DELPHI4Test2014
PaintBrushWin3.1 ¦ Jan2022 UNIVERSUMS
HISTORIA  2011V4 ¦ 2022I18  aproduction
 Sen uppdat vers: 20231027 YMD ¦ HumanRight
is a knowledge domain
content · webbSΦK δMNESORD pε
denna sida Ctrl+F SubjectINDEX all files helpStart
DISPOSITION
HOW UNIVERSE HISTORY BEGAN .. From Windows 3.1 .. on the first
computer editions .. MsWORKS 4.0 .. the best .. soon [after a rough decade]
killed by New Microsoft [ 2008 MsWORKS banned ] ..
THE
MODERN ACADEMY ISSUE 1800+:
Trying to explain Natural Phenomena
from a point of view where the whole of its Book of Knowledge was NOT
observed.
6Jan2023 Firefox Reads Symbol ¦ closets
before:
Do not
use Firefox web reader cannot read Symbol,
all first UHdocuments produced with MicrosoftWORD2000 convenient type pi with Ctrl+Shift+p for pi, etc. for UH
documents: Firefox vandalizes it.
Mozilla Firefox web
reader seems to have been created and intended solely for business reports no
conventional scientific unitive literature Symbol Font.
Funny why Firefox reads
Times New Roman too .. maybe the creators forgot to exclude that one too, in
advising a Symbol Unicode for EVERY font. High IQ:
No TRADITIONAL SCIENCE ARCHIVE readouts in
Firefox. Very educated personnel. Broadsighted an
so. It is such a joy. Much science.
Archives.
TheFinalConnection
¦ Dmax
¦ TheConstruct ¦ AllNatural ¦ DisClaim
¦ CheopsRectangleMATH ¦ LGD
¦ Deduction
¦ Hubble1929 ¦ ExperimentalConfirmations ¦ PlanckEquivalents
¦
Introduction
¦ MULTIPLEcPROOF ¦ MULTIPLEc ¦ MACcRef ¦ TheTEXPLAN ¦ TheSolarEclipses ¦ ThePlanckWay ¦ TheEinsteinError ¦ ProvingTheEclipses ¦ Gpotential ¦ Suns4
¦
LightAndGravitation
¦ Results
¦ AminorTermConflict ¦ crREF
¦ Nature2022 ¦ DivergenceConvergence ¦ SolarCycle ¦ StarBASE
¦
ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦ ExplainingCoriolisPrecession
¦ ThePoint ¦ CausalNewton
¦ IncreasingTemperaturePressure
¦ SaturatedLightField ¦ TheExplanation ¦ rPdMATH ¦
TwienAffection
¦ CoriolisResolution ¦ AgainInConclusion ¦ ConcludingAllKeplerMath
¦ PrecessionEnergy ¦ ArguePoints ¦ POINT ¦ THEvDcRelation ¦ Newtons3inShort
¦ PotentialBarrier ¦
ExplainingTheDynamics ¦ FirstLIGHT ¦ UnderstadingActionReaction
¦ KeplerMomentumBasics ¦ GeDith ¦ APPLICATIONS
14¦ ThePrecessiveSTATEargument
¦
PerihelionPrecessionRotationalCenter ¦ CENTbyLightTime ¦
CaseClosed
¦ StefanBoltzmannDetails ¦ TheCircleArgument ¦ DynamicsExplanation ¦ ButLOOK
¦ Explanation ¦ SuperPositionPrinciple
¦ Basic
¦ TwoArguments ¦ Sections1234 ¦
TheEddingtonForm
¦ TheWikipediaEinsteinForm ¦ BasicEPSmath ¦ TheEddingtonArgument
¦ RelativisticMass ¦ Testified
¦ LocalGdominance ¦ ThermoElGraDis ¦ REGULARc
¦ Number5
¦
TheComplete
¦ TheExperiment ¦ Experiment ¦ AllKeplerMath ¦ PhysicsFirst ¦ PhysicsFirstMATH ¦ STATE
¦ GripDeep
¦ THEcrFACTORS ¦ PressureMinMax ¦ TheGeneralREF ¦ ByQuality ¦
BasicMathRanks
¦ TheMath
¦ FormallyKeplerMath ¦ CalCardRef ¦ TheRESULT
¦ CalculatingKeplerAnomalistic ¦ DecisiveParam ¦ AnomalisticPeriod
¦ Compressed ¦ IAUtestDETAILS ¦
TheENDresult
¦ Examination ¦ RelatedMath ¦ TheGtest
¦ TheElectricConstant ¦ TestingOtherCandidates ¦ IterativeConstantTest ¦ RedShiftIssues ¦ TheGPSexample ¦
DeducedConnections
¦ VEERING
¦ PE
PlanckEquivalents¦ TWI
¦ SRTN
¦ TheMisconception ¦ TheAbsoluteMETRIC ¦
Appendix
¦ TheNeutronSquareBreakThrough
¦ TheStarAnvil ¦ TheIAUtest
¦ ConstantPRECISION ¦ SpaceElectricalResistance
¦ HowIsTemperatureGENERATED
¦ Rex ¦
CentralEnergyMachine ¦ HowTEMP ¦ ComptonEffect
¦ ModernDegenerationPressure
¦ PULSARS ¦
Reason ¦ UnitedNations ¦ OurHistory ¦ HISTORY
¦ S
¦ content
¦
How
it all started .. on one of the first commercially available computers: Windows
3.1, Compaq Presario with printer and a Floppy Disc, Diskettes ..1.4 MB .. it was fantastic ..
PaintBrush Windows 3.1 The Original:
UniverseHistory WOULD DEFINITELY NOT HAVE
EVOLVED WITHOUT PaintBrush the discovery of The Natural Chart of The Atomic Masses as Matched by Experimental
Measure: The Neutron Square
The
outnumbering of modern academic ideas in nuclear and cosmological physics
(1800+) please share a disclaimer: search for, non yet found (Nov2022):
WHAT FINAL CONNECTION
MADE IT?
EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURE ATOMIC MASSES that
made it, most definitely
NeutronSquare Neutronkvadraten ¦ The Elliptic Funtions Ellipsfunktionerna
ONE ASKS HONESTLY in concern of Microsofts so called
development (after Bill Gates era); Why is the company shutting down natural
scientifically useful computer developing TOOLS and replacing them with
cropped, watered down copies of clearly program mutilated character? Test
answer: Because ITS inducement lies not in HELPING but MANIPULATING.
Conquering.
Zero interest for knowledge: not one word HumanRight. Not a sound. Not a hint. Not a spell. Where is world
jurisdiction other than paid Bitches to these?
indexREGISTER DISPOSITION 
Teckenfφrklaringar: MusKLICKVδnster 
Hφger: 
RullaMushjulet FRΕN 
MOTDig: 
Vidareutvecklat Frεn DELPHI 4 Test 2011

T2014PaintBrush HUVUDDELEN AV VERKTYGEN MAN BEHΦVER
FΦR AVANCERAD DATORANVΔNDNING I TEXT OCH BILD
Neutron Squares general morphology. A complementary more in
detail description is given from The
Neutron Square Break Through.
PaintBrush Windows 3.1 The Original:
DELPHI4Test2011.htm:
TheFinalConnection: Reason ¦ Our History ¦
endowed with reason and conscience. Say.
rJ Checking on the Cheops Rectangle Basic Math ¦ Comparing on the Flinders Petrie 1883 Cheops Pyramid precisoon measures
THE FINAL CONNECTION THAT MADE IT
TheEarthMASS ¦ CWON ¦
CAP ¦
The Kepler
vr and Planck cr
Momentum
on the verge of explaining the planets perihelion
precessions on plain Kepler Math
The breakthrough came
16011612. Working with Tyge Brahe (1600) Johannes Kepler discovered Keplers Three Laws
of planetary motion. The most central of them by mathematics as the Kepler (Area) Momentum
K = vr = 2A/T; = d²/T =(d/T)d =
vd (=vr), also the Geometrical Displacement
(bh/2=A):
The central vector connecting Sun and
Planet sweeps equal areas in equal times.
Adding the orbiting mass
(m), the KeplerMomentum expresses the Angular momentum (mK=mvr), to us more
universally known in the form of Planck constant (h) with v=c in h=mcr=6.626
t34 JS (The Neutron).
With the deduced Lights Gravitational
Dependency from the Cheops Rectangle geometrical
mathematics
light divergence (c_{0}
= 2.99792458 T8 M/S) in space is preserved a natural constant independent of
gravitational influences (the atomic nucleus deduction Part II: gravitations
fundamental form)
there is apparently
also a fix and solid corresponding Planck (area) Momentum: h=m·c_{0}r:
the Neutron (spin).
On these premises (and the following
historical parts with Galilei, Newton, Bradley, Euler and Planck) apparently
never deduced or even hinted at by the modern academic inducements (1800+) as a unitive foundation of the natural physics of
the universe this UniverseHistory was unfolded (beginning during the
1970s): as pouring water from one bucket to another (more or less: »with the
greatest ease»).
This author was hence never blocked by modern academic
inventions and hence neither invited to their
corridors (6 points of available 5 perhaps Id better do it myself ..). And
so, more freely, a set of analyzing and result comparing cross referring
expeditions in mathematics and physics was launched. It had to be fought for
not so much in concern of the results as the TIME and SOLITUDE needed to get
the work done.
Dmax: TEXPL
RELATED
PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS
The Atomic Nucleus Gravitational mass
lies not in its volume as resembling the mass of a drop of water but in its
unlimited toroidal hollow fractal structure:
»shells» where the fractal
principle defines an endlessly increasing density on an endlessly decreasing
shell mass (PASTOM: hollow toroidal): m=n·m/n: n→∞: no smallest part
the nucleus hollow toroid
fractal surface (Planck structure constant ¦ [E=hf=(h/nFractal)nFractal·f=hFractal
· fFractal]) is, or can so be understood to be immensely Hard.
See details in deduction from h=mcr The Planck Ring,
WHAT BASIC ELEMENTARY PHENOMENA DID HIDE ALL THIS
FROM MODERN ACADEMY?
The Star Physics. Beginning from The Atomic Nucleus on the foundation of The Energy Law.
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS (as quoted from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN August 1987 and others) on the TNED deduced N3m20 NeutronProton atomic nucleus:
Collisions between Spinning Protons ¦ CONFIRMATIONS ¦ Spin directed colliding protons TNED Dynamics cross reference
on experimental results ¦ h = mcr the atomic nucleus:
CWON: mJ = 5.975 T24 KG Earth mass references
The modern academic QUARK theory and nomenclature has
no connection to the TNED deduced atomic nucleus.
These are two completely different ideas. The atomic nucleus in TNED has no
innate particles. The mathematical resemblance is simple: 1
= 1 = 1 000 000 / 1 000 000 = N/N = ANY/ANY = ∞ / ∞ . Simple elementary math.
The
atomic nucleus gravitation
is already standing on a fundamental zero base:
the atomic nucleus gravitation cannot be compressed. The Planck Structural Constant.
Physics7th.
CWON through CAP:
IN
ALL FURTHER TESTS we preferentially use this apparently very precised given Earth mass figure 5.975 T24 KG ±<3GRAM for tests wherever there
is an offer for any the slightest chance of opportunity to question the result.
The rJ feature has further connectivity in the following text.
Every single material celestial body in the
universe shows exactly the same building up physical principle, Related
Physics says:
TheEarthMASS ¦ CWON ¦
CAP ¦
The Galactic Building ¦ The Solar Systems in The Milky Way ¦ The Meteorite Proofs ¦ TheNEUTRONsquare
CAP: Concentric Atomic Production CWON:
Complete Whole Numbersolution
FROM the tiniest grain to the largest
galaxy (The Distribution of Elements) based on the deduced Planck constant h=mcr Neutron Toroid atomic nucleus (N3m20), certified by The Energy Law (GripDEEP ¦ GcQ): Energy mass cannot be created. Mass can only be transferred E=hf=mc² to different levels of
usable energy. AS a given property of physics, it certifies that the atomic
nucleus (TNED) already is standing on a »zero»: the fundamental
property of gravitation: the atomic nucleus
gravitation as such cannot be compressed. Gravitation as such apparently certifies the fundamental
incompressibility of gravitations fundamental element: the atomic nucleus: physics
seventh principle (PASTOM: principle structure of mass: never mentioned in modern academy).
INSTEAD OF RELATING AND
DEDUCING that please do disclaim anyone who can NATURE (physics) Modern academy consensus 1800+ INVENTED (BasicMATH) an idea of a cosmic limited mass (because it seemed embarrassing to the 1800+ IQ aces
to assume that »God» life; gravitation and electricity was the inventor of
intelligence .. the only known instance at the time ..) although even
modern academic personnel realizes that any creation of energy mass is a
fundamental physical impossibility: LIGHT is massless. LIGHT develops no centrifugation. Not even on my best day. There is no trace of an inertial
force in a celestial LIGHTS gravitationally governed orbit or trajectory (The
Eclipse experiments from 1919). But
the KeplerNewton kinetics have it: moving masses.
THE CWON COMPLEX IN UNIVERSE HISTORY. Up to
the general deduction of the celestial primary body building physics, there
were no proofs in UniverseHistory of a direct mathematically provable ORDER IN
THE isotopic distribution of Earth crust elements. TNED SUGGESTS IT TO BE SO
from the deduced primary celestial body building (TEXPL) Dmax property. However, in
investigating the 1900s available geological data on the Earths crust
compositions (The Prime Data)
AtmosBiosLitos the figures (CWON) appeared. And so a final quantitative
Earth mass connecting proof did, and has now, arrived on the table (2020+).
Especially lights gravitational dependency
LGD exhibits a center in the whole TNED deduced cosmic building.
And it gives (real
steel) further perspective on the different already established scientific
domains.
As 1800+ neither The Zero Integral responded very successfully inside the Modern Math High Quarter
Corridors
modern academic famous teaching systems inability to recognize the difference
between DIFFERENCE 01 and DIFFERENTIAL: the point (xyz), the Form For Zero:
nothing
further Inventions 1800+ in Logic had to be consented for The modern Merit Student to
Earn its Job Favor in participating the general destruction[] of the Earth Global environment 1800+
30% forest area removed by 2000 from 1800
after only 200 years of ardent inventory strives (ForestWORL2012).
And still counting, Nov2022 (GlobalWatchersData).
It seems obvious that
Modern Academic Thinking does not understand the Role of The Chlorophyll
Agency:
»THAT our brains were
developed on credit from Chlorophyll Agencies on SunLight, is nonsense».
»That is why we keep
chopping the population down».
»We will do fine
without».
Collecting sunlight for LIFE STRENGTH AND
SUPPORT HEALTH PROVISION for all species ended 1812
(adopted IPCC preference value here in UniverseHistory). Ever
since, it has apparently been the subject of looting and sacking for business
and industrial profit. 30%. 200y. From undisturbed 3Gy Brain Constructor
Development. Say again. Come again: Stop The Madness. End it. Finish it.
Execute it. Vaporize Its Atom.
Enlightened Humans dont kill alive
Leaf&Needle. No mother god loving way.
AS IT APPEARS then BY
THE CONSTRUCTORS OF THE GREAT CHEOPS PYRAMID AT GIZA, Egypt:
Summing all the impressions collected on
that subject and object in UniverseHistory (CheopsATLAS):
IT WAS BUILT apparently as a
testifying monument of universal mathematics and physics as the most present
prominent alternative explanation if nothing can disclaim that candidate (besides too, even worse, in a
geologically dim history we cannot prove today, and even more worse: by a
technology definitely not present in our time). It was for us to find
verify as a »The Corresponding fundamental universal proof of Naturally
Deductive Physics». But in our time, on credit of the established 1800+ society
ideas of intelligence and nature, the bare possibility of any other source of intelligence
than modern academys own 1800+, the alternatives are constantly denied.
