http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/Gravity.txt Date(s): 4 Jun 2010, 5 Jul 2010, 5 Aug 2010, 12 Aug 2010 To view this plain text Internet file, one could right click -> View source, then if possible Format -> Word Wrap ---------- Gravity, Infinite Matter Formation Gravity? Before we ask for a formula for gravity we need to carefully answer the question "What is gravity?" Once we understand the discrete nature of the graviton and how it works, we can begin to formulate estimates of the underlying parameters. We can arrive at the usual continuous approximation formulas of gravity, but we need to begin to understand the limitations of such continuous approximations. AEP - 6-10 May 2010 Charge Not Emitting Single Photon. R. P. Feynman wrote "A single free electron cannot emit one photon because of conservation of energy and momentum, ..." See p. 30 of "Theory of Fundamental Processes" 1961. This analysis (while somewhat correct) avoids the question of "Can a large power source of vast numbers of discrete electric fields be emitted continually (almost continuously) over time by a charge?" Might not each charge be an open door source to power (assuming one can figure out how to harvest the power)? AEP - 10,24 May 2010, 30 Jun 2010 Charge Is Continual Power Source. Each bare charge could be considered an infinite duration source of power. It would be continual but not continuous. Each bare charge gives up a vast flux of discrete electric fields radiating outward at the speed of light from the location where the electric fields left that charge. The electric fields (of one type, coming from just a single sign of bare charge) are unpaired in any single direction. There is nothing static about those discrete electric fields. The formed electric fields point backwards (as indicated by charges responding to them) to the location at which the electric fields were produced (even if the originating charge has since been moved). Charges encountered by those unpaired electric fields have their momenta changed upon absorbing those electric fields (according to the propagation direction of the electric fields or using the ideas that opposite charges attract while same charges repel). In the reference frame of the encountered charge before the electric field is absorbed, the charge afterwards surely has absorbed some discrete energy from the electric field packet, as it is afterwards moving. It would be unrealistic to deny such a transfer of energy. Energy was transferred to that charge and it came from somewhere. AEP - 6-14 May 2010 Fields Not Static. Though it may be convenient to think so, there are no static continuous force fields physically hanging out in space. The forces are due to actual entities acting directly upon other entities. In the case of gravity, there is no static continuous gravitational field that just hangs out in space. Opposite charges (for example within a mass of neutral matter) each continually radiate great fluxes of discrete energy electric (E) field packets which propagate outward from their originating charges at the speed of light, until the E field packets are absorbed by other charges. Surviving unabsorbed E field packets coming from two opposite charges can travel together, as a soliton, until they are eventually (almost always) absorbed by charges opposite from the original opposite charges. Each electric field in a graviton is eventually (almost always) absorbed by a charge opposite in sign from the charge from which it originated. That pair of two E field packets would be a graviton. Electromagnetic radiation can travel together as a soliton or discrete stable packet of energy, given the prime example of the ordinary photon being a soliton or discrete stable packet of electromagnetic radiation traveling together. The ordinary photon has an energy of hf = (Planck's constant) * (frequency of light). AEP - 6-14 May 2010 Gravity Is Weak. Gravity is much much weaker force-wise than that due to pure electric fields traveling by themselves. For two electrons, the relative strength of gravitation attraction to electrical repulsion is 1/(4.17(10^42)) according to p.7-10 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1963). On that page it also says, "Perhaps gravitation and electricity are much more closely related than we think. ... Any theory that contains them both must also deduce how strong the gravity is." Here is a qualitative discussion that explains the great difference in strength. Isolated electric fields only need to travel until they encounter a charge and are absorbed. For absorption by a particular charge, they are only constrained by a single capture cross-section, without any other separate time constraint. Gravitons have more than such a one-part capture constraint. Gravitons have more than a simultaneous two-part capture constraint. AEP - 6-14 May 2010 Calculation Showing Gravity is Weak. Before going on, I should just do a quick calculation to show where Feynman got that above unit-less number, 1/(4.17(10^42)), for the ratio of the gravitation attraction forces to the electrical repulsion forces between two electrons. Ignoring the angular velocities or assuming that all the angular velocities are zero, the magnitude of the gravitation attractive force on one