qed explanation for gravity and radioactivity. -theory of everything

8/20/2019 QED explanation for Gravity and Radioactivity. -Theory of Everything.

1/34

QED explanation for Gravity and Radioactivity,

Theory of Everything

Jouni Jokela

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Effects of Gravity are explained with QED. There is no mass, it’s all just light (photons).Special Theory of relativity holds, Instead of infinite mass it produces zero space through

Length contraction; result is a photon emission.Earth and Other planets rotates and orbits because of photons. This all means that Le Sage’stheory of gravity is, -as an idea- correct. The Aberration adjusts these orbits. This is actually been the case since the founding of relativity. As the “Gravity” has only the speed of light. I

explain the Energy problem of this form of gravity and I support this explanation withobservations. I explain the causes for the axial rotation of planets; they are driven by theSun through Thermodynamics.I explain various observed mysteries of physics; like Dark Matter or Dark Energy, thereisn’t any; the corrected “gravity-law-without-mass” simply fits to observations.Sonoluminescence is as natural phenomenon as any other emission of photons.This all I made possible through a synthesis of a few well known old physical laws, I

calculate “The moment of momentums” Y as it is done by Leonhard Euler in his Pump andTurbine equation. The law of Gravity is defined as dimensionless like William Froude

defined the speed-length ratio, which I will write in the same dimensions as the Y . I showthrough this Froude number, why the mass ratios between Proton, Neutron and Electron arealmost correctly measured, and where the flaw in measurements lies. And finally, as there

is no mass, the famous Formula from Einstein, must be rewritten. It’s nothing

really new or fancy either, only a synthesis from Stefan-Boltzmann law, something like

. The true problem was rather to define the Energy,

2mc E

4"" c E E without the mass, as tocopy-paste this equation. Thus the real problems reading this paper must lie on the fact thatalmost the whole physics is written through mass. So the reader may have to read this fewtimes, just to learn to talk about “Force” and “Energy” without mass. The inevitable

conclusion is, that SI-system must be corrected accordingly.Radioactive decay? –It is the end result of continuous Radiation.

Fine-structure-constant ? –It is 1.

Gravitational Constant ? –It doesn’t exist.GGravitational Waves? –photon waves.Double-slit experiment? – the result from these “gravitational photon waves”Theory of Everything? -It is the QED. This paper just rounds it’s edges.

- “Let there be light.”-


2/34

Content;

Abstract

Introduction, Preface

1. Theory; What Gravity is?

1.1 Introduction to this Question.1.2 Froude number

2. Calculating the consequences.

2.1 Fine structure constant Recalculated.

2.2 Electromagnetic mass

2.3. The Special Theory of Relativity recalculated.

2.4 Radiation, Radioactivity, Radioactive decay

2.4.1. Introduction

2.4.2. Theory for Radioactive decay

2.4.3. Consequences of this theory for Radioactive decay

2.4.4. Observations according to the theory for Radioactive decay

3. Quantum Kinetic Gravity, Supporting Observations. 3.1 Froude number of planets

3.2 Star velocities of Galaxies

4. The Problems of the Quantum Kinetic Gravity

4.1. The drag and aberration problems, why the Planets still keep orbiting?

4.1.1. Earth.

4.1.1.1 Moment of Inertia. -Fluctuations in a length of day.

4.1.1.2 Power.

4.1.1.3 Conclusion;

4.1.2. Mercury

4.1.2.1 Rotation without an atmosphere?

4.1.3 Aberration problem

4.1.4. Conclusions of the Orbital rotation of planets; Drag Problem is not a problem! 4.2. The Energy problem?

4.2.1. Introduction to Energy Problem.

4.2.2. Introduction to the explanation to the Energy Problem; Thermosphere.

4.2.3. Explanation to the Energy Problem; Gravitational Power.

4.2.4. Energy Problem; Conclusions

5. Closing out the doubts.

5.1. Porosity of the material-problem (Wikipedia; Le Sage’s theory of Gravitation)

5.2. Introduction for calculating various constants

5.2.1 Age of the Universe 5.2.2 Planck constant 5.2.3 Gravitational coupling constant

5.3 Double-slit experiment

5.3.1 Wave pattern from the double-slit experiment

5.4. Gravitational waves

6. Consequences of this theory

6.1 SI-units, without mass

7. Conclusions

7. 1 Physical conclusions

7. 2 Practical conclusions


3/34

INTRODUCTION

Backround.

What is Gravity? It’s such a simple law describing how the planets move around the sun.Force, that keeps the Planets moving on their orbits. “The greatest generalisation achieved

by the human mind”. At the time of the Kepler some people answered this problem bysaying that “there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planetsaround the orbit in tangential direction.” This is of course nonsense, as it was shown byGalileo and Newton; “the angels are pushing exactly towards the sun instead of around the

orbit.” Later Einstein noted that also this is nonsense, and showed how “the angels are pushing the planets on slightly wrong direction, as they are pushing towards the image of

the sun, instead of the true position of the sun.” and corrected our knowledge with the timewhich the light needs to send the image to the planets. That is our present knowledge ofGravity! We have highly accurate measurements, which have proven this law to be correct.But what is the mechanism? This we do not know. And thus “angels” are as good

explanation as any other word we want to use to cover the fact; “we do not know.”

This equation is almost all we have;

F= Force, m= Mass 1, M= Mass 2, r = distance, G = const.2r

mMG F (1)

The equation shows how Force of Gravity depends only from the mass of the objects and

their distance. This causes certain problems on observations. As Force F is where

is acceleration, and this acceleration defines velocity. These velocities are easily

measurable over great distances with Doppler-effect. And many observations from galaxies

far away have provided too high velocities which can’t be explained by this theory. Atheory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy was developed to add the “Power of the Engels” inthe appropriate levels. Further, when we look on the quantum level, we don’t see any

gravity. In the scale of Planck mass, approx in the size of flea egg, the effects of gravity becomes as problematic as with galaxies. Any given name, Dark Engel, Aether, Graviton,doesn’t change the fact; “We do not know or understand the mechanism of Gravity.”

ma F a

Le Sage’s theory of gravitation

There is one theory which has been originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duiller in1690; only 3 years after Newton published his work. This was again proposed by Georges-

Louis Le Sage in 1748.

Richard Feynman explains this story at his Messenger Lectures, I-7-7 as follows;Many mechanisms for gravitation have been suggested. It is interesting to consider one of these, whichmany people have thought of from time to time. At first, one is quite excited and happy when he“discovers” it, but he soon finds that it is not correct. It was first discovered about 1750. Suppose there

were many particles moving in space at a very high speed in all directions and being only slightly

absorbed in going through matter. When they are absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However,since there are as many going one way as another, the impulses all balance. But when the sun is nearby,the particles coming toward the earth through the sun are partially absorbed, so fewer of them arecoming from the sun than are coming from the other side. Therefore, the earth feels a net impulsetoward the sun and it does not take one long to see that it is inversely as the square of the distance—

because of the variation of the solid angle that the sun subtends as we vary the distance. What is wrong with that machinery? It involves some new consequences which are not true. This particular idea has thefollowing trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which arecoming from its forward side than from its hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face isstronger than that on the back of your head!). Therefore there would be more impulse given the earthfrom the front, and the earth would feel a resistance to motion and would be slowing up in its orbit. Onecan calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would nottake long enough for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. No machinery hasever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon thatdoes not exist.


4/34

These phenomenon “that does not exist” are mostly stated as;1. Drag –problem.2. Energy –problem; at the Source and in the Target.3. Porosity of the Material –problem.

4. Aberration –problem.

At this paper these phenomenon are worked out thoroughly and explained. There are fewmain aspects which are combined to make this possible. Reader must be therefore familiarwith these issues. The most important is the Froude-number. It’s dimensionless numberwhich defines the ratio between inertia and external field. This way the Mass is removed

from the Gravity law. It provides the idea how the Masses of the planets are not relevant,and helps to understand the “Dark-stuff” and “Quantum-gravity" -problems. But this aspect

still doesn’t say anything about the Machinery behind the Gravity. To get this machineryright, we need to combine the Kinetic theory of gases and the photon pressure andunderstand how the “heat” of the solar system increases with hydrostatic pressure analogyfrom the minimum at the Heliopause, to maximum in the centre of sun. For immediate

“reality check”; this theory predicts i.e. relatively higher atmospherical pressures near the

Sun, as can be verified from Venus.

