On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" wrote:
Hello to all:

I will shortly be posting lab note 1, part 3 on my weblog. I have
combined parts 2 and 3 in a file linked below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...1-parts-2-and-...

This essentially re-presents the main line of calculation in my 1984
paper at:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...07/reinich.pdf,

but in a clearer manner that get to the point much more quickly, and
with a better understanding than I had 23 years ago of what this may
mean.

I'll cut to the chase: In my view, this may well be the path to the
elusive, classical unification of electrodynamics and gravitational
dynamics. I would very much appreciate your comments and critiques as I
try to midwife something which I have been gestating for over two
decades.

Best to all:

Jay.

Hi Jay and all.
This is a trial reply, I think physics leads theory,
but we need to start somewhere so I'll begin with
a *embyroic* gauge invariant equation like,

PHI^v_u = g^^v_u + a F^v_u (1)

= kronecker delta + charge "a", set to be at rest,
in the field of charge "b" with scrullious motion.

The charges "a" and "b" are finitely separated
by a spacetime invariant s(a,b) = x(a)^u x(b)_u
denoted "s" herein.

Eq.(1) is hard to meaningfully covariantly differentiate,
so I'll reduce Eq.(1) to invariants by Outer multiplication
by x(a)^u x(b)_v this way,

PHI^v_u x(a)^u x(b)_v

= g^^v_u x(a)^u x(b)_v

+ a F^v_u x(a)^u x(b)_v

and reduce that by contraction to,

PHI s^2 = s^2 + 2ab , (Plancks h == ab).

Then in terms of invariants,

PHI = 1 + 2h/s^2.

By definition, energy is action/time == h/s, so

PHI = 1 + 2 (invariant energy) /s (2)

where the invariant energy = h/s.

Let me redenote Eq.(2) to be

PHI = 1+ 2m/s (2a),

and find 2m/s is *gravitational potential* and
is also an expression of *power*.

The hard question is, what is the partial derivative
of Eq.(2a).
IMO, if it is zero then PHI is quantized, but if it is
non-zero, then Eq.(2a) is on a continuum.

Well I think we'll agree mass "m" is varied by
quanta units, but what about "s"?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt7

On Aug 31, 4:29 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" wrote:





Hello to all:

I will shortly be posting lab note 1, part 3 on my weblog. I have
combined parts 2 and 3 in a file linked below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...1-parts-2-and-...

This essentially re-presents the main line of calculation in my 1984
paper at:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...07/reinich.pdf,

but in a clearer manner that get to the point much more quickly, and
with a better understanding than I had 23 years ago of what this may
mean.

I'll cut to the chase: In my view, this may well be the path to the
elusive, classical unification of electrodynamics and gravitational
dynamics. I would very much appreciate your comments and critiques as I
try to midwife something which I have been gestating for over two
decades.

Best to all:

Jay.

Hi Jay and all.
This is a trial reply, I think physics leads theory,
but we need to start somewhere so I'll begin with
a *embyroic* gauge invariant equation like,

PHI^v_u = g^^v_u + a F^v_u (1)

= kronecker delta + charge "a", set to be at rest,
in the field of charge "b" with scrullious motion.

The charges "a" and "b" are finitely separated
by a spacetime invariant s(a,b) = x(a)^u x(b)_u
denoted "s" herein.

Eq.(1) is hard to meaningfully covariantly differentiate,
so I'll reduce Eq.(1) to invariants by Outer multiplication
by x(a)^u x(b)_v this way,

PHI^v_u x(a)^u x(b)_v

= g^^v_u x(a)^u x(b)_v

+ a F^v_u x(a)^u x(b)_v

and reduce that by contraction to,

PHI s^2 = s^2 + 2ab , (Plancks h == ab).

Then in terms of invariants,

PHI = 1 + 2h/s^2.

By definition, energy is action/time == h/s, so

PHI = 1 + 2 (invariant energy) /s (2)

where the invariant energy = h/s.

Let me redenote Eq.(2) to be

PHI = 1+ 2m/s (2a),

and find 2m/s is *gravitational potential* and
is also an expression of *power*.

The hard question is, what is the partial derivative
of Eq.(2a).
IMO, if it is zero then PHI is quantized, but if it is
non-zero, then Eq.(2a) is on a continuum.

Well I think we'll agree mass "m" is varied by
quanta units, but what about "s"?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt7- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: If physics leads theory, why start from/with a partial-math of
a past unsatisfying theory? Why not start from a safe beginning?

Our universe is expanding much like a star or BH that exceeds an
energy capacity limit. Energy had a staircase of associated reactions
coming in and a different staircase going out. (I can't ever remember
the word for this, but it's common in chemistry).

Within this "local' structure, this process causes incoming "mass-
energy" to eventually sift to a quasi-quanta, but when outgoing, a
different series of lumps (quantum entanglement) appears. A universal
makeover, so to speak. Mass to energy is not the same process as
energy to mass. Like water to ice and back again. I think you get
what I mean.

In a similar type of procession, while our overall universe expands,
lumps are forming as clouds of dust, omni-galaxy types, stars, to
extraneous objects such as planets and comets etc.: some of which we
have adequate explanation through the whole. In between these lumps
are voids that attempt to form. But they never do, completely,
because there is the free flow of enough free energy to attempt to
fill them.

As what we call matter (really quantum entanglements) forms, two types
of motion happen. One is the entanglement itself that defies SR, it
might appear to be self-contained, but it is non-linear. It is a
containment or curvature that requires an influx of energy to
maintain. The second is the natural void-fill caused by the basic
attempted equilibrium of any free energy. It causes energy to move
inward to the lump of mass and give it the substantial energy to exist
as such a mass. Nothing but what we call gravity.


We cannot measure this universal behavior as such because we have no
identifiable "rest" by which to measure it. For us, all of our
measurements are affected by velocities caused by the whole non-linear
stuff above. Even observations along a line of a simple infinitely
provided free-fall are tainted by the uneven velocities surrounding
the fall.

It is OK to make a local technology (SR and GR included), but we have
to look more to the whole to understand what is driving the local
tech.

If anyone thinks that just observing quantum behavior is any key to a
universal physic, they are sadly mistaken. They have reduced gravity
to ~10^-32 of its macro-observability (well beyond the range of a
relative quantum measure)

It is my guess that we have to get lucky and guess the whole rather
than try to make even a single universe out of its un/mis-measureable
parts. We might have to guess for time eternal, but in the meantime,
we get to use the bailing wire of a local technology to make our local
life useful.