of the electrons is Gmm/(rr). The magnitude of the electrical repulsion force on one of the electrons is ee/((4PiEpsilonZero)(rr)). Since the square of the separation distance, r, appears the same way in both formulas, their ratio does not contain any r factor, so it is just Gmm(4PiEpsilonZero)/(ee) = 1/(4.17(10^42)), using MKS numbers like e = 1.602(10^-19)Coulombs, m = 9.1096(10^-31)kilograms, G = 6.67(10^-11)Newtons meters meters / (kilograms kilograms), and 1/(4PiEpsilonZero) = 8.987(10^9)Newtons meters meters / (Coulombs Coulombs). AEP - 1-3 Jul 2010 Three-part Simultaneous Capture Constraint. Gravitons have a simultaneously invoked three-part simultaneous capture constraint that (C1) the first E field must directly encounter an opposite charge from the charge that originated it (associated with a two dimensional capture cross-section), (C2) the second E field must directly encounter an opposite charge from the charge that originated it (also associated with a two dimensional capture cross-section), and (C3) the time between the absorptions of the E field must be according to the time difference according to the origin to the electric fields (corrected by any asymmetric lingering delays of the fields during their prior traveling). If these three simultaneous capture constraints are not all met, then the graviton will just pass on through nearly transparently (except for possibly effects associated with lingering delays associated with probing the matter being passed through). As the capture cross-sections are two dimensional, each of those constraints could be considered as two constraints. Ignoring the splitting out of the capture cross-sections, the three-way simultaneous constraints and the simultaneous formation constraints/conditions (mentioned below) qualitatively account for gravity being so very much weaker than pure unpaired E fields being absorbed by charges. AEP - 6-15 May 2010 Five One-Dimensional Capture Constraints. Since each of the capture cross-section constraints for an E field being captured by a charge is two dimensional, each of those cross-sections could be considered as two one-dimensional capture constraints. That means there could be five one-dimensional constraints for a graviton being captured by the appropriate opposite charge pair namely: two one-dimensional capture constraints by one charge, two one-dimensional capture constraints by the other charge, and a timing constraint corresponding to the time between capture of the E fields. AEP - 1 July 2010 Five Formation Constraints/Conditions. The strength of the gravitational field (relative to the greatly unconstrained electrical fields) is also constrained by the formation properties of the graviton itself. With respect to the formation of gravitons in the originating matter, there are simultaneous constraints/conditions on candidate E fields for them to be allowed to form into paired soliton solutions. (F1) the two candidate E fields must be close in one angle, (F2) the two candidate E fields must be close in the orthogonal angle, (F3) the two candidate E fields must be close enough in time, (F4) the two candidate E fields must be close enough in spatial offset in one dimension (in the plane perpendicular to the direction of the graviton), and (F5) the two candidate E fields must be close enough in spatial offset in the orthogonal dimension (in the plane perpendicular to the direction of the graviton). AEP - 14-15 May 2010, 1 Jul 2010 Comparative Constraints Rough Estimation. Again, suppose that the three capture constraints are broken out by single dimensions into five capture constraints (since each capture cross-section is a two dimensional constraint). There would be five formation constraints for gravitons. Bare or unpaired E fields would not be constrained by any of the graviton formation constraints. The bare or unpaired E fields would be constrained by one of the graviton formation constraints, namely C1 (associated with the capture of the first and only E field) which could be broken out into two different dimensional constraints. That is there are ten single dimensional constraints for the two-part gravitons relative to two single dimensional constraints for the electric fields alone. This means that there are eight extra single dimensional constraints beating away on the strength of the gravitons relative to the strength of the electric fields alone. I don't know what those eight constraint conditional probabilities are but in my ignorance to do a very crude "back of the envelope" sort of calculation after the fact, one might ask approximately what they would be, if they were all equal (and ignoring one or two small extra factors that might pop out because of say assumptions regarding the numbers of fundamental charges present in the particle under consideration). Going back to Feynman's calculation (for the relative strength of gravitational attraction to electrical repulsion for the electron), just set it equal to p^8. That is 1/(4.17(10^42)) = p^8 where p could be a representative conditional probability associated with one of the eight purely graviton constraints. So we have (1/417.)