Preface

As I do realize, how in this paper presented quite unconventional thoughts might be verydifficult to absorb, I feel necessary to say few word about how this paper was born, just tolight it out. At 2012 I saw the explanation to Turbulence. And I even produced one A4where it was explained. While studying this issue, together with my Turbine project, I

looked planetal scale vortices, and I realized that the Earth must rotate true the Sun. As thiswas not a “main stream” idea, I just hold it myself until 2014. At the meantime the ideagathered momentum, in form of supporting observations. As my understanding in physicswas verified in the lab-test of my turbine, as I i.e. created the Euler’s Pump & Turbineequations from the Newtons laws by my self, I had to first win some confidence about myskills. As this was achieved, I started to talk more about my idea about the “Earth rotation”

and “Turbulence”, just to notice that my arguments are holding. My turbine project did notaloud me to use much time for the “physics”. But as my marriage ended, I encountered thesame craziness as Einstein and others. The divorcing in Swiss is still quite medieval. Withall costs I want to avoid that my Children are facing the same fate as Eduard Einstein. Sowhile trying to do things “different” and sorting out my private-life, I have had the time to

study QED. After I gathered the needed understanding from the Feynman lections, foundfrom YouTube. It’s been really just straight forward. Just studying and sorting thesupporting observations, and writing the equations new, simultaneously as I have readthem. But As I am writing this, I haven’t met my children for over a half year. And my

main concern right now is, that we would be finally relieved from this crazy inquisitionagainst my “heresy as a father.”


5/34

1. Theory; What Gravity is?

Short, simplified answer; The Gravity can be partially thought to be as a hydrostatic pressure, produced as it is explained by the Kinetic theory of gases. At space these “walls”are replaced just by the radiation pressure. The Gravitational force is thus produced by the

photons (light). But this light is not only the visible light, but also radio waves and ULF

waves, down to , or wavelengths up to almost 1/40 of the size of “Milky

Way”. Though these waves does penetrate enormous deep, the “Gravitational energy” and

its effects are also transferred by the atomic interactions similar to Newton cradle orelectricity. I would be lying by claiming that I understand this perfectly. So moreimportance should be given to the more easily explainable facts that, the law of Gravity isvalid without the mass, and that it’s electromagnetically aspects, the consequences of this beautiful theory are observable. I name this theory as Quantum Kinetic Gravity (QKG), to

avoid confusion with “QG”.

22

max 6 c

1.1 Introduction to this Question.

As already stated few times; ”We do not know or understand the mechanism of Gravity.”

We just have a perfect equation (1) which explains and works very well with the observednature. So let’s just see what kind of things we can calculate with this equations and theory

for i.e. Planets. The Average orbital speed v can be calculated, with small eccentricity the

equation is simply;r

G M mv

)( In this equation the mass of planet m, is in most

cases negligible and variations of r are dominant, thus the formula is often written simply;

r

MGv Kinetic energy of Planet is Thus;

r

mMGmv E kin

22

2

Gravitational Potential Energy is;r

mMG E pot G If the small is again left away as a

negligible, and the

m

is replaced with M☉; the Solar Mass,

2

32

)1(

14

yr G

AU M

and

it’s noted that AU = r, and “1 yr”; is unit of time; T. The “Energy” equations can be written

as follows;

r yr G

G AU

r

MG E kin

2)1(

14

2""

2

32 2

22

2

22 2

2

4

T

r

T

r and

r

MG E pot G "" 2

224

T

r

And thus the Total “Energy” is

pot Gkin E E E """""" 2

226

T

r (2)

This above equation gives as the unit of “Energy” the same, as the square of velocity;distance2 / time2. This means we might want to use the speed of light here to define the

distance “r” and “T”; This can be done many ways, ie. as

or2mc E

2c

E m , and this Kinetic energy

2

2

?

2

22 c

v E mv E kin (3)

As seen in the equation (2) and (3), there is a need to redefine “Energy”, because of the

dimensions. Even the conventional kinetic energy can be made dimensionless. Such a gamewith dimensional equations would not bring us any more understanding about the phenomenon. So it’s more practical to go back to basics. We need something trulydimensionless.


6/34

1.2 Froude number

I could immediately notice, how the equations above follows the Froude’s Law;Dimensionless Ratio of Inertia to external field. This ratio is at optimum at FR= 1, at this point the kinetic energy is 1/3 and the Potential energy is 2/3 of the total energy. This aspect

opens quite a new idea about what “gravity” really is. The FR=1 is mostly known as thestate of minimum energy. This is the state of flow where the nature finds its balance. From

this can be concluded, that it might rather be so, that the kinetic energy, or velocity provided by some propulsion mechanism, is the machinery which defines the optimumdistance of the planets to the sun. As basically, all the equations above, can be written just

1)2/(2

/

)2/(2 22 FR

ar

v

mar

mv

r mMG

r mMG

eld Externalfi

Inertia (4)

without masses and the G. It can be noted that actuallyr

va

2

; is the formula for radial

acceleration in circular motion. And acceleration is the Force without the Mass.

Thus the “r/T” analogy of energy should be understood by Wavelength, f v where the

v is speed of light, and frequency; f is 1/T. (But what is the Time, T??)From this observation, one can come to an idea, where the whole mass could be just avision. What if there is no mass at all? Maybe it’s just the counter force for radial

acceleration; as we know there is the known atomic attraction/propulsion depending on thedistance of separation. This attraction varies linearly and then inversely as the seventh power of the distance, or F = k/ r

7 where k is a constant that depends on the molecules. [1]

The variation after critical distance can’t have much of a practical meaning for “Gravity” sothe linear part must be the one which is important. At this point some one might think thatthe Earths gravity depends on the axial rotation and notes that the poles have also quite

remarkable gravity. This is indeed true, but as this paper tries to explain, there isn’t anyGravity. It’s only QED combined with the kinetic theory. The atomic attraction/propulsionis important, as through it, we can understand how the atoms transfer the energy in theircollisions. So on above, we are not talking about Gravity, but from Mass, or rather howenergy can be rearranged in a form which can be experienced as a mass. This was actually

already explained by Einstein.

The equation (4) above;ar

v FR

2

1 which actually only describes the ratio, can also be

changed a = m and r = “E”, (*Why?) and v = c so it comes2

?

2

""1

c

m E

v

ar FR

which is of course or as we are interested about the mass;2

?"" cm E "" ?

2

E

cm This

added to the original Equation of Einstein; will make2 mc E 2

?

2

""c

E

c E and further

which has a very clear analogy with Stefan-Boltzmann law.4c2?"" E E E

Of course the mathematic says that this is also which, as a first thought, seems

impossible, as But what is actually really new here? It’s a known fact, that

photon has no mass, though it has no energy. This means , which can’t be true

simultaneously. So it’s needed to start to define what “energy” is here actually meant; Total

Energy? Potential energy? or Kinetic energy? This all above seems to be completelyuseless for any practical purpose. And Energy is just defined with some new unit, though

2c E 22 cmc E

2cm


7/34

there is enough units already. So where is the whole point? The point of this all is to see,that these energies has a natural ratio of balance!

Potential kinetic Potential kineticTotal E E E E E

2

33 (5)

or also Potential kinetic E E 2 as already shown in equation (5).

Above it was said that a = m and r = E, without any explanation “Why?”

The Explanation is that acceleration (a) and mass (m) are different aspects of Force (F), wecan think like “mass/potential Force” and “acceleration/kinetic Force”And r is the main aspect of energy, so when we dived to Force to “mass force” and to“acceleration Force”, the displacement still remains as the main aspect of the potentialenergy. It seems pretty difficult to explain this with the present words used. As they (words)do not quite fit in this theory. So if it irritates, that the units doesn’t quite “fit” above, pls. just get over it, and read forward. As the only thing which really counts, is how the theory

is supported by the observations. The Language can, and will be written afterwards.

2. Calculating the consequences.

2.1 Fine structure constant Recalculated

From the previous chapter, I concluded that the Fine structure constant; “strength of theelectromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles” must also be redefined.

It might first sound amazing, as it’s dimensionless. If you look at it carefully, you foundthat it actually isn’t. It just seems as such. Exactly as might be expected from the simplifiedEquation (3). Because of the historical reasons, the mass is just everywhere, as it’s written

inside the Force; Newton, and is thus directly or indirectly used in every

possible definition there is;

2/ smkg N

K

e

R

c

c

ek ce

c

e

244

1 022

0

2

0

And none of them are actually defining the Strength without the Force; and thus without the

mass. I.e. the elementary charge, is defined in Coulombs, which is Ampere

times second. The formal definition of the ampere, states that the ampere is the constantcurrent that will produce an attractive force of 2 × 10−7

s AC e

newtons per metre of lengthbetween two straight, parallel conductors of infinite length and negligible circular cross

section placed one metre apart in a vacuum. The same goes to ℏ it’s unit is Js and J = Nm!