Perhaps it safest to burn the bible too.
(Because, as it seems: IT
apparently HAS a very original strongly suggested connection. Compare TheClaim).
MODERN ACADEMY: Say something preferentially
intelligent.
Is there anything at all
inside the 1800+ Modern Academy Consensus IQ Elite that IT did NOT turn its
back on, starting to INVENT ITS universe, instead of DEDUCING it[1][2]?
Give us one example. That
would be encouraging.
Come again. Show the math.
Dazzle us.
SWEDEN 2018 once a placid place .. and
growing ..
Sweden is exaggerating its
further global governmental care for Universal Animal Rights .. MustBuyBook.
VEGETATION Leaf&Needle was
apparently intended nervous system construct for maintenance of basic
biological NATURAL HEALTH CARE.
NOT for any kind or sort of industrial scale
energy consumption or business profiting: NOT for Trafficking Humanity, but
Developing it. Say again:
What replaces the chemical reduction? 3Gy of
undisturbed natural evolution, no cuts, up to 1800. 200 years later: more than
30% reduced forest area.
»Well do fine with 70% for the developed
100 we can always compensate with modern academic medical Juice». Have a nice
Mad day.
Is that your
best shot? Killing. Looting and Sacking. Technology for
Destruction. Say again.
UN. United Nations. In a
Universe. Say.
See further details on
the provable PetrieCHEOPS issue in
To be noted: the proof relies on a 100% on the Golden Section Paragon geometrical
mathematics;
There is no THEORY here only the 1883
Flinders Petrie measuring reports under the looking glass of corresponding
explaining geometric illustrated mathematics. Meaning:
It holds, all of it or
not at all. So: Take your time.
As certified by
quantities: any argument is welcome that can disclaim the proofs:
Searched for, none yet
found.
DO DISCLAIM on the collected
results in UniverseHistory
BECAUSE WE ARE still FAR FROM HAVING COMPLETE DETAILED PROOFS on the final count down Connection to the Cheops Building ..
Or the
building a such, and the Flinders Petrie 1883 measures, and their CheopsATLAS proven equivalents are compelling
evidence as such. But still 2022
without proof of the connecting Constructor and its place and location in human
history
The proofs we have: BioEk110, CAP, CWON, Advanced
primitive biochemical matrices including direct meteorite proofs showing the
same basic universal principle,
Atomic masses matching experimentally measured
deduction of Periodic System on Kepler resonances and what follows on The
Kcell Heat Physics, with further:
The
Neutron Square proving and
explaining modern academys invented primitive idea of nuclear physics
The 100%
Photosynthesis machine solid cyclic bio mass with zero oxygen production, on
which the whole Earth biological complex has eveolved
CheopsRectangleMATH: Deduction
LIGHTS GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY IN RELATED PHYSICS
Geometricmathematical proof: c0 cannot be destroyed but 1800+ modern academy invented ideas [BasicMATHranks]
blocking any related mathematical/physical
deduction:
Static and Expansive/Contractive Lights Gravitational Dependency [the different possible
states, all by math, of an expanding/contracting or standstill universal
mass: our Kcell physics in UH]
apparently a completely unknown concept AS SUCH
in Modern Quarters: Lights top velocity divergence c0 cannot be destroyed.
Apparently meaning:
Never created. Indestructible.
The
general 1800+ invented modern academy idea of a CREATION some »ultimate
Beginning» is a delusion. If claimed, it becomes an exercised oppression,
forcing the individual into depressive existential ideas on the origin of its
own nature. Quite the opposite of HumanRight recognition. Physics First Principle.
The Graphical Function
through y = √ 1 x² : allowing
 1 x²  :
The term »Cheops Rectangle», was so coined
here in UH because the source of the central (Galilean used expression) bd=h²
led back to its first mentioning through the ancient Greek references in
geometry: The Cheops Pyramid. As however seen in the 5 basic math
equations square roots, the harmonic triangles, the complex algebraic
foundation and its deduction, lights gravitational dependency none of these
are mentioned or related as (so) connected, as known here, in the modern
academic teaching system.
Discovering these
basics (1980+), searching for corresponding parts in available library
literature, was like discovering an enormous Treasure, completely unknown to
present thinking: never mentioned.
Lights Gravitational Dependency: DisClaim ¦ CeopsRectangleMATH ¦ Deduction
See also more compressed in Physics General Explanation
LIGHTS GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY ¦ deduction
Figure 1
DOTTED modern academy: this overall Concept
is apparently unknown in modern quarters. See also Potential
Barrier.
RELATED PHYSICS TNED, CheopsRectangleMath, GripDEEP:
Light
Divergence linear propagation of light in free space follows a local
gravitational potential
w²
= Gm_{2}/r. m_{2} is the central gravitating mass, r the
distance from its gravity center, G the universal gravitation constant: During the instrumental
epoch 19601999, and still, in many references given as 6.67 t11 JM/[KG]².
The CHEOPS RECTANGLE MATH directly shows
with c0 constant preserved independent of gravitation,
c/c0 = (1 w²/cc0) why
neither Einstein nor Schwarzchild could reach the deducing conditions:
Modern Academy 1800+ invented/adopted ideas of physics apparently with zero solidity in our
practical physical universe apparently ON A
SPARKLING MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION which consolidated SO by drift, not plan
a banning of any reasonable explanation to the nature of gravitation and
light.
Not even close.
Lights gravitational dependency
RELATED PHYSICS AND
MATHEMATICS consequences pertaining to The deduction of the electric charge Q (RELATED Physics 7 Principles)
basic force
equivalent:
F_{c}_{0}=ma=m(c_{0}/dT)=constant ; minimum m on a maximum c = c_{0} = F_{c}_{0}dT/m = a·dT = c_{0} ; divergence counts in any space point P and has no traveling property: no mass:
a = c_{0}/dT; related physics has no divergence differential (»dc_{0}»):
c_{0} is a natural constant, independent of mass. Then a
force rank of the form can be understood to hold as a form for Lights
(Divergences) Gravitational (Convergence) Dependency, F_{c}_{0}
= F_{c} + F_{G} : gravitation opposes or governs:
or defines the local divergence.
Then a corresponding energy rank (E=Fd) equivalent appears from
the substitution (Δs) with a metric interval F_{c}_{0}Δs
= F_{c}Δs + F_{G}Δs as the
basic energy
equivalent:
Ev = Ec + EG = mv² = mc²
+ mw² ; v² = c² + w² = cc_{0} ¦ w² = Gm_{2}/r ;
F = ma = Gm_{2}m/r²,
Fr = mar = Gm_{2}m/r, Fr/m = ar = Gm_{2}/r = [M/S²]M = [M/S]² =
w².
CHEOPS RECTANGLE:
bd = h² : w=h ¦ b/h = h/d ; bd=h²:
w/c = (c_{0}c)/w ¦ w^{2} = cc_{0}c^{2} ¦ v/c_{0} = c/v ¦ v^{2} = cc_{0} ;
w^{2} + c^{2} = v^{2} ¦ c^{2} = v^{2} w^{2} = cc_{0} w^{2} ;
c^{2} = cc_{0} w^{2} ¦ c^{2} = cc_{0} (1 w^{2}/cc_{0}) ¦ c = c_{0} (1 w^{2}/cc_{0}) ;
c/c_{0} =
(1 w^{2}/cc_{0}) ; compare Einstein and Schwarzchild : from THEIR MATH came THE ONSET : »find
a more reasonable explanation», please.
c^{2} cc_{0}
= w^{2} ;
c^{2} cc_{0}
+ (c_{0}/2)^{2} =
(c_{0}/2)^{2} w^{2} ;
(c
c_{0}/2)^{2} =
(c_{0}/2)^{2} w^{2} ;
c c_{0}/2 =
√ (c_{0}/2)^{2} w^{2} ;
c = c_{0}/2
+ √ (c_{0}/2)^{2} w^{2} ;
c = c_{0}/2
+ c_{0}/2√ 1 4w^{2}/c_{0}^{2} ; lights
gravitational dependency
FULLY RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS. No relativity
theory.
c/c_{0} =
(1/2)(1 + √ 1 4w^{2}/c_{0}^{2}) ; from c0 to c0/2 ; w² = cc0 c²
¦ the [ half ] circle, radius
c0/2
c/c_{0} =
(1/2)(1 √ 4w^{2}/c_{0}^{2}
1) ; from c0/2 to 0 ..; w² = c² cc0 + c0²/2 ¦
the uniform hyperbola
c/c_{0} =
(1/2)(1 ± √1 4w^{2}/c_{0}^{2}) ; the
Φ = FI arangement for automatic ±selection: w/[c0/2]
= a : Φ
= INT[1(a1[a1])/2]
giving
c/c_{0} =
(1/2)(1 + ϕ√1 4w^{2}/c_{0}^{2}) ; ϕ =
(2Φ+1) ¦ Φ=0 (+) from c_{0} to c_{0}/2,
then Φ=1 () from c_{0}/2
to 0.
We incorporate this formality typically into a spread
sheats CalCardstructure for convenient access if needed. c0 = 2.99792458 T8
M/S.
SolenT2022.ods T2
A55 use, develop and extend as wished. Lights propagation velocity
here at Earth distance 1AU from Sun.
These resulting comparing expressions
exposes apparently in every mathematical and physical detail the
corresponding related primitive Modern Academic Inventions (Einstein, Schwarzchild both limited primitive ideas of a so
called »closed universe»).
And These resulting comparing expressions
also apparently concludes: An apparently provable in detail perfect match
to the quantities measured (1883) by the Flinders Petrie working group on The
Cheops Pyramid (and others nearby) on The Dmax
property by Present Earth Mass (apparently also
connecting CWON through CAP).
Beat that one: the rJCIRCLE and the
Flinders Petrie 1882 Cheops Pyramid measures and the highly possible (dim,
obscured, forgotten, impossible to prove) origin of Script:
»TheConstructivePLAN». Please do disclaim the one who can. We will surrender
immediately. Absolutely.
The rJ RadiusEarth (Sw.
Jorden) is our Earth mass 5.975 T24 KG perfect sphere taken on the deduced
Planck constant Neutron atomic nucleus on its circumscribed regular block
maximum density 1.82 T17 KG/M³, the Dmax.
Investing (2020) the match further, led to the
complete Flinders Petrie 1883 asserted measures as accounted for in CheopsATLAS.
The geometrical PLAN is
or can apparently be understood to be as shown and deduced in detail all
from The Golden Section Paragon and its spiral form with its central points and
crossings: all geometrical math.
See The7.
As strong as this provability is: it DID come there (what
are you talking about ..), AT its site (I dont understand a shit of what this
person is talking about ..). The only way to
disclaim That One (excuse
me: the fact that IT is standing there, as IS),
is to show (one single is enough) one example on the Petrie measures and this
investigation of them, that does NOT communicate WITHIN the given Petrie
tolerances. Show that, and we can all go home: disclaim the plan and start
fucking the pyramid too as apparently everything else has already been fucked:
The Cheops Pyramid in
Giza Egypt. Show that. And we will surrender immediately.
These however as they
have become here, yet
testamentary proofs have no known foundation of questioning, as found. Not by
mathematics. Not by physics. But we would welcome such, if found. Please share.
But
again the corresponding historical/geographical/geological decisive proofs
lie (still) in the dark. That has now become the real steel of the challenge.
With more to come.
Edwin Hubble
1929+
an expanding universe
FROM THE MOMENT WHEN THE
RED SHIFT PHENOMENA[] OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE
APPEARED (1929, after several measures when Edwin Hubble finally established
our present idea of an expanding universe, preceded by other astronomical
contributors; Friedman 1922, Lemaξtre 1927 and others) THE GENERAL MODERN
ACADEMIC TASK WAS TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THIS EXPANSION.
Given
The Seven
Principles of Physics in Universe History [APARC, FUNTOP, POM, NEONS, GRIP, DEEP and
PASTOM], only Newtons Three known in modern quarters, the rest gave itself up with not much resistance: like pouring
water from one bucket to another. No big deal. However: It took its sweet time. Big Bucket.
See also below in EXPERIMENTAL
CONFIRMATIONS.
Explaining the
origin of universal expansion
FOR UNIVERSE HISTORY (TNEDbegin some
earliest 1976 [or 1972]) AS BASED ON A GENUINE
DEDUCTION OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS gravitation and electricity: Planck constant
h=mcr in explaining the origin of expansion was a comparatively EASY quest
compared to Modern Academic measures where the population had to INVENT all
kinds of stuff as it went along (BasicMATHranks ¦
ExperimentalCONFIRMATIONS).
In Modern Academy (1900+)
no naturally deduced atomic nucleus the idea (soon) appeared of unlimited
density. The idea of a singularity (»a
first pointless nothing with unlimited density» ¦ Penrose 1965, ref., Stephen
Hawking COSMOS, Sw., KOSMOS 1994s61m ¦ PenroseHawking 1970, s62) soon
became popular all costumed by a growing famous Relativity Idea. But: Light
does not interact with mechanics. In UniverseHistory it
is The Lightliberty clause in related physics: light paths does
not develop centrifugation on applied gravitation (SolarEclipsesExpeditions1919+). See The VicError.
That was the Einstein populations first mistake although the whole
scientific community 1881+ was proven
that the speed of light on Earth is not affected by the Earths movement at all
(M&M: Experiments from 1881) also clarified from 1725 by James Bradley on the
discovery of Aberration
(first Lights Gravitational Dependency
observation still not very much explainable in terms of modern academic
nomenclature). A »lights gravitational dependency» (LGD) was never observed in modern quarters. Not at all.
James Bradleys discovery 1725 of the Aberration phenomena ¦ TheSolarEclipses
So:
The modern academic idea
soon turned out into »an exploding expanding singularity» from an unlimited
state of unlimited density. Very deep penetrating and explaining math ending
on the sensational construction of atoms too (The
Pythagorean Theorem was also created, too, as a bonus, along with Planck
constant, very high IQ math stuff). Matter appeared on the scale of
intergalactic nebulae. General gas masses were spread out all over in our
universe.
The idea soon had to appear, that it had to
be by SPONTANEOUS CONTRACTION that these gas masses started to pinpoint
specific mass centra as the expansion continued. And from there, fast
Hollywood forward, an early general Kant Nebular hypothesis appeared (together
with general star history evolution);
Earth and the other planets must have
originated from planetesimal »downfall» from such a nebula debris (The Craters of the Moon and others and the
associated origin of impulses of planetary rotations). And further, by
specific theories of our Sun, that »our 2,8 T22 KG water on and in
Earth Crust had to have come from the outside».
That so, because it had become a consensus
in modern academic merited intelligence that »SUN was too hot at the start to
allow such water on Earth».
Very deep Early Insolation Insights (BBC was there filming it all too but you must
accept they demand cookies consent before you will have access to the content
modern general social global media establishment educative LogIn procedures: in
order for The Pet to look into the shops windows on its merchandise, IT must
LogIn).
The conditions were better year 1311.
The apparent only
valuable TECHNOLOGY having developed 1800+ is the one of INSTRUMENTATION: non
destructive technological enterprise. We find it today wherever humans and
nature work together[] with zero
environmental hazard: no killing of alive vegetation.
WHERE united nations is JURISDICTION on
planet Earth other than Trafficking Payed Business Enterprise Bitches? Not
one word HumanRight.
Not a sound. Not a hint. Not a spell.
.. every individual and
every organ of society .. constantly in mind .., ..of the greatest importance
.., .. foundation of freedom, justice and peace ... Foundation. Where? Say again.
CLAIMS outside a 24/7 HumanRight
regocnition Whereas the recognition .. has only power to destroy.
There is no exception.