^(.5*.5*.5) = p(10^5) = .47 or p = .47(10^(-5)) or p ~ .000005 ignoring small extra factors. AEP - 14-15 May 2010, 1 July 2010 Constraint Analysis. This suggests that the constraints are quite tight or rather exact with respect to formation of two-part gravitons and the acceptable capture of such two-part gravitons. To me this potentially begins to take the shape of a reasonable theory. We just need to figure out what the real parameters and constraints are. The point is we should now not be going around saying that we just cannot imagine or determine why the gravitational force is so much weaker than the electrical force in magnitude and sign. It is so much weaker because the graviton is composed of two electric field parts traveling together as a soliton. The E fields need to be very close to each other to form a graviton and during capture by two opposite fundamental charges within matter. Presumably future accurate actual calculations will show which values of p need to be larger and which need to be smaller. Maybe there are other constraints or conditions that I did not consider that will be clear to people when we start to more carefully think about the problem. The constraints probably do not sharply fall off with respect to the constraining parameters. Going back to cross-sections may be more reasonable as they are more likely to be circular in shape rather than square in shape. AEP - 14-15 May 2010 The two opposite E fields are directly on top of each other (very closely aligned), but they can sample ahead by their wavefunction nature so they know what is coming up. It is like they "know" whether or not the geometry/dynamics is/are proper so that both will be able to be absorbed. The up coming higher "elevation" fundamental charge is quite near to the lower "elevation" fundamental charge. AEP - 12 Aug 2010 Highly Local Creation and Destruction of Gravitons. Because of the fine accuracy of the constraints, it would seem reasonable that E fields from different particles would not likely combine to form a graviton. The formation of the gravitons would tend to be a highly local property. The capture of the gravitons would also seem to be highly local and especially since the graviton would need to be able to effectively look ahead to see what was coming up with the later absorption of the second E field. It would seem that information could flow between events connected by a photon, for an entire quantum situation. It should come as absolutely no surprise that when Bessler showed Karl the Landgrave of Hess-Kassel the inside of the Kassel wheel, Karl could not see anything funny going on at a fine quantum graviton level. Karl could only see internal weights hitting the inside of the wheel and the wheel with the help of the weights picking up angular speed. All the masses within the wheel contributed to the acquisition of rotational kinetic energy by the Bessler principle. Some masses (with greater angular speed) inside one of Bessler's wheels could have contributed more power than other masses. AEP - 15 May 2010, 2,5 Jul 2010 Charge Considerations. The issue of the number of fundamental charges within a particle was ignored above. For the case of the electron, it would not be realistic to have N(-) = 1 and N(+) = 0 (meaning one fundamental negative charge and no fundamental positive charges) as this would not allow there to be opposite charges within the electron and so that would not allow a two-part graviton to have any gravitational force on the electron. The next possibility that one might want to consider is N(-) = 2 and N(+) = 1 (meaning two fundamental negative charges and one fundamental positive charge). That might have introduced an extra factor of two for graviton capture as there would be two opposite charge pairs (while for electric repulsion between electrons the net charges are still the same). That factor of two was previously ignored. There are many other cases of fundamental charges that could be considered. I will just make one more comment about the no gravity case or rather the case of N(-) = 1 and N(+) = 0. It might not be completely zero gravity with the electron slightly moving around on the Dirac sea might for very short times release some positive and negative fundamental charges. During those very short time periods, there might be some graviton capture by those stirred up opposite charge pairs (with gravitons coming from short opposite charges associated with the source electron). They would be extremely weak relative to the ordinary electrical forces repulsion which would be operating off of the same total net charges. This is just another possibility that I thought that I would mention with respect to why gravitation is so much weaker than the electrical forces. AEP - 15 May 2010 Parameters. Some of the underlying parameters associated with a "formula" for gravity might be (1) the number of fundamental smallest charges (many opposite) in a proton, (2) the number of fundamental smallest charges in an electron, (3) the E field capture cross-section by a smallest charge opposite from the charge that originated the E field, (4) the temporal offset bound between the capture of the two E fields, (5) the rate of emission of E fields by the smallest originating charge, (6) the impulse strength of each discrete E field emitted by a charge, (7) the temporal bounds between the two E fields with respect to graviton formation, (8) the