This leaves us only the last option, but if you look what is the “Vacuum permeability; it’s

Ampere again, and thus we have also Newtons all over again..27

0 /104 A N

The definition of Fine-Structure constant through Natural units doesn’t either changeanything, as it doesn’t define this constant; it just defines the elementary charge to be

302.04 e To turn this around; I would rather define the mass through this elementary charge and thisway the mass of an Electron. Let the mass of an Electron be 2/3 of the total energy, and theElementary charge of the Electron to be 1/3 of the total energy. But this is all too early,

before we even start to talk about what defines which. We rather need to establish a unit for

this “new energy”. In SI-units it will obviously be expressed in a form of, which is

actually the well known unit for Specific Work of a Turbine;

22 / sm

Y . To avoid implementingsome new funny “Jo-unit”, the well established letter Y is used to describe this new“energy-unit”. This unit also needs a better name than “Specific Work”, so I will call it“Strength”.


8/34

For clarity and understanding the Total “Energy”, Strength of an Electron is dimensionless

explained; eY E E E masskinTotal 32 and this can be divided to the rest-mass

energy, which is 22 c

E

eY E

kin

mass and to the kinetic Energy part; basically the

elementary charge, which s22c

E eY E kin

mass

This pretty much rewrites the Physics; as what would now be the truly dimensionless“strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles”? What is “strength”? It’s Y! And what is Field? It’s also Y!

Truly dimensionless fine structure constant is 1Y

Y

2.2 Electromagnetic mass

After concluding this work above, and while seeking word, I googled for “Electromagneticmass” and found out that Richard Feynman has already reported about the “troubles” in his

lecture II-28, named “Electromagnetic mass”[2]. I feel lucky to find these supporting wordsabout the 2/3 ratio in his Equation 28.4. and these texts;

28–3Electromagnetic mass

Where does the mass come from? In our laws of mechanics we have supposed thatevery object “carries” a thing we call the mass—which also means that it “carries” amomentum proportional to its velocity. Now we discover that it is understandable that

a charged particle carries a momentum proportional to its velocity. It might, in fact,

be that the mass is just the effect of electrodynamics. The origin of mass has until now been unexplained. We have at last in the theory of electrodynamics a grandopportunity to understand something that we never understood before. It comes out ofthe blue—or rather, from Maxwell and Poynting—that any charged particle will have

a momentum proportional to its velocity just from electromagnetic influences.

28–5Attempts to modify the Maxwell theory

…So today, there is no known solution to this problem. We do not know how to make aconsistent theory—including the quantum mechanics—which does not produce aninfinity for the self-energy of an electron, or any point charge. And at the same time,

there is no satisfactory theory that describes a non-point charge. It’s an unsolved

problem. In case you are deciding to rush off to make a theory in which the action of an electronon itself is completely removed, so that electromagnetic mass is no longer meaningful,and then to make a quantum theory of it, you should be warned that you are certain tobe in trouble. There is definite experimental evidence of the existence of

electromagnetic inertia—there is evidence that some of the mass of charged particlesis electromagnetic in origin. It used to be said in the older books that since Nature will obviously not present uswith two particles—one neutral and the other charged, but otherwise the same—wewill never be able to tell how much of the mass is electromagnetic and how much is

mechanical. But it turns out that Nature has been kind enough to present us with just such objects, so that by comparing the observed mass of the charged one with theobserved mass of the neutral one, we can tell whether there is any electromagneticmass. For example, there are the neutrons and protons. They interact with tremendous forces—the nuclear forces—whose origin is unknown. However, as we have alreadydescribed, the nuclear forces have one remarkable property. So far as they are

concerned, the neutron and proton are exactly the same. The nuclear forces between


9/34

neutron and neutron, neutron and proton, and proton and proton are all identical as far as we can tell. Only the little electromagnetic forces are different; electrically the proton and neutron are as different as night and day. This is just what we wanted.There are two particles, identical from the point of view of the strong interactions, but

different electrically. And they have a small difference in mass. The mass differencebetween the proton and the neutron—expressed as the difference in the rest-energy

mc2 in units of MeV—is about 1.3 MeV, which is about 2.6 times the electron mass.The classical theory would then predict a radius of about 1/3 to 1/2 the classicalelectron radius, or about 10−

13 cm. Of course, one should really use the quantum

theory, but by some strange accident, all the constants—2π ’s and ℏ ’s, etc.—come out

so that the quantum theory gives roughly the same radius as the classical theory. The

only trouble is that the sign is wrong! The neutron is heavier than the proton.

So through this correction to theory; the Neutron is heavier than the proton;Quick view to the Masses shows;n (neutron) 939.5654133(58) MeV/c2 p (proton) 938.272046(21) MeV/c2

n-p 1.2933673 MeV/c2 e (electron) 0.510998910(13) MeV/c2

The present Mass difference of Neutron is 2.531 times the mass of electron; The sign andthe order of the result is now correct. The scale of the mistake might be possible to simple be explained just by the Measuring difficulties, as the mass of a neutron simply cannot be

directly determined by mass spectrometry due to lack of electric charge; If the “1=2/3x1.5mistake” is also there, then we just correct the math and it should fit. This predicts that the“correct” neutron “mass” would thus be approximately 939.5495 MeV/c

2, though I would

not even like to speak from the “mass” anymore, as it is just not there!

2.3. The Special Theory of Relativity recalculated.

“…For over 200 years the equations of motion enunciated by Newton were believed todescribe nature correctly, and the first time that an error in these laws was discovered, theway to correct it was also discovered. Both the error and its correction were discovered by Einstein in 1905. Newton’s Second Law, which we have expressed by the equation

ma F was stated with the tacit assumption that is a constant, but we now know thatthis is not true, and that the mass of a body increases with velocity. In Einstein’s corrected

formula m has the value

m

22

0

/1 cv

mm

where the “rest mass” represents the

mass of a body that is not moving and c is the speed of light. For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory ofrelativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the

mass.”[3]

0m

It’s obvious, that if “mass” is used on calculations, instead of a fixed natural ratio, betweenInertia and External field, this mass amount also needs to be corrected accordingly to fitin to the concept. But it’s doubtful, if it is even reasonable to recalculate the relativitytheory, as there is no actual need for a correction factor to the mass, if the mass is simply

left out from the calculations. According to Froude , so the need for relativity is

obvious, when energies are calculated with the mass, as

2var

2

mm . What if we just leave the

mass out and that’s it? No more “Lorentz transformation” for mass, no Relativisticmomentum or kinetic energy? But this is not all; what about Length contraction and Time dilation? The importance of these aspects asks us to proof also the concept of relativity.


10/34

The Length contraction and Time dilation can be understood very simply when thought howthe electrons are going around the atom on elliptical orbits. The Equations for the Lorentz

factor, ;22 /1

1

cv

and for the elliptic eccentricity, ;e 22 /1 abe

seems even very similar. This aloud us the make an analogy between semi-major axis and

speed of light c and semi-minor axisb and speed v . Let’s have a closer look on the ellipse;

a

And the Eccentricity equation, as it can be written many different ways;

2

222

22 1/1a

ba

a

babe

But the simplest way to write it, is;

a

f e where is the distance from the

center to the focus and a is the distance fromthe center to the farthest vertices. Note that onthe picture (a-b-c triangle, NOT speed

of light)

f

c f

Analogy to the relativity and Lorentz

transformation is obvious;e

1 which can

be written also22 /1

1cv

which means that nothing grows to infinity ,

with growing , as was the previous expectations. Instead of that, this predicts that

something goes to zero! It’s a known fact that photon has zero “mass”. (What mass?) This

reveals us how the mass growing to “infinity” when approaching the speed of light, was a

pure illusion. There isn’t even anything which can grow to infinity inside an ellipse. Thereisn’t even any mass, and it’s just similar pseudo/Fictitious force as ie. Centrifugal force is,thus also all mass related derivatives; like momentum or kinetic energy, are (by definition)also only fictitious things. Their appearance, the vision of a mass, might grow, and logicallyeven grows, as the radius around the focus get smaller when eccentricity approaches one.

Smaller radius with same velocity causes more acceleration, which is felt as a more mass.

v

What truly happens is that the space/volume goes to zero; the eccentricity goes to one, andthe ellipse bursts to a line, a ray. Though e=1 predicts a parabola, you can’t burst the ellipseto a parabola without going through line.

