A
New Theory of Gravitation Revised 05/07/2012 "We do not need a new theory because our present one explains everything". Richard Feynman - A New Theory of Gravitation
- Basic dimensions
- Other dimensions
- Most famous interactions
- Types of most famous forces
- Most famous questions
- Attractions and repulsions with simple to understand causes
- An old frame
- A new frame
- Inverse square coarsening
- Einstein's equivalence principles
- Objects, properties, events, messages, causes and coarsening
- Causality
- Interaction
- Gravitational lens
- Definition of the mass
- Stopping of the light
- A definition of the matter
- A weak definition of the mass
- The properties of the mass
- Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?
- The speed of the light and Olber's paradox
- The simplicity and the hidden complexity
- Some invariance
- The metric tensor
- Is the gravitation time dependent
- Is the gravitation local or universal
- The classification of Toivo Jaakkola
- Newton's theory of the gravitation
- Velocity-dependent theories of the gravitation
- Why no speech of the special theory of relativity?
- All theories of gravitation are wrong
- Alternative frames
- Used mathematics
- The problem of the dark energy
- Daniel Sunhede's dissertation
- David Hume on miracles
- Moving body
- The definition of the place
- Energy
- The energy of the cosmos
- Proper energy and virtual energy
- The energy of the photon
- If explanations using red shift are true
- Is the discrete cosmos possible?
- Has a photon a mass?
- Which is the half-life of the photon?
- The formula E = mc2 is unverified
- The formula m = E/c2 is against our definition of the mass
- Photon has a micro-structure
- Dark matter and photons
- Reality is not a human construction
- Electron and positron
- Is there a field without mass?
- Quantum
- Is the mass a scalar?
- Redefinition of the linear momentum
- Possibility to make the difference between the mass and the energy
- Two axioms of Dr Tuomo Suntola
- Relations of the universal constants
- The theory of the electromagnetic radiation
- The Maxwell equations can be wrong
- Energy principles
- What intelligent Eisteinians think
- Structural explanations or causal explanations
- Are there necessities in the nature
- The nature of mathematics
- Hafele-Keating experimet
- Operational definition
- Straight line
- Einstein's vicious circle
- Why it is not intelligent to use a curved space in physics
- Space and field
- Newtonian or Einsteinian black holes
- Are Big Bangs possible
- Independent and dependent variables
- Are black holes elementary particles
- Waves in a vacuum
- A new problem: The physics confuses mass and energy
- Energy
- Is there pure energy
- Explanation of the mass
- Black holes
- Simple functions
- Functions with zero points
- Which is the speed of the strong force
- Which masses are real
- Quarks, leptons and other particles
- Cosmic microwave background radiation
- Neutral elementary particles
- The difference of the neutron star and the black hole
- Which is the cause of the inertia
- Action and reaction
- Einstein's distance d
- The thesis of Hartikainen
- Additive units
- Velocities of small and big masses
- Memory of acceleration
- The new clock paradox
- Definition of the timeTime
- Simultaneous cause and effect
- Curvature and torsion
- Violation of Heisenberg’s Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements
- Repulsion and attraction
- Manipulating the frequencies of the photons
- How a single photon can stop the black hole
- Are the following pictures correct
- The neutrino theory of light
- Are neutrinos the main component of dark matter?
- Is the black hole a very big neutrino?
- Scattering
- Real attractive forces
- Coulomb's law
- Einstein's aether
- Problems of the explanations
- Tensions and tensors are problematic
- Why do objects fall at the same rate of acceleration?
- The changing of the coordinate system
- Local and universal
- Is there rotation and acceleration
- Redshift and blue-shift
- Proposal for the electromagnetic elementary particles
- Possible cause to the uncertainty
- Where do photons come from?
- Which is the size of the photon?
- Intrinsic equations of a space curve
- Space-independent time
- Lower bounds and upper bounds
- What we can observe with our instruments
- Is the big bang possible
- The falling of the rotating solid body
- Nothing in the special relativity theory is true
- Inertia
- If there was a black hole before the big bang
- Is the known universe a closed system?
- Why we are in the center of the known universe?
- Pulling or pushing?
- David Hume on miracles
- The miracle of the big bang
- Le Sage-type big bang
- Continues...
## A New Theory of GravitationThe General Theory of Relativity postulates that gravity is the result of a curvature of space-time in the presence of mass. But that tells us nothing about why gravity exists in the present context. It merely changes the question from "Why do objects attract each other?" to "Why do masses cause a curvature in space-time?"Tom van Flandern [1] p. 29. ## Basic dimensionsWhen I was a child, the basic dimensions were:- distance R
- area A
- volume V
- time T??
- mass M
- distance 1 d = 2π m
- area 1 a = π m
^{2} - volume 1 v = (4π/3) m
^{3} - time s??
- mass kg
## Other dimensionsWhen I was in the school, the basic dimensions were- length
- height
- width
- time??
- mass
## Most famous interactions- gravitation
- electromagnetic force
- strong force
- weak force
- Casimir force
## Types of most famous forces- gravitation: attractive
- electromagnetic force: attractive or repulsive
- strong force: attractive or repulsive
- weak force: changes attractive forces to repulsive and so on...
- Casimir force: attractive
## Most famous questions- Which is the cause of the attractive force?
- Which is the cause of the repulsive force?
## Attractions and repulsions with simple to understand causes- A chemical bond is the physical process responsible for the attractive interactions between atoms and molecules, and that which confers stability to diatomic and polyatomic chemical compounds. The explanation of the attractive forces is a complex area that is described by the laws of quantum electrodynamics.
- Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
## An old frameThe general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation by Albert Einstein in 1916.It describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or space time. In particular, the curvature of space time is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations. ## A new frame- There is no need to use the curvature of the space time.
- The universe is independent of the human ability to make measurements.
- The universe is independent of the human mathematics.
- The gravity is a real force.
## Inverse square coarseningNewton:F = Gm
_{2}m_{2}r^{-2}Coulomb: F = K
_{e}q_{1}q_{2}r^{-2}- F is a force
- G and K
_{e}are constants - m
_{1}and m_{2}are two masses - q
_{1}and q_{2}are two charges and - r is a distance.
## Einstein's equivalence principlesIn one form the Einstein’s Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) is defined as the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses that is absolute and independent of any motion.The strong equivalence principle (SEP) suggests the laws of gravitation are independent of velocity and location. In our frame both equivalence principles are wrong. We define that the gravitation is the force between masses. We assume that all particles (including bosons) have masses. Inertia needs another explanation. ## Objects, properties, events, messages, causes and coarseningThere are objects.Human coarsening: - The object.
- The property of the object.
- The mass is a possible property of the object.
- The charge is a possible property of the object.
- The event.
- The cause of the event.
- The message.
- The cause of the message.
## CausalityCausality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct consequence of the first.## InteractionInteraction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction.## Gravitational lens
A gravitational lens is formed when the light from a very distant,
bright source is bent around a massive object (such as a cluster of
galaxies) between the source object and the observer. The process is
known as gravitational lensing. |

