Sunday, February 10, 2008

Gallileo Gallilei's Biggest Blunder

Blunders, Blunders by the Kilogram

Gallileo has a blunder associated with his name...:) Nobody scapes... One is always partially wrong, despite of being mostly correct...:) Nothing is perfect...

Of course, these are not really blunders. It wasn't like Gallileo or Newton made the incorrect choice between two possible models, in which one was clearly supperior given the data available at the time of the decision.

Newton and Gallileo and even Einstein didn't have access to data that would hint the existence of a better model. It is really not a Blunder at all!!!! Silly people would call the introduction of a constant in an equation a Blunder, but the constant could be zero..>:), thus its addition not only satisfies the homogeneous case but leave space for another scenario. The constant was to be determined experimentally...:) I don't consider that a Blunder..>:)

I consider the introduction of a constant without a physical explanation for it a sleight of hand...:)

What was Gallileo's Biggest Blunder? How bad was it?

Let's say that thanks to Gallileo's Equivalence Principle we were not able to find an existing symmetry between Gravitation and Electromagnetism...:)

Gallileo's Equivalence Principle states that Gravitational Mass and Inertial Mass are the same...:) If one puts together this statement with the often repeated but never thought through statement that an Electron senses both Gravitational and Electric fields , the end result is an expontaneous symmetry breakdown at the beginning of times...:)

My theory states that an Electron (Proton or any charge particle) only senses one interaction - the same interaction (dilaton surfing) that a neutral particle (e.g. Hydrogen atom) senses.

This means that one Kilogram (of inertial mass) of Electrons has no Gravitational Mass...:)

This is a Breakdown of the Gallileo's Equivalence Principle and should be written in BOLD LETTERS

In my theory, Mass has two equivalents - a 4D Displacement Volume Equivalent and a 3D Volume Equivalent.

Using analogy, instead of introducing 4D volumes, strain and stresses, I kept the concept of mass but showed that the 4DMass of an electon is the same as the 4DMass of a Proton and it is equal to the mass of a Hydrogen atom.

Above are the Balls Diagrams for the Electron and Positron. The rotation of the lettering models the Spin 1/2 rotation of the 4D displacement volume associated with the fundamental dilator phases. Four fundamental dilators, each one starting with one of the four phases, correspond to the four basic particles: electron, proton, positron and antiproton.

Positive or Negative (matter or antimatter) are arbitrary phases, thus I define the first Ball as being the one that is in phase with the Hyperspherical Lightspeed Expanding ShockWave Universe.

As you can see, a Proton differs from an Electron just by which of the fundamental dilator phases are in phase with the 3D Universe.

If you think in terms of waves being generated by a shape shifting displacement volume (metric modulation), the metric waves (dilatons) with have an intensity proportional to all the four phases of the fundamental dilator coherence, thus depending upon both the electron phases and the proton phases. This means that the 4DMass is equal to the mass of an Hydrogen Atom. Just in case we have String Theorists in the readership...:) The reason for summing up all phases of the coherences is the result of the coherence being the focus of a reference frame traveling at the speed of light along R - the horospherical reference frame- the radial direction perpendicular to our 3D space. This means that all modulations of the metric are in phase with the traveling waves and add coherently - like voices in a choir...:)

This means that one could write an equation (Gauss Electrostatic Law) for the interaction between charged particles based upon the particles 4D Masses. Under those circumstaces there would be perfect symmetry between a Proton and an Electron and thus Gravitation and Electromagnetism could be written in a single framework. This is what I did in my theory. I introduced the Fat Electron (I used one atomic mass unit for simplicity but later refined the calculations) in my derivation of Electrostatics. The resulting electrostatic force or electrostatic permeability was correct to 0.4% without any adjusting parameters. I gave many possible explanations for the small discrepancy. People can always refined the theory.

Newton's Gravitationa Law states that the interaction between masses is proportional to the produt of masses. The spinning of the fundamental coherence four dimensional displacement volume is such that its overlap with the 3D Universe exists only at 0, pi, 2pi etc phases.

Spin half - that is - the spinning motion has a frequency that is half the tunneling frequency - will result in an stroboscopic view of charged particles. This means that a charge that is negative will always be negative... and vice-versa.

This will also mean that a charge particle senses no Gravitation.

The last part of the Blunder is the recognition that since an electron has an inertial mass different (2000 time smaller) than a proton, then the inertial mass is defined by the overlap between the 4D displacement volume and the 3D space.

If one put together that observation and the Stress-Strain interpretation of Newton's Second Law, one realizes that inertial is a measure of the effort needed to locally deform the Fabric of Space...:) thus proportional to how much Fabric of Space we are talking about...

The amount of Fabric of Space associated with each particle is its footprint on the Shockwave Universe...

I hope it becomes clear that inertial mass and gravitational mass are not the same for charged particles (Fermions if you will..:)

Fermions do not actually produce Gravitation but they field is proportional to their 4D Mass (in analogy to Newton's Gravitational Law)>... Of course, Newton's Gravitational Laws remains the same in a 4D paradigm...:)

The only horrible sideeffect is that we all become twice as fat in 4D than in 3D...:)

Cheers,

MP

ps- some people are hoping to detect some indication of a higher dimensionality by measuring discrepancies between inertial and gravitational masses in a satelite experiment. They are striving to see a 1:10^8 deviation...:) It is a shame...:) There shouldn't be any difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass of neutral matter...>:) If the experiment could measure the 4D mass then the measurement would easily detect a 100% increase in mass...:)

They should be trying to measure the Gravitational force of charged particles instead (a much more difficult endeavour)...