## Brans-Dicke Theory

Posted: October 28, 2011 in Physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans-Dicke_theory

Where do the experts come down on this? I like that it takes volume into account. I wish I could read more about it.

This paper is interesting also.
On Dynamics of Brans–Dicke Theory of Gravitation
Hossein Farajollahi Department of Physics, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
Mehrdad Farhoudi and Hossein Shojaie Department of Physics, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., Evin, Tehran 19839, Iran
(Dated: June 9, 2011)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.0910v2.pdf

## 2,000-Year-Old Supernova Mystery Solved By NASA Telescopes –Please note the term Cavity

Posted: October 25, 2011 in Physics

http://news.yahoo.com/2-000-old-supernova-mystery-solved-nasa-telescopes-203402466.html
My earlier posts about closed volumes and an implosion could explain the cavity.

## Great Video on the Hubble Site

Posted: October 24, 2011 in Physics

http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/hubblecast43a/
Makes you wonder what would forces the light from both ends. Just mass creating the curvature of spacetime would make it seem to me that nothing should escape. But if the force of a closed volume effecting spacetime could take into account an implosion plus a tunneling effect of the spinning then it might make more sense.

I am trying to create a game/visualization and I have light traveling through spacetime along the curve around the mass just like you would expect with the gravitational lensing equation
So I am then trying to see what would happen if the Mass shoots up as I would expect for a super massive black hole. But to me the light would travel/bend further away due to the gravitational lensing. If the curvature was a result of a function of the closed volume(x,y,z,t), and there was an implosion I would expect to see the light curving inward. I could imagine over the delta of t that x,y,z could even over shoot equilibrium and become negative. Has light been conclusively shown to curve farther away from the center of a black hole as you would expect with a gravitation lensing effect base solely on mass? I really appreciate you taking the time.

## Calling All Crazies and Hopefully Some Open Minded Geniuses to put us Straight

Posted: October 24, 2011 in Physics

I do not mind being wrong but from what I have seen over the last few months is that there are so many really smart people out there that are unable to even imagine that something they have read in an old text book could possibly be wrong. I started a new word press site http://groupsourcedscience.wordpress.com To hopefully get a few more crazies out there to post science postulates and axioms that may have been used to create questionable established science. My new hobby is to create an Object Oriented Universe. I would love to create a game/visualization to put together all this. Ideally we would keep it as close to the actual establishment of a theory based on postulates. And at it’s heart will be providing possible alternatives to questionable postulates. If we are lucky maybe even common sense could play a role.

## First Draft of a Pseudo Universe in Object Oriented View

Posted: October 21, 2011 in Physics

I have really enjoyed my brain storming with Jacky. I hope to continue my dialog with him. Please go to his sight at http://www.higgs-boson.org/ While he is focusing on the micro aspects of Closed Volumes I think I will give it a go in the Macro world. I have asked him about what I have posted here and he was nice enough to give me the following corrections.

Just a word about volume and mass.
I think that you must separate closed volumes from mass. Here are the mainlines.
In my theory (which needs to be verified), apparent volumes, those we see, are made of:
1/ closed volumes, that deform spacetime. The latter exerts a pressure on the surface and the mass effect can be extracted from that pressure,
2/ Open volumes (a vacuum), that doesn’t deform spacetime and which have no pressure, therefore no mass.
So, the curvature of spacetime is not made by mass but by closed volumes.
On a mathematical point of view, we have two relations:
1/ M = f(closed volumes)
2/ Curvature of spacetime = f(closed volumes)
By association, indeed, we have
Curvature of spacetime = f(mass)
but this assertion is correct only on a mathematical point of view.
To explain phenomena with simple words, you must say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curvature of spacetime is fonction of closed volumes <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
(not function of mass, even if on a mathematical point of view this is identical).
So, you must exclude the word “Mass” of your text, but having in mind that the mass is itself function of closed volumes.
We have the same thinking about energy.
Energy comes from a closed volume which diseappears. But since a closed volume has a direct relationship with mass, we could say as Einstein : Mass = energy.
This assertion is correct on a mathematical point of view, and it is also correct in reality, but to explain phenomena, we must proceed in two steps:
1/ Energy = f(closed volumes)
2/ Mass = f(closed volumes)
Here also, by association, you get Mass = f(Energy) but this assertion is correct only from a mathematical point of view and in reality, of course, but to deeply understand phenomena, you must proceed in two steps, as previously explained.
I think you understand what I say, but I can give you a last example:
1/ Extra speed in cars causes accidents
2/ Extra speed causes an increase of fuel consumption
On a mathematical basis, there is a relationship between accidents and fuel consumption, and you can write: accidents = f(fuel consumption), but to understand phenomena, you can’t say
Fuel consumption causes accidents…

Any ideas or comments or assistance would be greatly appreciated. But here is where I would like to go.