It’s quite difficult to think how the energyoscillates in the direction of the velocity. It

might be doing something like the Trammel of Archimedes, or something like Hypotrochoid ,and this ofcourse in 3-Dimensions. Or maybeit’s a hypocycloid , or “Hypoellipsoid” or“elliphypoid”. What I mean is the light formsa sort of “Deltoid-curve” (Red) inside an

Ellipse (Blue) when the velocity causes therelativistic effects. But as the smartest readersmust have already noted, the semi-minor

axis can’t actually be the speed , as this

causes that we have zero space or line in v = 0and sphere in v = c? Well that’s true, pleaseread also the chapter “Radioactivity”.

b v

Figure 1: Ellipse

Figure 2: Deltoid


11/34

This must be the mechanism how an atom emits a photon. It could think to be like a balloonfilling the space in side an atom. Actually if the photon needs certain space for certainmovements the whole can be also thought as the well known Length contraction. If “mass”

is only a observation which follows, from the “ar” component of Equation 4, thencontracting length needs the growing mass as a counterpart, if the energies are calculated

“mass” included. But without mass, it’s only the acceleration which grows. This all meansthat there is no “spontaneous Emission”, but a clear mechanism how and why a photon isemitted; always when the orbit collapses. Against this explanation the phenomenon called“sonoluminescence” becomes simply obvious; when the volume of atoms goes zero,

photons goes out. The conclusion which follows from this all, is, that instead of saying that photon has zero “mass”, it has zero “volume”, as already explained by Length contraction.

This is the only “recalculation” needed to make for the Special Theory of Relativity; thusall the space-time effects it predicts, remains exactly the same, though all the mass related

effects are turned up-side-down; 0 I.e. the question “Can we travel with the speed oflight? Would still be “no”, as in this speed, all the matter would be simply emitted away.And the most important thing to observe is, that photon is emitted in the counter directioncompared to the movement. This observation opens us the logical step to Radioactivity.

2.4 Radiation, Radioactivity or Radioactive decay

2.4.1. Introduction

I am really not able to explain completely the logic how the energy oscillates inside an atomwhen the atom is moving. I have an idea, related to Radioactivity, and I will try to explainit, but to get forward, we need to think these physical laws first.

Physical Law 1. The Statement; The present Relativity theory predicts that the massgrows with velocity, and reaches infinity at the speed of light.

Consequence 1.1; Infinite mass with speed of light consumes infinite amount ofenergy.Consequence 1.2; Also the other way must be true; reducing the velocity should

reduce the mass to zero, and this infinite energy would be released.Observation 1.1; There is no such known phenomenon, which releases infiniteamount of energy. Even Black holes, -if they exist- are counter-examples.

Observation 1.2; Any change in velocity, would thus violate the law of conservationof Energy.Physical Law 2. The Statement; The gravity is a force. And force is energy. Thisstatement is valid, regardless how force and Energy is defined. And thisenergy/force/strength is acting in all directions over all distances,

Consequence 2.1; If “gravity” is working with “pull”, the energy will be finallygathered to a single point.Consequence 2.2; If “gravity” is working with “push”, the energy will be finally lostand disappeared.

Consequence 2.3; If the topology of the space is “continuous”, the objects own

“gravity” will pull/push the object from all directions with same force, and the resultmust be “No net force”. The amount of the objects doesn’t make here any difference.Observation 2; …but there is measurable “gravity” which seems to remain infinitely.

These laws above are not correct. They can’t be. It seems that thinking “Mass” and

“Gravity” is way too complicated, so I want to think something more simple; likeRadiation, Radioactivity or Radioactive decay; Radiation is energy emitted from an atom.In most cases this happens in form of Photons. The Energy of photon is depended from itswavelength, but the mechanism why or how a photon is emitted must be exactly the samefor radio waves and for gamma radiation. For all wavelengths.On process named radioactivity / radioactive decay is emitted also particles like alpha andbeta but also plain neutrons and protons. And this decay happens randomly, but still


12/34

predictably. Let’s just get this straight. The beta particles are electrons. And the alpha ishelium nuclei, having two protons and two neutrons. So basically, the whole “radiation” is just photons and “atoms”. These atoms are the Hydrogen and Helium, the simplest atoms.

But WHY is these atoms radiating? Why radioactive decay? Why half-life? Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that,

according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.The converse of half-life, is Doubling time and it might help to understand, what is goingon; “Doubling time” is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size, when therelative growth rate is constant. It’s applied to the population growth. From the population

growth rate, it is also impossible to predict how a particular family would grow. From this Ican produce an idea, how the population growth is dependent only from the surroundingenvironment . But what could be “Surrounding environment” for atoms? The only andobvious answer is photons. It’s a fact, that only high number atoms are able to emit highestenergy photons, gamma rays. The very same must also go to absorption. But the highenergy photons are scattered also from the lower atomic number particles, and the lower

energy particles are thus always able to receive the energy needed to maintain their

existence. Through this logic, it could be thought, that no material is actually stable, orotherwise said, all material is “Radioactive”. The ones which are not “Radioactive”, are justable to absorb more energy from the surrounding environment than they are emittingthemselves, and thus these don’t decay.

2.4.2. Theory for Radioactive decay

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to beslightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects. They are mostly unaffected byexternal conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment, and electric,magnetic, or gravitational fields. But I.e. Radon-222 exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak

seasonal variations. [4] Some others having small variations, while many materials havingany such effects. This above is logical; affecting to decay rate needs exactly correct kind ofradiation wave length. This theory would be easy to prove in lab. I just take it as proven, sowe can go forward with bigger picture. It was explained in chapter 2.3 why a photon isemitted from atom. And in Figure 2, it was tried to explain, how this emission happen to theopposite direction from the velocity. This means that if a particle travels enough distance

without colliding to any another particle, or receiving the correct radiation, which recoversits energies, it will decay. This decay process is thus exponential. The emitted photonsincrease the velocity of the particle, which decreases the wave length of emitted photons,which means more and more energy is emitted, until the whole particle is emitted.

2.4.3. Consequences of this theory for Radioactive decay

This means that there are no stable Isotopes. There are only stable environments. If particleis send away from this environment, it will finally decay. This means that even Hydrogenwill decay to a photon when send away. The consequence of this is that there should besome specific radiation which is produced through this decay of Hydrogen. And this decayshould not be observed in our environment.

Another consequence would be, that the objects trailing edge would experience moreradioactive decay then the leading edge; Why? It’s about energy absorption; particles areable to absorb the energy of photons of any wavelengths through scattering, but alsothrough collisions. At the leading edge, there is always something colliding; so new energysupply is simply higher. But to be accurate, there must be a stagnation point, where this is

quite not true.

2.4.4. Observations according to the theory for Radioactive decay

It’s amazing how the Observations can be made in 0.2 seconds with Google to find theneeded Wikipedia article. There indeed is such a radiation present; Hydrogen line,


13/34

This electromagnetic radiation is at the precise frequency of 1420.405751786 MHz, whichis equivalent to the vacuum wavelength of 21.10611405413 cm in free space. Themicrowaves of the hydrogen line come from the atomic transition of an electron betweenthe two hyperfine levels of the hydrogen 1s ground state, that have an energy difference of

5.87433 µeV. This transition is highly forbidden with an extremely small rate of 2.9×10−15 s−1 , and a lifetime of around 10 million (107 ) years. A spontaneous occurrence of the

transition is unlikely be seen in a laboratory on Earth.The bigger trailing edge decay is more difficult to observe. Though the seasonal variationsof the Radon-222 decay already supports this idea, I would rather like to see how evensome “stable isotopes” are decaying more in the trailing edge. These observations areimpossible to do in our environment, as we can’t produce the needed QED-vacuum. Theobjects in space are also mostly not observable, as theirs shapes are random, and they

mostly don’t even hold their position compared to the movement. Or they are simplycovered with flowing fluids. But there are few objects, big enough to be spheres, but smallenough to be without fluid cover, called atmosphere. So we have Moon, Mercury, maybe

Figure 4: Moon, North pole, South pole, and part of face/equator

Figure 3: Mercury, North pole, South pole, and part of face/equator

Figure 5: Mars, North pole, South pole, and part of equator


14/34

Mars, and 18 another known natural satellites that are massive enough to have lapsed intohydrostatic Equilibrium. I just list the ones, not having too much atmosphere, say 1 kPa.

They are; Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa, Rhea, Iapetus, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus,Mimas, Titania, Oberon, Umbriel, Ariel and Miranda. Mercury fits to theory, and so doesthe moon. From Mars (Figure 5 and 6) it’s difficult to say; there is clear difference betweenthe South and North, the only problem is that the crust; 45 km on average, is thicker onsouth; 58 km, than it is in north; 32 km. Though Mars seems highly interesting, I want holdme mentally clear and avoid it because it’s complexity. Of course even Earth fits in thetheory too, with as it’s northern Landmasses.

But I want to see a third moon, with “radioactive craters”. In Figure 7 is Mimas, fromSaturn. But Nothing… what a disappointment! The Wikipedia says, that Most of the surface is covered with craters larger than 40 kilometres (25 mi) in diameter, but in the south polar region, there are generally no craters larger than 20 kilometres (12 mi) in

diameter . … wait, here is something!

