[Duane Ertle]

The following is easy to understand, and quickly read.

THE PROBLEM AND REPAIR OF RELATIVITY
(C) 2004, Duane Ertle

In order to introduce the problem, I am going to quote a few sentences from a book "The Universe and Dr. Einstein," by Lincoln Barnett, published in 1960 by Mentor Books. The quotes are from pages 61 and 63 respectively.

The first concept involves that of mass.

"In its popular sense, mass is just another word for weight. But used by the physicist, it denotes a rather different and more fundamental property of matter: namely, resistance to a change of motion. A greater force is necessary to move or stop a freight car than a velocipede; the freight car resists a change in its motion more stubbornly than the velocipede because it has greater mass. ... But Relativity asserts that the mass of a moving body is by no means constant, but increases with its velocity relative to an observer. In short, energy has mass!"

Next, we need to look at the reason for this belief.

"By further deduction from his principle of Relativity of mass, Einstein arrived at a conclusion of incalculable importance to the world. His train of reasoning ran somewhat as follows: since the mass of a moving body increases as its motion increases, and since motion is a form of energy (kinetic energy), then the increased mass of a moving body comes from its increased energy. ..."

Now I am going to quote a paragraph from "The Bones of Time," copyrighted in 1978 by Duane Ertle, it is from the chapter "Flexible Time."

"The reason a fast moving mass is so difficult to stop, or have a direction change in, is due to its becoming frozen in a linear manner so energy cannot pass through its total volume as happens when it is at rest. When a mass moves at one-hundred thousand miles a second, the energy existent and having potential movement at right angles to its direction of travel could be at most a distance of eighty-six thousand miles a second. When moving at the speed of light minus two feet per second, the potential energy existent at right angles to its forward motion would only be two feet in one second. At the speed of light the mass would convert from being a three-dimensional object and would become a single beam of high energy photons streaking through space, all existing in only one dimension. Obviously there would be zero energy potential at right angles to the direction of travel."

Moving mass does not acquire additional mass as it moves. Atomic matter is composed of waveform. As electromagnetic energy (a wave) has differing energy values so, also, does mass at different speeds have an overall differing waveform. The waveform is derived from the moving mass itself, as energy at right angles to direction of travel decreases in line density with movement, and transfers a proportional amount of that frequency toward the direction of travel. In this sense greater mass is being added to the forward motion of the mass at the expense of the energy/mass at right angles to it.

There is an expression that deals with frequency density and an increase of energy as the lines of frequency increase. The expression in question says that E=hf. The energy of an electromagnetic wave is equal to that of a very small numerical constant times the frequency of the wave. The greater the frequency of the wave, the more energy the electromagnetic wave would have. Radio waves may have very long peak-to-peak distances of thousands of meters, while cosmic radiation is able to have its frequency so compressed that it acts as dimensional mass, and there may be trillions of frequencies, or waves within a single meter. Now consider how the frequency at right angles to direction of movement changes from having great potential in those directions, toward having less, thus giving up mass/energy potential. Energy, in form of greater frequency, converts to an overall change of mass, or as some would say, "... resistance to a change of motion."

The concept of E=hf is an equation that works for three different elements of nature:

1. E=hf, is an equation that describes why electromagnetic energy has greater and lesser energy values. Radio waves have very little energy value, while gamma and cosmic radiation have a great deal. And it all is dependent upon wave frequency and the density of that wave in a particular space.

2. mk=hf, (mass kinetic energy, equals hf) describes why mass shrinks to an observer as it moves. Because mass is composed of electromagnetic energy, it has the same wave values as electromagnetic energy, but in a very condensed manner. Electromagnetic energy remains in three-dimensional space in form of standing waves, yet having the same linear value of 186,000 mps all the while. Like a runner on a racetrack traveling all the while at that great speed. The same distance is traveled, just not in a straight line. As long as the velocity value within mass maintains the value of "c" it does not matter how small the "race track" becomes.

The, mk=hf, value demonstrates that the shrinkage of a moving mass is constant with frequency change. There are no sudden changes in mass/energy values. It also explains why the energy transfer takes place as frequency converts at right angles to that of forward motion. Just as sound waves have greater frequency with greater mass speed (thus the lines of frequency shrink, or become compressed) so, also, mass in the direction of travel shrinks in proportion to a greater or lesser internal frequency or energy values.

3. c=hf, is that for the relationship of a gravitational field and its frequency. It is possible that a "graviton," a single gravitational wave, has the same frequency as all other gravitational waves, no matter where they form; and what we consider as field of gravity has to do with quantity and not quality. Even though it might be either way, at present it appears that a gravitational field is formed of a quantity of waves (a greater multitude of waves all exactly the same no matter where in earth they formed) and not their frequency; although the c=hf concept would be valid in either sense.