I really think that fully understanding black holes and their effect on space-time goes along way to proving closed volumes not mass effects space-time. The current effect of gravitational warping and lensing pushes light away. For the mass to be pulling in the light like it is currently explained with black hole theory in addition to being pushed away like it has been proven with Einstein Lensing is a strange dichotomy. An imploding closed volume makes much more sense to me. So if we can prove closed volumes at the macro level we could then move down to the micro level and see if that fixes what Einstein could not explain. I do agree about the language of the curvature being a function of closed volumes but I think the function needs and can be explained through the proven curvature calculation modified for closed volumes. If this at all pans out I like the idea of scaling it down to particles. And hopefully the fact that particles seem to appear only where they are observed will be a function of the fact that in order to observe, a mass needs to be applied. And at the lowest level it just may be the energy converting to mass due to the observation introducing mass. Which makes the object theory with closed volumes seem theoretically possible.

I really appreciate being able to brain storm with all of you.

So we have a very draft pseudo code for Universal. It is VERY VERY… draft.

public object Universe()
{

private time begin;
private time current;
private SpeedofLight c;
private Gravity G;

public collection[] UniversalStuff[];
public relationship(UniversalStuff[] A,(UniversalStuff[] B);

}

public Object UniversalStuff()
{

private time begin;
private time end;
private object parent;
private object medium;
private gravity g;
private RelationalSpeedofLight c;
private UniversalStuff[] children[];

public UniversalStuff()
{
}
public UniversalStuff(UniversalStuff Parent)
{
parent = Parent;
}

public number Mass(number time)
{
return getMass(time);
}
public number KineticEnergy(number time)
{
return getKineticEnergy(time);
}
{
}
public number PotentialEnergy(number time)
{
return getPotentialEnergy(time);
}
public number Volume(object medium, number time)
{
return getVolume(medium, time);
}
public number Density(object medium,number time)
{
return getMass(time)/getVolume(medium,time);
}
public matrix(x,y,z) Location(number time)
{
return matrix(x,y,z) getLocation(time);
}
public force ClosedVolume(number time)
{
matrix location = getLocation(time);
return getClosedVolume(location, time);
}
public number SpaceTimeCurvature(number time)
{
return functionSTC(getClosedVolume(time));
}

}

## Faster Than Light Particles? Not So Fast, Some Say from AP

Posted: October 20, 2011 in Physics

I read this a few days ago and it seems fair. But right or wrong these are the same guys that have been looking for the God Particle for over 25 years. I am pretty sure that whole thing was peer reviewed as well. It will start getting more interesting after CERN is up to full strength. And for the cost I sure hope they find out something that we did not even imagine. Now that would make it worth the time and money.

## An Object Oriented Universe

Posted: October 14, 2011 in Physics

Coming from a programming background I can’t help but wonder if the Universe is Object Oriented? Space time being the 4 dimensional fabric and Mass being it’s primary Object. And instead of Energy being its own object/class it is just one of many attributes(sub class) of Mass. Without Mass there is no Energy. In fact without Mass you can not even detect or create Energy. So instead of making them equivalent and separate we should start to look at creating a more robust Class of Mass that takes into effect all possible forms of Energy as well as other attributes such as velocity, composition, size etc… Looks like its time to break out the C# Xbox 360 libraries.

10/16/2011 I just sent an email to Jacky JEROME the author of the http://www.higgs-boson.org/ site. I really like the way he thinks. I have what is probably a stupid question but I look forward to his response. As I start to develop my first game/visualization I want to mimic the effect of light bending around an object in space time. As I see it it looks like the light moves away from the closed volume. Who knows maybe his answer will get me to fully understand closed volumes versus mass.  But for now it made me question why wouldn’t light bend farther away from a black hole instead of falling into it. Is it possible black holes are tears in space time. Light’s version of a a sonic boom.