angle off between opposite E field travel directions, with respect to graviton formation, and (9) the spatial offset bounds between opposite E fields, with respect to graviton formation. A lower bound for (1) the number of charges within a proton might be the mass of the proton divided by the mass of an electron. The parameters (3) and (4) for a given capturing smallest charge could be together considered a space-time capture volume with units of (area)(time). These parameters working together would need to replicate the usual gravitation formulae in their measured domains. We can think of the parallel and antiparallel E fields as being right on top of each other. We can think of the fundamental opposite charges that the gravitons are absorbed by as separated by very small amount spatially. AEP - 6-15 May 2010, 2 Jul 2010 Bessler Principle Rationale. The Bessler principle works because for a pair of charges rotating in a circle about a horizontal axis, after the lower charge is pulled down the higher elevation charge continues to rotate around the circle for a little while before it too is pulled down by the other part of the graviton that was traveling vertically upward at the speed of light. The greater the initial angular speed means the greater is the internal rotational kinetic energy acquired by absorbing the two part graviton. AEP - 6-13 May 2010 Gravity Theory Must Predict Bessler Principle. As far as I am aware this is the only theory of gravity that predicts the Bessler principle. The Bessler principle is the basis for explaining a large number of physical phenomena, observations, and tests. These things include: (1) how the solar corona gets its power (highly rotating nuclear ground states consisting of protons rotating about horizontal axes pick up greater rotational kinetic energy from two-part gravitons), (2) how the Sun gets its primary power, (3) how this Earth gets its primary heat source (so that it is not a frozen ice ball) given it has long been surrounded in almost all directions by a very cold background temperature of space being 3 degrees Kelvin except for a Sun-sized spot of about 6000 degrees Kelvin, which averages out to slightly above the 3 degrees Kelvin (cold enough to liquefy helium), (4) how railroads can move a ton of freight with 436 miles / gallon of fuel (see CSX.com), (5) how the 1968 McKinley low friction demonstration worked (a modern day low friction Bessler's wheel), (6) how Bessler's four wheels (at Gera, Draschwitz, Merseburg, and Kassel) worked, (7) how snowflakes are made, (8) how "cold" fusion reactions can be explained using the interaction of highly rotating nuclear ground states, (9) how Coral Castle was built, (10) how the ancient yin-yang cylinders worked, (11) how the Papp engines worked using some hydrogen with chemically non-reactive larger rotationally-moderating nuclear ground states, and (12) how the GEET reactors work. For more information on (11) and (12), see PappEngine.txt from my main site. There are many more evidences for the Bessler principle. If people use GEET reactors powered by gravitons, I plead with them to only rip apart molecules and not rip apart nuclei such as oxygen which we depend upon to breathe. Highly rotating nuclear ground states composed of multiple nucleons can be ripped apart by acquiring enough rotational kinetic energy from the two part gravitons. If people can not explain the above phenomena, then they should not complain about a principle predicated upon the two-part graviton that can explain these phenomena. AEP - 6-13 May 2010 Einstein's Relativity Incorrect. A competing complicated yet deficient explanation of gravity is based on the general theory of relativity. The general theory of relativity (so called theory of gravity) does not provide an explanation for the Bessler principle. The better explanation is the one that better accounts for the experimental observations. We can forget the special theory of relativity if the Hertz field equations are more accurate than the Maxwell field equations (which were relativistically transformed by Einstein). If one starts off with the incorrect electromagnetic field transformation, one is not going to arrive at the correct relativistic transformation. Einstein in 1954 wrote "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." See Infinite Energy #87 p.21 (2009). Thomas Phipps showed that the Hertz field equations relativistically transform with a Galilean transformation. For the correct relativistic transformations the number of discrete charges, E fields, gravitons, and other photons need to be invariant to the different observers. There are not separate B field entities fixed in space, as they are likely just a manifestation of the discrete E field entities coming from moving charges. AEP - 6-15 May 2010 Moving Fields Discrete. There is actually nothing at all continuous or static about the electric "field" or the gravitational "field". They both consist of individual entities that propagate at the speed of light in pure vacuum. AEP - 6-7 May 2010 Range Dependence. Space opens up as (r*r)=(r^2), for r being the distance from an originating point. Given an originating point at one mass producing gravitons, only the unabsorbed gravitons expand out into space as (r*r). This means