Description | Parameter | Concor- dance value |

Transition redshift | z_{0} |
0.35 |

Optical Hubble constant | h | 0.66 |

FRW Hubble constant | _ h |
0.44 |

Age of the universe | t_{o} |
14.8 Gyr |

Baryon proportion | _ Ω _{B} |
10% |

Cold dark matter proportion | _ Ω _{CDM} |
80% |

Hot dark matter proportion | _ Ω _{HDM} |
10% |

This thesis considers extended theories of gravity as
a possible solution to the dark energy problem and in particular
studies the impact of Solar System constraints on scalar-tensor
theory and f(R) gravity.

The present observational status in cosmology and the basic properties of scalar-tensor theory and f(R) gravity are reviewed. The main work is then presented in four appended papers.

In summary, Solar System observations put strong constraints on both scalar tensor theory and f(R) gravity, in particular via the post-Newtonian parameter γ_{PPN} which is the main
focus of this thesis.

The scalar-tensor theory discussed in the first paper is a model inspired by large extra dimensions. Here, two large extra dimensions offer a possible solution to the hierarchy problem and the effective four-dimensional theory is a dilatonic scalar-tensor theory exhibiting a cosmological behavior similar to quintessence.

It was shown that this model can also give rise to other types of cosmologies,some more akin to k-essence and possibly variants of phantom dark energy.

The observational limits on γ_{PPN} strongly constrain
the scalar field coupling to matter, which together with the
cosmological constraints nearly determine the model parameters.

The work presented in the three latter papers considered static, spherically symmetric space-times in f(R) gravity. The generalized Tolman -Oppenheimer -Volkoff equations were derived both in the metric and in the Palatini formalism of f(R) gravity.

By solving these equations for the configuration corresponding to the Sun, it was shown that metric f(R) gravity will in general fail the strong constraint on γ_{PPN}, whereas
Palatini f(R) gravity will yield the observed γ_{PPN} ≈
1.

However, the non-standard relation between the gravitational mass and the density profile of a star in f(R) gravity will constrain the allowed forms of the function f(R) also in the Palatini formalism.

Although solutions corresponding to γ_{PPN} ≈ 1 do exist
in the metric formalism, a study of the stability properties of
the spherically symmetric solutions reveals a necessity for
extreme fine tuning, which affects all presently known metric
f(R) models in the literature.

The present observational status in cosmology and the basic properties of scalar-tensor theory and f(R) gravity are reviewed. The main work is then presented in four appended papers.

In summary, Solar System observations put strong constraints on both scalar tensor theory and f(R) gravity, in particular via the post-Newtonian parameter γ

The scalar-tensor theory discussed in the first paper is a model inspired by large extra dimensions. Here, two large extra dimensions offer a possible solution to the hierarchy problem and the effective four-dimensional theory is a dilatonic scalar-tensor theory exhibiting a cosmological behavior similar to quintessence.

It was shown that this model can also give rise to other types of cosmologies,some more akin to k-essence and possibly variants of phantom dark energy.

The observational limits on γ

The work presented in the three latter papers considered static, spherically symmetric space-times in f(R) gravity. The generalized Tolman -Oppenheimer -Volkoff equations were derived both in the metric and in the Palatini formalism of f(R) gravity.

By solving these equations for the configuration corresponding to the Sun, it was shown that metric f(R) gravity will in general fail the strong constraint on γ

However, the non-standard relation between the gravitational mass and the density profile of a star in f(R) gravity will constrain the allowed forms of the function f(R) also in the Palatini formalism.

Although solutions corresponding to γ

'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would
be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to
establish....'

If there is an electromagnetic background radiation in the space which is uniform in all directions it has an effect to the moving body.

It is well known that the energy of the electromagnetic radiation
is proportional to the frequency of the radiation.

If the body is moving to different directions or if the body has
different velocities, the radiation has different breaking
effects.

When the velocity of the body is big the effect of the radiation
to the body is big (the frequency of the radiation in the
direction of the body will increase).

It is possible that the radiation can give to the accelerating
body a constant velocity, if the body is absorbing or reflecting a
big part of the radiation.

There is no exact mathematical or physical definition of the place.

There are several types of energy. We use the distinction

- Proper energy
- Virtual energy

E = hν,

h is a constant and ν is an integer.

Niels Bohr found out in 1913 , that the light quanta or the photons have a spin, or an ability to rotate. Which is the energy of the rotation?

Then the energy of the photon can be arbitrary.

We can see only the photons coming toward us.

If we have no Einsteinian religion, we can easily see that the photon has a gravitational mass. The light is bending in gravitational fields was found in 1919.

The presumption that the photon has a mass is more simple than that it has no mass.

We are doing a new theory of relativity. We can change all Einsteinian postulates.

Photon can rotate because a mass can rotate.