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS:
revised and enhanced more detailed description Nov2022
FROM THE ORIGINAL partly less detailed STUB Nov2007 EXPERIMENTELLA
BEKRΔFTERLSER
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS
MULTIPLEc ¦
TheSolarEclipses ¦
ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦
TheGPSexample
¦
The GcQ Theorem ¦ The Euler Equivalents ¦ GripDeep ¦ STATE ¦ RECKONING LAWS
FOR THE quantity
independent ENDLESS ¦ FirstPRINCIPLE
related physics and mathematics as deduced
Many people (especially
inside modern academic quarters 1800+), have apparently no idea at all of
how primitive the modern academic adoption of Einsteins Theory of Relativity
really is AS will be related by detail in this rebellious UH
(UniverseHistory) production for the relaxed mathematical joy of already
established PhD:s, Im afraid. Namely any provable close relationship between
present academic idea and its provable connection to nature (physics with
zero destructive enterprise):
Not even close[].
IF the reader can give
solid scientific opposing arguments mathematics and physics, no messing we
will surrender immediately. No problem.
The reason is of course
»experimental proofs». So high in »IQ dignity», that modern academic pioneers
simply did not care to look for more rational reasonable: deducible
explanations.
light
paths does not develop centrifugation which excludes the KeplerNewton classic
celestial orbits:
KeplerNewton
classic celestial orbits KeplerMomentumBasics only apply to KINETICS: objects with mass.
And
light its
actual path has not that property. As measured and deduced. See TheSolarEclipses.
That part was apparently
reserved for any »UniverseHistory», or similar, wherever it may be found:
Related mathematics and physics by comparing results, unless we did miss
something important;
The Planck Equivalents explain the most of the complex inside the most prominent
modern academic features. But apparently where however the present high
educative standard of global priority favors a more Hi Tech oriented modern
academic thinking, Im afraid[].
The GPS Example
in explicit is also a prominent reminder.
PlanckEquivalents: AnswersCHART
1(u/c)² = 1/[(UQ/m0c²) + 1]
; m0c²(1/[1(u/c)²] 1) = UQ =
(E) ;
m_{0}c^{2}
= mcc_{u} = constant = E no mass is created, no mass is
destroyed but modern academy constantly fucks with it:
The voltage U produces a separation
between a MoveQ (+Δm, measured [school physics] with a threadraytube)
and a RestQ (Δm, never experimentally
measured in the history of physics, as known). The sum i zero. Physics
contains no net mass increase caused by motion.
No way. Not in any physics branch.
Deducing the electric charge not represented in
modern corridors ¦ PotentialBarrier ¦ TheNeutronSquareBreakThrough ¦ CheopsRectangleMATH ¦ PhysicsFirstMATH ¦ GcQ
Electric
particle accelerator technology is limited by the electric fields limited
sensing feedbackchange through the limited speed of light c0.
Mechanic
particle accelerating physics has no such climiting [m/R] physical properties.
But modern academy seems to ignore the fact:
»At the present, we are too occupied with
our cDollsHouseTheater issues to be able to show interest in anything else».
CLOSED, the sign says. 1800+.
NO EXPERIMENTAL controlling method
Because there is no physical known method to distinguish the impulse (linear momentum) m_{0}v from m_{R}v_{R}, also the interpretation of the instrumentally measured impulse and energy quantity from impulseenergy measurements can neither be resolved on a mathematical basis.
E(32J) = m_{0}(3.6c_{0})^{2} =
E(32J) = (3.6)^{2}m_{0}(c_{0})^{2}
............. the MULTIPLE c syndrome
cosmic radiation
experimentation and observation issues (3.6c_{0}, see c02p6)
There is no (yet known) way in present known science to control velocities exceeding
c_{0} = 2.99792458 T8 M/S: the equivalence aspect cannot be resolved. Question still open.
A MECHANIC E(32J) = m · (3.6c)² contains exactly the same
energy components as an ELECTRIC E(32J) = 3.6²·m · c².
While the
Electric alternative has a well 1900s developed technology in science, the 3.6c
has no measuring technology at all.
(Present) Earth science technology is (physically, and
mathematically) blind to the mechanic component.
introduction TNED ¦ FOCUS MATERIEN 1975
¦ Multiple
c in modern academy
THE MULTIPLE c SYNDROME measured cosmic
radiation
RELATED PHYSICS QUESTIONS and explains the nature of THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
Enhanced Article from the original Swedish original (MULTIPLE c)
INCOMING COSMIC PARTICLES
(mostly protons, as claimed) hit the Earths atmosphere, sometimes releasing
quite hefty energy surges (capable of lifting the
Cambridge Astronomy 1978 book one meter over the table, the 16 Joule
example, BA1978.s274.sp2mn). As
the particle fragments have been identified during the 1900s research,
measuring methods have resulted in expeditions using the data for further
comparing results. One of these uses the mymeson half life decays from high
altitude cosmic impacts. Knowing the average ΅meson half life (t0 = 2΅S = 2 t6
S), the altitude (h)
where the (N)
impact appears, and some Earth ground based instrumentation to count (A), the A
particles reaching Earths surface exhibit comparing mathematics and claims.
Summing the halving t0 = 2΅S periods of the ΅mesons as they decay
from the cosmic particle impact, a final number A of the initial N are
registered by a ground station. The exercise in the different established
textbooks[]
was aimed to demonstrate the validity of Einsteins theory of relativity on
the electromagnetic compromised precisely so
narrowminded idea that nothing travels faster than c.
In related physics it apparently blocks a more rich cosmological explanation:
a v>c experimental controlling
instrumentation does not exist in present scientific quarters. Further in MULTIPLEcPROOF.
SolenT2022.ods T4 A25
Calculated quantities according to the Quoted
text book example further explained in MULTIPLEc.
SolenT2022.ods T4 A13
On the exact same
mathematical end expression, however derived from completely different ideas of
basic physics
The Introduction
tabled values show quantities from a textbook source. It reports cosmic
radiation experiments and observations aimed at »proving Einsteins theory of
relativity». However, as we see the explaining Planck equivalents, not mentioned in
modern quarters do show the mathematically manipulative course allowing an
alternative explanation with multiple c on exactly the same instrumentally
measured and observed impulse and energy quantity. In modern corridors, one
favors the idea of »time dilation», the specific parts above/below in the
equations, to compensate for »(we cannot accept) travel faster than c».
However, the standard classical NewtonPlanck mechanical way exposes wider
alternatives that apparently has still more qualities not known in modern quarters.
Further explained and illustrated below in MULTIPLEc. Exact same
quantities on exact same expressions.
The proving, explaining,
and connecting ranks:
vR = v√1(vR/c)²
= h/T0 ........... v√1(vR/c)²
= h/T0 ¦ Related physics Planck equivalents explanation deduced
as related.
tR = T0√1(vR/c)²
= h/v ........... v√1(vR/c)²
= h/T0 ¦ Modern
academy no correspondence.
Modern
academy would have had a more profitable status today if it had listened to Max
Planck at the time[]. It didnt.
The two comparing ranks above apparently make the Planck equivalent solution sovereign: IT cannot be related from present academic thinking. No way.
The Planck equivalents explain the phenomena from a multiple c standpoint, also in detail to the origin of the most high energy (16 Joule) observed impacts. See MULTIPLEcPROOF and further below from MULTIPLEc.
Equating a
particle accelerator energy equivalent to an ideal classic mechanical spouse (PlanckEquivalent)
on a multiple c basis has a limit. An exact u=c0 can never be acquired. It
would demand a corresponding m →∞ = ∞ · m0 as the accelerated
particles velocity approaches the climit endlessly. The particle accelerating
system transfers increasing mass to the (velocity u) accelerated particle as
the accelerating energy increases (E/c²=UQ/c²=[m
m0]).
An energy equative
transformation between the two different domains mechanic and electric can
be accomplished provided the two different domains expose identical impulses
(linear momentum p = mv = m1v1 = m2v2):
:
See deduction in The uform. [UQ = c²(mm0) .. Q with m0 is accelerated to u with m by U
..]
m0/mR = √ 1(vR/c0)² ¦
m0/m = √ 1(v/c0)² ¦ (Deduction, original):
The
Planck Equivalent
certifies the transfer is based on a summed conserved zerochanged mass
no relativity aspects:
no
mass is created, no mass is destroyed in an accelerating closed electric system
PlanckEQUIVALENTS.
IF THE TEXTBOOKS u=v_{R}
0.995c IS GENUINE:
The PlanckEquivalent explaining origin (it better):
Original Debris
The textbook quote gives no specification or mentions an origin of the stated 0.995c, nor of any observed energy quantity connecting the cosmic radiation impact example.
The PlanckEquivalet on equal impulses (linear momentum) determines a corresponding mechanical no electric acceleration devises on the order of 10c (9.962460869c) with the given 0.995c.
These two are however independent of the PlanckEquivalentResulting connections. The particle mass makes nothing to the u/v = m_{0}/m relation. With a single neutron (mechanic) for a single proton (electric, Q=e) the least possible corresponding particle accelerator energy is involved some UQ = 8.8 GeV. The Cambridge Astronomy book mentions (BA1978s.274sp2m) that the main part of the observed impacting particles have energies around 10^{8} 10^{9} eV. That wold be reasonable for a neutron (mechanic, PlanckEquivalent v>c) in a resembling particle accelerator energy test on a proton.
But how about the 10c PlanckEquivalent?
This is the TNED calculating Kcell chart with its possible solutions (from part of the article in Earth Mass and The Andromeda test document, see from SandTRAVEL):
DEBRIS ORIGIN
SolenT2022.ods T4
N60
See
MULTIPLEc on the full theoretical illustrated explanation: how the ejecta
(our experimental mechanical neutron or neutron bead) works in TNED theory.
Using the approximated curve equations:
Lowest Possible Available Mechanic Ejection velocity traveling from RimGRB:s to Earth:
v/c_{0} = Distance/[NOW pastORIGINALdebris(NonDecayedFastNeutrons)]Gy·T9·365.25·86400
with
Distance = Past^{2/3}·2.39567 T25 M
In the TNED/Kcell default the rc_{0}line intersects (ideally) on/with the Kcell expanding universes RIM on a Last Building Galactic Point. After that point no further divergence (GRBs) will be possible: Kcell Dmax neutron mass entering positive divergence (c>0), and thereby a beginning neutron decay (Kcell Heat physics). That is, the y = 0.3944x straight slope. After that point the complete birth of the new period universe is finished.
HOWEVER: Neutron decay will be dependent on HOW FAST its Jbodies will enter the positive (rc_{0}) space: there are ejecta AWAY from Kcell center (neutron decays delays), and also ejecta TOWARDS it (neutron decay speeds up). The rc_{0}limit just states the ideal c>0 starting point.
The only possible way for a type 10c neutron safely dormant and not decaying until entering v<c to arrive to Earth NOW (Kcell age 20.82 Gy, TNED says) would be IF its host GRBs have sufficient delay margin to satisfy an active ejecta region in a past originalDebris on the order of
19Gy. That is, backwards in the past from our NOW some 1,8Gy, on a traveling distance of 1.7 T26 M. The time window here would lie between 16.3Gy and around 19Gy with a v/c_{0} possible spread between 3.5 and (maybe) 15 (19.6Gy) corresponding to (u=vR)/c_{0} values
0.960c_{0}(UQproton=2.4 T9 eV) to 0.998c_{0}(UQproton=1.4 T10 eV).
SolenT2022.ods T4
M49
Possibly. But that is also only in concern of only ONE single neutron.
Enhancing
the scene with regular neutron beads thousands and more on a preserved Dmax,
until impact the particle accelerator resemblance completely looses meaning:
The16Jcalc: QUOTING the source
The 16 Joule example
TNED solution with a v>c pacing neutron bead consisting of some 12 T10
neutrons a corresponding one single Atomic (nuclear) particle with mass
number A=1.6T10 is a definite impossibility for any particle accelerator. The
TNED maximum mass number for the heaviest possible atomic nucleus is 317. Lawrence Berkeley atomic masses
charts show a present maximum mass number at 293 (118Ui293). The 16 J observed cosmic
radiation energy impact on Earths top atmosphere is on that premise a complete
impossible Earth laboratory particle accelerator comparing exercise.
A MECHANICAL SOLUTION however on the Planck Equivalent impulse (linear momentum) credit has better provisions for taking the ship into harbor.
SolenT2022.ods T4
M45
UQ = 16.02 J: v=10c_{0} with a Ψ6.0 t12 M wide neutron bead, above. Below:
UQ = 16.02 J: v=3.6c_{0} with a Ψ8.8 t12 M wide neutron bead less than average interatomic distance in a solid (2.5 t10 M).
Definitely no particle accelerator can do that not because of the energy as such, but because of the limit of atomic nuclei mass. Atoms in our universe have a max mass number A = 300 compared to the above: billions. No way not to mention the Problem of ionizing That one for particle acceleration. Not even Ever. No such physics exist.
The (LHC) Large Hadron Collider (Wikipedia,
Particle accelerator, 23Dec2022) is said to be the present most powerful
particle accelerator. It has a total capacity of 13 TeV = 13 T12 eV.
That is still a run of some 8 ten powers to go to match a 16
Joule = 1 T20 eV testing expedition.
The reverse way is shut: Going IN THEORY from Earth laboratory
particle accelerators to a (related TNED) cosmicmechanical generated particle energy
has no (here known) modern or other academic meaningful resemblance. Saying, TNED says:
There
is no deducing aspect,
no relating
aspect, no explaining aspect, no reasoning aspect at all: »we can reach them». But they
cannot reach us:
Light does not
connect kinetics[].
The details are so
related and explained, in to the last atom. But modern academy apparently has
not the idea of the concept. See also Moden Academic
Multiple c.
There is plenty to pick from ..
THE JBODY SURFACE EJECTION VELOCITIES
c03p6 ¦ vEJECT ¦ Introduction ¦ OriginalDebris
NASA GRB map ¦ Hubble space telescope Galactic Deep image
Related physics
The Kcell contractive phase collects the same gravitational energy that later will cause recoil ejection after the initial Kcell detonation occasion in each new Kcell expansion phase. The TNED deduced expression is the same as the Escape Velocity form
v^{2} = 2Gm_{2}/r
With m_{2} as the primary Kcell expanding Dmax Jbody and Dmax = m_{2}/(V=4πr^{3}/3):
v = m_{2}^{1/3} · √(2G[4πDmax/3]^{1/3})
There (Kcell mass ca 4.15 T53 KG Milky Way mass ca 2 T41 KG or ca T11 Sun masses) are some estimated hundreds of billions galaxies in the universe.
With a comparing scale from 10 Sun masses up to our Milky Way galaxy estimated 2 T41 KG T 11 Sun masses the ejected v/c_{0} ratio goes from 1 to 2 150.
Our expedition on investigating MULTIPLEc on Earth atmosphere impacts (The 16 Joule example) needs at most some 15 (The 16 J).
There is, hence, plenty to pick from.
It should though be mentioned here that the observed masses in our visual universe after their primary ejections, TNED says is only a fraction 1/355 of the total Kcell mass distribution. See
DARK MATTER ¦ (The ThermoNuclear radiation pressures role for Dark Matter)
¦ Quotes on Dark Matter (up to 400 times more has been observed)
in TNED explained as debris of huge amounts of SAND impossible to detect over huge interstellar distances pushed outside high above the galactic halos from their (Suns4) thermo nuclear radiation pressure (Tgamma apparently unknown in modern corridors: see also The Perihelion Precessions AllKeplerMath explaining why and how).
In modern academy, no theory exist by which to explain such debris.
In a raw calculation our Sun mass roughly 2 T30 KG its real steel primary ejecta mother mass would have had perhaps some at least 100 times greater mass in the luggage.