Dr. Einstein understood moving mass from the perspective of how it related directly to that of energy - and it worked for him. He arrived at E=mc2! But the same result is able to be found by understanding that mass is composed of waves, and the moving mass undergoes a change from being greater in mass in three dimensions toward that of becoming greater in waveform in one direction and less in the other two dimensions.

In order that the reader may understand the thinking of today concerning the potential ramification of compounding mass, I am going to quote a paragraph found in a book entitled "Asimov's Guide to Science," (c) 1972; published by Basic Books Inc..

"... When Oppenheimer worked out the properties of the neutron star in 1939, he predicted also that it was possible for a star that was massive enough and cool enough, to collapse altogether to nothingness. When such collapse proceeded past the neutron star stage, the gravitational field would become so intense that no matter what, no light could escape from it. Nothing could be seen of it; it would simply be a "black hole" in space."

To which concept I would say; Oppenheimer did not realize that the force of gravity is a field of energy, c2=E/m, initiated by the heat energy within a solar mass. No heat - no energy.

Black holes today are an attempt to explain why so much mass is missing from creation - 90%. The galaxies have been stretched out, and there is not enough mass in empty space to account for distances outward and their being so far apart from each other. But, that condition is not really new news. In the book of Isaiah 45:12 God said 2700 years ago that the heavens had been stretched out. "I have made the earth, and created man upon it, I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." So, then, it is not 'black holes" that mankind needs to find, but God.

The conclusion is this. Because moving mass has increased frequency change in direction of movement until it reaches the speed of light, it then converts into radiation; there is no manner by which a black hole is able to form under any condition. There is no manner whereby the mass in question may be anything other than the original mass converted into what it already, intrinsically, was. This means, if it is impossible for a black hole to form, then it is just as impossible for the "big bang" to have happened. Neither of these events ever did exist nor shall they. They both soon shall disappear with a "little poof" into an obscure page somewhere in antiquity.

An Experiment You Can Help With

There is an interesting trilogy in physics relative to electromagnetic energy and its formation into mass. The first part of the trilogy you are sure to know, the other two parts you probably are not familiar with. The first part is E=mc2. All know this as the conversion of mass into energy. The second part of the trilogy is obvious though not popular. It is m=E/c2. The conversion of energy into mass. For a long while those who have an interest in these concepts have known about the equation for converting energy into mass but they cannot practically do anything about it. The concept is left largely alone by the public other than as an "Oh, hum" sort of a thing and it is then passed over. The third part of the trilogy is less obvious yet, in that the value of "c2" is not recognized for what it represents as a physical concept by itself. It is the "c2" representation that needs to be examined by empirical evidence - meaning an experiment needs to be performed to determine if it is a singular entity to itself as are energy and mass. The entire equation is c2=E/m. This value of velocity is that of a field of time, or that which accelerates one mass toward another through empty space, bonding planets to their orbits about the sun, and us to them. It is also the equation for earth's gravitational constant and is the basis of both mass and energy.

Newton first described the force of gravitation as to how the force acted instead of what it was. The force was described as, "F" (for the force of gravity) = "G" the gravitational constant, times "mass one," times "mass two," divided by the distance times itself. The result of this equation was in giving a numerical value to the attractive force between earth and its moon. That is all Newton wanted at the time. But this equation does not tell a person what the force of gravitation would be if all the mass of the universe were to be a single mass, as some project once happened in the "big bang" theory. As you are aware, according this theory there would have been no second mass to compare with the first, so there could have been no gravitational equation formulated. All that could be known would be F=m (the force of gravitation is equal to the mass), and that's it. The present equation for a gravitational field is not wrong, it's just incomplete. It's like a person describing a house by the postal address. It isn't that a particular house address is incorrect information, but if you want to know what the house looks like physically it takes more than an address in order to learn that. In order for Newton's equation to be able to describe the force of gravitation both by what it does, as well as what it is, the equation would have to read "F" (the force of gravitation) = "G" the gravitational constant, times "mass one, times its heat energy squared", times "mass two, times its heat energy squared", "divided by the distance multiplied times itself". (F = G x (m1 x Q2) x (m2 x Q2) / d2); "Q" here representing the heat energy within the mass. Using this concept, the equation for a single mass only would be (F = m x Q2). I'm sure you get the idea. Mass of itself is not capable of completing the equation for the force of gravitation, for mass is an entity to itself. There has to be something more. As things stand now, with the way the force of gravity has been represented, there must exist a perpetual creation of this force in all mass at all times in order for its presence to be explained. A continuous creation is the only manner the force of gravity can have perpetually existed through the supposed past eons of time and yet exist brand new at present. Those who seek to understand such things make no allowance for any natural energy source to form this force. They, by default, subscribe to the perpetual creation concept, even though they do not consciously state it. Consider, as we have seen in Appendix "B", that it takes the consumption of 0.00444 kg. per second, or 31.8 tons of mass, or its equivalent energy, converted into gravitational frequencies per year to maintain the energy level required for earth's gravitational field to remain standing. Our sun requires the continual breakdown of 10,485,720 tons of matter, or its equivalent energy, per year into gravitational frequencies in order to maintain orbiting planets in their positions. Does it not seem a wise act to be looking for the energy source that propagates this force?

