitation)
A basic prediction of the theory is the extreme porosity of matter. As supposed by Fatio and
Le Sage in 1690/1758 (and before them, Huygens) matter must consist mostly of empty
space so that the very small particles can penetrate the bodies nearly undisturbed and
therefore every single part of matter can take part in the gravitational interaction. This
prediction has been (in some respects) confirmed over the course of the time. Indeed,
matter consists mostly of empty space and certain particles like neutrinos can pass through
matter nearly unhindered. However, the image of elementary particles as classical entities
who interact directly, determined by their shapes and sizes (in the sense of the net structure
proposed by Fatio/Le Sage and the equisized spheres of Isenkrahe/Darwin), is not
consistent with current understanding of elementary particles. The Lorentz/Thomson
proposal of electrical charged particles as the basic constituents of matter is inconsistent
with current physics as well.
Explanation; as concluded by this paper, there is no mass. Thus the needed extreme
porosity of matter is actually even absolute porosity of matter. There is no matter, it’s only
energy, and it depends only from the wavelength how these energies are interfering and
resonating with other materials. So the principal problem on this idea, which must be
explained, is “how does the gravity work in Submarine, in the bottom of the Sea? Or how
does it work in the deep tunnels down the Earth?
The above explained theory of emitting photons actually means, that any particle which is
moving radiates, and the direction of this radiation is backwards from the direction of the
movement. But it also means that the wavelength of this radiation is depends on the
velocity, which can be also described as temperature. Of course most of the particles are
moving with low velocity, which means that most of the radiation must be those with huge
wavelengths, 1 Hz to 30 Hz corresponds for wave lengths of (299 792 458 m) 300 000 km
to 10 000 km. Such wavelengths are able to go through Jupiter. It also seems that the size of
a smallest sun is approximately “2 Hz”.
5.2. Introduction for calculating various constants
Maybe there is similar absolute limit for wave length as there is for the speed of light? The
gravitational Coupling constant might give us some light to the issue. I studied this a bit and
realized that the longest wave length might be 1/c2 or 89 875 517 873 681 800 m. But this
seems quite a problematic.
There is so much
and after implementing this new theory, even 2/3’s, not to
forget that we are observing from a moving platform, that we need to add the relativistic
aspects too, that I decided to skip all the old stuff. I am not trying to explain how to
calculate “Gravitational coupling constant” or Planck constant. As I did to Electron, Proton
and Neutron mass. Instead of that, I make a statement that these all can be found, from the
powers of the speed of light.
5.2.1 Age of the Universe
Ie. The “age of the universeis somehow funny number, as after this study I don’t believe
to any “Big Bang”, and thus the age would be simply the maximum time which we can see
to the past. And the true age could be infinite. This age is now defined to be some
At this time light travels approximately
which is logically
, so with
factor, we are already in the +/- 3% range, or other vice
said the age
But this is just playing with numbers, and doesn’t bring
anything. I have no explanation why this would be so. Maybe it’s simply
, then I could
say that volume has it’s 4th dimension; time, and of course we se the “time” only as it
returns, so it must be 2-times. So
Yes, it’s plausible. But
; -Why? I don’t know.
Maybe someone has just calculated it this much wrong.
5.2.2 Planck constant
Reduced Planck constant,
is already divided with
, it’s unit is
kgJs 2
almost Ok, as the extra second may become from frequency, the mass is
and the velocity
is already there; so I would expect it to be
where x=0.85 This 0.85 could be then
explained with many things, but I see that the basic logic is this.
5.2.3 Gravitational coupling constant
This is really crazy. a mess. But I take a shot, maybe I hit, though probably not. The
reason why I do this is that it gives the Idea about the gravity. It helps us to think. So just
shut your eyes from the horrifying mess of units which this “Damn-number” provides;
13 1066610666 kg
To have some Humor, I just rounded it up to 666 & ^-13, but this should not afraid any true
scientists, as they are “just numbers”.