that the strength of gravity would diminish faster than 1/(r*r) because of the gravitons that are absorbed. Each graviton is discontinuous and is eventually absorbed with a large enough separation of r, say either by traveling through enough matter or by eventually pulling down on a photon. AEP - 6-13 May, 5 Jul 2010 Gravity Not Conservative. The force of gravity on a particle is not the negative gradient of a potential. If it were so, then taking the line integral of the force about a closed path would by Stokes' theorem give a surface integral of the curl of a negative gradient over the surface bounded by the closed path. The curl of a gradient is zero so the integrals would all be zero. Gravity would be conservative, if such were the case, but gravity is discrete (not continuous), time dependent, and angular velocity dependent, because of the time delay between the invocation of its two parts. The lower charge is pulled down before the higher charge is pulled down. A mass "particle" no matter how small can rotate. The charges within the mass "particle" also can rotate about axes that are for example somewhat perpendicular to the direction that a graviton comes from. Since gravity pulls down first on the lower rotating charge before it pulls down on the higher elevation rotating charge, this allows energy to be nonconservatively acquired from the two part graviton. Gravity is not energy conservative. If the smallest mass particles could not rotate and if the opposite charges therein could not rotate about each other, then one might argue that the two-part electrical graviton is conservative, but such is not the case. AEP - 17 May 2010 Universal Accelerated Expansion. As each photon of starlight goes out in space it carries linear momentum with it of p=(h/L) = (Planck's constant) / (wavelength of light). When this photon eventually hits something it delivers momentum. This creates photon pressure that causes the "universe" to expand. As long as there is enough photon pressure (and pressure from cosmic rays) relative to the gravitational attraction, then the universe would expand and increase its rate of expansion. There are plenty of stars producing photons with little diminution of their light output, because their light output primarily depends on the Bessler principle (not on hot fusion). As the gravitons are all eventually absorbed, then they will often eventually contribute via the Bessler principle to matter with increased angular speed or to the creation of "new" matter often out in interstellar space. AEP - 6-13 May 2010 ------- Formation of New Matter. As each photon crosses the Dirac sea of space, there is a continual creation and disappearance of opposite charges. These opposite charges may be pulled "down" so that starlight is bent by gravity. If some of these opposite temporary new charges are rotating about their center with an axis somewhat perpendicular to the graviton that pulls down on them, then they would acquire some energy from the graviton which extra energy would not disappear as the photon goes away, retaining its own energy, hf = (Planck's constant) * (frequency of light). There would be a new pair of charges (equal and opposite) rotating about each other. This would suggest that a pre-type of matter has been created. Another possibility for the creation of the pre-type-matter might be that the opposite charges temporarily liberated by the photon's passage might be pulled down by the two parts of a graviton, thus creating a cold non-rotating type of pre-matter that might only be rotated later by photons and gravitons. I don't know why pre-type-matter formation would be favored over anti-pre-type-matter formation, unless the ordinary photons somehow contain the "genetic" hidden variable information that they came from matter instead of anti-matter (or alternatively they contain a quantum connection to their last interaction with matter). Such pre-types of matter could later acquire greater angular speed from gravitons by the Bessler principle. Such pre-types of matter (possibly with similar angular velocities to provide Coulomb shielding) could accrete and so condense into larger masses until eventually stable protons and electrons are formed. This idea of matter formation would account for the interstellar "dark" matter, the dark matter would cause the night sky to be black despite the vast numbers of galaxies/stars, and could explain why interstellar space is so cold (3 degrees Kelvin). That new matter (hydrogen atoms) would be at thermal equilibrium, and the gravitons and photons would be coming from nearly random directions, which would not allow them to preferentially acquire a large angular speed about any particular axis. There would be no dominant magnetic field. The rubbing of hydrogen atoms/molecules would also prevent them from acquiring preferential angular velocities. One wouldn't need a fancy wormhole theory to form new matter, as just having a Bessler principle would make sense. The idea of infinite matter goes along well with the words, "There is no end of matter; There is no end to space;" within the interesting Hymn 284 "If You Could Hie to Kolob". Also see Moses 1:4,33. The hymn also contains the words, "No man has found 'pure space,' ..." AEP - 10-19 May, 5 Jul 2010 No