10/18/2011 OK after asking Jacky JEROME about his theory I started to think about how I would write code to show how it works. And he has offered to help me get it straight.  I think I may have helped him prove he is right. Normally light bends around(away from)  celestial objects. This would be counter intuitive to thinking that gravity would bend light inwards at a black holes if it was the effect of mass. But if space-time is actually effected by closed volume like Jacky says it would make much more sense that a volume collapsing onto itself would create the required warp in space-time to force light inward. If it were just an effect of gravity and mass I would imagine light would not bend inwards. And since all the smart people tell me light has no mass what would the gravity be acting on anyway.

10/20/2011 I really think I need to just start coding. Jacky’s idea of closed volume is very interesting to me. He states it as f(x,y,z,t).  And since volume is relational to its medium I want to understand whether gravitational lensing is based on mass or a function of volume or both.  If an imploding star’s mass increases the effect of gravitational lensing should increase as the mass increases. But instead if the light is drawn inward toward the center like I would expect it to be then it is a function of a decreasing  f(x,y,z,t) which would allow for the light to be forced inward. And if the energy of the implosion is so great I would expect x,y,z to over shoot equilibrium and move negative. And as recent as 2004 Stephen Hawking stated he believed that black holes may be temporary. Which if it were all based on mass and gravity that would seem to break the laws of conservation. I still have a lot to do but I am really liking the idea of an Object Oriented Universe based on closed volumes. Not just Mass and Energy. It maybe that the density defined as d= m/v is a key factor. Or d = m/f(x,y,z,t). For an implosion you would have a negative density. Just what you would expect. But it may require some kind of change like e=POS(m/f(x,y,z,t))c2. Way to soon for that but just trying to get the black hole thing figured out will be fun enough.

## Relativistic Mass is just bad

Posted: October 12, 2011 in Physics

As soon as we start to state energy has mass I think we are heading down the wrong path. Mass has the potential to create energy but as CERN and the others will soon prove Energy doesn’t create mass. Energy is the measurable change of mass either through heat or motion. Thermodynamics shows that mass can be converted to energy. But nothing has shown us the opposite. This seems like a much more realistic postulate than nothing can move faster than the speed of light.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass I like to see that others have seen this to be wrong. I would really like to see if the idea for the Boson particle comes from an offshoot of the theory of relativistic mass. I read a great post by Licoln on http://www.sciencechatforum.com I really like the way he describes relativistic mass as inertia. He was nice enough to try to explain to me why the Lorentz Transformation is not an optical illusion. I am very happy he took the time. I still think there is room for debate but since he took the time I will stop with that until after there is proof.

This is a very interesting read http://www.higgs-boson.org/ I believe that Energy is an attribute of Mass. To even measure it we need mass. So instead of trying to imagine the universe coming from nothing it is more realistic to believe that the singularity started with Mass exploding into what we now see as our universe instead of the other way around. I need to read more about Hawking and Black Holes. Are black holes the ultimate conversion of mass to energy or are they places mass is traveling faster than the speed of light? A sort of sonic boom for light?

## From AP — Lab heads wary on super-fast particle finding

Posted: October 6, 2011 in Physics

Why wouldn’t they be? They have worked their whole lives believing it was impossible. It would be nice to know when and if anyone else is going to run the same experiment. So far just trying to get someone to give me a straight answer as to why nothing can go faster than c has been difficult. If it is that they inferred from Lorentz that since nothing can travel back in time then nothing can go faster than c then I think they are wrong. I got one reply on Huffington that told me the Great One actually used experimental results. Now that is an experiment I would love to see.

From what I read I am not the first person to disagree with relative mass either. It’s not like I am knocking Space Time and e=mc2 at rest. I just have an issue with Time Dilution not being continuous and the use of a relativistic mass versus a relativistic velocity. Time dilution has only been proven at relatively slow speeds. And the same thing holds true for e=mc2.
So unless either Patrick Takahashi is able to get his friend to investigate this or I am lucky enough to get a grad student who is intellectually curious, this blog will languish here until they either do it again or not. All in all I am a huge fan of Patrick for not just dismissing me like many in the field do. Science should be more of a democracy than a club. But nothing really has changed about that for centuries.