The kinetic energy of the mass m and the velocity c can be

E_{k} = (mc^{2})/2

in a local frame but which is the amount of the other kinds of the
energy is not known.
The article The Origin of Mass tells us that the origin of the mass is the energy. This is not true because m = E/c

The Einsteinian equation

E

is not valid in our gravity theory.

Photon has a micro-structure and it is possible, that photon consists of several parts. Best known theory of several part photon says that photon contains neutrino and anti-neutrino.

If there is dark matter with gravitation then the dark matter can change the direction of the moving of the photon.

Mathematics is a human construction.

We can use different mathematics to make a coarsening of the reality. We have no real need to use curved straight lines or curved time.

The example of Dr. Tuomo Suntola has shown that it is possible to use mathematics which is simpler than the mathematics used by Albert Einstein.

There are only a very limited set of possibilities for the final state.

If the local energy of the particles is low, the most possible is the creation of two or more gamma ray photons.

If m

E_{k} = (m_{e}c^{2})/2
+ (m_{e}c^{2})/2

but this is not proving the formula E = mc^{2}.

When I was young I was thinking that the change of the field can
exist without masses in the neighborhood of the moving change of
the field. Now I am thinking that the matter is hard, not soft.
The hard core of the matter is the mass.

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum unit of any physical entity involved in an interaction.

An example of an entity that is quantized is the energy transfer of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons.

The word comes from the Latin "quantum", for "how much." Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized", referred to as "quantization".

This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number.

Distance, velocity and acceleration are not quantized.

The mass is quantized.

Energy is a manifestation of the matter and it contains the quantization of the mass.

The mass is not "a coefficient in the equation F = ma".

If there is a quantum of the mass, is the norm of the mass constant?

If we write F = a m which is the difference to the formula F = ma?

Written 12/28/2009

p = v m,

where p is the linear momentum of the body.

The frame of the physics must be able to make the difference between the mass and the energy.

The algorithms which does not do so must be rewritten. As my readers have said Einsteinian theories are circular.

Two postulates of Dr. Tuomo Suntola (DU) are

"Distance and time are coordinate quantities
independent of phenomena described."

There is no need to change these postulates.

The postulates of Einstein are too strong (See Einstein's Hidden Postulate, professor Robert J. Buenker, Apeiron, Vol. 19, No 3, July 2012).

ε_{0} = 1/(c_{0}^{2}
µ_{0})

where c

In Tuomo Suntola's theory c

It is possible that there is no maximum speed of the speed on electromagnetic radiation:

c_{0 }=_{ }∞_{.
}

We know that in a very small scale this can be true.

There is no good theory of the electromagnetic radiation.

We can begin with the light. We must make experiments with real
spaceships. We can not use mirrors or lenses.

The problem is that the science does not believe to the necessity
of such experiments.

Written 7/17/2012

It is possible that the Maxwell equations are wrong (see
Apeiron, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2012, Bringing
Simultaneity Back to Life T. E. Phipps, Jr.).

If the radiating body is moving towards us, we will receive more
energy than if it is moving away.

It is possible to measure both cases (using spaceships).

The amount of the energy will be different for simple Doppler
effect and for Einsteinian Doppler effect.

Written 7/18/2012

Late mathematics professor Rolf Nevanlinna was thinking that the
simplicity of the theory is the reason for the selection of the
space type, not empirical facts.

There is no solution to the problem of simplicity.

Einsteinian explanations are structural explanations. To be natural science physics needs causal explanations.

All explanations are human constructs.

Time is a human construct and we can choose how we will define time.

It we use time as independent variable we have no need to consider that the causality is broken.

Logical necessities are human constructs to use coherent language.

Causality is not a necessity.

However we are waiting that the cosmology shall be a causal theory. To be a causal theory cosmology need physics, which is a causal theory.

June 2010 the experiment was repeated, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hongkong - London).

The result was that the different clocks in different environments were showing different times.

I have four rooms and a kitchen in my home in Helsinki. Clocks in different rooms will show different times.

I am not thinking that the time is different in different rooms.

The clock synchronization is easy. We have no need to define the time as a dependent variable.

Properties described in this manner must be sufficiently accessible, so that persons other than the definer may independently measure or test for them at will.

The special theory of relativity can be viewed as the introduction of operational definitions for simultaneity of events and of distance, that is, as providing the operations needed to define these terms.

We will not use operational definitions. We oppose operational definitions.

The Euclidean line is the only straight line.

The path of the photon is not a straight line.

The path of the photon is ellipse, hyperbola or parabola or anything else than the straight line.

In the everyday measuring the path of the photon is near the straight line.

The cause of the popularity of the elevator experiment is the fact that the gravitation has an effect to all cells of the man.

Computers can use complicated formulas but in a real world we will need information of the whole of the universe. Relativity theories split the reality to incompatible parts. There are infinite number of local spaces ( source: discussions with late professor of mathematics and astronomy, Paul Kustaanheimo).

The curvature can not explain the gravity.

The impossibility in the reality is different from the impossibility in logic.

The theory of the Big Bang does not explain why Big Bang happened.

If the Einsteinian theory of black holes is true, the Big Bang is impossible.

If black holes can explode then local Big Bangs are possible.

Big Bang believers think that the speed of the radiation was over the speed of the electromagnetic radiation in the beginning. This is an Anti-Einsteinian proposition.

We can define that the space is infinite. We can expect that the matter in the infinite space has an equilibrium.

If there was a big bang and if the black holes are very stable it is possible that there was black holes before the big bang (Black Hole Era

We shall collect theory independent data of physics. We shall use
statistics to determine which variables are dependent and which
variables we can choose to be independent. We can use factorial
analysis and some newer methods of the statistics - and expensive
computer programs.

Written 7/25/2012

If black holes have no other properties than Einsteinians say,
the black holes are elementary particles. If so, there can be
elementary particles with arbitrary mass.

This is functioning in a vacuum.

Written 7/25/2012

It is not possible to find real masses of elementary particles.
The physics confuses masses and energy.

It is very difficult to change the Einsteinian physics to the
Newtonian physics. I have full competence to use mathematics and
computers but it is very difficult to find the real data.