Pure Space. Suppose that there existed some portion of the universe that had no matter in it. Then starlight from long enduring distant stars would be able to travel through it without being blocked by matter. Gravitons radiating nearly isotropically from previously formed matter existing elsewhere in the universe would get there. This would be a recipe for the formation of new matter there. There would not remain pure space there with the formation of such new matter. AEP - 3 Jun 2010 Larger Mass Formation. I would think it unlikely that larger nuclei could be formed out in interstellar space by rotating atoms with similar internal angular velocities and combining (with charge shielding due to their similar internal angular velocities) into rotating nuclear ground states. I suspect that the Coulomb repulsion would be too great for such to happen much. An alternative means of compressed fusion would be needed, as with compressed-rotational-shielded (CRS) fusion. See an earthly example of such fusion in, "Some Thoughts on a Simple Mechanism for the 2H + 2H -> 4He Cold Fusion Reaction" by Alden Park, Fusion Technology, American Nuclear Society, Vol. 24, No. 3, November 1993, pp. 319-323. The alternative to open space fusion might be that larger nuclei could be formed within massive rapidly rotating stars. Rotating nuclear ground states might be more readily combined under pressure, if they had larger angular speeds to provide more Coulomb shielding by electrons being thrown between them by their nearly common rotations. Such rapidly rotating star systems could go to super nova, because by the Bessler principle, their rapidly rotating nuclear ground states could pick up even larger amounts of angular speed, which would cause even larger amounts of angular speed (rotational kinetic energy) to be explosively acquired. The super nova explosion could cause a great interaction of highly rotating nuclear ground states which could form new larger mass nuclei and shoot out this material rapidly outward in space. AEP - 10-14 May 2010 If something moves and reproduces itself, it should be considered to be living. AEP - 19 May 2010 Living Universe. Like an agelessly-young living organism, the universe moves as it expands and reproduces itself in varying forms, accelerating in its growth. The potent sown seeds of gravitons in their deaths can give rise to new matter, which darkly veil the starry bright diamonds of the night sky. Even the starlight and the gravitons are not wasted in the vast economy that is God's loving guidance. The birth of ultra-fine matter comes from veritable graves of gravitons. The new condensed matter clothing space is patiently harvested into long-enduring radiant-iridescent blossoms of stars and galaxies, with this living process perpetually repeating itself for eternity. For every star that finally dies, there are myriads of new stars born of it. Even the nuclear-ash dry bones from a dead star provide massive nuclei needed for planting and watering new living earths and watched worlds. AEP - 11-15 May 2010 Eternal Living Families. An accelerated-expanding living universe would become an isolated, lonely place were it not for such things as eternal living families. An accelerated-expanding living universe would suggest that each individual has more than a infinite worth bound, according to the potential that the individual can somehow directly or indirectly modify the unbounded growth of their portion of the infinite living universe. Do we want to happily associate/interact/communicate with our eternal living families in the eternities or would we rather not and thus by our own choices to some degree be isolated, left behind, and not progress, as the universe accelerates its expansion and growth? God wants us to be as happy as possible, within the constraints that we place upon ourselves by our own choices. D&C 20:17 indicates "... that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, ... the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;" D&C 76:112 shows "... worlds without end." You might want to talk with the missionaries, if you would like to increase the scope of your understanding of eternal things or to better follow our Exemplar/Relative, for your own benefit and eternal happiness. AEP - 19 May 2010 - 3 Jun 2010 Before Stars and Galaxies. Before matter collection to form stars and galaxies, angular velocity (of small angular speed) could be somewhat shared by (1) atomic/molecular frictional touching, (2) some radiations of the rotating magnetic moments of the hydrogen, and (3) photons scattered off which would tend to have a curl source of angular momentum, thus possibly spreading this angular momentum outward by photon linear momentum. Radiations going beyond a pre-collection region would not be sharing that angular momentum with that region but might share with regions beyond. The loss of rotational kinetic energy would help explain the very low 3 degree Kelvin background temperature of space. AEP - 10-14 May 2010 Stars and Galaxies. Somewhat flat or planar regions in space with matter of angular velocity perpendicular to the plane would tend to have more angular speed in that direction by the gravitons emitted and absorbed in that flat region according to the Bessler principle. The