:
Compare here (GALAXY FORMING Recoil Picture) the resembling recoil water drop experiments and the photos that revealed (in strong light directed towards the camera lens) the high velocity tiny not immediately observed microscopic <1mM perfect spherical drops (as a spray) high above the more ordinary observed. Similar conditions should hold in the Kcell mathematical physics.
EXEMPLIFYING ON A ONE SINGLE NEUTRON/PROTON IMPACT
m_{0}v = m_{R}u : v > c ¦ u < c : vMECHANIC uELECTRIC ¦ u = v_{R} ¦ v_{R}/c = 1/√ (c/v)^{2} + 1 PlankEquivalentReference
v>c : Ekin/UQ = (v/c)^{2}/2[ 1 + 1/√1(u/c)^{2}] = (v/c)^{2}/2[1 + 1/√1 1/(1 + [c/v]^{2})] :
SolenT2022.ods T4 A37
PLANCK
EQUIVALENT IMPULSE (linear momentum p = mv = m1v1 = m2v2) TRANSFER APPLICATION
not represented in modern quarters.
Comparing theoretical proton
particle accelerator impact example on the mechanic m0v=mRu Planck
equivalent transfer impact; Incoming neutron/proton with
v>c theoretically PlanckEquivalent
substituted
by a u<c Earth laboratory proton particle accelerator. As the input
accelerating voltage (U) increases, the energy fraction (Ekin=m0v²/2)/EQ also
increases (on the branch of a hyperbola).
So:
In any theoretical Quest on matching a corresponding Earth particle accelerator
(u<c) observed energy (UQ) from a corresponding v>c cosmic occasion, it
would not suffice to assume an equal electric E=UQ quantity for the
mechanic/kinetic Ekin quantity. The Ekin quantity lies in any way higher
provided the same impacting impulses (linear momentum) holds. However (again)
this type of mathematical physics has no (here known) modern academic
representation: »The Modern c Coccon Association»: nothing travels faster than
c (»LogIn»). See also MultipleMACc.
The MULTIPLE c PROOF SAME MATH RANKS
Introduction Quoting on the 16 Joule cosmic
ray impact observation
SolenT2022.ods T4 M45 ¦ Dmax Solving the 16 Joule cosmic impact energy release observation Problem.
Vi vet mycket lite om de kosmiska partiklar som bδr
energimδngder stφrre δn 10^{19} eV, eftersom jorden fεr ta
emot sε fε sεdana per dygn. Just dessa partiklar δr emellertid
mycket intressanta, eftersom de bδr pε energier
av en storleksordning som φvertrδffar allt som kan εstadkommas
av partikelacceleratorerna i vεra jordiska
laboratorier. Energin 10^{20 }eV δr lika med 16 joule
tillrδckligt fφr att lyfta denna bok en meter frεn bordet.,
BA1978s274mn,
Cambridge Astronomy.
Freely translated [see also LHC]:
WE
know very little
about the cosmic particles carrying energies greater than 10^{19} eV,
because Earth receives so few of these per day. Especially these particles are
however very interesting because they carry energies of a magnitude exceeding
any achievable by the particle accelerators in our Earthly laboratories. The
energy 10^{20} eV equals 16 Joule sufficient to lift this book one
meter from the table.
NEVER
SEPARATED NEUTRONS EXPLANATION ¦
Cosmic radiation and Multiple c the Swedish original stub
¦ explanation:
Menu:
MACcREF
uses multiple c cosmological concepts:
MAC
cannot disprove a multiple c existence.
TESTING a multiple c from cosmic ray observations
suggests
MAC has a primitive idea of physics:
The
result apparently includes MAC ideas a primitive.
See MULTIPLEc.
Calculated quantities according to the Quoted
text book example ONLY
a single or few neutron/proton comparison is OK:
SolenT2022.ods T4 A13 ¦ Dmax
While modern
academy has no theory and no experimental instrumental matching idea of a cosmological
multiple c event and so neither their possible physical
phenomenal rejections all such multiple c happenings can only be transferred
to a corresponding present Earth science particle accelerator energy resemblance ¦ Introduction. Unaware however of such a mathematical transformation The
Impulse p=mv Planck Equivalents vR = v√1(vR/c)², = h/T0 modern
academic idea uses a time dilation method to compensate for the Not Possible
measurable HigherThan c pace = Shorter TimeTravel;
tR =
T0√1(vR/c)², = h/v, is interpreted as »longer half life t0» in modern corridors. (So:) The conditions were definitely better
year 1311.
The actual proof that multiple c does exist
then, from this cosmic ray exposure relies on the exact same mathematics,
on the exact same experimental observations, as the already familiar. However
with a simple The multiple c related physics explanation apparently outside
present academic quarters:
:
The proving, explaining,
and connecting ranks MULTIPLEcPROOF:
But in modern academy the explaining Planck
Equivalents are unknown:
vR = v√1(vR/c)²
= h/T0 ........... v√1(vR/c)²
= h/T0 ¦ Related physics Planck equivalents explanation deduced
as related.
tR = T0√1(vR/c)²
= h/v ........... v√1(vR/c)²
= h/T0 ¦ Modern
academy no correspondence.
Modern
academy would have had a more profitable status today if it had listened to Max
Planck at the time[]. It didnt.
The two comparing ranks above apparently make the Planck equivalent solution sovereign: IT cannot be related from present academic thinking. No way.
The Planck equivalents explain the phenomena from a multiple c standpoint, also in detail to the origin of the most high energy (16 Joule) observed impacts. See MULTIPLEcPROOF and further below from MULTIPLEc.
The experimental observations (Introduction)
uses different methods to estimate and measure the released energies from
incoming cosmic radiation (mostly identified as »high speed» protons [90%] and
other [lighter] atomic nuclei [helium nuclei in majority]). The ranks above
expose the different expressions explaining a corresponding relativistic (AnswersCHART)
manipulative mathematics in comparison with the related and deduced Planck
equivalents.
No scientifically known instrumental method exists to reject the quest
of possible multiple c.
The electric charges massresistance
proportionality excludes its part in mechanics and kinetics.
Which also excludes any (present) experimental method to reject the existence
of multiple c (present high speed experimentation is, what we know, limited to
electric and magnetic properties: no kinetics):
The TNED deduced Kcell physical mathematics has (far more) reasonable
options in explaining the high energy cosmic ray particle impacts on a multiple
c basis (The already familiar exemplified 16 Joule (T20eV)
impact measure [BA1978s274]) apparently way above the capacity of
any established experimental particle accelerators.
See further below i MULTIPLEc.
The Planck
equivalents (as deduced in The original Swedish edition ;
u electrically accelerated
velocity by c in a given fix
gravitational potential: c varies with different
such, see LGD):
f_{0}/f = √ 1(u/c)^{2} .................. PlanckEnergys FREQUENCY EQUIVALENT in ^{Q}m changes with growing u
m_{0}/m = √ 1(u/c)^{2} .................. PlanckEnergys MASS EQUIVALENT in ^{Q}m changes with growing u
λ/λ_{0} = √ 1(u/c)^{2} .................. PlanckEnergys WAVELENGTH EQUIVALENT in ^{Q}m changes with growing u
Compare (The v+ic
error) the modern academically
adopted (1905+)
on Einsteins Theory of
Relativity (1905+), LorentzFitzgerald transformations »same c everywhere»:
T/T_{0} = √ 1(v/c)^{2} .................. time reduces with growing velocity v
m_{0}/m = √ 1(v/c)^{2} .................. mass grows with growing velocity v
d/d_{0} = √ 1(v/c)^{2} .................. length reduces with growing velocity v
The vform reflects Einsteins vicerror: light propagation does not
connect kinetics. Modern academy
apparently does not understand that concept (»The
c Cocoon Association» Friday Meetings: Nothing travels faster than c ..
Nothing .., now during some 100 years [5200 Fridays]: DRIFT: Nothing is wrong
with the intelligence, just the ability to realize its innate nature),
although so fantastically clarified by the early Michelson and Morley
interferometer experiments (1881+). Why? Apparently due to
invented ideas blocking a deduction.
Not because of any kind of minor intelligence. Far from.
Basically the same exact
mathematical ranks but modern academy 1800+ apparently lost sight of DYNAMICS
in gravitation and electricity (Im afraid ¦ SolarEclipsesExpeditionResults1919+):
Mechanics is NOT light propagation. But MAC invented a HYDRA (The v+ic error) in between. And so it began:
WHILE the atomic nucleus is intrinsically
free from inner particle constituents gravitations fundamental mass form ¦ PotentialBarrier modern academy has built a SUCH particle idea. And IT has
apparently become »The foundation of the whole cosmic existential phenomena»
blocking the real steel explanations: These include fully explain, or should
if not the
modern part as a primitive or
not at all.
CUTTING LIFE PROVISIONS DOES NOT EXIST IN A
SCIENTIFICALLY ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY.
In the light of related physics and its
comparing results (The
Neutron Square), it is obvious that the
1800+ modern academic idea prevents an explaining rational foundation
(apparently also Illustrated).
As such, and provided it (TheExplanation, whatever natural) is so free from
flaws or misconceptions as it appears to be (Nature), the present academic way is apparently also provably LESS
than primitive. It is directly destructive as it prevents the individual from a
true, deeply and well relatable harmonic : healthy mathematical and
physical realization. It is
directly destructive as it does not lift a finger to break the destructive
spell: education (TheLIST) on provably primitive
ideas (gaining [looting and sacking] instead of sharing). Have your say.
The most convenient for present academic
status would be: this is all crap.
Please share the insight: Even the worst of
all stupid contributes to wisdom appropriately apprehended.
MULTIPLEc: PlanckEquivalents ¦ Introduction ¦ MULTIPLEcPROOF
THE
SPEED OF LIGHT
Proofs of
multiple c
CONNECTING ALL THE LOSE ENDS
Proving
An
impossible expedition in a particle accelerator; only a mechanical [Planck
Equivalent] v>c solution can solve the problem on equal impulses [linear
momentum]: p = mv = m1v1 = m2v2
The GRB objects in related physics screams from dying or
new born? ¦ GRB ¦ Primary neutron biochemical matrices ¦ Chlorophyll and Hematine ¦ DivergenceIGNITION ¦ KcellExpansion ¦ Dmax
The TNED
deduced Kcell expansion physics involves successively ejected neutron masses
from the initial Dmax BigBang occasion the pulsating
contractingexpanding Kcell with a half period of some 336 Gy, TNED says. As
earlier suggested CWON from CAP ¦ Primary neutron biochemical matrices all celestial bodies (named Jbodies in TNED cosmology) expose their
topmost surfaces in the last (hydrogen + lower oxygen = ICE ¦ MACcREF) Jbody
mineralogy history on developing atomic binding matter consisting of primary
tight Dmax
lying neutrons. As a Jbody enters positive divergence in the Kcell expansion
(Lights Gravitational Dependency LGD), short heavy nuclear reactive
energy surges appear from Jcenter (ironcore production). These inevitably
involve Jbody surface Dmax neutron ejections with (very ¦ vREF) high mechanically caused ejection velocities. As these can be readily
calculated from the TNED deductions, corresponding theoretical quantitative
tests can be accomplished, comparing cosmological instrumental observations.
CARING for
the possible Kcell dimensions on the present universe observations (cosmic
background radiation and others ¦ OriginalDebris),
TNED results include calculations of reasonable and possible ejecta distance
time travels on given ejecta velocities, composing, for test, a possible
explanation to the observed 16 Joule cosmic ray energy observation
apparently otherwise impossible to explain by present Earth science technology
instrumentation.
The
general idea in TNED (LGD) forbidden in modern quarters
is that all macroscopic electromagnetic dynamics is in a mode OFF if v>=c
particles travels faster than local light divergence or c<=0
strong local gravitation does not allow positive divergence. In these cases, a
neutron decay cannot be physically macroscopically related. That is: A Dmax
neutron bead can travel practically unhindered (ZmrREF) if its
mechanically caused velocity exceeds the local c, or the general top c0 =
2.99792458 T8 M/S. Also given its maximum tiny cross section of a such Dmax
neutron bead, it has all possible profitable chances of traveling far through
spaces during long periods of time without impacting on any other mass until
the actual impact (Earth atmosphere or other).
So the end
PLANCK EQUIVALENTS calculating solution
becomes simple with a corresponding (impossible) present Earth science
technology particle accelerator (E=UQ) spouse IF the impact energy is
especially large:
Calculated quantities according to the Quoted
text book example one single neutron/proton impact;
SolenT2022.ods T4 A13
Single
neutron/proton Mechanic/Electric comparing examples show comparable results
but definitely not on the 16 Joule observed type.
SolenT2022.ods T4
M45
An ELECTRIC particle accelerator for a
particle/atom with mass number A
> 300 heaviest possible
nucleus is impossible: in this comparing case: a neutron bead with A = 1.18
T10 = 11.8 Giga. No way.
The cosmic radiation impact results modern academy
favoring relativity theory
ESTABLISHED RESULTS:
The established
textbooks (FΦRSTΕ
RELATIVITETSTEORIN G. Lindahl, Biblioteksfφrklaget 1971, s22) mentions a
value vR = 0.995c. with h=6 KM. With h=30 KM (FYSIK
FΦR TEKNISKA FACKSKOLOR, RWestφφ, Esselte 1975, s59), and N=1000, the
result gives a value of A = 31. With the Lindahl1971 lower h=6 KM, the result
shows A = 498. The authors also claim these values to to be the experimentally
observed.
FΦRSTΕ
RELATIVITETSTEORIN En vδgledning till sjδlvstudier av Gφran Lindahl och Nils
Norlind
Biblioteksfφrlaget
STOCKHOLM 1971 ¦ s2223
Understand relativity theory a guide to
selftuitions
Av tusen ΅mesoner pε 6
km hφjd borde endast en kunna observeras vid jordytan. Detta strider mot
experiment som har gjorts. I sjδlva verket nεr hδlften (i vεrt fall cirka 500)
av de ursprungliga ΅mesonerna ner till jordytan., G. Lindahl s22,
translated:
Of
thousand ΅mesons at 6 KM altitude only one ought to be observed at Earth
ground. This contradicts experiments. In fact half (in our case circa 500) of
the original ΅mesons reaches Earth surface.
The detailed explaining mathematic is given
illustrated in MULTIPLEcPRROF.
Exact same mathematical ranks as in established textbooks (Quote). But the different inwardly contradictory explanations exclude
any unitive resolution; Only one explanation can relate the other as primitive: Both cannot possibly hold.
According to established
sources (ENCARTA 99, Cosmic rays, and further[]) one has observed extremely high energetic particles with
impacting energies up to T11 GeV = 1 T20 eV = that is
16.02 Joule. If that energetic impact would refere a single incoming proton,
its corresponding mechanic velocity would be
v = √ 2E/m0 =
√ 2(T20eV · 1.602 t19 C)/(1.67332 t27 KG) = 461 568.39c, witch c = c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S.
No here known or reported established
instance knows how such high energy surges could be generated.
Not even close to.
MODERN ACADEMY ON MULTIPLE c
As already suggested in Introduction.
Modern (1800+) prominent academic cosmological descriptions in physics
and mathematics makes it practically impossible to relate naturally occuring
dynamics in a fully explaining and rational, logical sense.
As viewed from the related TNED deductions in physics and
mathematics, the Planck equivalents apparently explains
(Introduction)
the essential details as illustrated above in MULTIPLEc[]. Cosmic
radiation energy observations on the Planck equivalents explaining frame,
apparently connect a more rich background and explaining base to the measured
quantities. Especially the most energetically high of these observations (the 16 Joule =
1 T20 eV example): Its demanding rational answer is
apparently impossible to reproduce with present (13 T12 eV)
particle climited accelerators.
Along with the impulse (linear momentum p=mv) providing equality on
Planck equivalents (Introduction): not at all with any kind of electric
instrumentation.