Figure 6: Mars, “Martian dichotomy”

Figure 7: Mimas

Figure 8: Mimas Temperatures


15/34

Figure 9: Mimas Temperatures, with visible-Light Map

Yes, Even these observed temperatures fits in theory. It must be noted that Mimas ismoving synchronous/tidal locked compared to Saturn, which means that it’s orbitingmovement has always the same leading edge and trailing edge. The velocity is also quitehigh, 14.28 km/s; 14 time the velocity of the Earths moon. The Surface of Mimas offers yetanother details proving, that the most of the craters is caused by radioactive decay, instead

of impacts. Radioactivity can be considered as “solved”.

3. Quantum Kinetic Gravity, Supporting Observations. 3.1 Froude number of planets As I am here replacing one really well established formula, which works with astonishingaccuracy with the observations, the new rules just must work in reality too. Tough it’s

actually obvious (purely from the known equations) that the Froude-number of Planets is

one. These calculations are presented here, as they were the eye-opening stuff, whichconvinced me to trust to this 1= 2/3 + 1/3 rule;

From the far right can be read, how accurately the “E=mMG/r0” and “Kinetic Energy”

follows the Ratio 2:1, which then produces 2/3, 1/3 energy rule from William Froude. Or1:1 rule, when comparison is made the way Froude has it described. This means that the

planets had flowing Froude numbers; Mercury 1.02, Venus 0.96, Earth 0.99, Mars, 0.98,Jupiter 0.99, Saturn 0.99, Uranus 1.00, Neptune 0.99. Of course if we calculate themthrough “v

2 / ar” we have always exactly 1. There is interesting anomaly to be seen at “B-

E”; There is calculated the difference between “Gravitational Binding energy” minus“Gravitational Potenential Energy”, and as it can be seen, this value is negative for Mercuryand Venus; Venus having the most Negative value of them all. This seems to have some

Binding E radius r kg mVelocitym/s F= a= E=mMG/r0 B- E Kinetic energy

Mercury 2.11E+30 2E+06 3.58E+23 5.8147E+10 48 271 1.407E+22 0.0392530 8.18E+32 -8E+32 4.17E+32 0.510445

Venus 1.59E+32 6E+06 4.9E+24 1.0735E+11 34 497 5.64E+22 0.0115169 6.05E+33 -6E+33 2.91E+33 0.481274

Earth (a) 2.24E+32 6E+06 5.972E+24 1.491E+11 29 705 3.566E+22 0.0059704 5.32E+33 -5E+33 2.63E+33 0.495653

Mars 5.1E+30 3E+06 6.57E+23 2.2662E+11 24 017 1.698E+21 0.0025841 3.85E+32 -4E+32 1.89E+32 0.492485

Jupiter 2.02E+36 7E+07 1.9E+27 7.7529E+11 13 024 4.191E+23 0.0002208 3.25E+35 1.7E+36 1.61E+35 0.495471

Saturn 2.15E+35 6E+07 5.69E+26 1.4224E+12 9 619 3.73E+22 0.0000656 5.3E+34 1.6E+35 2.63E+34 0.495858

Uranus 1.19E+34 3E+07 8.72E+25 2.8656E+12 6 796 1.409E+21 0.0000162 4.04E+33 7.9E+33 2.01E+33 0.498627

Neptune 1.71E+34 2E+07 1.03E+26 4.4818E+12 5 418 6.787E+20 0.0000066 3.04E+33 1.4E+34 1.51E+33 0.495713

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptunehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptunehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)


16/34

connection to the amount of moons. To limit the length of this paper, this subject is simplyleft out. Though it’s Principe becomes clear from chapters 5.3.1. and 5.4.

3.2 Star velocities of Galaxies

This theory explains easily the Observed velocities of the outer stars of Galaxies. No “DarkEnergy” or “Dark Matter” is needed to correct the error. It’s just the spiral form of the

Galaxy which causes the Outer stars to have more electromagnetic radiation as the stars,which are nearer the centre and positioned on each other’s shades. I don’t have the capacityto study the observations of galactic rotational curves. But I am convinced, that themathematical rules to explain the velocity distribution of these spiral formed structures, can

be found through this ratio. The principle is easily understood by simply comparing theequations. At the old equation the bigger radius means smaller orbital velocity with the

same mass;r

G M mv

)( but with the new equation the Velocity is, ar v

which means that it grows on a square-root to radius, as observed.

Figure 10: Galaxy Star velocities

4. The Problems of the Quantum Kinetic Gravity

4.1. The drag and aberration problems, why the Planets still keep orbiting?This problem can be “solved” with two ways. First way is to find the machinery which produces the movement. And second approach is to see if there is observable drag, whichwould make it impossible to maintain the velocity over the time which is already passed. In

Figure 9. are already quite remarkable signs from drag to be seen. But I want to investigatethis issue thoroughly. We will look Earth and Mercury as examples. It should be noted thatthe Drag influences for both; axial- and orbital rotation. It is also possible, that the totalvelocity is a combination of multiple causes. In this paper I am only trying to show, that

these mechanisms exists, and their scale is in correct range to close out the “drag problem”.So this paper is not trying to make a complete clearness from the causes. Aberration

problem is also discussed under this chapter, as it actually offers a partial solution to theDrag problem.


17/34

4.1.1 Earth.

4.1.1.1 Moment of Inertia. -Fluctuations in a length of day.

There is precise measurement data available about the Length of day of Earth. I havechosen one extreme example, Year 1998, 23.May, the Earth rotated in 86400.0023738

seconds. At 9.July the rotation time of the Earth was 86400.0000159 Seconds. Thisacceleration happened in just 47 days. What does this small change mean in form of

Rotational Kinetic Energy? Erot = 2.138 x1029

J (J, kg m2/s

2) I calculated this and I got a

comparable values of Approx 2.12597562 x1029

J and 2.12597574 x1029

J, and though youdon’t almost see any difference, it’s 11.6 x10

21 J

Is it much? Well, if you want to store this energy with the mass of atmosphere;matm = 5.15 x 10

18 kg, you need to have the whole Atmosphere to first move with a velocityof 8.2 m/s or 30 km/h and then bring it to the full stop to make this difference. And the

power you need to do this in 47 days, 47 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 4060800 Seconds?11.6 x10

21 J / 4060800 s = 2.85 x 10

15 W. This is 1.6 % of the Power of the sun.

Almost 200 times the power used through whole mankind. With this rate it would take only389817 days to accelerate the Earth’s rotation to current speed. This is only 1067 Years.Another example can be made through long term changes. The slowest rotation speed ever

was measured 18.3.1973; 86400.0041340 seconds, the fastest rotation speed after this wasmeasured at 5.7.2005; 86399.9989263 seconds. The difference means that 25.6 x10

21 J of

Kinetic energy has been stored for 32 years. Close to amount what Mankind has ever usedenergy. It might not be necessary to calculate this further. Such a accelerations eitherviolates the law of conservation of energy, or there must be an externals source; thisexternal Source must be the sun.

4.1.1.2 Power.

- Sun radiates on earth with 174 000 TW or 174 x 1015 W- 30 % of this power, 26 118 TW produces steam/rain.- Yearly rainfall is 505 000 km3, calculated to 365 days, it makes 1.383 x 1015 kg daily- The volume of this vapour is 1.383 x 1015 kg / 0.804 kg/m3 = 1.72 x 1015 m3 - The volume of Troposphere Averages 17 km x 510 x 106 m2 = 8.67 x 1015 m3 - The volume of the Troposphere “pumps” 12.8 % in a daily cycle4.1.1.3 Conclusion;

The axial and orbital Rotation of the Earth can be caused by the daily cycle on Atmosphere.The deeper study of this issue is out of the scope of this paper, but the author is prepared to present a more precise paper of the mechanisms.

4.1.2. Mercury

4.1.2.1 Rotation without an atmosphere?

So the Plantar movements can been caused by the sun through the atmosphere. This would be other vice perfect, but Mercury has practically no atmosphere! So either the theory iswrong, or the rotation of the Mercury can be explained other way. It should be noted thatMercury has few aspects very different than other planets. Mercury has the most eccentricorbit of all the planets. This varying distance to the Sun, combined with a 3:2 spin–orbitresonance of the planet's rotation around its axis, result in complex variations of the

surface temperature. This resonance makes a single solar day on Mercury last exactly two Mercury years, or about 176 Earth days. -Says the Wikipedia. The Atmosphere is merelyan Exosphere, but it’s containing very interestingly water-related ions. Owing to the highOrbital speed, there must be a continuous source for these ions. Further we need to knowthat the surface is mainly constructed from magnesian basalt.The thermal conductivity of basalt is extremely low, in order of 2 W /mK. Its Specific heat

is in order of 1 kJ/kgK. this means that the max radiation power of 14500 W/m2 cant beabsorbed; with maximum Temperature difference of 600 K, only 1200 W can be transferredto stone through conductivity, and as the distance grows, even less. So it's not probable thatsurface would be heated very deep at all. This closes out any possibility of material-

expansion driven mechanisms, as explained to Earth. So, either the whole theory is wrong,


18/34

or there is another mechanism. There is a curious spot in Mercury; “Caloris Basin”, placewhich is even found to be a significant source of gases. The place is also excessively heatedthrough sun at Perihelion. This must lead to an excessive overheating of the surface. And itcould be the explanation to the High amounts of water related ions like O+, OH−, and

H2O+ and other gases.