increased angular speed would especially apply after the matter is collected, so that by continued touching they can share a common angular speed. The flat regions of similar angular velocity could result in stable spiral galaxies as massive regions within form stars. The angular speed could be moderated by friction as the materials are collected. Vast numbers of new solar systems and galaxies could be formed. The stars formed would not easily run out of matter, as they do not depend upon fusion for primary power. They only depend upon fusion for the production of larger nuclei. AEP - 10-31 May 2010 No Heat Death of Universe. The theory is wrong that the universe just keeps increasing in entropy until it dies a constant temperature "heat" death. That theory ignores the idea that charges are continual sources of discrete energetic electric fields. Much order (or low entropy) is created in the universe from the absorption surviving very-closely-aligned electric fields coming from opposite charges, as these "so called" gravitons are asymmetrically absorbed by charge pairs (first encountered charge absorbed first) rotating with various components of angular velocity with respect to the gravitons. Angular speed about the graviton-relative horizontal axis is the most increased for those charges with the most prior angular speed. Because of the turner being so asymmetrically turned by the Bessler principle (due to the two discrete electric field parts of the graviton), there will never be a uniform temperature heat death of the universe. The background temperature of space will remain a very cold roughly 3 degrees Kelvin, as pre-matter may be created from some of the energy of the gravitons acting on the charges temporarily liberated from the Dirac sea, by photons (which photons indirectly attained their somewhat large energies long ago from multiple gravitons asymmetrically acting on preferentially rotating matter). Such pre-matter and condensed matter (protons and electrons) are very cold because of (1) slight friction interaction of such material (not allowing much preferential rotations in such material), (2) loss of energy by magnetic dipole radiation from rotating nuclei of hydrogen atoms, and (3) no direction of rotation favored during absorption of gravitons out in the open space of the expanding living universe (with accelerated expansion created by the linear momentum outward pressure of the many photons, when the photons are eventually absorbed). There will remain glorious coronas around infinitely many living stars, with some portions of which being about one million degrees Kelvin. The matter in the universe is infinite and will so continue to increase without bound. Twice infinity is infinite. The short words about the universe regarding entropy are that gravitons allow non-preferred rotations to remain non-preferred while preferred rotations are enhanced. What actually is happening is nothing at all like a pessimistic heat death theory of the universe nor will it ever be, as that limited thinking entropy-based theory is flawed at its very foundation by the asymmetric turner being turned. AEP - 1-2 Jun 2010 Second Law of Thermodynamics is Partial. The statement "The entropy of a thermally isolated system never decreases." (p. 17 Kerson Huang "Statistical Mechanics") is fundamentally flawed since no portion of the universe can be isolated from having a small amount of heat added to it because of greatly penetrating energetic two-part gravitons. I suppose that if the kings, knights, squires, and soldiers protecting the second law of thermodynamics can build a wall strong enough to keep out gravitons, then they might be able to apply the second law of thermodynamics therein but would not gravitons be coming off of such a wall? {Not even a black hole could keep gravitons from penetrating within it. The gravitons could red shift away any photon trying to escape, but I suspect that very large numbers of the energetic gravitons themselves could escape, as geometries would rarely if ever be proper for capture.} Until such a fictitious wall is built, then we should change the second law of thermodynamics from the status of a "law" to a status of an "often useful approximation". Sears' "An Introduction to Thermodynamics, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and Statistical Mechanics" p. 111 emphasized that "... the statements above apply to isolated systems only." Because of gravitons, there are no completely isolated systems in the universe. Any common sense associated with the second law of thermodynamics is only partial when it comes to gravitons. For an incomplete list of cases where the second law of thermodynamics does not fully hold, consider many items within the following paragraph entitled "No Big Bang." Defenders of the second law of thermodynamics would need to refute, deny, or properly explain all those anomalies. Coming up with exotic theories and denial of existing data have been the traditional approaches, but the proper experimental basis of physics will win out. AEP - 3-4, 26 Jun 2010 No Big Bang. I think that the concept of a big bang is a big falsehood. Would the big bang explain the formation of new dark matter in space, the accelerated expansion of the universe, and what preceded the