So what is this all about? The idea is, that the If I think that it’s the weakest possible
photons, which have the biggest wave lengths by definition, which are responsible for the
gravity? And as all photons are 2 dimensional; or 1+time dimensional. So I want to use
… and I should some how get this number
16210988.8 c
Though it sounds easier to start with
/1 c
I take the
and assume that it defines the longest wave length of photon,
energy of this is photon is thus
, and so I have a nice number like;
And I see that I could correct out number with just factor 1.455 or 0.687; means almost
with just the 2/3 rule, but this is not the problem! I am still actually about
wrong if I want to have i.e. factor
/1 c
But I still haven’t used the “damn number”, so I take the damn number;
and I dived The number with it, and my numerology lies on;
10210.2 34
***humor*** This multiplied by 1.2 gives me then a countdown 321.00 ***humor***
It seems that through the biggest wave length is “
-something analogy I do got somehow
the correct range. If we look the Equation (2) we note that we should use
, so when we
517.46/5.267 2
We are really close. And though it might be enjoyable to
play with Stuff like
I will stop this play here, as it would probably only
confuse. Though support for using
can be found from Planck’s law or from Wien
approximation, not to forget the Rayleigh-Jeans law, which proposes the usage of
and thus ie.
it just doesn’t tell too much from the mechanism.
So I just expect, that measurements are correct, and thus the maximum wave length is in
19^104.26 22
max c
This wavelength fits i.e. with factor 40x to the size of milky way, having thus some
similarities in the Chapter 4.2.3. Observations I made about the moon and the 4x radius of
heat absorption. So I stop this Philosophical discussion and those who wants to continue
with working with these kind of questions and ask “But how is the exact constant-x
calculated”, I just show the Feynman lectures I-38-6 or III-2-6 And I simply try to found
my ability to go forward by simply predicting something through Ideas.
Like what this wavelength
actually is?! Do we even know what we are trying to define?
5.3 Double-slit experiment [6]
I have an Idea about “why” the Double split experiment behaves like it does. So gravity is
waves, and these long waves penetrate the most of the material. The double slit experiment
is (mostly) not made in vacuum, and certainly not in quantum-vacuum, as such might not
even exist. It’s quite difficult to imagine how I could prevent some wave lengths size of
Jupiter. So these waves can’t be prevented, but they are still interacting with material and
diffracted. This interaction is still wavelength dependent. So the opened second slit simply
passes through these longer wavelengths, and thus there is synchronised interference from
these longer “Gravity” waves present. This is not the case with one slit open. See Figure 22.
The second slit aloud some radio waves to go through and to catch and carry these electrons
on their way to detector. This theory could be proved by adding another detector to the
detector which detects also these longer wave lengths. They must be there even without
electrons. To save some time, it’s reasonable to search only wave lengths that “fit” to the
particle, i.e. with Hydrogen search for 1420.405751786 MHz. Or maybe the “cyclotron
resonance”, the small angle change in slit might be important too.
Any how this experiment is actually the independent proof for the Quantum Kinetic
Gravity, but it would be inacceptable to claim it as the sole proof. Thus it’s left in such a
minor role in this paper, as its explanation is finally as simple as that.
The Wall causes interference to these waves. The slit doesn’t. When just one slit is open,
these waves are synchronised with the particles. Of course there are also other waves,
which are not synchronized with the particles, but these waves don’t interact with the
particles. When the second slit is open, these synchronized waves have two sources, and as
they do interact, the particles are carried witht them and thus they are also detected as
shown in Figure 22-c.
5.3.1 Wave pattern from the double-slit experiment
So I want to look closer this wave pattern from Figure 22-c. Look Figure 23.
Figure 22: Interference Spectral power per wavelength
Figure 23: Double-slit interference data from
So we have a sort of “Kelvin Wave” with one slit, and “Rossby Wave” with double slit.
The wake of a boat is like Kelvin wave. This gives me an Idea, that this interference of
“Quantum kinetic Gravity” could be tested with Double pole experiment, sort of a
“negative wall” arrangement compared to the double slit experiment.
On the right diagram of Figure 23 I added red lines, and numbers, and green numbers to
visualize the results. Note that the Y-axle is not counts/s (amount) but Volts, and describes
thus intensity. We see that (red numbers) wave Amplitudes U goes by the rule
432 3
and thus also
43 2UU
which might continue
So we have Equations;
432 3
Equation 7 supports the usage of
in the numerology practiced while guessing the math
behind “gravitational coupling constant”. And Equation 6 is quite the same as the Eq. 5.
As the Mathematic behind this is quite complicated, I active try to simplify this as much as
I can and I thus avoid such equations, as was seen in Wien approximation. I rather want to
understand this completely, and not just approximately. So if I just look the right side of
figure 23 further, and I make following conclusions;
- 3 high peaks in the middle covering the wavelength
- having 4 pits; green numbers 1 and 2
As such must be universal, I test them with something. I take one solar-system (my own),
and see if it follows these rules.
