http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/CosmicRays.txt Date(s): 30 Sep 2011 To view the plain text file, one might right click -> View source, then if possible Format -> Word Wrap Use Back on browser to return to http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/ (after exiting, if in "View source" mode). AEP = Alden E. Park __________ Origin of Most Energetic Cosmic Rays. This is an explanation of the origin of the most energetic cosmic rays. Greater energy cosmic rays would originate from lower energy cosmic rays, after being provided with extra kinetic energy from gravity. It is assumed that out between galaxies the distributions of gravitons are nearly isotropic with respect to direction. Cosmic rays can have their kinetic energies preferentially increased by attractive intergalactic gravitons. The kinetic energies for an individual large speed particle can increase by it having many more absorptions of attractive gravitons "head-on" than "tail-on". If the speed of light is constant with respect to the frame containing the preponderance of particular-interacting-matter, then that would account for the Michelson-Morley and Fizeau types of experimental results. A graviton would be attractive when absorbed in matter. Gravity absorption evidence has been observed during total solar eclipses (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect and http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101). A graviton could be composed of discrete electric fields from two opposite fundamental charges traveling precisely together (see http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/GravitySummaryNews.txt for details) in straight lines at the speed of light with respect to the preponderance of interacting-matter. Such a quantum graviton would be attractive, as both of the two discrete electric fields within it would upon absorption each need of be attractively absorbed by the opposite fundamental charge from which the discrete electric field originated. A cosmic ray particle traveling by itself would not constitute the preponderance of interacting-matter and so would not govern the motion of gravitons that approach it. The speed of light would not be changed even momentarily for an entire Michelson-Morley or Fizeau type of experiment because of the presence of a solitary cosmic ray particle passing through the experiment at nearly the speed of light. Fast moving cosmic ray particles would preferentially absorb attractive gravitons head-on rather than from the rear because of their relative velocities. The rapidly moving particles would then be provided with greater kinetic energy. Such cosmic acceleration of large speed particles would provide the observed nearly uniform direction cosmic ray distribution coming from beyond this galaxy. Such distributions would be according to an infinite steady state universe composed of matter rather than anti-matter (see http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/PhysicsSummaryNews.txt). In the frame of the cosmic ray particle, the incoming fore and aft gravitons do not have the same speed since their speed is constant with respect to the frame containing the preponderance of interacting-matter. That "stationary" frame includes those stationary fundamental masses appearing and disappearing at the speed of light within photon waves of starlight. AEP - 28 Sep 2011 No Simpler Explanation. I am currently unaware of a simpler explanation for the origin of the most energetic cosmic rays. AEP - 28 Sep 2011 Speed of Light. The specific speed of light would depend upon the type of interaction involved (for example according to the index of refraction of the material that the light is traveling through). The speed of a graviton in vacuum could be slightly greater than the speed of light in vacuum, if there is less interaction of a graviton with the space/other-electric-field-in-the-graviton than the light with space/many-other-electric-fields-in-the-photon. A photon of starlight traveling in vacuum could consist of waves of many fundamental particles appearing and disappearing at the speed of light, because of the presence of the many other discrete fundamental electric fields in the photon. AEP - 28 Sep 2011 Speed Ordering by Interaction. In order of increasing interaction with matter/space/itself during transit (or decreased speed from time of production to time of absorption) we might have: (1) a solitary discrete fundamental electric field (consisting of a wave of fundamental charges of one type appearing and disappearing) , (2) a graviton (consisting of two fundamental electric fields traveling precisely together from opposite discrete fundamental charges), (3) neutrinos (consisting of many fewer discrete fundamental electric fields than a photon but more than a graviton), and (4) photons (consisting of large numbers of discrete fundamental electric fields). Photons could linger around matter and so be slowed down by them. Photons traveling in "pure" empty space might interact somewhat with the many fundamental matter charges within the photon itself. AEP - 30 Sep 2011 Energy is almost never conserved when a fundamental charge absorbs a single discrete fundamental electric field. Asymmetric acceleration of cosmic ray particles by gravity is akin to the idea of perpetual motion by providing energy from the energetic two discrete electric field parts of the attractive graviton. Newton was close to considering how a perpetual motion device could be made by considering that gravity shadowing could in principle be used to create a perpetual motion device. Newton was close but he was a little off the mark. He neglected to consider that gravity itself could be composed of two parts. All gravitons are shadowed or absorbed when they attractively act on matter, but the two parts of the absorption need not be simultaneous. The non-simultaneity of the absorptions of the two parts of gravity is how gravity preferentially transfers rotational kinetic energy to rotating matter (according to the Bessler principle). The faster the matter rotates initially about a horizontal axis means that more rotational kinetic energy is transferred to the matter by the energetic two-part gravitons. The energy acquisition process is limited by rotational friction, which removes rotational kinetic energy from the rotating matter. AEP - 30 Sep 2011 See http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/GravitySummaryNews.txt (19 Mar 2011) which makes reference to John Collins' 1997 book, "Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?", Permo Publications. I think that Bessler figured out what was basically going on with respect to gravity. Newton was trying hard to figure out Bessler's wheel's behavior with respect to gravity. Newton was in part exploring the subtleties of gravity acting upon matter, as affected by geometries and dynamics of other matter. One can see on p. 14 of Collins' 1997 book that Newton wrote something like my following transcription. "Try whither ye weight of a body may be altered by heats or cold by dilation or condensation, beating & powdering, transfering to several places or seveal heights or placing a ligt. or heavy body over it or under it or by precessing magnetisms. Whither bende or its Just spread abroade. Whither a plate flat ways or edg ways is heaviest. Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by refecting or refracting ym, if so a per petuall motion may bee made one of these two ways. The gravity of bodys is as their solidity, because all bodys descend equall spaces in equall times consideration being had to the Resistance of ye airs be" One of Newton's diagrams showed a box-like object placed above half a wheel rotating about a horizontal axis. AEP - 30 Sep 2011 In Newton's statement, he got as far as figuring out that a perpetual motion device using gravity might either be based upon gravity rays being reflected or refracted or absorbed, but he was apparently slightly off the mark. Newton seemed to be looking for a macroscopic effect related to gravity. At least to Newton's credit, he considered that gravity might be made up of discontinuous rays, but he apparently didn't consider the sub-sub-microscopic effect of them stopping by a two-part attractive absorption process often with slight time delays between the two absorption parts. Newton didn't realize that Bessler's ultra low friction mechanical bearing was the enabler that allowed the Bessler principle to be observed in Bessler's rotating wheels. I think that the correct response to one of Newton's considerations is that the plate is generally very slightly heavier flat-wise because edge-wise it absorbs more gravitons coming from below, which gravitons would no longer be available to be absorbed by the matter at the top of the plate placed on its edge. Though we may not be able to measure such a fine effect yet, we are able to measure gravity absorption during a total solar eclipse, which means that the earth would be then slightly lighter or rather less pulled upon by the gravitons coming from the sun. Those gravitons (coming from the sun) used up in attractive pulling on the moon would not be available to possible attractively pull on the earth. AEP - 28 Sep 2011