big bang? A big collapse preceding the big bang makes about as much sense as nothing. We don't need separate exotic-false theories such as the big bang, worm holes, general relativity, heat death theory of the universe, etc. to explain a very tiny subset of such apparent phenomena/anomalies as expansion of the universe, accelerated expansion of the universe, formation of dark matter in space, background temperature of space, behavior of superfluids with low rotational friction, rotation of galaxies, super novas, ratio of numbers of "living" stars (not primarily depending on hot fusion) to dying stars, solar corona at a temperature of 1,000,000 degrees Kelvin, other planets not being frozen, snowflake formation, increased rotation of astronaut coins in space, more radiation from unfrozen Earth atmosphere (because of rotating nuclear ground-states) than just preferential Rayleigh blue-sky-daylight scattering (with no such scattering at night), Coral Castle construction, Egyptian pyramid construction, 436 mpg for moving a ton of railroad freight, nearly speed independent mpg of cars despite frictional forces greatly increasing with speed, attitude dependence on Ranque tubes, Bessler's wheels, Bessler's huge separate numbers of perpetual motion devices supposedly built on separate principles (but all actually using the common Bessler principle and Bessler's low friction bearings), spring 1968 McKinley Jr. High School low friction demonstration in Albuquerque, the Minto wheel, paddle boat efficiencies dependent on wheel mass, water mill/turbine relative efficiencies, relative efficiencies of massive wheel wind mills/turbines, high performance jet engines, tornado formation, wind shear, turbulence about horizontal axes, lightning at storm fronts, ball lightning, updrafts in clouds, the Gray motor, the ancient-forgotten yin-yang-symbol cylinder with two "dragon fire" hot spots on each end, ancient Chinese heavy horizontal-axis-rotating devices, extra energy efficiencies of motorcycles containing massive flywheels rotating about horizontal axes, blue light from ultrasonic cavitation, flame from single electrode of high frequency (IE #51, p. 34), meltdowns or explosions of contained gases in microwave ovens, different nuclear channel strengths with very highly rotating nuclei in so called cold fusion, horizontal-magnetic-field confinement leakage currents, Papp engines, GEET reactors, etc. Maybe the reader can add to these phenomena (and if the reader can't think of any more, then I suggest that the reader read back issues of IE and ponder many anomalies addressed therein). What are the competing explanations for these many phenomena? If people can get useful information out of separate exotic theories, then it might make sense to keep them. I have not seen much of value come out of the separate unrelated exotic theories. I think we only need a simple explanation of the Bessler principle used in many different contexts to explain many otherwise unexplained or poorly explained anomalies. We should keep Occam's Razor in mind, as we consider the correct situation. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. As war was waged against the Bessler wheels and the Bessler principle nearly three hundred years ago and has continued since then, we need to call a truce, stop attacking the truth and embrace the truth, for our own benefit. AEP - 11 May 2010 - 3,26 Jun 2010, 5 Jul 2010 Confront Lies Directly. Somewhat like the little boy who bluntly spoke the truth, I refuse to lie and say that the emperor looks quite fashionable in his new clothes. It is time for us to admit that the physics-emperor is stark naked and needs to be covered by actual truth-clothes. With physics rejecting the experimental method, so as to cling to false theories, it becomes more of a club or a false religion. True religion depends on the experimental method in part by getting the correct information directly from God, as prayers are answered. Physics needs to embrace the truth by putting on the clothes of experimentation truth and not deny that which is observed. AEP - 25 May 2010 - 3,26 Jun 2010 Truth Endures. I am trying to help find the truth. Truth is not relative. God knows the truth but do we? If I make errors, please forgive my errors. If you notice an error that I have made, you could let me know through my Bessler wheel site email (LA4Park@iwvisp.com) and tell your friends what you have found that is closer to the truth. Alden E. Park - 11-12 May 2010 ---------- AEP = Alden Eugene Park B = magnetic "field" CRS = compressed-rotational-shielded D&C = Doctrine and Covenants E = electric "field" intensity e = electron charge = 1.602(10^-19)Coulombs f = frequency of light G = gravitational constant = 6.67(10^-11)Newtons meters meters / (kilograms kilograms) GEET = Global Environmental Energy Technology H = hydrogen He = helium h = Planck's constant IE = Infinite Energy L = wavelength of light MKS = meters, kilograms, seconds m = mass of electron = 9.1096(10^-31)kilograms mpg = miles per gallon 1/(4PiEpsilonZero) = 8.987(10^9)Newtons meters meters / (Coulombs Coulombs) p. = page pp. = pages ---------- Use Back on browser to return to Main or go to http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/ (after exiting, if in "View source" mode).