So it can be seen that all the stuff found from the atmosphere of Mercury, can be resulted by the melted and boiled basalt-stone; which shoots the atoms towards the sun like rocketengine. We May calculate the rough amount of this "rocket engine"; the average solarradiation is 10412 W on Mercury; If 10 % is absorbed, the rest will "burn the rock". Let's

calculate with 10 kW/ m2, and with silicon. Heat of fusion and Vaporisation 50+383 =433

kJ /mol, Molar mass 28 g, W = J/s, so it means with 10 kW we are shooting atoms away

with a 10/433 = 0.023 mol and 0.023 mol X 28 g/mol = 0.64 g/s per m2 of Mercury. Thismeans that the Mercury's sun side is shooting atoms with an average rate of 12 Mio tons insecond. If we calculate the speed (vrms) of these molecules, with the Kinetic energy formula, just to have some scale with the same Silicon. Boiling temperature 3538 K gives a velocityof 1775 m/s, and thus a small, but real impulse of 2.12 x 1013 kgm/s. Please note that this

calculation is here only for providing the principe and scale for this mechanism. Ie. theThermal expansion of the core might easily explain the 3:2 spin–orbit resonance. Thoughthis particle flow would lead the Mercury to be burned away in just 865 000 years, it canrather be expected that these high velocity particles are colliding to lighter atoms and photons and are finally landing on the other side of Mercury giving even a second impulse,and even gaining on mass.

4.1.3 Aberration problem

As shown by Laplace, another possible Le Sage effect is orbital aberration due to finite speed of gravity. Unless the Le Sage particles are moving at speeds much greater than the speed of light, as Le Sage and Kelvin supposed, there is a time delay in the interactionsbetween bodies (the transit time). In the case of orbital motion this results in each body

reacting to a retarded position of the other, which creates a leading force component.Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away fromeach other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagatemuch faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by

Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity,the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in theinteraction. -Wikipedia.Explanation; With aspects presented by this paper, it can be rather seen, that this aberration

problem is part of the solution. Maybe it’s even a crucial part which is holding the

movements of the planets on exactly at 1 Fr . I don’t quite understand how “aberrationis cancelled by velocity dependent term” as the main problem/solution is the leading force

component, which comes from the simple fact that it takes some time for the forces toarrive on goal, which causes a small angle difference. I have calculated what this

Aberration would be for Earth; as the diameters of the planet compared to Sun has aninfluence, this force must vary from planet to planet. But as smaller force means lower

velocity, which means greater distance, which means grater aberration, this really seems asa “missing link”. The aberration angle, sort of “COS phi” for Eath would be 0.005657degrees; “COS phi” 0.999999995 which means that the Leading force would be0.00009873 times (SIN or TAN) the Gravitational Force 3.56 x 1022 N. And for clarity, hereI mean Newton’s with mass. So the Leading force component would be approx 3.5 x 1018 N.This aloud us to easily calculate acceleration; As one aspect about “Gravity” is, that the

velocity is changing compared to radius, which further means that what ever mechanism


19/34

Gravity has, it must be able to produce this acceleration. From the value above, we get anacceleration of 5.9 x 10

-7 m/s

2 The Change of Orbital velocity is 30.29-29.29 =1 km/s.

The time for this change is half year; approx 1.6 x 107 s, which concludes that the velocity

would change because of “aberration” merely a 9.3 m/s; when a change of 1000 m/ is

needed. But I think my model is far too simple. This effect is naturally affecting all the particles in all distances, and thus this effect is cumulative. I can see it as a connection to

Galactic spirals. But to limit the length of this paper I leave this subject here.

4.1.4 Conclusions of the Orbital rotation of planets; Drag Problem is not a problem!

It should be noted that one of the consequences of this theory is, that the gravitational

constant G, is not a constant, und thus the mass of the Mercury is probably wrong defined.Therefore it’s not even reasonable to try to be very accurate. It’s enough to proof it, for if

it’s possible / not possible. I.e. simply the Radiation pressure caused by the Sun at Mercuryis in order of 60.6 µN/m2, which for the Face area of Mercury totals for an acceleration of0.34 x10

-15 m/s

2 for the current predicted mass of Mercury; Maybe the “mass” is only a

fraction of that expected; If the Gravity constant varies linearly (hydrostatic pressureanalogy in Space, buoyancy), then the true mass of Mercury is only 0.39 from that

expected. And the calculated, relatively small values are corrected accordingly. But also theopposite is possible, as the kinetic forces are growing and growing, it means that the“gravity forces” grows more and more, according to the inverse square law, down to themiddle point. This shows that the scale of the forces is the point of the issue here. And theneeded result should be just enough to explain propulsion, and thus to overcome the drag problem. It’s actually not even needed to understand the amount of the drag. If velocity iszero, the Drag is zero. So if we simply have some propulsion, then it can produce some

velocity, with any imaginable Drag-factor. Note that the Orbital speed is the important thing. Axial rotation is only the parameterwhich optimizes the Temperature difference between day and night, as the efficiency of aThermo dynamical machine is defined with this factor. This concludes that the wholesystem is self adjusting machinery, which finally produces a circular orbit, while axial

velocity is only random parameter defined by other factors. So why are the Orbits stillelliptic after so long time? I have some idea, (Heat, oribit-jump) which is explained later, but not in this paper. There seems to be so huge amount of these other factors, which fit into this theory that a book could be written from them. Just to give an example of the depth;

ie. The electricity in the Earths Atmosphere[5], Uranus, and Venus.

Figure 11: Wave Strucutres seen in Jupiter; “the motor running”


20/34

4.2. The Energy problem?

4.2.1. Introduction to Energy Problem.

The biggest problem of any Gravitational theory is the Energy.- The Gravitational Force of Earth is 3.56 x 1022 N

Few concepts are such a confusing, that for clarity they are all explained here;- The Gravitational potential Energy of Earth is 5.31 x 1033J This is the energy which

could be had If Earth falls to sun.- The Gravitational binding Energy of Earth is 2.24 x 1032J, This is the minimum energy

of explosion in the middle of Earth which could disturb the planet completely. It hasnothing to do with the orbits of planets.

These above are not connected to the Energy problem. It’s said that there is no work donewhen a planet Orbits, as the Potential Energy remains constant. But there is force,

Gravitational Force, which pushes the planets towards the sun. If this force is not holdtogether by mechanical connection like in a rigid body where the connection are madethrough the clear atomic attraction, then this Force (F) must do Work, this is Energy and

has to go somewhere. This Work (W) is displacement (s) multiplied by Force. ,

The question is, “what is this displacement”.

FsW

As we need to calculate the Power too, we choose the time which the planet falls towardsthe Sun in a second, then we calculate the centripetal acceleration for Earth through it’smass mearth = 5.972 x 10

24 kg, the acceleration is 0.006 m/s2 which means that Earth falls

, s= 0.003 m in a second towards the sun; The power of Earths gravitation is

thus 1.064 x 1020

J/s To Compare; The Energy which sun Provides to Earth, 1.74 x 1017

J/s

2/2at s

This is 611.7 times the power provided to Earth by solar radiation. This is the thermal problem of the Kinetic theory of gravitation.

But it’s actually a problem for any theory of gravitation. If such a force is present (as it is!)

the entropy must continually increase. Maxwell repeated this criticism of the Fatio-Lesageconcept many times, so he apparently regarded it as the most damning. Also G.H.Darwin pointed out at his paper from 1905 that Le Sage’s theory “demands a continual creation of

energy at infinity to supply the gravific machinery”. So what I want to point out here, is,that such a criticism should actually not be pointed against the La Sage’s theory of Gravity, but simply against the Newton’s claim that such a Gravitational Force exists. It is this very

Force which already has these problems. So to truly understand this, and to be able to solvethis General Entropy-problem, we must find an explanation, which I partially give here, byexplaining how the radioactivity is the mechanism to cope this Entropy problem.