The reason for going through all this is that I wish to show that the force of gravitation is part of a basic equation that is able to stand by itself (c2=E/m). The force of gravitational acceleration is in reality a physical field of what we loosely call time. Mankind does not think of time as being a physical reality, but it obviously must be just that in some fashion or the concept would not exist at all - i.e. the continual linear flow of past, present and future events, these always having the same unchangeable physical value. I wish to present a manner whereby the existence of physical time forming the force of gravitation may be conclusively examined, but it requires the assistance of others to do so.

There are three primary manners whereby we use energy in our physical world (discounting plasma, the fourth state of matter). Whenever any form of energy associates with a mass, then that energy must evidence itself in some manner. This will be either in linear movement of a mass, by angular movement, or as heat energy existing within a mass. There is a singular instance where an obvious energy expenditure does not appear, in what we would think of as being a "normal" manner. It is when there is a great deal of potential heat energy contained within a large mass, as found in our solar systems sun and planets. The heat energy contained within our planet does not obviously evidence itself to our senses in any manner other than by the occasional action of a volcano or thermo-spring. Why not?

The internal heat energy within our planet causes its mass to form into the shape of a sphere, compacting the mass of earth. It is the heat energy within our planet, forcing the mass to become compacted, that causes our gravitational field to form to the intense factor it does. Were there no internal heat energy within our planet then there could be no gravitational field. Were the internal heat energy within our planet to decrease in value, our planet's gravitational field would also decrease in intensity. The value velocity of "c" (c2=E/m) within earth's mass evidences itself apart from the mass containing it. In the past, the value of the time wave (c) has been ignored as having an existence at all when considering electromagnetic energy. Yet this velocity is the basis for the explanation of electromagnetic radiation (speed), and is itself formed of electromagnetic energy. The value of "c" is the common velocity that all clocks measure in some physical manner as being time, and we, ourselves, are composed of this value as is all else having physical existence. It is also this velocity that we relate with as being real time.

Having explained the basis for gravitation, take a look at how it may be proven whether the gravitational field of earth might have as its origin the internal heat energy within or not. The location in which the experiment needs to be performed is in outer space, where it would be free from earth's gravitational influence and surrounding, small gravitational fields are able to be well isolated. This, obviously, is the part others need to perform. The experiment would consist of three pairs of lead spheres, each set of two spheres being distant enough from any other surrounding mass that they could only influence and be influenced by each other.

The first set of spheres would each be heated to near six hundred degrees f. and placed a fixed distance apart in such manner they would be perfectly motionless relative to each other before the experiment began. Once the restraint on them was removed and they were free to move, each sphere would begin moving toward the other and they would meet at a midway point.

In the second set of spheres, one sphere would be heated to the same temperature as those of the first set while the second sphere would be frozen to as near absolute zero Kelvin as possible, then the spheres would be distanced as were the first set. What would be observed once the spheres were released to freely move, is that the heated sphere would remain motionless while the frozen sphere would begin moving toward the heated one until they met. They then would begin sharing the heat energy and both would have a reduced gravitational field.

The third set of spheres would consist to two lead spheres set the same distance apart as the first and second set, but each sphere would be frozen to as near absolute zero Kelvin as possible. That which would be observed once they were released to move freely, is that neither sphere would begin moving toward the other as in the first two sets. If each sphere had a temperature of absolute zero Kelvin, they would never move toward each other.

This simple experiment would demonstrate the force of gravitation to be or not to be a field of time (c2=E/m), whose origin is that of a particular form of energy and not of a continual creation. What do you think? Is it possible? Will it ever be known if it is not examined? It might be something to consider.


Duane Ertle
South Haven, Mi. 49090

timebones.blogspot.com

[TinyTree]

I think you ought to post this as an article. It will get more people to view it, and will randomly be selected to be placed in the top which will get more readers.