As related below (Wikipedia, Observable universe) the academic attitude
to a multiple c issue also seems (greatly) compromised only bringing further
disorder to a possible ACADEMIC resolution for a cosmic unitive idea of
physics: consensus is still no scientific subject. But a related answer
is.
MACcREF: MULTIPLEc
MODERN ACADEMIC MULTIPLE c example:
Compare the modern academic accumulated expansion
(Wikipedia article Observable universe [1Mar2012]):
Universe age: 13.7 Gy (t = 13.7 T9 · 365.25 · 86400 S = 4.3233912 T17 S) with a radial extension of 46 T9 ly (d = 46 T9 · 3 T8 M/S · 365.25 · 86400 S = 4.3549488 T26 M) giving a mean expanding velocity (v=d/t)/(c=3T8 M/S) = 3.357664234 c:
Not even in modern quarters can a reasonable explanation be given to our cosmic situation without ideas of a multiple c.
Compare the corresponding average vEXP from the TNED deduced Kcell expansion [***present t = 20.82 Gy on radius [Kcell Mass and Radius] r = (T^{2}Gm_{2}/2)^{1/3} with m_{2}=4.1747 T53 KG], r=1.818 T26 M;
(v=d/t)/(c=3T8 M/S) = 0,9224150675 c.
From the first surge, the expansion velocity is humongous but short [ref.: EarthMass2021IAU.ods T3 G53].
***
20.82 Gy: PROVING VERIFICATION: MoonRecession.
Modern academy has all the data on the table: geological compositions both in Earth and Moon crust, especially the radioactive material on Moon (up to ten times higher than on Earth). It is all lying there except this one: TIME. The modern academic 5 billion years (5 Gy ¦ 4.35) fits excellently with FIRST WATER ON EARTH SURFACE fact (The NASA Article 2005). But THAT BY ITSELF is a too short time for relating all the puzzling pieces together: not enough time. The TNED deduction makes is (gallantly especially on the radioactive part introducing some extra controversy into modern corridors).
Everything fits, as the glove over the hand.
All celestial bodies beginning from a Dmax develop concentric atomic production (IronCore) with a last (LGD) surface neutron decay hydrogen long before any local starlight appears these need some start up time (»typical Windows Operating System»). Beneath is a layer of oxygen (and further layers of other elements and their mixes below [NeutronMatrices]). It is the last phase on the primary geophysical celestial bodys build up: At the celestial bodys surface is forming ICE. More or less, depending on primary body mass. ICE (BAref3, comets as dirty rocks of ice), IceVERSIONgraph THE ICE detailed.
Related physics and
mathematics solutions
EXEMPLIFYING ON THE MOST PROMINENT OBSERVATION
the rare 16 Joule = 1 T20 eV Earth atmosphere cosmic radiation energy surge observation range:
ALSO
TNED related mathematics and physics would stand flat with no
answer IF the 16 Joule
energetic cosmic particle impacting Earths atmosphere would really be a
one single proton. No such TNED/related cosmic sources exist:
The necessary velocity
parameter v on the E = mv²/2 = 16J on
the far (TNED) available sources needs a rough v=461500c0. Even if a such
ejecta exists in a TNED deduced ideal macrocosmic c0space,
SolenT2022.ods T4
N64
A Dmax sphere with radius ca 9% of the
distance EarthSun has a corresponding gravitationally energy collected surface
ejection capacity of v = 461 500 c0.
That is
apparently NOT the type object [Kcell mass / 208000] we are trying to relate
the 16 Joule cosmic radiation impact energy on. See vREF.
1.:
the far out dim universe rim edges where the
last (TNED deducible) divergence ignitions existed
will set up definite conditions that
exclude certain masses and exhibit others as potential candidates. And
2.:
in any case all with considerably lower v,
and with a demanded higher mass than only one neutron. See Original
Debris.
The
only possible remaining solution[1]¦[2] consists of a very small
(picometer = t12 M) Dmax neutron bead on a considerably lower ejecta velocity (315c0),
as suggested[]: exact time on perfect
assembly. Mechanics. No electric.
Because a pure kinetic explanation
contradicts an already 100 year accepted relativistic sensational cosmology, no
established instance will take a kinetic argument seriously unless further
proved on some explicitly (very, exceptionally »ultra high») strong
foundation.
TheTEXPLAN: MULTIPLEc ¦ Introduction
The TNED EXPLANATION Lights macroscopic electric and magnetic
interaction physics Gravitational Dependency (LGD):
The
continuous birth of stars and galaxies high energy surges as the Kcell
our universe continues to expand: beginning from Dmax:
HOW the Kcell evolves DebrisOrigin
Given The Seven
Principles of Physics in Universe History [APARC, FUNTOP, POM, NEONS, GRIP, DEEP and PASTOM], only [P4] Newtons
Three are known in modern quarters, the rest gave itself up
with not much resistance: like pouring water from one bucket to another. No big
deal. However, it took its sweet time.
See also from EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS.
The general Kcell
cosmological property (General State Equation) resembles that of an organic cell (The c0body): The Energy Law energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted
certifies that any ultimate origin of mass gravitation: energy is impossible
to relate: no origin: »modern academys favorite pet». Following
the lead, the resulting mathematics and physics points out a cosmic central
pulsating Kcell (half period some 336 Gy). Its explanation is all based on the
central Lights Gravitational Dependency (LGD) explaining all the mathematical details. The
energy law: mass can be given no rational idea of an ultimate origin. Its
energy content (E=hf=mc²) is a detailed relatable never created, impossible to
destroy provision in physics science necessary for bringing the light out.
The surrounding
c0body[] in negative divergence certifies that its
dormant non decaying neutrons follow the central Kcell contraction with a
filling up of the vacancies from the previous corresponding neutron mass in the
expanding period that was spent on mass destructions for light and heat. That
certifies the energy budget and guarantees the pulsing:
The refill exactly
replaces what was spent on light and heat in mass destructions from the
previous period.
In modern corridors
(1800+), one has adopted the idea that our universe (the Kcell) is the only
existential, rational och logical mass holder. A limited mass it is, modern
academy says. And hence a dead end contradictory energy explanation: »life
has no meaning beyond the death, lights out, of this present universe».
Not directly so
proclaimed, but so directly interpreted. Joy everywhere in modern corridors.
Very positive attitudes. MustBuyBook.
One thing we humans
KNOW for sure: Everywhere we look, there is ALWAYS more mass behind. So: from
where the idea NOT? Please share. Apparently not from under the stars:
consensus is still no scientific subject. But a related answer is: nature.
Beginning from a
DENSITYmax:
AFTER »THE BIG BANG»
universe begins to expand (again) the Dmax neutron masses follow a history of DIVERGENCE IGNITION: a ctraveling WAVE FRONT light propagationdivergence
governed by gravitation (LGD) follows the expanding
Kcell mass bodies as they divide into smaller. At its rim the Jbodies enter a
positive divergence: the neutron masses begin to decay.
When they do, related
physics identifies these as The GRBobjects
at the present rim of our visual universe:
The (very) high energy surges release
(enormous) amounts of energy when the neutron decay takes over. Formation of
the local bodies material elements begin building heavier elements from
lighter by the Dmax spontaneously tight
occurring fusion reactions (FusionRings).
However the TNED calculation have no chance in explaining a single neutron or
proton up to the mentioned high linear momentum levels (the 16
Joule example), as observed and
reported in the Earths atmosphere (the counting of
mymesons). But a neutron bead
can. And then again: completely outside electric particle accelerator
provisions.
The SUMMINGreference (Introduction)
and MULTIPLEc illustration give the general TNED explaining details with
links.
With
further tests on the experimentally known results all of them, all branches
as known here The Planck Equivalents show a consistent resulting picture no deviations: explaining
the overall reported instrumental observations or not at all.
TheSolarEclipses: Proving the light
deflection from the eclipses ¦ MULTIPLEc ¦ ExperimentalConfirmations
LIGHT PHYSICS DOES NOT CONNECT KINETICS
THE SOLAR ECLIPSES EXPEDITIONS 1900+ ¦ TwoArguments
MODERN ACADEMY (1800+) does not reason so.
But it uses the same end mathematics:
e = rc²/2Gm_{2}
light has no
connection to kinetics
a light path does not exhibit centrifugal no mass force properties no way:
So the simple
mathematical deduction is to remove the centrifugal aspect factor from the
general celestial kinetic normals.
Same end
mathematics simple Classics as is claimed from established corridors
claiming »relativistic explanations».
POTENTIAL BARRIER apparently unknown in
modern quarters ¦ LGD apparently unknown Concept in modern quarters ¦ TwoArguments
Dodge that one, if you
can, Modern Academy (normally so full of denial and utter contempt to any
aspect questioning its already established authority):
Light develops not centrifugation (The KeplerNewton Kinetic Trajectory).
Explanation:
KNOWING that Light propagation
has no kinetic properties no centrifugation the easiest way to deduce (LIGHTPATHS IN GRAVITATIONFIELDS) the trajectory math for a light path associated with a central
mass is to double the gravitating factor. That is because (Application
1 KEPLER MOMENTUM BASICS) kinetics associated
with central action physics is based on a balance between centrifugal and
centripetal tug (Application 2 The Gravitation Law).
That leads us to the final end mathematics
as deduced. See further from e = rc²/2Gm_{2}.
See also Max Planck on the PHOTON
concept.
Modern academy rejected
Plancks suggestion that the photo electric effect reflected properties of the
atom, not of light. So, instead: modern academy adopted the Einstein idea of perfectly
massless inductive quanta [COEI in related physics: E=UQbasics] as a moving
particle: excellent for mathematical treatises [You
know .. 1 2 3 ..]. But completely worthless and hefty misleading in
explaining the deep of physics ¦ Plancks idea was apparently on the verge
of discovering a way to deduce the atomic nucleus, as it seems. But that type
of linethinking was not approved at the time and still isnt in modern
corridors and never will be: modern academic suicide if so.
Background:
It is perfectly valid to state that the deflection of light near
Sun follows the (first 1900s relativistic proposed) expression aRADIANS = 4Gm_{2}/rc² and NOT the Newton physics 2Gm_{2}/rc². Yes.
But
it is also a perfectly valid claim to state that Newton physics kinetics does
not connect to the phenomena. Not at all. Newton had no idea of LIGHTS
GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY. No way. And present modern academic aces seem even
less acquainted:
Light physics develops no centrifugation resembles no moving mass
particles.
And
it is therefore incorrect, and only stupid, to introduce Newton physics in a
comparing battle between classic and relativistic physics: they have nothing in
common.
Modern academy aces seem to have grasped that too but definitely not
its content.
We study the details of that in the
following.
SolenT2022.ods T1 A51
Electric Constant enhancing
the IAUtest precision on G and mS see also TheRESULT on the Perihelion
Precessions ¦ TheGtest and TheElectricConstant on G and mS
The
comparing CalCard cell blocks show slight (measurably insignificant) values,
all inside the already claimed general accepted 1.75 result. It should be
noted, though as already established, that the measuring technique is quite far
from any direct precision in significands. The end value precision highly
depends on the measured (or estimated) light beam radial distance from the
ideal gravitational center. The only reasonable instrumentation to make such
measuring accurate is from high altitude satellites where Earth atmospheric
distorting phenomena is minimal. The last remarkable argument: Solar eclipses
of the 1919+ kind expeditions happen only with intervals of thousands of years.
The B(Einstein) values have used the present
established standard (Wikipedia) values for G = 6.6743 t11 JM/[KG]² and mS =
1.98847 T30 KG.
The B(LGD) values have used
results on G and mS from the present (NovDec2022) IAUtest charts: G =
6.6701000093 t11 JM/[KG]² and mS = 1.98963199773 T30 KG. These values also
certify the results on the perihelion precession calculations and their
comparing measures, as well as the planets anomalistic periods. See TheRESULT.
In a below real scale comparison
between TNED (LGD) and MAC (Schwarzchild) the difference disappears towards zero as
distance from a central mass approaches infinity. Exemplifying the established
Solar radius (6.957 T8 M), the crelation in TNED/MAC is the practically
insignificant figure 1.000002123 with a cdifference (r=6.657 T8 M) of cTNED
cSCH = 636.356 965 839 900 M/S. With the observed
light deflection near Sun (The Eddington expedition 1919+) this difference is,
what we know, apparently totally insignificant.
Large
central mass distances r makes the difference between the two cresults
disappear. Schwarzchild w² = GmS/r. GmS=1.
For
lights deflection near the Sun, the present instrumental resolution is, what
we know, not sufficient if the examination is
to
determine who is which in what.
And, as seen by the
comparing end values (the established claimed deflection 1.75), they are also
practically the same as seen by the limited resolution of the measuring
instrumentation.
So: We should not wonder
on the amaze the Solar Eclipse expedition awoke around year 1920 when it was
clear on stated assumptions that it was the
4Gm_{2}/rc² (1.75) and NOT the Newton physics 2Gm_{2}/rc² (0.87)
that won the match.
Intelligence in Modern
Academy is apparently on the Up (global Joy1).
The Related/Schwarzchild
differences:
There is what we know, no reasonable way to
settle the question on the narrow cmargins.
Only with a (macroscopic) high value central
mass the differences become measurably significant;
Light deflection near Sun is apparently not
the object for settling the cdifferences as such.
The Solar Eclipse expedition (1919+) and
its result on the Schwarzchild cformula expression, is said to have been the
turning point when Einsteins theory of relativity won a world wide fame.
Why?
Because it was held, and still is in modern
corridors, that the result launched a new theory of gravitation. That was
some deeply sensational News. Not »a new discovery in physics» named Lights
Gravitational Dependency: light connects NOT to kinetics. No sir. No way. That is how DRIFT works. Say.
Natural Insight in
Humanity is apparently on the Up (global Joy2).
Proving the nature of light
by comparing
established ideas of its nature on already well known observations:
All celestial mechanical: kinetic orbits have these gravitational
properties:
They develop centrifugation (Coriolis Effect
Coriolis first theorem 1882)
on changes in linear
motion (rotation).
Light propagation has no known quality of
gravitation no centrifugation
LIGHT (GripDeep)
divergence, electricity
and magnetism is
different for all matter, can be shielded
from: time dependent
GRAVITATION convergence is
equal for all matter, can NOT be shielded
from: time independent;
They (Gpotential)
are deduced (The CEPH Equation) from Kepler
Momentum Mathematics.
Light paths should hence
neither have any centrifugation property in any exposed (orbital) path. Such as
for example the one (Solar eclipses 1919+) close to a (high) gravitating mass
(as our Sun: the measuring expeditions 1919+). That is also the mathematical
explanation, as exposed in this article.
TheSolarEclipses Light physics
does not connect kinetics
THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT AND ITS KINETIC LIBERTY
The
only reasonable here known voice of its time was Max Planck (ref. Gamow, Thirty Years That Shook Physics, 1966, Swedish version p33). He concluded that the Photoelectric Effect reflected properties of the atoms. Not properties of light. Related
physics: light
is massless, propagates massless
(and so proven in explicit by the Eclipse experiments 1919+). But has
electromagnetic quanta (photons: COEI
in related physics: conservation of energy by induction) capable of exchanging their energy with matter (The Compton effect)
¦ PotentialBarrier ¦
ComptonEffectIllustrated.
BUT: »Modern Academy constantly fucks with nature» (TheLIST ¦ persistently 1800+
insisting on introducing academic consensus agreed inventions, not deductions: INVENTING (InertialSystem)
still new ideas (dark energy)
of interpretations based on already established more basic inventions SAFELY
SECURING THEIR FUTURE SURVIVAL TOO. Perhaps the most prominent of these highly
beloved academic pets is the illustrated v+icerror below. The short version:
PRESERVATION OF an already increasingly apparent surface minded idea of cosmic existential purposefulness) because having
invented the above hinted menu of Blocking Ideas. And so an Academic Consensus
formed a specific such future (please
do disclaim) by consequences: DRIFT.