There is no good definition of the the energy. Einsteinian faith
is now used in the teaching of mechanics.

It is possible that there is pure energy. If there is pure energy
this energy can be electromagnetic radiation. But it is not
necessary that there is pure energy.

It is possible (as several Non-Einsteinians think) that the
photon has for example the mass m_{f} and this has a
kinetic energy (m_{f}c^{2})/2
which is the energy which the electron is losing.

It is possible that the photon has several parts (neutrino and
anti-neutrino).

It is possible that a photon has rotational energy and other
forms of energy.

Written 7/27/2012

Mass needs no explanation.

*The graph of the strong force*

There is no dark matter. Gravitation has same kind graph than
strong interaction (if there is a strong interaction).

Additionally the gravitational field is not symmetric.

The problem is very complicated and it is difficult to make any
Non-Einsteinian calculations.

There are no universal forces. The nature has independent parts.

Written 7/28/2012

If the gravitation has same kind of graph than other
interactions, there are no real black holes.

Written 9/12/2012

Very simple function which has a form of the graph of the strong
force is

f(x) = a/x^{3} - b/x^{2}.

Repulsion

Attraction

*f(x) = 1/x ^{3} - 1.5/x^{2}.*

All rational functions

f(x) = - a

_{1}/x^{2}+a_{2}/x^{3}- ... +a_{2n-1}/x^{2n-1}

have the same form.

The derivatives of the functions f(x)
= - a_{1}/x^{2} +a_{2}/x^{3}
- ... +a_{2n-1}/x^{2n-1
}have the same form.

To avoid the infinite repulsion we can replace x by e

If we will have some periodicity we can add some trigonometrical functions:

We can also add damped oscillation an we will get oscillating universe. To exclude the oscillating universe we must have an exact theory of gravity.

We have an infinite amount of the possible functions but we must find some explanation for the function. We will do it later.

If we will have zero pints at x = 1 and x = 3 we can use function (blue curve)

f(x) = k(x-1)(x-2)/x

The nucleus of the proton is a dipole plus an electric charge.

Written 11/10/2012

If the strong force has a speed it is as problematic than the
electromagnetic force (same paradoxes).

Most calculations of the masses of the elementary particles are using Einsteins relativity theory.

We must make new calculations.

We can additionally suppose that quarks and leptons are not elementary.

If so we have no problem with fractional charges.

It is possible that there is only one fundamental force.

Einsteinians tell us that the cosmic microwave background radiation radiation was emitted 13.7 billion years ago, only a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, long before stars or galaxies ever existed. Thus, by studying the detailed physical properties of the radiation, we can learn about conditions in the universe on very large scales at very early times, since the radiation we see today has traveled over such a large distance.

The calculations are made using Einstein's relativity theory.

The real sources of the radiation can be whatever else.

Photon, gluon, neutrino, Z^{0} boson, Higg's boson and
graviton are without charge.

There is no evidence of the existence of the graviton.

The evidence of the existence of the Higg's boson is weak.

The standard model supposes that most of the neutral elementary
particles are without rest mass.

We suppose that all elementary particles have a rest mass. It is
possible, that supposed neutral particles have several parts which
have charge. If so then the electromagnetic force between the
parts is very strong.

It is possible that all fundamental forces are electromagnetic
forces.

9/5/2012

Amount of mass.

Proposal: The acceleration of the body which has several parts
produces internal energy to the system.

Problem: How the energy can survive in a moving body.

The third of Newton's laws of motion of classical mechanics
states that forces always occur in pairs. This is related to the
fact that a force results from the interaction of two object.
Every force ('action') on one object is accompanied by a
'reaction' on another, of equal magnitude but opposite direction.
The attribution of which of the two forces is action or reaction
is arbitrary. Each of the two forces can be considered the action,
the other force is its associated reaction.

If we have a body with the mass m and if we divide it to two
parts, we have masses m_{1} and m_{2} and if the
parts are exploding to opposite directions, they will have kinetic
energies

(m

_{1}v_{1}^{2})/2 and (m_{2}v_{2}^{2})/2.

The energies are equal and the total energy is

m

_{1}v_{1}^{2}^{ }or m_{2}v_{2}^{2}

If we divide the body with mass m to equal parts and continue the
dividing to infinity we will get series of energy of the parts:

mv^{2}(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16+ ... ) = mv^{2}.

7/9/2012

s is the distance, (x,y,z) is the place, c is the speed of the
light and t is the time.

ds^{2} = dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}
- c^{2}dt^{2}

Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory © 1920

Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd

First Published: December, 1916

Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation)

If we put

ds

^{2}= dx^{2}+ dy^{2}+ dz^{2}+ dt^{2 }

then dt^{2} has a wrong dimension. The time t is not a
dimension.

If we divide the equation

ds^{2} = dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}
- c^{2}dt^{2
}

dsThis equation says that the speed of the light is the maximum speed. As we know this supposition leads to the infinite amount of local spaces (I agree with the late professor of mathematics and astronomy Paul Kustaanheimo).^{2}/dt^{2}= dx^{2}/dt^{2}+ dy^{2}/dt^{2}+ dz^{2}/dt^{2}- c^{2}

In our reality we need only one space. We will need no acrobatics with complicate mathematics.

It is possible to construct a clock which is independent of the gravitation.

Distances are not additive. Velocities (

9/19/2012

A body with a big mass need much of energy to have a high speed.

It is the task of the experimental physics to find out which is
the highest possible speed and why it is the highest possible.

Which kind of body has a memory of its accelerations?

If we have a clock which can slow down when the speed is
increasing we have a new clock paradox.

9/29/2012

Let **x** = (x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3},...,x_{n})
be a continuous vector-valued function defined on an interval
[a,b]. The image of [a,b] under **x** is a curve Γ.

Let a parametric representation of **x** be **x**(t).

We call the parameter t time.

9/29/2012

I have no money to read new scientific journals. I can only read
scientific news.