4.2.2. Introduction to the explanation to the Energy Problem; Thermosphere.

Thermosphere is the Layer of Atmosphere in approx 100-1000 km altitude. Particles inthermosphere are typically at 1400 K temperature. But it varies, and can raise up to 2300 K.It's claimed, that the heating and variation would be caused by a Solar XUV radiation. ThisTotal heat input is estimated to be 0.8-1.6 mW/m

2. (milliWatt / m

2!!) When Kirchoff’s law

is applicable, the spectral absorption is equal to spectral emissivity. This simple statement

says, that the total heat output must be also in the same range. Thus the temperature of thegas should be cooled by the radiation and stay in a balance temperature defined by the total

Heat flux. First I have to estimate the amount of particles in Thermosphere. I tried tocalculate it my self, and found a range of 7x10

8kg to 3x1013 kg. Or if I use plain wiki for

atmosphere, I found that it would be 0.00003% of 5.1480×1018

kg also 1.54x1014

kg.This variation is way too big to evaluate anything; range 108 to 1014 is 1 to 1 000 000!MSIS-E-90 Atmosphere Model is provided by omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov; with this data I didmore accurate analysis. Fist I needed to choose some extreme points to have the most

visible reactions. Most extreme changes in LOD; 12.6.1998 is the end of 1.7 msacceleration. (Figure 12 left), The axial tilt, even when corrected, influences the data. Thus

point near equinox, 21.9.1998 is chosen to get clear picture; a point where the accelerationstarts.


21/34

I also need to choose some interestingtime of day, or sun position to make the

observations. For such, I found an

interesting observation from FeynmanLectures [5]; It shows average dailyvariation of the atmospheric potentialgradient on a clear day over the oceans,

Referred to UTC/ Greenwich time.

So I chose 19:00 UTC for 12.6.1998;Figure 14. Axial tilt is roughly corrected,

so that changes are in the Orbital plane.Please note how the colours describe the

position of the sun.

Yellow is towards, and Blue is away from sun.

Figure 12: 12.6.1998 and 21.9.1998 compared to the LOD change

Figure 13: Earths average potential

referred to UTC time.

Figure 14: Thermosphere 19:00 UTC for 12.6.1998

Orange is evening and is thus Trailing edge.Green is the morning, and thus the Leading edge.


22/34

I notice these aspects In Figure 14;- The gases are stratified in space according to their densities; Hydrogen, H; 0.09 g/L ->

Helium, He 0.18 g/L -> Oxygen, O 1.43 g/L- At the top 700-1000 km is the Lightest gases; H, Hydrogen, has it’s highest amounts at

night side, And lowest amounts in sun-side. And He, Helium, located as the opposite.- When we look the range 400-700 km we notice another phenomenon; the lighter gas;

Helium its highest amounts at the morning / Leading edge, and the Heavier oxygen atevening /Trailing edge.

- Above 400 km, there are practically only single atoms, N2 and O2 remains below.- Below 300 km, there is practically no difference.- Below 100 km everything is absolutely constant.The picture above shows, that there are remarkable changes on the gas amounts, but it’s not

very easy to read this information from the table above.

I chose some interesting levels; 520 km – 620 km- 720 km – 1000 km. And made anotherdiagram from the same data, but now according to sun position;

Figure 15: Thermosphere 19:00 UTC for 12.6.1998, Levels 520-1000, Sun at 12

My observations for Figure 15;- Pit and peak for Oxygen at 520 and 620 km height is at 06 and 18.

- Helium makes the counterpart for Oxygen with Peak at 06 and pit at 18.- Height 720 is transition-zone- At 860 and 1000 km the peak and Pit for Helium and Hydrogen is at approx 02 – 14

For comparison the data from 21.9.1998, 04:00 UTC, is presented in Figure 16. Note how the times for the Morning, Day, evening and night are slightly adjusted.I observe that Helium goes now approx 200 km higher than on the Figure 14.


23/34

To better understand the phenomenon, absolute densities are compared on the Figure 17

Figure 16: Thermosphere 04:00 UTC for 21.9.1998

Figure 17: Left 12.6.98, 19 UTC and right 21.9.1998, 04 UTC, Absolute densities

in various Heights. Pictures are on scale and not logarithmic. (Thus 2 pics)

I observe how the density varies in order of 3 - 5 times. Thus it needs to be closed out, ifthis is temperature related, according to PV=nRT. Figure 18 a, shows that this is not thecase. Also the Temperature is approx 10 % higher at the same time. It should be noted thatEarth is nearest to the Sun at Aphelion at approx 4.7. This means the distance to sun is

greatest. So The Earth is approx 2 500 000 km, or 1.7 % nearer the Sun at 21.9.1998compared to 12.6.1998.


24/34

I can conclude that the density change is not Temperature related, but the pressure and/orvolume should be remarkably higher, as expected by equation PV = nRT , when both n and

T are greater.What I also observe, is that the daily Temperature difference is bigger. It should be noted

that the cause for this might be the fact that 12.6. data is from 19 UTC and 21.9. is from 04UTC. To clear this question we compare the 04 UTC temperature to 19 UTC at 21.9.1998in Figure 18 b.

It seems that there is some, but no remarkable Daily fluctuation in temperature. The shape

of the curve, and also the value remains approximately same. For completeness I comparethe daily fluctuation of the O, He and H according to the sun position. (Figure 19) For fullcompleteness I add also the values of N in the same table. To maintain readability, I showonly levels 520 km, 620 km and 720 km;

Figure 18 a, Delta T 12.6.->21.9.1998, Figure 18 b, Delta T, 21.9.98, 04->19 UTC

Figure 19: 21.9.1998, Hights 520-620-720 km, O and He, 04-19 UTC;

H, N 19 UTC


25/34

My observations;- N, Nitrogen is there but has very little influence to anything.- The amplitude is bigger at 19 UTC than 04 UTC- The density difference can be traced to the smaller amount of H compared to Figure

15; as this must mean an increase in He and O.- The peaks and pits of these waves are very nicely at 06 (Leading edge) and at 16-17.

The Figure 20 is from 21.9.1998, 19 UTC, it concentrates on O and He, and heights 620 km – 660 km-720 km. The view point is below South Pole. Please note that the axial tilt is inorbital plane as the data is taken at equinox. The yellow dot describes the sun position at 12.

Figure 20: 21.9.1998, 19 UTC, Hights 620-660-720 km, O and He

My Observations;- It becomes absolutely clear how the heavier Oxygen goes behind, and lighter Helium

goes forward; exactly as happens to a Helium-balloon in an accelerating car.- This concludes that there is a continuous acceleration and drag present in Tangential

direction.- This closes out the possibility that Earth has orbited 4.5 Mrd Years without propulsion.- It can be concluded that the Gravity has Observable Energy Problem.- With this diagram, it can be seen that the density difference shown before, is not

related only for material properties. If this would be the case, the amounts of O and Heshould be presented exactly symmetric.

So it’s time to calculate more precisely the reasons for the Heat.

Practically all the particles at Thermosphere are single atoms. This means that they are notinfluenced by the gravity; as it’s explained by the present knowledge of Gravity.From this must be concluded that all the interactions above the 100 km limit are happeningaccording to the kinetic theory. Further all cooling must happen through thermal radiation.As the particles are (mostly) single atoms the absorptions and emissions are quite limited tocertain wave lengths as shown in Figure 21.


26/34

Calculations, Energy provided by Sun at XUV-spectrum;

Figure 21: Absorbtion/Emission Spectrums

Radius of Earth r = 6 371 km + Height of Thermosphere 1000 km.Area of Radiation; 1.7x1014 m2. Power; 0.0012 W/m2, Total; 0.2 TWMass 21.9.1998; 140 km -1000 km; 6.16 x1010 kg. Avg. Temperature; 725 K

Roughly the mass is divided as follows;O, O2; 252 x10

9 kg, “16” Molecule amount N = 9.5x10

35, Heat capacity; 920 J/(kg · K)

N, N2; 364 x109 kg; “14” Molecule amount N = 1.56x10


He; 35.2x106 kg, “4” Molecule amount N = 5.3x10


H; 1.34x106 kg, “1” Molecule amount N = 0.8x1033, Heat capacity; 14304 J/(kg · K)Total Heat capacity; 61.2 x1012 J/K, XUV Radiation power; 0.2 x1012 J/s,

We can calculate ie. that “Heating power” is 0.003 K/s, or 12 K/hour.

This is simply impossible, as just the temperature variation is up to 40-50 K/hour!

4.2.3. Explanation to the Energy Problem; Gravitational Power.

First, I needed to estimate what is the Neutral temperature of the Space at the distance of

the planet. If some simple assumptions is made, like expected, that every change in the parameters of the solar system goes in Inverse-square law. Then, using the short info found

from Wikipedia; Temperatures of Interplanetary medium is 200 K at 2.2 AU and 165 K at3.2 AU. It can easily calculated that at AU 1 the Temperature is 296 K, and at AU 0.4approx at Mercury, the Temperature is 468 KWith this expectation it could be assumed, that the Gravitational Power heats the

Temperature form the Neutral 300 K to the average levels measured in Thermosphere, i.e.800 K. From this info the change in heat is; 61.2 x10

12 J/K x 500 K = 30.6 x1015 J

If this heating can be considered as a continuous; Then it needs a power of 30 600 TWIf the 1/3 Of the mass between 500-1000 km is heated additional 300 K, means 300 K to1100 K,; Heat capacity only 0.018% from the total value above, this would need 3.3 TWPower, which is 15 x times more than the power of XUV-radiation.