Not plan.
ThePlanckWay: The Solar Eclipses
The
right way
The
Systems mass and energy are preserved constant Planck Equivalents:
m_{0}c^{2} = mcc_{u}
= constant = E: no mass is created, no mass is destroyed. u =
electrically accelerated charge speed:
Q
= √ (m/R)(A/dT) follows Planck Equivalents: m and R varies exact in
proportion as certified by a constant charge Q
Q is electrically
light accelerated by U to a velocity u never even touching c, no matter
the energy input.
TheEinsteinError: ThePlanckWay The v+icerror:
Light physics
does not connect kinetics
The
wrong way:
ADOPTING [1905] »The c Cocoon Association»:
nothing is faster than c by DRIFT. Not plan:
»NOTHING CAN TRAVEL
FASTER THAN c»: the v+ic error in Einsteins Special Relativity Equations:
There
are no known physical laws in our universe proving that light connects to
kinetics.
No
way ¦ ProvingTheEclipses: Light
develops not centrifugation: no KeplerNewton
classic celestial orbits.
By erroneously featuring an idea that light
propagation c and kinetic velocity v ARE additive compromising v on credit of
c we EASILY derive the Einsteins special relativity basic equations as
above. See the math details part in the original Swedish edition of the The
v+ic error, unless already familiar. Planck equivalents[] it is. Electric and Mechanic does not match.
No way.
While
the Einstein solution introduces ELECTRIC features as a The Universe Authority [PlanckRelatedEquivalents] and the following 1900s scientific development apparently
became very much characterized by That Electric part [6Aug1945+: Hiroshima,
Nagasaki] the Mechanics part [Days of Thunder, Tom Cruise 1990 car industry
in general] went in a state of permanent oblivion as even a possible SUCH
candidate.
LIGHT DOES NOT CONNECT KINETICS. NO WAY.
No such observable, provable or relatable physics exist. PROOF on already well known historical experimentation:
PROVING the
light path trajectory from THE
Solar ECLIPSES 1919+
THE SOLAR ECLIPSES EXPEDITIONS 1919+
Deflection of light by the Sun
The Eddington experiment and expedition [1919+]
light has no
connection to kinetics a light path does not exhibit centrifugal mass force
properties
Gpotential: Proving
EXACTLY NEWTONS
CLASSICAL CELESTIAL ORBITS (The CEPH Equation: CircleEllipseParabolaHyperpola)
minus the
centrifugation aspect : no mass property: same observed light path, same math, same value:
As deduced
from the Kepler Area Momentum CENTRAL ACTION mathematical physics: kinetics
Deducing
the elementary velocity expressions [CephEquationDeduced] beginning from the
normal distance d=r on x;y=0;0 for the different types
of orbits gives
v_{n}^{2}=
(1+e)Gm_{2}/r where v[n] is the normal
velocity at start, e is the characteristic
eccentricity, and m2 is the central mass on distance r=d from the orbiting
object and G the universal gravitation constant.
With
e=1: a free fall ¦ v[n] ² =0; e=0: the circle ¦ v[n] ² =Gm_{2}/r; e=1: the parabola ¦ v[n] ² =2Gm_{2}/r; and e>1: the hyperbola ¦ v[n] ² = [1+e]Gm_{2}/r. THE EQUILIBRIUM between gforce and centrifugal force for an
orbital mass m at distance r=r from a central mass m_{2} is defined
within Mechanics through the gravitation potential w²=Gm_{2}/r from F =
ma = Gm_{2}m/r², Fr = mar = Gm_{2}m/r, Fr/m = ar = Gm_{2}/r
= [M/S²]M
= [M/S]² = w². It hence works
independent of the orbiting bodys mass quantity centrifugation by mass.
WHEREAS the gforce F is
directly proportional to the central mass m_{2}, which for all massive
bodies corresponds to an exact balancing centrifugal force[A1], defining the actual path of the orbit at any moment in time,
weather it is in a state of increase or decrease,
our closest nearest way for eliminating
the centrifugal aspect would be the simple test
of doubling the centripetal (gravitating) gforce. Analogously: doubling the
central mass.
On the kineticmechanic
gravitationcentrifugation balancing credit in concern of a hyperbolic
orbit path
the result is apparently forced to
accept a net zero removed not acting at all
centrifugal influence
our related
light physics liberty from kinetics: light
does not connect kinetics
See more related from LightPathsInGfields.
v[n] ² = [1+e]2Gm_{2}/r, = c² for a light path close to the visual rim of our Sun [Solar
eclipses from 1919]:
The
Mechanical kinetic, v motional aspect of the moving object ceases. And is
replaced by a massless gravitationally controlled CONDITION OF PROPAGATION on
the speed of light ideally as in empty space vacuum.
The eccentric number then yields
e = (rc²/2Gm_{2}) 1.
TNED related values see
extended electric constant IAUtest
m_{2} = 1.98963199771721 T30 KG, our Sun mass from
rG = 6.96575835977117 T8 M. the electrogravital Solar Rim Radius
G = 6.67010000933003 t11 JM/[KG]², gravitation constant
c = c_{0} = 2.99792458 T8 M/S, top speed light
propagation in vacuum
rS = 6.957 T8 M established Solar radius [Wikipedia, Solar radius]
The deflection depends [on precise measures]
on the radial distance from Suns center:
Not specified in available sources »visible
rim» [rS] appears implied.
Here e (236 431) becomes much larger than 1, giving a hyperbola just
slightly different from a straight line. Apart form the minus 1 the
simplification gives us
e =
rc²/2Gm_{2} ......... Proving the light path
trajectory
Further familiar with the
CEPHgeometry [here in PREFIXxSIN]
our hyperbolic e is equal to 1/cosH, H
equal to the hyperbolic asymptotic angle. The total deviating hyperbolic light
path then with e=1/cosH, cosH=1/e, becomes
a = 2cosH = 2/rc²/2Gm_{2} = 4Gm_{2}/rc² ..... the light deviation around the central mass
INCLUDING (LGD) LIGHTS GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY
(we use the local real c
instead of the general c0):
Gm_{2}/rc² = 1 2/(1 + 1/√1 4Gm_{2}/rc_{0}²) ;
:
c = c_{0}(1/2)(1 + √ 1 4Gm_{2}/rc_{0}²) ;
Deduction
= c_{0}(1/2)(1 + √ 1 4[P]) ;
c² = c_{0}²(1/4)(1 + √ 1 4[P])² ;
= c_{0}²/[(4) / (1 +
√1 4[P])²]
= c_{0}²[P]/[(4[P]) / (1 + √1 4[P])²]
= c_{0}²[P]/[(1 R²) / (1 + R)²]
= c_{0}²[P]/[(1 R)(1 + R) / (1 + R)²]
= c_{0}²[P]/[(1 R) / (1 + R)]
= c_{0}²[P]/[(1 √1 4[P]) / (1 + √1 4[P])]
= c_{0}²[P]/[(1 + √1 4[P]) (2√1 4[P]) / (1 + √1 4[P])]
= c_{0}²[P]/[1 2√1 4[P] / (1 + √1 4[P])]
= c_{0}²[P]/[1 2/(1 + 1/√1 4[P])]
= c_{0}²(Gm_{2}/rc_{0}²)/[1 2/(1 + 1/√1 4Gm_{2}/rc_{0}²)]
=
Gm_{2}/r[1 2/(1 + 1/√1
4Gm_{2}/rc_{0}²)]
Gm_{2}/rc² = 1 2/(1 + 1/√1 4Gm_{2}/rc_{0}²)
;
The
same result is claimed from established centers based on mathematics from
Albert Einsteins general theory of relativity: Same end expression. No sign of
Einstein. No way.
Small Hvalues directly corresponds to a radian angle (in PREFIXxSIN:
cos1° = 0.0174524 = 0.0174532RAD). The avalue here gives (LGD) with the above specified Gm_{2} rG c_{0}
values
a = 8.479207885 t6. With a in degrees (a° = 180a/π, or
direct from arccos a) hence
a° = 4.858228254 t4 =
1.7489621716 rounded
= 1.75 .................. =1.75 arc seconds:
Calculated values [B(Einstein),
Schwarzchild] with standard constants
(general Source: Wikipedia) using the cexpression from Schwarzchilds solution
(LGD ¦ Tables) give so small comparing
differences between TNED and MAC that these, what we know, are completely irrelevant to the
resolution of the measuring instrumentation.
SolenT2022.ods T1 A51
Sammanfattningsvis kan vi sδga att en ljusstrεle som passerar nδra en
tung partikel kommer att bφjas i fφrsta hand beroende pε den ickeeuklidiska
karaktδren av kombinationen av tid och rum. Denna krφkning motsvarar den som
beror pε den Newtonska gravitationen och kan berδknas pε det vanliga sδttet under antagande att ljus har tyngd liksom en
materiell kropp. I andra hand kommer den att krφkas beroende pε den
ickeeuklidiska karaktδren av rummet ensamt, en bφjning som ej fφrutsδgs av
Newtons lag. Om vi kan observera krφkningen av en ljusstrεle kan vi utfφra ett
prov som avgφr huruvida Einsteins eller Newtons teori gδller .. 1,75
(Einsteins teori .. 0,87 (Newtons teori) ..., Arthur Eddington from Newman 1959 The World of
Mathematics 1956 Band2 Chapter 21, Sw., En matematikens kulturhistoria. Here freely [back] translated:
SUMMING UP we can say
that a ray of light passing near a heavy particle will bend on a first hand
depending on the noneuclidean character of the combination time and space.
This bending corresponds to the one depending on the Newtonian gravitation and
can be calculated the usual way under the assumption that light has weight as a
material body. On a second hand it will bend depending on
the noneuclidean character of space alone, a bending that is not predictable
by Newton's law. If we can observe the bending we can perform a test which
determines weather Einstein's or Newton's theory holds .. 1.75'' (Einstein's
theory) .. 0.87'' (Newton's theory) ..
(Excuse me: we have read
a lot of eminent descriptions in the known history of science. But this part
from Eddington seems to take a price of its own).
The value 1.75 is the
standard astronomically specified reported from the 1919+ Solar eclipse
observations:
The light path follows a curvature free
from centrifugation properties.
The Eddington
assumption as quoted apparently has no physical solidity.
If it HAD
centrifugation properties, mass, it WOULD apply to a regular KeplerNewton kinetic
trajectory: it
didnt.
Which, apparently, is the exact mathematical
classical KeplerGalileiNewton physical explanation:
LIGHT DOES NOT CONNECT KINETICS: e = rc²/2Gm_{2} it is. See also TwoArguments.
Conclusion:
There is no relativity theory applications
in the real world physics. No way.
(»Mathematics conquered
modern academy, and led it on a path it did not know». Drift. Not plan).
The result apparently
advocated the birth of a new branch in physics (LGD) that modern academy never got to.
Some quotes:
ResearchGate PDF [26Dec2022]
THE
1919 EDDINGTON ECLIPSE, 2019
Domingos
Soares ¦ Federal University of Minas Gerais  Brazil
:
Modern science is both authoritydriven and
a novelty moneydriving.
The prototype of the
authoritydriven type is the 1919 astronomical missions
to observe a solar
eclipse and designed to prove that General Relativity
Theory (GRT) was right in
a particular prediction, namely, the amount of
light deflection by a
massive body.,
:
It is worthwhile mentioning at this point
that none of later solar eclipse missions in 1922, 1929, 1936, 1947 and 1952
yielded conclusive results about the amount of light deflection (Newtonian or
Einsteinian, cf. [10, p. 68]). The GRT result has been indeed confirmed later
by observations in the radio wavelength range.
Only recently, from
observations of the total solar eclipse on August 21st, 2017, it was claimed
that the 1.75 arc second bending was observed in visible light, with an accuracy
of 3% (cf. [11]).
It is an instructive
exercise to compare the extreme rigor, the modern techniques and
instrumentations used in ref. [11] with the rough experiment undertaken in the
DysonEddington missions. The impossibility of a conclusive result therein will
clearly emerge.
Nobody really knew, then,
the specifics of the data reduction process realized
by Dyson in conjunction
with Eddington. Marmet and Couture, Appendix C [9]
describes the praise of
authority in a section of the Royal Astronomical Society:
The
results from the 1919 expedition were quickly accepted by the scientific
community. When preliminary results were announced,
Joseph Thomson (from the Chair) said:
It is difficult for the
audience to weigh fully the meaning of the figures that have been put before
us, but the Astronomer Royal [Dyson] and Prof. Eddington have studied the
material carefully, and they regard the
evidence as decisively in favor of the larger value for the displacement.
,
ResearchGate PDF [26Dec2022]
THE
1919 EDDINGTON ECLIPSE, 2019
Domingos
Soares ¦ Federal University of Minas Gerais  Brazil
Absolutely.
e = rc²/2Gm_{2} it is. See also TwoArguments.
Conclusion: AS SO ALREADY Stated:
LIGHT DOES NOT CONNECT KINETICS. NO WAY.
See also Two
Arguments.
Suns4: LightAndGravitation: LGD The Einstein Error ¦ ThePerihelionPrecessions
PART OF elementary related AND DEDUCED STAR PHYSICS
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANETARY PERIHELION PHENOMENA
A FULL DYNAMICS EXPLANATION
Related physics description
Of the Suns 4 TNED
StefanBoltzmann radiation law connected and deduced heat degrees
T Tg
Tw Tp only the
Planck heat degree Tp is known in modern academy
three have a direct cr
connectivity to the corresponding cr factors in the
perihelion precession complex. The threerow table, left below, shows the
associated constants. But only one of them if at all can have a fully
rational and relatable, quantitative, provable connection. The resolution of
that exciting task is given further below in CaseClosed
and (fully mathematically) in TheExperiment.
The mathematics of the planetary
perihelion precessons according to classic mechanics RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS relativity theory
ideas expires.
EXACT MATH cr perihelion precession background:
The Suns 4 heat degrees all emanate and are deduced in related physics and mathematics from StefanBoltzmanns radiation law
¦
SOLENS VΔRMEGRADER ¦ Solens 4 Vδrmegrader Kalkyl ¦
Used constants:
Illustrations designations
(original Jan2008) related
physics and mathematics we leave no one behind:
m_{2} actual
at present
star mass ¦ see Sun mass analysis : 1.989661830 T30 KG ¦ further in ElectricConstant
m_{A} atomic Hydrogen weight: U = 1.0078252: actual mass: m_{A} = Uu u atomic mass unit ¦ HOPtable
r_{0} Proton radius: 1.37 t15 M based on pioneer scattering experiments: 1.37 Fermi. See further tests in the NeutronSquare.
u atomic
mass unit, Carbon12/12, = 1.66033 t27 KG
G gravitation constant see TheGtest
¦ old school [19662000] nominal value [HOP] 6.67 t11 JM/[KG]²
R Star
Anvil
Radius: SunR = 4012 M [ from DayOne ..]
r distance from R BasicEPSmath has
adopted/compromised R as »distance from Sun» [ r, elliptic orbits half minor
axis]
a absorption coefficient, nominal 2/3 for all first class hydrogen normal stars
k_{P} 2k/c_{0} : 3.781904041 t16 NM^{2}°K^{4}
k_{e} electric vacuum constant: 1/ 4πε_{0}
: 8.98744 T9 VM/C
e elementary
chargequantum electron charge : 1.602 t19 C
ρ_{C} rho: maximum Coulomb density on given star atom base m_{A} primary Hydrogen:
8.13444
T16
KG/M³ = mA / [ 2r0 ]³ = 1.0078252u/[2·1.37 t15M]³
b Boltzmann constant: 1.380550287753 t23 J/°K
k 2π · b^{4}π^{4}/(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2})
StefanBoltzmann radiation law constant, as deduced , = 5.6699807232
t8 WM^{2}°K^{4}
h Planck constant: 6.62559 t34 JS
kW 2.89794 t3 M°K Wien law constant
c_{0} lights linear free space divergence velocity: 2.99792458 T8 M/S
Z atomic number primary stars = 1,
Hydrogen base
ρ rho:
actual
shell/spherical density: 3m_{2}/(4πr^{3})
also accounted for over any distance
[r] from Sun ; D=m/Vsphere
γ_{P} gamma: γ_{P} = p p_{e} = gpressureCONTRACTIVE minus epressureEXPANSIVE¦Coulomb pressureRepulsion
p_{e} Coulomb pressure : k_{e}(Ze/πr_{0}r)^{2}
p gravitational contractive pressure : G(m_{2}/r)^{2}/4πr^{2}, = G(m_{2})^{2}/4πr^{4} = 4πG(ρr/r)^{2} = ρ^{4/3}(4π)^{1/3}G(m_{2})^{2/3}
γ_{P}
= G(m_{2})^{2}/4πr^{4} k_{e}(Ze/πr_{0})^{2}/r^{2} ; only
AS pe becomes negligible outside StartSurface, GAMMAp varies as
γ_{P}
:=
G(m_{2})^{2}/4πr^{4}
discernible Coulomb pressure outside
star surface
Results:
LightAandGravitation
Suns Four Temperature Degrees, as deduced:
Concordant with
comparing quantities on magnetism, sun spots, sun period, corona physics,
and all other
foremost studied details of our Sun especially the Photometric Effect: The IAU Test (Oct2018):
The general
UniverseHistory cosmological test (»love me or leave me»): a
direct hit.