If the news are correct, the situation now (9/29/2012) is
following:

- It is possible to separate a single photon.
- It is possible to double a single photon.
- It is possible to change the state of the single photon.
- The other of the two new photons will have the same new state.

If all of this is true, we have simultaneous cause and effect.

10/2/2012

At the regular points of Γ we define the unit tangent **T **as
follows:

A point **x**(t) is called a regular point of Γ if the
derivative **x**'(t) exists and is non-zero, in which case **x**'(t)
is called the tangent vector at this point. Points where **x**'(t)
fails to exist or where **x**'(t) = **0** are called
singular points of Γ.

At the regular points of Γ we define the unit tangent **T**
vector as follows.

**T**(t) = **x***'*(t)/|**x**'(t)|.

The non-negative function *κ* defined by equation

*κ*(t) = |**T'**(t)|/|**x'**(t)|

is called a curvature of the curve.

At those points of Γ for which t'(t) ≠ 0 we define the unit
principal vector **N** by the equation

**N**(t) = **T'**(t)/|**T'**(t)|.

The length of arc is s(t) = ∫_{a} ^{t}|**x**'(u)|
du.

**T'**(t) = *κ*(t) s(t) **N**(t).

The unit vector **B** defined by the equation

**B**(t) = **T**(t) X **N**(t)

is called binormal vector.

It is easy to verify that **B'**(t) is a scalar multiple of **N**(t).

The real valued function *τ* defined by the equation

**B**'(t) = - *τ*(t)s'(t)**N**(t)

is called the torsion of the curve.

Einsteinians speak of the curvature of the four dimensional
space. Is there the torsion of the space?

10/4/2012

Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012) [5 pages]

Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Dylan H. Mahler, Alex
Hayat, Yasaman Soudagar, and Aephraim M. Steinberg

Centre for Quantum Information & Quantum Control and
Institute for Optical Sciences, Department of Physics, 60 St.
George Street, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5S 1A7

[Selected for a Synopsis in Physics] [Editors' Suggestion]
Received 4 July 2012; published 6 September 2012

While there is a rigorously proven relationship about
uncertainties intrinsic to any quantum system, often referred to
as “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle,” Heisenberg originally
formulated his ideas in terms of a relationship between the
precision of a measurement and the disturbance it must create.

Although this latter relationship is not rigorously
proven, it is commonly believed (and taught) as an aspect of the
broader uncertainty principle.

Here, we experimentally observe a violation of
Heisenberg’s “measurement-disturbance relationship”, using weak
measurements to characterize a quantum system before and after
it interacts with a measurement apparatus.

Our experiment implements a 2010 proposal of Lund and
Wiseman to confirm a revised measurement-disturbance
relationship derived by Ozawa in 2003. Its results have broad
implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics and for
practical issues in quantum measurement.

© 2012 American Physical Society

10/4/2010

To explain repulsion all you need to do is draw a Feynman diagram
with two electrons swapping a photon. The photon conveys momentum
between them.

There simply isn't any good explanation for electromagnetic
attraction.

If we assume that there are two kind of photons (and two kinds of
other same type of particles), we can explain the attraction
without uncertainty principle.

In the 20th century, the Fatio-Lesage concept of gravity attracted the interest of Richard Feynman, who used it more than once to illustrate various aspects of theoretical models. For example, in a series of public lectures given in 1964, published as “The Character of Physical Law” in 1965, Feynman described Fatio’s model as an example of the kind of theory that might satisfy someone’s desire for an “explanation” – rather than just a description – of gravity. Feynman’s notion of a mechanism was something that “gets rid of the mathematics”.

See http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/different_photons_in_indistinguishable_photons_out

September 17, 2012

Published: September 17, 2012Device fabrication being an imperfect art, single
photons from solid-state systems such as quantum dots are not
identical; a collection of dots designed to emit at nominally
the same frequency will actually produce a range of
frequencies. That phenomenon, called inhomogeneous broadening,
is an obstacle to experimentalists who need a stream of
identical photons—say, in applications requiring entanglement.

One way to overcome the obstacle is to tune the
solid-state devices themselves; applying appropriate strains,
for example, can change the internal structure of the devices
so they all give off photons of the same frequency. Now __Kartik
Srinivasan__ of NIST, his postdoc __Serkan
Ates____,__ and other collaborators have
demonstrated an alternative approach: Let the devices emit as
they will, but use nonlinear optics to convert the frequencies
of the resulting photons. When a source photon and light from
a pump laser interact in a nonlinear crystal, the result could
be a photon whose frequency is the sum of source and pump
frequencies.

As schematically indicated in the figure, with carefully
tuned pump-laser frequencies *ω*_{p1} and *ω*_{p2},
Srinivasan and colleagues produced photons with the same
frequency *ω*_{c} from input photons of
different frequencies *ω*_{s1} and *ω*_{s2}.
The research team established that the output photons were
indeed identical by observing their telltale interference. In
the future, such frequency conversions may enable photons to
communicate between the nodes of a quantum internet. (S. Ates
et al., __ Phys.
Rev. Lett.__, in press.)—Steven K. Blau

If we will move faster we must find a place without electromagnetic radiation.

This means that the background radiation will limit the speeds of the bodies. The background radiation forms the "absolute space".

Locally we have much more radiation and local limitations of the speed of the material bodies will vary.

10/04/2012

π

π

If this is correct, can we say that the matter is photons and neutrinos?

The main argument against the neutrino theory is: Since mass-less neutrinos are needed to form a mass-less photon, a composite photon is not possible.

We have said earlier that the photon has a mass.

If this is correct we can say that the matter is neutrinos.

Is this the attraction?

It is verified that there is an attractive force between the electron and the proton.

Now we have a problem of the attractive force in the proton.

10/08/2012

William Watson and Benjamin Franklin introduced the one-fluid theory of electricity independently in 1746.

Henry Cavendish attempted to explain some of the principal
phenomena of electricity by means of an elastic fluid in 1771.