It should be noted that this 30 600 TW is already 18% of the total Solar energy to Earth.

This is already more, than is said to be reflected by the whole atmosphere. Thus the source

of this heat simply can’t be the Sun. It should be noted that this is still only the first smallsign of the heat produced by gravitational force; It’s still only 0.03% of the Heat Calculatedon the Introduction. Even if we calculate with the density at 1000 km, and with height up tothe moon; 380 000 km we still have only 1.7 % of the Heat. But with 760 000 km radius we

already have 13.5%! If we seek the balance, we found that with 4x the radius to moon, wehave the balance; According to my excel this balance is reached at; 1 487 145 km. So itseems that the “heat Problem” is really huge problem. But as Earth travels 29.7 km/s, it’snot, Earth goes this distance quite exactly in 50 000 seconds; in just 14 hours, and thus

leaves this heat behind very quickly. Though it don’t have the capacity to study this stuffthoroughly, I just can’t avoid the Idea, that Moon (and also planets!) is simply the

condensation product of this heat. As the amounts of the moons in various planets alsoseems to fit in this theory. See also chapters 5.3.1. and 5.4.


27/34

4.2.4. Energy Problem; Conclusions

This is not the whole story, actually the Energy problem of Le Sage’s theory is even bigger.Above was only calculated the observed change, and the energy needed to make thischange. In reality this theory predicts that everything is bombarded through these particles

from all directions all the time. As it’s known, the Gravity works perfectly also to thecomets, which are not travelling on orbital plane.

But it’s not quite so complicated. The atoms of the solar system are of course travelling inall directions, but they are also colliding to other atoms. Even if the Mean free path of themolecules would be really high, like 150 Million km; equal the distance from Sun to Earth,these particles would still collide 100-150 times before they reach the Earth, and 70-120

times, before they reach the first planet; Neptune. This means that the pressure, asexplained by the Kinetic theory, would increase in similar steps together with the

Temperature. The “problematic Energy” is radiated away long before it even reaches any planets. But this statement is here only to give an idea about the fact that the “EnergyProblem” is not such a problem, which closes out this Gravity theory. When I combine the“Energy Problem”, with the idea of Radioactivity, it’s rather so, that the “Energy Problem”

is not a problem at all, it’s the “cause” why there even is any material or “mass” in the Solar

System!

5. Closing out the doubts.

5.1. Porosity of the material-problem (Wikipedia; Le Sage’s theory of Gravitation)

A basic prediction of the theory is the extreme porosity of matter. As supposed by Fatio and Le Sage in 1690/1758 (and before them, Huygens) matter must consist mostly of empty

space so that the very small particles can penetrate the bodies nearly undisturbed andtherefore every single part of matter can take part in the gravitational interaction. This prediction has been (in some respects) confirmed over the course of the time. Indeed,matter consists mostly of empty space and certain particles like neutrinos can pass through

matter nearly unhindered. However, the image of elementary particles as classical entitieswho interact directly, determined by their shapes and sizes (in the sense of the net structure proposed by Fatio/Le Sage and the equisized spheres of Isenkrahe/Darwin), is notconsistent with current understanding of elementary particles. The Lorentz/Thomson proposal of electrical charged particles as the basic constituents of matter is inconsistent

with current physics as well.

Explanation; as concluded by this paper, there is no mass. Thus the needed “extreme porosity of matter” is actually even absolute porosity of matter. There is no matter, it’s onlyenergy, and it depends only from the wavelength how these energies are interfering andresonating with other materials. So the principal problem on this idea, which must be

explained, is “how does the gravity work in Submarine, in the bottom of the Sea?” “Or howdoes it work in the deep tunnels down the Earth?

The above explained theory of emitting photons actually means, that any particle which ismoving radiates, and the direction of this radiation is backwards from the direction of themovement. But it also means that the wavelength of this radiation is depends on the

velocity, which can be also described as temperature. Of course most of the particles aremoving with low velocity, which means that most of the radiation must be those with hugewavelengths, 1 Hz to 30 Hz corresponds for wave lengths of (299 792 458 m) 300 000 kmto 10 000 km. Such wavelengths are able to go through Jupiter. It also seems that the size ofa smallest sun is approximately “2 Hz”.

5.2. Introduction for calculating various constants

Maybe there is similar absolute limit for wave length as there is for the speed of light? Thegravitational Coupling constant might give us some light to the issue. I studied this a bit and


28/34

realized that the longest wave length might be 1/c2 or 89 875 517 873 681 800 m. But this

seems quite a problematic.

There is so much , 2 , 4 and after implementing this new theory, even 2/3’s, not toforget that we are observing from a moving platform, that we need to add the relativisticaspects too, that I decided to skip all the old stuff. I am not trying to explain how tocalculate “Gravitational coupling constant” or Planck constant. As I did to Electron, Proton

and Neutron mass. Instead of that, I make a statement that these all can be found, from the powers of the speed of light.

344

334

263

253

172

162

9

10238.1/1

10078.8

10711.3/1

10694.2

10113.1/1

10988.8

10336.3/1

299792458

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

5.2.1 Age of the Universe Ie. The “age of the universe” is somehow funny number, as after this study I don’t believeto any “Big Bang”, and thus the age would be simply the maximum time which we can see

to the past. And the true age could be infinite. This “age” is now defined to be some

At this time light travels approximately which is logically

, so with

years910×8.13

3c×845.4

m26

10×3.1

71.4

2

3

factor, we are already in the +/- 3% range, or other vice

said the age But this is just playing with numbers, and doesn’t bring

anything. I have no explanation why this would be so. Maybe it’s simply , then I could

say that volume has it’s 4th dimension; time, and of course we se the “time” only as it

returns, so it must be 2-times. So Yes, it’s plausible. But

years910×4.1332c

3c 2/3 ; -Why? I don’t know.Maybe someone has just calculated it this much wrong.

5.2.2 Planck constant

Reduced Planck constant, is already divided with 2 , it’s unit is s s

mkg Js

2

2

is

almost Ok, as the extra second may become from frequency, the mass is and the velocity

is already there; so I would expect it to be

2

c

4

1

c x where x=0.85 This 0.85 could be then

explained with many things, but I see that the basic logic is this.

5.2.3 Gravitational coupling constant This is really crazy. –a mess. But I take a shot, maybe I hit, though probably not. Thereason why I do this is that it gives the Idea about the gravity. It helps us to think. So just


29/34

shut your eyes from the horrifying mess of units which this “Damn-number” provides;

2

213

2

313 1066610666

kg

m N

kgs

mG

To have some Humor, I just rounded it up to 666 & ^-13, but this should not afraid any truescientists, as they are “just numbers”.So what is this all about? The idea is, that the If I think that it’s the weakest possible

photons, which have the biggest wave lengths by definition, which are responsible for the

gravity? And as all photons are 2 dimensional; or 1+time dimensional. So I want to use .2c

… and I should some how get this number42

10217.3000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,800,310/1

162 10988.8 c 172 10113.1/1 c2/1 c 2c

through or Though it sounds easier to start with

I take the and assume that it defines the longest wave length of photon, The

energy of this is photon is thus

hc E , and so I have a nice number like;

4210210.2000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,400,452/1

810785.1000,000,56/1 4/1 c

And I see that I could correct out number with just factor 1.455 or 0.687; means almostwith just the 2/3 rule, but this is not the problem! I am still actually about

wrong if I want to have i.e. factor

But I still haven’t used the “damn number”, so I take the damn number;1310666 G

and I dived The number with it, and my numerology lies on;

50.26710238.1/10210.2 34

42

G

***humor*** This multiplied by 1.2 gives me then a countdown 321.00 ***humor***

It seems that through the biggest wave length is “ -something” analogy I do got somehowthe correct range. If we look the Equation (2) we note that we should use , so when we

calculate We are really close. And though it might be enjoyable to

play with Stuff like I will stop this play here, as it would probably only

confuse. Though support for using can be found from Planck’s law or from Wien

approximation, not to forget the Rayleigh-Jeans law, which proposes the usage of and

as

2

c 26

517.46/5.267 2

.2644 e 785e

4/1

v2and thus ie.

4

4

v

19

44 16

^104.26 22max c

it just doesn’t tell too much from the mechanism.

So I just expect, that measurements are correct, and thus the maximum wave length is in

order

This wavelength fits i.e. with factor 40x to the size of milky way, having thus somesimilarities in the Chapter 4.2.3. Observations I made about the moon and the 4x radius of

heat absorption. So I stop

qed explanation for gravity and radioactivity. -theory of everything

Documents