In modern academy only the Planck temperature TP is known:
Why? No atomic nucleus deduction. Not even a hint. Not a sound. Not a spell. Not one word: No Dmax Begin: no StarANVIL. No Nothing. Why? Ask them. Say again.
Look up any available source in any available instance: there are no other references to the results here other than the results here unless deduced likewise. Say.
As deduced from the above parameters in
UniverseHistory [2008+]: In modern academy only the Plack temperature TP is known:
T = (4πG/ak_{P})^{1/4}r^{3/2}(ρ_{C}R^{4}/3)^{1/2}
°K heat degree radial variation, Suns first equation ceases at Suns
gsurface
TP =
(P_{3.84 T26}/a[4πr^{2}]k_{5,7 t8})^{1/4}
°K Planck radiation not
represented inside Suns gsurface ¦ [ 3.84 first approximation ]:
=
(√1/r)(P_{3.84 T26}/a[4π]k_{5}_{,7 t8})^{1/4}
= (√1/r)·constant ;
r = (constant/TP)^{2} ;
checked TP
Tγ = (γ_{P}/ak_{P})^{1/4} °K temperature equivalent thermo
nuclear radiation
pressure extends limitless from R
:= ([G(m_{2})^{2}/4πr^{4}]/ak_{P})^{1/4}
= r^{1}([G(m_{2})^{2}/4π]/ak_{P})^{1/4} ; Suns coronal radiation physics, as deduced
r = (Tγ)^{1}([G(m_{2})^{2}/4π]/ak_{P})^{1/4} ; direct proportionality to Star distance
over shorter time periods:
r = (Tγ)^{1}([G(m_{2})^{2}/4π]/a[2k/c_{0}])^{1/4} ;
r = (Tγ)^{1}([c_{0}G(m_{2})^{2}/2ak4π])^{1/4} ;
r = (Tγ)^{1}c_{0}^{1/4}([G(m_{2})^{2}/2ak4π])^{1/4} ;
rc_{0} = (Tγ)^{1}c_{0}^{5/4}([G(m_{2})^{2}/2ak4π])^{1/4} ; the perihelion precession cr parameters: °K.equivalents: heat
=
(Tγ)^{1} · constant ;
checked Tγ
Star mass decreases as light and heat emits from E=mc² mass
destruction
AminorTermConflict: LAG
The BasicEPSmaths
Rr mean
distance from Sun, half minor ellipsis axis and the Suns4
Rr AnvilRadius,
distance from SunCenter should be
explained/clarified/elucidated in the running text (The AnvilR is explicitly
not used in the following).
The reader should know that in general,
what we know here, none of these following Suns4 parts have any whatsoever
corresponding familiarity in present academic corridors. So, it is imperative
to give exact mathematical referrences here. The reader should also know that
there is an interesting ButLOOK resolution
in this apparently present academic nature oblivion (as earlier hinted at []).
TW = r^{1}(m_{A}Gm_{2}[kWIEN=2.89794 t3 M°K]/hc_{0}) ; Genergy WienTemperature equivalent
TW = (rc_{0})^{1} (m_{A}Gm_{2}k/h) = (rc_{0})^{1}(9.7129143335161 T23 °K·M^{2}/S = H)
= H/rc_{0} ; checked TW
Elliptic Designations
uses R for Sun distance (r above) = ellipses half major axis, with r/R =
E = √
1e^{2} ;
r=RE ; in a corresponding rc match:
TW = H/Rc_{0} = H/(r/E)c_{0}
= HE/rc_{0} ;
rc_{0} = HE/TW ;
The modern academic missing part: explaining
apparently the perihelion precession physics by mathematical/observational detail
R =
(TP/constant)^{2} = r/E
;
r = E(TP/constant)^{2} ; part in denominators kfactor also includes c0; 2π·
b^{4}π^{4}/(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2}):
TP = (P_{3.8275 T26}/a[4πr^{2}]k_{5}_{.7 t8})^{1/4}
;
TP =
([(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2})/(2π· b^{4}π^{4})]P_{3.8275 T26}/a[4πr^{2}])^{1/4}
;
= ([(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2})]P_{3.8275 T26}/2π·b^{4}π^{4}a[4πr^{2}])^{1/4}
= ([(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2})]P_{3.8275 T26}/8·b^{4}π^{6}a[r^{2}])^{1/4}
= ([1/r]^{2}[(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2})]P_{3.8275 T26}/8·b^{4}π^{6}a)^{1/4}
= ([1/rc_{0}]^{2}[(15h^{3}c_{0}^{4})]P_{3.8275 T26}/8·b^{4}π^{6}a)^{1/4}
;
TP^{4} = [1/rc_{0}]^{2}[(15h^{3}c_{0}^{4})]P_{3.8275 T26}/8·b^{4}π^{6}a
;
TP^{4}[rc_{0}]^{2} = [(15h^{3}c_{0}^{4})]P_{3.8275 T26}/8·b^{4}π^{6}a
;
TP^{2}[rc_{0}] = √([(15h^{3}c_{0}^{4})]P_{3.8275 T26}/8·b^{4}π^{6}a) ;
= constantTP
;
checked TP precisely
rc_{0} = (constantTP)/TP^{2} ; constantTP = TP^{2}rc_{0}
r=RE ; in a corresponding rc match:
Rc_{0} = (constantTP)/TP^{2} ;
rc_{0} = E(constantTP)/TP^{2} ;
the elliptic orbit spouse
WE FOLLOW THIS Details in :
FormallyKeplerMath ¦
ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦ CoriolisResolution ¦
PerihelionPrecessionRotationalCenter ¦
AllKeplerMath ¦
KeplerMomentumBasics
ConcludingAllKeplerMath ¦
KeplerMomentumBasics ¦
If the reader at this stage can
follow the following short presentation: be my guest,
A normally equipped person though,
should need a few first enlightening hints to what the following is all about:
So: If the following should fail on
the reader, try the more in detail explaining elementary ThePerihelionPrecessions.
In there are connections. Should be no
problem. It is all elementary AllKeplerMath.
CENTRIFUGATION v²/r and KEPLER Area Momentum
vr
The » KeplerPlanck
connection »
not mentioned in modern quarters, what we know:
εK = (v^{2}/r)(vr) = v^{3}
; (= →) uc^{2} : formally : v^{3} = v_{1}v_{2}v_{3}
; v_{1} = u ; v_{2}
= v_{2} = c ; v^{3}
→ uc^{2} ;
Dn v^{3}
= (v^{3}) = 3v^{2} ,= CONSTANT = uc^{2}/v_{0} ; THIS makes absolutely no normal sense on present known basis.
3v^{2}/c^{2
}= u/v_{0}
;
But WAIT until The
EndStationResult: PerfectAssembly.
:
The
integral connects to the elementary centrifugalKepler/Planck area momentum
complex:
The perihelion
precession
RELATED SIMPLEKEPLER AND PLANCKMATHEMATICAL PHYSICS
CENTRIFUGAL(ε=v²/r)KeplerAreaMomentum(K=vr) »consolidates» a v³ function framing
an extra rotation u
on c:
εK = (v^{2}/r)(vr) = v^{3} ; (= →) uc^{2} : formally : v^{3} = v_{1}v_{2}v_{3}
; v_{1} = u ; v_{2}
= v_{2} = c ; v^{3} → uc^{2} ;
u/v_{0} = 3(v/c)^{2}= 3(TanA°)^{2}
¦ v_{0}
= 1/M defines unity between the two rank parts
Dn (v^{3})
= (v^{3}) = 3v^{2} = d(uc^{2})/dv_{0} = uc^{2}d(1)/dv_{0} = uc^{2}/v_{0} ; the derivative/variant defines the function
3v^{2}/c^{2} = u/v_{0} The Eddington form, as quoted
du/dv
= 3(v^{2}/c^{2})
; du = 3(v^{2}/c^{2})
dv ; the formal integral: [see
details in FORMLAWS
unless already familiar]
_{ }3(v^{2}/c^{2})
dv = (3/c^{2})_{} v^{2}
dv = (3/c^{2})v^{3}/3 = v^{3}/c^{2}
; = → uc^{2}/c^{2}
= u the precession ; v^{3}
→ uc^{2} ;
εK = (v^{2}/r)(vr) = v^{3}
; (= →) uc^{2} : formally : v^{3} = v_{1}v_{2}v_{3}
; v_{1} = u ; v_{2}
= v_{2} = c ; v^{3} → uc^{2} ;
LEAD: because there are TWO
different detailed physical provable domains responsible for the phenomena
gravitation and lighttemperature physics and because light has no kinetical
connection (SolarEclipses: light paths develop no
centrifugal force ¦ TwoArguments), we will see a phenomenal
explanation to the celestial perihelion precession complex on related details
that modern academy most definitely cannot handle on both a gravitational and
a lightphysics based foundation that once and for all explains and exposes
relativity theory for what it is, down to its last atom.
WHAT EXPLAINS THE PHENOMENA? We
have a v/c and a cr. But what do they mean and tell?
THE PLANETARY PERIHELION
ORBITAL PRECESSIONS
ONLY FROM THE DEDUCTION OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS: Planck constant: The Neutron never known in modern academic teaching system. Not one word.
The perihelion precession rotations first observed with
planet Mercury: natural physics apparently entails phenomena readily
mathematically expressible with an apparently provable 1800+ modern academic
real crappy idea of the nature behind:
THE MODERN ACADEMIC MISSING »WIFE»:
Copied significands from
SolenT2022.ods
T1 ¦ 27Nov2022 as deduced in Suns4
rc_{0} = E·Cg (TG)^{1} ; Cg = 5.09345773954984 T24 °K·M^{2}/S ¦ °K TGamma
rc_{0} = E·Cw (TW)^{1} ; Cw = 0.97129143335161 T24 °K·M^{2}/S ¦ °K TWien
rc_{0} = E·Cp(TP)^{2} ; Cp = 8.50996997680304 T24 °K·M^{2}/S ¦ °K TPlanck
EXCEPT FOR THE here termed PLANCK TEMPERATURE DEGREE Tp [
direrctly from StefanBoltzmanns radiation law ]
these parts are not present, not known, not understood, not even
imagined IN MODERN ACADEMY.
Why is that?
Apparently not
because of any lack of intelligence. Absolutely not. But APPARENTLY rather because []
of a
1800+ deep and strange nature opposition of using its intelligences, you know the Nature
Brain Construct Part,
no 1800+ or other
medical Juice: left, right .. 1 .. 2 ..
innate content:
more interested
in INVENTING [ The Einstein Error ] than DEDUCING.
ACTUALLY the Tpform relates
directly to the StefanBoltzmann radiation law
(P = aAkT^{4}). However.
As the entire light (c) radiation mathematics relies on The Planck radiation
law
deduced here in related physics from Plancks Entropy Connection S = b ·
lnW, not Boltzmanns
[ we use the more rich
Powers n^n instead of the more
narrow academic permutations n! meaning:
the concept of STATISTICS disappears completely: the
deduction points at an exact solution ]
[ basically Ludwig Boltzmanns concepts: b = Boltzmanns
constant ]
also its accompanying the Wien displacement law is given by
deriving Planck radiation law with respect to all wavelengths. Then, all
electric (light) radiative phenomena relies on the Planck radiation (law,
mathematics) concept (somehow with StefanBoltzmanns radiation law implied).
It was (hence) convenient in Universe History to associate the Suns most
elementary heat degree Tp on a general Planck terminology convention (Planck
energy E=hf=mcr·1/t=mc²): The Suns Planck heat degree, Tp = (P/aAk)^{1/4}.
rc_{0} = E · constantTγ · (Tγ)^{1} M²/S constantTγ = c_{0}^{5/4}([G(m_{2})^{2}/2ak4π])^{1/4} ............................. °K · M²/S
rc_{0} = E · constantTw · (Tw)^{1} M²/S constantTw = (m_{HYDROGEN}Gm_{2}k_{WIEN}/h) ............................ °K · M²/S
rc_{0} = E · constantTp · (Tp)^{2} M²/S constantTp = ([(15h^{3}c_{0}^{4})]P_{3.8275 T26}/8·b^{4}π^{6}a)^{0.5} .. °K² · M²/S
Increasing the number of
precision constants
RETURNS EITHER A WEAKER (bad basics) or a stronger (WELL RELATED) THEORY
THE
rc SOURCES IDENTIFIED
the planetary perihelion precessions
experimental
mechanical principle
Deducing the planetary
perihelion precession phenomena from Keplers Third
(also a basic centrifugation Kepler
momentum math: v²/r · vr = v³)
needs a completing pair of components: the cr pair (AllKeplerMath). But in celestial mechanics light does not connect
kinetics the c is compromising.
It apparently suggests that the precession phenomena has electricmagnetic
features a stand with no, zero,
known attesting observed physics: more parameters are needed for that. In
relativity theory where it is held that gravitation
propagates with velocity c in a mathematically
complex of space curvature the cr factors »were introduced
naturally». And so a relativistic mathematical formula was synthesized,
precisely matching the observed Mercury precession and later others too. On
that credit, the general relativity theory gained a solid established trust.
Here, in related physics, the crfactors have a classical
physics explanation based on (partly, mostly..) unknown (read: never related)
phenomena in modern corridors (which was to be expected .. []):
Suns 4 heat
degrees. Only one of them is
known in MAC: the Planck temperature. But all four are derived from
StefanBoltzmanns radiation law on credit of the related physics deduction
of the atomic nucleus: also unknown in modern quarters: thermo nuclear
radiation pressure (best attested by Corona physics phenomena and quantities
..).