Not contented with the above mentioned one fluid theory of
electricity, du Fay, Robert Symmer and C. A. Coulomb developed
a two-fluid theory of electricity from 1733 to 1789.

John Bernoulli introduced a fluid aether theory of light in
1752. Euler believed that all electrical phenomena is caused
by the same aether that

propagates light.

In 1821, in order to explain polarization of light, A. J. Frensnel proposed an aether model which is able to transmit transverse waves. Inspired by Frensnel’s luminifeous aether theory, numerous dynamical theories of elastic solid aether were established by Stokes, Cauchy, Green, MacCullagh, Boussinesq, Riemann and William Thomson.

In 1861, in order to obtain a mechanical interpretation of electromagnetic phenomena, Maxwell established a mechanical model of a magneto-electric medium.

Maxwell’s magneto-electric medium is a cellular aether, looks
like a honeycomb. In a remarkable paper published in 1864,
Maxwell established a group of equations which were named
after his name later.

In a remarkable paper published in 1905, Einstein

abandoned the concept of aether (A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17,
891 (1905)).

Xiao-Song Wang writes:

*"We speculate that the universe may be filled with
a continuum which may be called aether. Based on a
spherical source and sink model of electric charges, we
derive Coulomb’s law of interactions between static
electric charges in vacuum by methods of hydrodynamics.
A reduced form of the Lorentz’s force law of static
electric charges is derived based on a definition of
electric field.*

Xiao-Song State Key Laboratory of Nonlinear Mechanics (LNM), Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100080, China (Dated: February 2, 2008)

Wikipedia says:

*Coulomb's law states that the magnitude of the
Electrostatics force of interaction between two point
charges is directly proportional to the scalar
multiplication of the magnitudes of charges and inversely
proportional to the square of the distances between them.*

**F**_{21} = (q_{1} q_{2}/4π
ε _{0} r^{2})**r**_{21}

No explanation.

Why Einstein stopped all explanations?

*Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
general theory of relativity space is endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
an ether. According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also
no possibility of existence for standards of space and
time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any
space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether
may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may
not be applied to it. *

Albert Einstein, An address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the
University of Leyden

Human explanations will always be restricted. We can not know
where are the borders of the explanations. My opinion is that
the Einsteinian borders are too strong.

If we are using hydrodynamics (Xiao-Song) the problem is that
we have only a set of equations.

It is possible that the particles are (as Einstein said)
fields, but I think that we must use particles as much as we
can.

10/09/2012

Both Einstein and the representatives of new aether theories
are using tensors in the theory of the gravity.

Dr. Tuomo Suntola does not need tensors in hist book *Dynamic
Universe*. He is using vectors and vector fields.

I agree with Dr. Suntola in many points. The only problems of
his theory are infinity points and the complex fourth
dimension (it is not the time). He knows that they are
problems.

Revised 10/10/2012

Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmokritos, "chosen of the
people") (ca. 460 – ca. 370 BCA) was an Ancient Greek
philosopher born in Abdera, Thrace, Greece.

Democritus was not Einsteinian.

The atomists held that there are two fundamentally different
kinds of realities composing the natural world, atoms and
void.

The gravitation is the force which has the same effect to the
particles of the same mass.

electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10^{-31}
kg

proton mass = 1.6726 x 10^{-27} kg

neutron mass = 1.6749 x 10^{-27} kg

In practice all bodies are formed of protons, neutrons and
electrons.

In the scale of the galaxy there is no good theory of the
gravitation (the problem of the dark materia).

In the scale of the atom the other forces are stronger that
the gravity.

We have no cause to change the conception of Democritus.

If the photons fall with the dirrent rate than the other
objects the Einsteinian equivalece principle is wrong.

(All test particles at the alike spacetime point in a given gravitational field will undergo the same acceleration, independent of their properties, including their rest mass.)

*The chan**ging from** the linear coordinate
system to the curvilinear coordinate system will not change
the object.*

My main argument against Einstein is that
the use of the curved space will not give different results
than the use of the linear space.

The use of the path of the photon as a basis of the mathematics will not change the physical objects. If we will we can always use Euclidean space.

If the physicists will get different results with different coordinate systems they are calculating wrong.

## Local and
universal

I think that Einsteins theories can not make the separation
of the local space and the universal space. In this I agree
with Dr. Tuomo Suntola.

## Is there
rotation and acceleration

## Redshift
and blue-shift

## Proposal
for the electromagnetic elementary particles

The form of the e^{-} is a tetrahedron.

We define:

e^{+} = e_{+} + e_{+} + e_{+}
+ e_{+} + e_{-} .

The form of the e^{+} is the tetrahedron.

We define:

p^{+} = (e_{+} + e_{+}) +_{ }(e_{+}
+ e_{+})+ e_{-} .

We define:

n^{0} = (e_{+} + e_{+})+ e_{-}
+ e_{- .
}
## Possible
cause to the uncertainty

It is possible that the proposed electromagnetic
substructure of the electron is the cause to the apparent
uncertainty of the place of the electron.

## Where do
photons come from?

The electron can emit and absorb photons. It is possible
that the micro-structure of the electron will explain the
origin of photons.

## Which is
the size of the photon?

10/18/2012

When I was a child we were using radio waves with the wavelengths of several kilometers.

Try to ask the explanation for the big size of the particle. I expect that you will get no explanation.

## Intrinsic
equations of a space curve

As we move along curve C the tangent is turning in the direction of the normal at a rate determined by the curvature κ(s) while the osculating plane rotates around the tangent with a speed determined by the torsion τ(s).

It can be shown that two curves with the same curvature and torsion as functions of arc length are identical except for position and orientation in space (i.e. one of them can be rigidly moved so as to coincide with the other).

Thus the curvature κ(s) and torsion τ(s) describe all the essential, invariant properties of the curve. The equations

κ = κ(s)

τ = τ(s)

are called the intrinsic or natural equations of the curve.

Example 1: the circle equation is

κ = 1/r,

τ = 0.