The radius of sun, And then the distances to the planets. Short play with excel, and I have
the following table;
r (m)
4x r
1/3 & 2/3,
r / 4xr-
From this table I can make following observations (error %);
- Radius of Venus is ~ 2/3 compared to Earths radius. (-9.3%)
- Mercury’s ~1/3 compared to Earths radius. (-1.7%)
- Radius of Earth is ~2/3 from Mars (+6.2%)
- Radius of Mars is ~1/3 from Jupiter’s Theoretical “256”-radius. (+4.8%)
- Jupiter is located closely (-8.1%) by the Equation 7
- Saturn is located exactly (+0.2%) by the Equation 7
- Uranus is located exactly (-0.6%) by the Equation 7
- Neptune is “not quite by the rules”; Radius 3xJupiter, (-4.7%)
It shout be noted that this is highly simplified calculation, and it should be first carefully
studied what is the nominal amplitude and wavelength of this solar-system. I.e. the error of
Earth would be just 1.3%, if the 2/3 is calculated from the True value of mars, instead of
being 2/9 of the theoretical value of Jupiter. And if we calculate the Venus from true value
of Earth, instead of being 4/27 of the theoretical value of Jupiter, we have an error; -7.4%.
It would be reasonable to do the same exercise to the atom model, i.e. to Bohr-model. But I
rather leave this fun to some one else.
5.4. Gravitational waves
This chapter is added after 11.2.2016, as the Observation of Einstein Gravitational waves
were published. I just want to conclude that there are no “gravitational waves”. They are
photons, or electromagnetic waves. Other vice these observations simply supports the views
presented in this paper. This supports the idea, where Planets and moons are “growing” in
these waves. So rings of Saturn and Jupiter might be the place to make more observations
about this issue
6. Consequences of this theory
This is a Philosophical question. What changes through this theory? The answer is quite
simple; Nothing changes! But some one might say that this theory shows that Newton was
wrong, as there is no “mass”. But what is “mass”. It’s finally nothing else than a word in
our heads. And the true meaning of “mass” is exactly the meaning which we give to this
word in our own heads, nothing more and nothing less. We can only change the way we
think. And this new way of thinking does open us new possibilities. But these possibilities
have been there all the time. And it’s only our old thinking which has limited us from
taking an advance from these possibilities. Even today, some people think world is flat. Is
this even wrong, as most of the people aren’t never able to travel the needed 10 000 km
from home to the “edge”.
6.1 SI-units, without mass
This all has some quite dramatic consequences; I.e. the need to redefine all the SI-units to
mass-less units. So I make a proposal how this could be done, based on the definitions of
the current SI base units. As the Caesium “Cs”, is on the base of time, the units are named
xCs-units. as it’s not practicable to destroy all the presently used units, the system is tried to
been build in away that the current measurement system can be preserved as it is, and only
the Mass will be redefined such a method, which is not based on a prototype.
Time; T 1 sCs; The Duration of 1 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
caesium 133 atom.
ssCs 770 631 192 9 1
Length; L 1 mCs = The distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1 sCs.
m 571749410.03261225
770 631 192 9 1
m/s 458 792 299 smCs
And that’s it! There won’t be any other basic units needed! All the rest can be calculated
through these two units. Note that the Force just must be recalculated through Strength; Y
Mass; M There is no mass; mass is not a SI Base unit. Mass will be
calculated through Force, Mass; Force divided by Acceleration.
Ampere; I Defined through Force.
Kelvin; Θ Can be defined through Stefan-Boltzmann law and with speed of
mole; N Is defined through the mass; But as there is no mass, this should
be defined as a plain amount.
candela; J Defined through watt, which is defined through mass. Should be
defined as a plain amount of photons. Ie. a mole of photons
radiating with wavelength 1 mCs.
As it must be somehow confusing, to define the units without a mass, but it’s actually very
simple, we actually need only;
Strength; Y
This should be defined through energy of
Elementary charge,
arve 2
, which actually shows, that it might
be even possible to define also length and even time through this
elementary charge. Thus, before implementing any new units as
proposed above, this possibility must be investigated thoroughly. At
least it is obvious that elementary charge can be defined through
Strength; or Strength through elementary charge. The Fine structure
constant, Strength / Field = 1, but the needed Energies, to produce
“Strength” is 1 e and to produce “Field” is 2 e, when the energy is
conventionally defined with the mass.
This would give an easy way to define mass;
, which
means that mass would be just dimensionless amount of elementary
charges, if e is defined with Y.
The rule of this all is;
eETotal 3
eEmass 2
7. Conclusions
7.1 Physical conclusions.
It’s easy to proof if a theory is wrong, as the reasons for this are mostly found immediately.