THERE ARE (3) cr
STAR/Sun THERMO NUCLEAR RADIATIVE PRESSURE TEMPERATURE EQUIVALENTS
EXPLAINING THE MATHEMATICS COMPLETELY
on a nuclear physical basis and scale that never were discovered in modern academy apparently and provably down to last atomic nucleus. Why? Apparently Because nobody in modern quarters never cared do deduce the atomic nucleus. As related: Planck constant h=mcr, The Neutron with the following exposed Neutron Square the atomic masses, practically identical with the ones already measured. Familiar as a spouse to the mass Kepler area momentum K= mvr: T¦GammaWienPlanck all from star thermonuclear reactions in ways modern academy apparently never cared to investigate: unrepresented;
Extraction from the more
exhaustive AllKeplerMath:
6πRGm_{2} = 24π^{3}R^{4}/T^{2}
; R^{4}/(Tcr)^{2} = R^{2}/(Tc)^{2}/(1e^{2}) ; (R/r)^{2} = 1/(1e^{2})
6πRGm_{2}/(cr)^{2} = 24π^{3}R^{4}/(Tcr)^{2} ; what we know: substituting cr/cr=1 does not introduce
relativistic arguments.
=
24π^{3}R^{2}/(Tc)^{2}/(1e^{2}) ; also
The Wikipedia/Einstein
RADIAN
expression ¦ 1e^{2}
= E^{2} = (r/R)^{2}
=
6π(v/c)^{2} ;
THE RADIAN EXPRESSION
:
rc_{0}
.................. = CE(TW)^{1}
; E large eccentricity coefficient
r/R, H °K·M²/S constant, TW °K Genergy Wientemperature
equivalent;
r(TW) ............ =
CE/c_{0} ;
constant for a given elliptic orbit elementary Deduced Related Star
Physics
THESE KEPLER/PLANCK DEDUCED DETAILS ARE APPARENTLY ABSTRACT
TO MODERN ACADEMY: never represented.
The cr phenomena
apparently has nothing at all to do with relativity ideas: no math, no physics.
No way. Just simple elementary Kepler and Planck math complemented over
elementary mathematical substitution: 1 = (A/A)^n. No relativity ideas what so
ever. So:
APPARENTLY based on physics completely
unknown in modern corridors.
Why? How? Test most
(historically) popular answer []: »so many cannot be
wrong» the book of wisdom by the many:
»We already know
everything»:
Once the herd of the crowds have started to
move in their daily circle merits, education, job no single individual
claim will make them stop and turn.
No way.
If we suckers are going to stop and turn,
it can only happen by our own will.
EDUCATIONAL BASICS
morality, code of ethics, and social intercourse
How
humanity handles The environment reflects the level of cultural scientifically
educated population intelligence. Say. We surrender immediately.
SWEDEN 2018 once a placid place .. and
growing .. as bad as it can be ..
Sweden
is exaggerating its further global governmental care for Universal Animal
Rights .. MustBuyBook.
VEGETATION Leaf&Needle was
apparently intended nervous system construct for maintenance of basic biological
NATURAL HEALTH CARE.
NOT for any kind or sort of industrial scale
energy consumption or business profiting: NOT for Trafficking Humanity, but
Developing it. Say again:
What replaces the chemical reduction? 3Gy of undisturbed
natural evolution, no cuts, up to 1800. 200 years later: more than 30% reduced
forest area.
»Well do fine with 70% for the developed
100 we can always compensate with modern academic medical Juice». Have a nice
Mad day.
Not
within the nearest 200 years [least Natural GrowDecay cycle] will a Nature
Forest bee seen again by humans in sites like the one before the photo.
We
are apparently living in the worst of all human civilization times: STATE
ignores LIFE by state authorities not lifting a
finger to stop the mad.
Who
what educated these?
EDUCATION in humanity is
apparently on the Up.
..
because of the curvature of spacetime .., the general modern academic
argument see article details from ThePoint
LIGHT AND GRAVITATION
Time independence and Time dependence their related
differentiation is, apparently, not represented in the modern academic teaching
system
IN RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS
The birth of related science
.. Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei,
Isaac Newton, James Bradley .. Max Planck
The most prominent of all
found features in nature (physics)
The nature of Gravitation
The nature of LIGHT
was both apparently
fundamentally forgotten replaced by invented substitutes by the 1800+
modern academic cosmological idea.
Bradleys discovery of the Aberration
phenomena (1725, published 1729) seems to have had no focus of interest at all
in modern quarters, although its obvious connection to The Subject. All from
1725.
And so neither the following electric
features (Coulomb law) or the further instrumental light discoveries (LightsPolarization) gave leading clues to such imperative details as the
PotentialBarrier and the (MathPrinciples) decisive Electric Charge and its connection to gravitation (ExperimentalConfirmations).
Modern academy 1800+ lost
it all. Completely. Not a sign. Not a hint. Not a spell.
James Bradleys discovery 1725 of the Aberration phenomena ¦ ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦ GripDeep ¦ Potential
Barrier
Dmax ¦ The atomic nucleus cannot be compressed it is already standing
on a physically mathematically deducible Planck constant perfect Zero
The time independent property in
gravitation only inertial
kinetic properties count was never understood and definitely not accepted
(The EinsteinError) by modern academic thinking. And so most of the elementary
physics had to hide (BasicMathRanks) behind the modern academic new mind inventive ideas and bills
of society. It is such a joy.
SolarCycle: TheSTARanvil
As calculated from the
thermo nuclear radiation pressure (γ[p])
in related physics (a nuclear inductive heat
inertia, deduced from StefanBoltzmanns radiation law)
not to be confused with the very weak (Planck temperature associated Tp ¦ ButLOOK) electrokinetical radiation pressure (^{pRAD}^{) known in modern quarters }
related physics
gallantly was able to deduce the power engine inside stars in general (^{SunPHYSICS}^{ ¦
}^{PULSARS}^{),
and of our Sun in specific. It has a (default) }^{fusion tp
period}^{ of 11.44112839 years (As the Sun is burning Hydrogen to Helium, a slow
decrease in this period is possible: at present an average of 11.1y in some
literature; Internet NASA 1Sep2004 specifies 11.4 yr). See also here in }^{StarAnvil} and How
is temperature generated.
StarBASE: TheGtest
(Our Sun is a preference
[NORM] star in related
physics, TNED says [P = A²ε_{0}]).
In the following further tests of the
results
all UniverseHistory TNED calculations collected 25Oct2018 and contained into one singe
extensive IAU Test spread sheet for
comparison with the internationally set and measured standard value
the Suns Photometric
Effect as measured and (IAU) internationally quantified
A direct hit:
was verified through a
direct hit.
All TNED deduced Kcell
related mathematics and physics included:
The (mathematically very extensive) General
Test DID verify the TNED deduced parameters.
Really.
(neutron mass mN = 1.0086652u)/u = U(m_{n}) = 1.0086652 ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = mC12/12 ¦ h = mNc_{0}rN = 6.62559 t34 JS ¦ 18: see Atomic Mass Defect scale.
The IAU test
uses this compressed TNED related physics deduced expression »WITH INNER RESOURCES» to calculate the IAU testing object: The Suns Mass from
mSbegin at DayOne as it burns through the ages till now [mS¦nowResult
mS¦KeplerNow SHOULD = exactly 0, if TNED holds]
using the IAU standard photometric Sun effect [3.8575 T26 W± 0.0014] in a general cosmological [TheKcell]
comparing cross reference with the TNED calculated results. The present
calculated Sun mass will be the present Sun mass [TheKeplerCalculated from Earths anomalistic period] from removing the
original Sun mass burning waste as solar wind particles and the mc²transfer
to light and heat during the burning period [present Kcell age, (20.805 Gy ¦ UniverseAge) related physics says]:
RELATED PHYSICS: All
primary Hydrogen based stars burn with a constant photometric effect from day
begin to day end as an alcalic battery with constant voltage output until it
ends, says related physics. Deduced and related thermo nuclear basic details
here in TheStarAnvil.
The G and mS values are further tested and
explained by precision in results from The Electric Constant.
THE IAU TEST RESULT (a
direct hit) has afterwards been used to test other fundamental natural
constants such as G in concern of further tests on The
CAP and CWON results and whatever
is stated or investigated on these constants in available sources.
See further details in TheGtest and further in The Electric Constant and IterativeConstantTest and IAUtestDETAILS.
So:
Continuing
in ThePerihelionPrecessions.
CaseClosed: 3Dec2022 The
Perihelion Precessions
Number 5 ¦ TheRESULT aC arcSeconds/Century ¦ Tanom, planetary anomalistic period: twice the same elliptic point: r SunPlanet mean distance
rc:
(5.1) (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}]/rc_{0}(1e^{2}) Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y]) ; 1y = 365.256363004d [WikipediaNov2022]
Tgamma c:
(5.2) (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}]/[γ(Tg °K)^{1}](1e^{2}) Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y])
;
Tgamma rc:
(5.2).1 (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}]/[ γ
(
r^{1}([G(m_{2})^{2}/4π]/ak_{P})^{1/4} )^{1}](1e^{2}) Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y])
;
(5.2).2 (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}]/[ 5.093457740 T24 °K·M²/S · r([G(m_{2})^{2}/4π]/ak_{P})^{1/4}](1e^{2})^{1} Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y]) ; checked
(5.2).3 (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}][ 5.093457740 T24
°K·M²/S
· r]^{1}([G(m_{2})^{2}/4π]/ak_{P})^{1/4}(1e^{2})^{1} Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y]) ; checked
Tgamma r: TNED
related star physics deduced thermo nuclear temperature pressure:
(5.2).2.1 (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3Gm_{2} · [( 5.093457740 T24 °K·M²/S )^{2} r([G(m_{2})^{2}/4π]/ak_{P})^{2/4}(1e^{2})]^{1} Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y]) ;
checked
(5.2).2.2 (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = (r[1e^{2}])^{1}3(√[G^{3}(m_{2})^{4}/4πak_{P}])[(
5.093457740 T24 °K·M²/S
)^{2}] Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y]) ; checked
5.093457740 T24 = c_{0}^{5/4}([G(m_{2})^{2}/8πak])^{1/4}
(5.2).2.3 (aC)u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = (r[1e^{2}])^{1} Χ 4429.80849084701 M Χ (360°·3600·100y/[Tanom/y]) ; checked
Compare Suns central Nuclear Star Anvil: 4012.1338 M according to related physics initially
3281.4823 M absolute smallest on Hydrogen1 base: 731.0696 M
SolenT2022.ods T2 AP21 exactly same
values ¦ 5Dec2022
γ
= c_{0}^{5/4}[G(m_{2})^{2}/8πak]^{1/4} = c_{0}^{5/4}[G(m_{2})^{2}/8π(2/3)2b^{4}π^{5}/(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2})]^{1/4} = c_{0}^{5/4}[3G(m_{2})^{2}(15h^{3}c_{0}^{2})/32b^{4}π^{6}]^{1/4} = c_{0}^{7/4}[3G(m_{2})^{2}(15h^{3})/32b^{4}π^{6}]^{1/4} ; checked
verified.
b = Boltzmann constant: 1.380550287753 t23 J/°K ¦ m_{2} = mS = 1.98963199771721 T30 KG ¦ G = 6.67010000933003 t11 JM/[KG]² see The Electric Constant
√[G^{3}(m_{2})^{4}/4πak_{P}] = √[G^{3}(m_{2})^{4}/8πak] = G^{3/2}(m_{2})^{2}/(8πak)^{1/2} ¦ Χ ¦ c_{0}^{5/4}[G(m_{2})^{2}/8πak]^{1/4} = c_{0}^{5/4}G(m_{2})^{2/4}/(8πak)^{1/4} ¦ = G^{3/2}(m_{2})^{2}/(8πak)^{2/4} Χ c_{0}^{5/4}G(m_{2})^{2/4}/(8πak)^{1/4} ;
= G^{2/4}(m_{2})^{6/4}/(8πak)^{1/4} Χ c_{0}^{5/4} ; [ notChecked ] ;
(5.2).2.3 = (5.1):
u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = (r[1e^{2}])^{1} Χ 4429.80849084701 M = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}]/rc_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}^{2}](r[1e^{2}])^{1} ;
u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = (r[1e^{2}])^{1} Χ 4429.80849084701 M = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}]/rc_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}^{2}](r[1e^{2}])^{1} ;
u/v_{0}(1e^{2}) = (r[1e^{2}])^{1} Χ 4429.80849084701
M = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}]/rc_{0}(1e^{2}) = 3[Gm_{2}/c_{0}^{2}](r[1e^{2}])^{1} ;
verified : JM/[KG]² · KG · [S/M]² =
JM/[KG] · [S/M]² = [M/S²] · S² = M.
; JM/[KG] = NM·M/KG = KG[M/S²]·M · M/KG = [M/S²]·M · M =
M³/S² ¦ · [S/M]² = M.
There can be no
doubt about it: same math, same values:
Modern academy
uses apparently and provably in to the last atom
not understood mathematical physics for connecting a AN APPARENT INVENTED
level of explaining physics OUTSIDE Rational and Logical explaining physics.
What?
AllKeplerMath.
Explaining planetary perihelion precessions on exact principal principle
mathematical physics [Kepler area momentum]:
StefanBoltzmannDetails: Case
MODERN ACADEMY HAS APPARENTLY
EXCLUDED
A general 100%
explanation of cosmology 100% outside Einsteins theory of relativity: a
primitive, never developed, not fully discovered idea of physics.
Precisely as IT was apprehended from
square 1:
(The philosophers got a shock:)
Humanity in Modern Academy 1800+ lost its NATURE
manifest eager to INVENT a new one.
Say any related argument AGAINST. We will surrender immediately:
TheCircleArgument:
Details
The simple Circular application Eddington form
Only BASED ON THE SIMPLE FACT by the eccentricity factor (1e²) e=0 defines a
perfect circle the actual precession quantity (>95% for Mercury, >99%
for Earth) is defined to >90%, as calculated, column % CIRCLE in the table
below.
In a perfect circular orbit (Quote) : no
velocity variation exist. And thereby: no
relativity theory input:
relativity theory input on the precession phenomena only by the
>90% effect circular part is apparently relativity theory suicide:
As also clarified in AllKeplerMath;
SolenT2022.ods T2 AR20
The orbital
eccentricy plays apparently
a [very] small part in the actual quantity of the planets perihelion
precessions see also comparing values with present stated measures in TheRESULT.
It apparently is the circular part 1e² = 1 that generates the main
quantity: >95% except for Pluto [uncertain parameters] with >93. That is
apparently a death sentence for any relativistic idea of the phenomena. In a
circle there is no velocity variation, and hence no relativistic mass changing
idea.
Compare RelativisticMass
quote. The Circle part kills relativity theory.
By unknown reasons here, that observation seems to have
slipped out of sight on the modern academic attempt to explain the phenomena.
SolenT2022.ods T2 U22
In related physics explanation same math
also perfect circular orbits are included.
The phenomena [FirstLIGHTtable] apparently relies on a
small temperature pressure, first two columns in the table above N/M² in the
Suns planetary light field [Directly from
StefanBoltzmanns radiation law: p = constant · T^4 · 1/3, N/M² =
Pascal, Pa].
Se further
explaining mathematics on the thermal pressure detail in ButLOOK.
In modern quarters
the T^4 associates to stars innate energy production.
In related physics
Suns4, unknown in modern academy,
although deduced from the same StefanBoltzmann source
the T^4 factor has connection to the Tgamma
deduced heat degree [also connecting
Suns Corona Physics].
And, as seen here,
its mathematics contains the modern part [ButLOOK]
applied on a level of physics apparently not familiar in modern corridors: explaining
the full dynamics of the planetary perihelion precession phenomena.
See also more in
detail from ThePerihelionPrecessions
and TwoARGUMENTS.
Besides that observation, the rest of the mathematics apparently reveals
unexplored domains of elementary physics
in modern corridors
(thermo nuclear pressure details unnoticed
in modern corridors because of a completely different idea of WHAT
a star is).
In modern corridors some quite different ideas prevail on the origin of
»general physical phenomena»
especially on the level of relativity
theory critics: so mathematically and very strongly established now during some
100y+;
What is the most
prominent in this »UH attack» on modern academy teaching system?
Star Physics.
In to the bone of it. Absolutely. Mathematics. Every atom of it.
Modern academy apparently