If we will add some Einsteinian physics we define the time t as follows:

t = t(s).

**Example 2:**

t = 2s,

dt = 2ds,

ds/dt = ½ = v = velocity.

**Example 3: **

t = s^{½ },

dt = [1/(2s^{½})] ds,

ds/dt = 2s^{½} = v.

# Space-independent
time

ds/dt = v.

The time is not the speed of the clock.

# Lower bounds
and upper bounds

4/21/2013

Are there physical lower bounds or/and upper bounds.

The absolute zero temperature, -273,15^{0}C is a
sensible lower bound but are there other lower bounds or
upper bounds.

Einsteinians argue that there are the zero mass and the maximal speed.

The vacuum has the zero mass but are there particles with zero mass? Einsteinians argue that the particles of the electro-magnetical radiation has the zero mass. I disagree.

Einsteinians argue that the speed of the electro-magnetical radiation is the upper bound of the speed. I disagree.

Which is the speed of the vacuum?

We must consider the cause of the speed of the particle in a system. There are different causes for the accelerations. For example:

Can we divide photons or can the photons scatter?

# What we can
observe with our instruments

4/22/2013

If we have a rotating solid body in the space between galaxies we can observe the rotation and the axis of the rotation. This rotation defines the internal time of the body.

We can not observe the constant linear acceleration of the body. We can only observe the change of the acceleration of the linear movement of the body.

If we are falling free we have an acceleration but we can not observe it.

# Is the big
bang possible

# The falling
of the rotating solid body

# Nothing in
the special relativity theory is true

## The Growth of
the masses?

## Where the
distant galaxies are?

## Is the space
expanding?

## Is there a
space?

# Inertia

# If there was
a black hole before the big bang

## If
Hawkings's theory of black hole radiation is correct

# Is the known
universe a closed system?

# Why we are
in the center of the known universe?

# Pulling or
pushing?

# David Hume
on miracles

## The text

## The argument

Hume first explains the principle of evidence: the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence. The degree to which we believe one claim over another is proportional to the degree by which the evidence for one outweighs the evidence for the other. The weight of evidence is a function of such factors as the reliability, manner, and number of witnesses.

Now, a miracle is defined as:

"a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."
Laws of nature, however, are established by

"a firm and unalterable experience";
they rest upon the exception-less testimony of countless
people in different places and times.

As the evidence for a miracle is always limited, as miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against — the evidence for the law of which the miracle is supposed to be a transgression.

There are, however, two ways in which this argument might be neutralized. First, if the number of witnesses of the miracle be greater than the number of witnesses of the operation of the law, and secondly, if a witness be 100% reliable (for then no amount of contrary testimony will be enough to outweigh that person's account).

Hume therefore lays out, in the second part of section X, a number of reasons that we have for never holding this condition to have been met. He first claims out that no miracle has in fact had enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education. He goes on to list the ways in which human beings lack complete reliability:

Given that there is no reason to accept some of them but not others (aside from a prejudice in favour of one religion), then we must hold all religions to have been proved true — but given the fact that religions contradict each other, this cannot be the case.

# The miracle
of the big bang

# Le Sage-type
big bang

If we will accept the Le Sage-type gravitation the big bang
is possible.

If the very big black hole moves to the place where there are no Le Sage-type particles the black hole begins to expand and it is possible that it will explode.

# Continues...

The use of the path of the photon as a basis of the mathematics will not change the physical objects. If we will we can always use Euclidean space.

If the physicists will get different results with different coordinate systems they are calculating wrong.

Mach was thinking that it is not possible to observe the
rotation in a completely empty space. I think that we can
observe both rotation and acceleration.

In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens
when light seen coming from an object that is moving away
is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to
the red end of the spectrum. More generally, where an
observer detects electromagnetic radiation outside the
visible spectrum, "redder" amounts to a technical
shorthand for "increase in electromagnetic wavelength" —
which also implies lower frequency and photon energy in
accord with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories
of light.

The relativistic redshift is different than the classical redshift.

If we use the classical redshift we observe that the
galaxies are moving away in proportion to the square of
the distance (it is easy to calculate this using
observational material for schools).

There are few galaxies that have a blue-shift.

The standard model of the physics has no masses.

There is no experimental material for electromagnetic
elementary particles, but we can
speculate.

We define:

e^{-} = e_{-} + e_{-} + e_{-}
+ e_{-} + e_{+} .

I will call e_{-} as negattiny (© Erkki
Hartikainen) and e_{+} as posittiny (© Erkki
Hartikainen).

We define:

e

The form of the e

We define:

p

We define:

n

When I was a child we were using radio waves with the wavelengths of several kilometers.

Try to ask the explanation for the big size of the particle. I expect that you will get no explanation.

10/26/2012

As we move along curve C the tangent is turning in the direction of the normal at a rate determined by the curvature κ(s) while the osculating plane rotates around the tangent with a speed determined by the torsion τ(s).

It can be shown that two curves with the same curvature and torsion as functions of arc length are identical except for position and orientation in space (i.e. one of them can be rigidly moved so as to coincide with the other).

Thus the curvature κ(s) and torsion τ(s) describe all the essential, invariant properties of the curve. The equations

κ = κ(s)

τ = τ(s)

are called the intrinsic or natural equations of the curve.

Example 1:

κ = 1/r,

τ = 0.

If we will add some Einsteinian physics we define the time t as follows:

t = t(s).

t = 2s,

dt = 2ds,

ds/dt = ½ = v = velocity.

t = s

dt = [1/(2s

ds/dt = 2s

10/28/2012

In this book we define that the time is independent of the place and of the speed.

The speed v is dependent of the time and of the distance:ds/dt = v.

The time is not the speed of the clock.

Are there physical lower bounds or/and upper bounds.

The absolute zero temperature, -273,15

Einsteinians argue that there are the zero mass and the maximal speed.

The vacuum has the zero mass but are there particles with zero mass? Einsteinians argue that the particles of the electro-magnetical radiation has the zero mass. I disagree.