But we can’t actually never proof that some theory is right. The rightness of any theory is
hold mostly through our own incapability to prove it wrong. This aloud me to claim
(assuming that I haven’t made a mistake, and this theory is immediately proved wrong) that
I am still not proving any theory wrong. I am just expanding them. With just few new
definitions. And that’s all there is. Even if this becomes as THE Theory Of Everything. It’s
only a theory, and It doesn’t change anything in the Reality. It only changes our capability
to understand the reality. The physical conclusions of this, is that we may now better
understand where the limits of our possibilities actually are.
7.2 Practical conclusions.
We can still calculate with mass, it’s even practical to do so. The basic physics teaching can
also remain as it is. Making it too complicated, would only isolate more people outside the
science. 15% of the Adult Population of the world can’t even read. So maybe; 30% can’t do
math with multiplication and 50 % can’t do Algebra 60% exponential function. 80 %
doesn’t understand the physics of Newton. 95% doesn’t understand the Ph ysics of Einstein.
I remind that 5% from 7000 Million is still 350 Million! 99.5% of the world Population
doesn’t understand the basics of QED. So If I am going to claim to this paper changes
something. I, myself don’t understand too much of the reality.
So, as said before, the fact that a lot of people think that world is a flat, and doesn’t rotate,
as i.e. Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari announced year ago, doesn’t mean they are wrong, as
according to their own ability to think, they are right, completely right. And there is nothing
we have to do for this. It’s not such a problem which needs to be solved. It’s actually a
problem which even can’t be solved. What practical usage some poor boy in some jungle
has for knowledge that the world is round? He can never travel the needed 10 000 km
which would make the difference in his reality. Of course if you pay his travel, he can do it
but if you don’t pay, such a problem is not only solved, but even better it doesn’t even exist.
So it’s not wrong to say world is flat and it doesn’t rotate and the sun goes around it. It’s
just more simple description of the same thing. And the only thing we need to do is to let
these creatures live their life peacefully where they are in. We should not disturb them with
technical challenges over their abilities. Of course we could produce an I-Pad, which would
be enjoyable to dogs, but our ability to do this doesn’t make us responsible to buy an I-pad
for every dog in the world. Or even to send these dogs to school to learn this stuff. We can
do it to our own pet-dog. But that will be our pet. And it doesn’t mean the dog-society
should be mixed with our society. Dogs are living in they own universe, and so be it.
Richard Feynman said it well in The QED Lecture at University of Auckland, New
Zealand, 1979
And then there’s the … kind of thing which you don’t understand. Meaning "I don’t
believe it, it’s crazy, it’s the kind of thing I won’t accept. Eh. The other part well… this
kind, I hope you’ll come along with me and you’ll have to accept it because it’s the
way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works, we looked at it,
carefully, ha? That’s the way it works. You don’t like it…, go somewhere else! To
another universe! Where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more
psychologically easy. I can’t help it! OK! If I’m going to tell you honestly what the
world looks like to the… human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to
understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like. And I cannot make it any simpler,
I’m not going to do this, I’m not going to simplify it, and I’m not going to fake it. I’m
not going to tell you it’s something like a ball bearing inside a spring, it isn’t. So I’m
going to tell you what it really is like, and if you don’t like it, that’s too bad.
Albert Einstein is claimed to said “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking
if mankind is to survive.” And here you have it. Let’s just stop forcing any truths to other
people. If they don’t like something; “that’s too bad” and we might just say as Feynman;
“You don’t like it…, go somewhere else! To another universe!” with just a small
adjustment; creatures whose world is flat, must just stay on their flat world, until they learn
and work the things out themselves; “You don’t like this? No problem. Pls. just stay on
your own universe!” and if you die on hunger, “that’s too bad” and ”I can’t help it! OK!”
Henry Ford said it politely; “If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing,
you're right.”
The logical consequence of this is, that any incoming migration should be tested by simply
IQ tests. And the people should be able to reach more than the average, or then just stay on
their own universe and try improving it. Another logical consequence of this idea is, that
the best way improving our own universe is the Swiss-kind Direct Democracy.
Jouni Jokela, Frutigen, Switzerland 11.2.2016
[1] Feynman lectures on physics I-12-3
[2] Feynman lectures on physics II-28
[3] Feynman lectures on physics I-15-1
[4] Analysis of Gamma Radiation from a Radon Source: Indications of a Solar Influence
[5] Feynman lectures on physics II-9-2
[6] Feynman lectures on physics III
Another Interesting and supporting reads are;
Feynman Lectures on physics I-10-5, I-12-2 and I-15-9
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.