I haven't read your theory very closely, but on a cursory reading I might ask- what is the ramification of your change of mathematical representation?

[subversion]

I enjoyed your comments but I am not too sure about your arguments. First of all, I'm not sure that rearranging Einstein's equations is going to give you any new information. Secondly, I don't think there is an overt need to explain the seemingly inexhaustible force of gravity. Gravity is the force of time, I agree, and thus it is the force of destiny. Thus this force remains enigmatic. Gravity is not based on heat because we know that Mars has no latent heat of formation and yet it still has a gravitational field.

Best luck, sub

[dleviwing]

Duane;
As an object is accelerated, its mass value increases. This is referred to as Relativistic mass (Einstein's equation). This should not be confused with the assumed "Rest Mass" inferred by the equations for particles.

For a better understanding of the development of the equations and concepts you've alluded to, I can suggest an excellent text:
"Sourcebook On Atomic Energy" by Samuel Glasstone.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Duane;
As an object is accelerated, its mass value increases. This is referred to as Relativistic mass (Einstein's equation). This should not be confused with the assumed "Rest Mass" inferred by the equations for particles.

but according to gravity what difference is there??
And whose opinion is more important, your's or gravity's?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by subversion

but according to gravity what difference is there??
And whose opinion is more important, your's or gravity's?

Sub;
A wave cannot be at "Rest" and thus EM radiation's rest mass is assumed to be zero.
Since gravity has not expressed an opinion, my opinions and the statements of facts are quite predominant here.

An EM wave is a form of angular momentum and thus part of the "Conservation of angular momentum". Momentum is the product of velocity and mass.

Unfortunately Duane has made improper assumptions of the equations that are too extensive to answer in detail.

The six page post should be placed as an article or as his journal.

[Duane Ertle]

The reason I am responding to what you have written, is that I have performed two different sets of experiments, using a beam and a stainless steel pot filled with lead to prove the point. Check at timebones.blogspot.com for how it was done.

I would call your attention to three questions:

1. Is it possible to create or destroy energy?
2. Is it possible to perform work apart from an energy source?
3. In that the force of gravity performs work, what is its energy source?

Reguarding the need to reshuffle the basis of physics. It does not all need to be redone, but the part where people believe black holes, and the big bang are viable theories - and these, at present, are what interest people most, do need to be reexamined.

I offer to perform the past experiments to any person/institution that will record the experiment beginning to end, and then publish the results.

Duane Ertle
73602 6th Ave
South Haven, Mi.

[Duane Ertle]

What I had written earlier concerning an experiment to demonstrate why a black hole cannot exist, and because this is true the big bang is invalid, emperically this may be demonstrated by two different concepts:

The first concept to examine is the value an accelerating mass would have if it were within the 0.716 distance from the core point of our planet. A mass in this location would be accelerating to a speed greater than that of the speed of light. In our sun, the distance is 400 miles from the center of that mass. If a mass cannot exist in these locations, then how could a mass great enough to contain all that of the universe be in one location?

The next point is that of the experiment itself. That which forms a gravitational field is a product of eme - which is the basis of mass. Energy is released in form of waves that cannot be intercepted and changed in value. The experiment I propose to do, and have done, forms and collapses a gravitational field using a same mass. Thus energy is released in form of g. waves. If this is done on a small scale, it would also be done on a greater one, thus reducing a mass so that it could not form a black hole or a big bang. This is further evidenced in that our planet must expend 0.00444 kg/sec to keep things in place, and the sun 665 lbs/sec to do the same. The g. experiment offer is still open. Deal with that first.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Duane Ertle

1. Is it possible to create or destroy energy?

according to the Law of Laws all three laws of thermodynamics must be either irrelevant or incorrect

[Guille]

Duane,

About your three questions post:

1. It is NOT possible to create or destroy energy, we can only converse it into different types. If you can think of an example or experiment to proof otherwise, state it. Nothing you've wrote does so.

2. It is NOT possible to do any work without energy (or energy source). Because in order to apply a force at a distance (this is the physical and mathematical description of work) you must have a previous energy.

3. Gravity is a force, as are the other three fundamental forces: Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, and ElectroMagnetic. All of these forces impply energy, not vice versa (if there is force there must be energy, but if the is energy, force is not neccesarilly there).

Nevertheless, discussion about your theory is not possible because it is wrong from the start idea that relativistic mass is the same as rest mass. It's just as saying that we can put together the Newton's second law with Einstein's famous equation, but we can't, for in the first acceleration is variable and mass is constant, and in the second light's speed is constant and mass is variable. Preciselly the reason that Einstein's 1905 work is there was to the problem between Newton and Maxwell, neglecting the first.