Einsteinians argue that the speed of the electro-magnetical radiation is the upper bound of the speed. I disagree.

Which is the speed of the vacuum?

We must consider the cause of the speed of the particle in a system. There are different causes for the accelerations. For example:

- the collisions of the particles
- the scattering of the particles
- the radiation (of the particles?)

Can we divide photons or can the photons scatter?

If we have a rotating solid body in the space between galaxies we can observe the rotation and the axis of the rotation. This rotation defines the internal time of the body.

We can not observe the constant linear acceleration of the body. We can only observe the change of the acceleration of the linear movement of the body.

If we are falling free we have an acceleration but we can not observe it.

4/23/2013

It is not logically impossible. But it is physically impossible. Very big masses form black holes. We do not know a single black hole which has exploded.

Philosophically the big bang is only a hypothesis that there is one black hole which has exploded.

4/23/2013

If we are using the rotating body as a clock we can test relativity theory as follows.

We will send several rotating solid bodies with much of speed to the space. The body has an instrument which measures the angular speeds and sends the results to the earth.

We can make generalizations using computers.

The test is not deciding which of the relativity theories is true but it will test if the rotating solid body is a good clock.

4/23/2013

There are discussions in Internet which talk over the growth of the masses of the distant galaxies. The physicists say that the special relativity is not true in the cosmology. Masses of the distant galaxies are not bigger than the masses of the near galaxies.

4/24/2013

We do not know. Our last information is about 13 billions of years old. It is not sure that the distant galaxies still exist.

We do not know. Our last information is about 13 billions of years old. It is not sure that the distant galaxies still exist.

4/24/2013

It depends on the what we mean with the word "space".

My opinion is that the space has not the property of expand.

4/24/2013

The space is a mathematical abstraction. The stretching is a physical abstraction.

The stretching of the scale will not cause the redshift or the change of the gravitational fields. Only the real motion will cause the redshift.

4/25/2013

I do not know any good explanation for the inertia.

My opinion is that the Le Sage-type gravitation can explain both inertia and in-determinism.

4/26/2013

If Hawking's theory of black hole radiation is correct,
then black holes are expected to shrink and evaporate over
time because they lose mass by the emission of photons and
other particles. The temperature of this thermal spectrum
(Hawking temperature) is proportional to the surface
gravity of the black hole, which, for a Schwarzschild
black hole, is inversely proportional to the mass. Hence,
large black holes emit less radiation than small black
holes.

Stellar-mass or larger black holes receive more mass from
the cosmic microwave background than they emit through
Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink.

To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be
able to evaporate), a black hole needs to have less mass
than the Moon. Such a black hole would have a diameter of
less than a tenth of a millimeter.

If a black hole is very small the radiation effects are
expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is
heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an
instant.

If there was no cosmic microwave background radiation before the big bang then the black hole had an infinite time to evaporate.

So the black hole did not explode because there was no black hole.

4/26/2013

This is impossible to prove.

4/26/2013

We have shown that the space is not expanding. The the origin of the redshift is the motion or the property of the light. It the distant galaxies are near of the border of the known universe, we are near of the center of the universe.

If the known universe is not a closed system it is possible that we are not in the center of the real universe.

4/27/2013

The pushing is easy to explain but what is the pulling? The pulling is not easy to explain in an atom and it is much more difficult to exlain in the space.

7.5.2013

In the 19th-century edition of Hume's Enquiry (in Sir John Lubbock's series, "One Hundred Books"), sections X and XI were omitted, appearing in an Appendix with the misleading explanation that they were normally left out of popular editions. Although the two sections appear in the full text in modern editions, chapter X has also been published separately, both as a separate book and in collections.

Hume starts by telling the reader that he believes that he has

"discovered an argument
[...] which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be
an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious
delusion".

Hume first explains the principle of evidence: the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence. The degree to which we believe one claim over another is proportional to the degree by which the evidence for one outweighs the evidence for the other. The weight of evidence is a function of such factors as the reliability, manner, and number of witnesses.

Now, a miracle is defined as:

"a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

"a firm and unalterable experience";

"Nothing is esteemed a
miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature.
It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health,
should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death,
though more unusual than any other, has yet been
frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a
dead man should come to life; because that has never been
observed in any age or country."

As the evidence for a miracle is always limited, as miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against — the evidence for the law of which the miracle is supposed to be a transgression.

There are, however, two ways in which this argument might be neutralized. First, if the number of witnesses of the miracle be greater than the number of witnesses of the operation of the law, and secondly, if a witness be 100% reliable (for then no amount of contrary testimony will be enough to outweigh that person's account).

Hume therefore lays out, in the second part of section X, a number of reasons that we have for never holding this condition to have been met. He first claims out that no miracle has in fact had enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education. He goes on to list the ways in which human beings lack complete reliability:

- People are very prone to accept the unusual and incredible, which excite agreeable passions of surprise and wonder.
- Those with strong religious beliefs are often prepared to give evidence that they know is false,

"with the best intentions
in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause".

- People are often too credulous when faced with such witnesses, whose apparent honesty and eloquence (together with the psychological effects of the marvelous described earlier) may overcome normal skepticism.
- Miracle stories tend to have their origins in "ignorant and barbarous nations" — either elsewhere in the world or in a civilised nation's past.
- The history of every culture displays a pattern of development from a wealth of supernatural events – "[p]rodigies, omens, oracles, judgements" – which steadily decreases over time, as the culture grows in knowledge and understanding of the world.

Given that there is no reason to accept some of them but not others (aside from a prejudice in favour of one religion), then we must hold all religions to have been proved true — but given the fact that religions contradict each other, this cannot be the case.

The einsteinian theory of the big bang is an extrapolation towards a state (a black hole) which can not explode.

We mus compare the two alternatives:

- There was a miracle.
- The extrapolation is wrong.

If the very big black hole moves to the place where there are no Le Sage-type particles the black hole begins to expand and it is possible that it will explode.