Dmitriy Plotnikov on Gravitational Spin & More

Dear Friend,

My name is Dmitriy Plotnikov.  In 1994, having tried a lot of options, I decided on analyzing one of the issues from quantum mechanics, namely the problem of two states: upward spin and downward spin. Why?  I will try to explain this below.  I wrote the laws of quantum mechanics on center of masses of two identical elementary particles. If you do all the mathematical calculations, on the Center of Masses of Two elementary particles, then you will come to a conclusion:

1. The center of masses of two elementary particles is a quantum value possessing different energy states.

2. It is possible to dwell on the amplitude of the probability for the center of masses to stay in one of the states: C(E1) or C(E2).

If you look at 4 elementary particles. M1= M2, M3=M4. Then you will get Mechanism of Emergence of Elementary Interaction. If you consider a system of four equal masses of elementary particles, M1= M2=M3=M4, then you will get Elementary Spin that gives off 4 identical elementary particles. The formula for elementary spin can be obtained:

C(t) = B* cos ((2*E₀/h)*t) -i*B*sin ((2*E₀/h)*t)

where B is a complex variable depending on distance between the center of mass.

Only in system of four identical elementary particles a gravitational spin will emerge .The system of four elementary particles can be considered as a system of two states: with upward spin and with downward spin.

In system of four identical elementary particles, elementary gravitational interaction emerges . Now consider the system of 16 identical elementary particles. The situation will exactly the same in this system of 16 masses as it had been in system of 4 masses. The only distinction is in the number of particles, and hence in the amount of energy between the positions of upward and downward spins. The problem involving 16 masses comes again to the problem of two states :upward spin and downward spin. While in system of 4 masses a first-level spin, in the system of 64 masses there will be third-level spin, and so on.

By using the trial-error method we can obtain the equation for the difference of energy states on different levels:

E₂-E₁=(4ⁿ)*D*m₀

where n is number of the spin level;

m₀- mass of particle in rest; D-a constant.

Consider two identical spin systems in close system. Let us assume that C₁ is the amplitude probability for system 1 to have upward spin, and C₂ is the amplitude of the probability for system 2 to have downward spin .The system 1 decrease its energy level by emitting a portion of energy, A. At this moment the system 2 will accept this excessive energy. After the analysis we can obtain the system of Equations for the amplitudes of probability in X and Y projections:

C(X,Y) = ((2*B*COS((2*E₀)/h)*EXP(-i*t*(E₀-A)/h) * (COS(2*k*R*COS(Z))+COS(2*k*R*SIN(Z))))²
                                         M₁*M₂                                                                            1/R²

The equation represents the LAW OF GRAVITATION in quantum mechanical form:

• The first part of equation corresponds to the proportionality of the masses, =M₁*M₂.

• The second part corresponds to the inverse proportionality of the square of the distance, the distinction lying in harmonic function.

• A new value appears- the angle Z, which reflects the energy, exchange within the circumference with a radius R.

An interesting conclusion comes to mind: if the gravitational interaction between the bodies depends on the distance as a harmonic function, then at certain values of R the amplitude of the probability of the energy exchange turn into zero, that is certain areas emerge in the space where gravitational interaction between masses is impossible, and on the contrary, certain areas emerge where the interaction is maximum. This conclusion can be made with respect to the distribution of mass in the solar system. The energy exchange between the mass of the Sun and that of the other planets occurs only in maximum areas. In other areas the probability amplitude diminishes or turns into zero. Consider the motion of planets.

w=dC/dt= (d/dt)*C(Z) w-angular speed

Responsible for the motion of planets is the component Z. It creates the condition for the alteration of the maximum areas in space, and changes the co-ordinates of these maximum areas in time. The masses have nothing to do but roll down to the maximum areas.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Plotnikov, Physicist
9 Smith Court
Hillsborough, N.J. 08844
Idsoma@aol.com 

Gravitational Constant:  G

Hello sir, 

If the Gravitational constant ( 6.67 x 10 ^ -11 Nm^2/ Kg^2 ) was doubled, what would have to change about the Earth's motion for it to be in a stable orbit around the Sun.  What are the two different ways in which the Earth's orbit could change to remain in orbit and what are the consequences to those who live on Earth. 

Please email me back at rush_n69@hotmail.com .
Thank you very much, 
Radovan Rudik 
Physics Student

Response from Dr. Siepmann: 

Radovan,

No one except for a few theorists such as myself know what the gravitational constant (G) really is.  For most it is a fudge factor, that is a constant, used to make the units and numbers of gravitational formulas work. The best explanation can be found at http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-2/Gravitational_Constant.htm . 

But in regards to your question, you would have to be in a different universe to have a change in the gravitational constant since this one is the one that exists in our universe. Theoretically though, if it were doubled, then the distance from the sun would need to be increased by multiplying it by the square root of 2 (assuming that the Sun and the Earth remain at their same masses).  This is because any doubling of G would need to be compensated by a squaring of the radius as shown in the formula F=Gmm'/r^2.  Another way to compensate would be to halve the mass of the Earth or the Sun (just one or the other but not both).  Finally because the Earth is in orbit around the Sun, one could compensate by doubling its orbital speed which would decrease the year by 1/2.

But also remember that any increase in G would also result in our weight on Earth being doubled, and there would be a whole lot of other changes that would along with that. Also one must wonder if the universe could have expanded if G was any larger. After a 'Big Bang', it might have collapsed soon thereafter and we would not even be having this conversation. 

Keep up the inquisitive thought.

Sincerely,
Dr. Siepmann, Editor
Journal of Theoretics

The Big Bang is Singularly Impossible

Orbital interaction between two bodies of mass is what causes any kind of steady state, acceleration scenario....
A big bang from a single point or singularity, exploding into a void of nothingness, would encounter absolutely ZERO resistance to the motion of its scattered particles/matter....

Exploding matter into nothingness would not be subjected to any velocity influence from the matter around it because it is all traveling along ... parallel trajectories?  There is no space/time curvature ... what type of trajectories would this exploding "stuff" (it isn't technically matter just yet) actually take?

Is this why there is no middle of the universe? Because there was no big bang? or because there was no space/time for it to explode into, so as to be subject to external influence in regards to the trajectory of its exploding "soupy-stuff" components?

The point is you cannot have something explode into nothing and expect it to gradually slow down and spread like it does when we create an explosion in space/time (something!). There are no physical laws or limitations. All the soupy-stuff is flowing presumably parallel to all the other soupy-stuff...how can this effect a dynamic influence upon itself, such that it slows and cools?  Especially when my theorizing and interpretations of the two slit experiment tell me that photon radiation cannot occur without a destination/closed circuit....hmmm...it all keeps sending me round in circles....the only way a big bang could occur is if it is nothing like what we know in regards to explosive behaviour ... but still - matter appears to need space/time in order to exist ....  It is one of those paradox things isn't it?

Steady state is still the only thing that makes any real sense, when we look at how all things fundamentally need each other to exist.  I still cannot successfully run a logical algorithm in my head that explains how you can get a universe by multiplying something with nothing....

Glen Angus Graham
Relativity Theorist 
redshift@senet.com.au

Newton, Space, & Gravity

There is a question of logical symmetry here.

Newton's model of gravity supposes that mass is the primary correlate of gravity, and that space (distance) "insulates" against gravity. This leaves space with no positive gravitational work to do. Further, if we allow that gravitational physics is the only force in which space may be positively involved, then the Newtonian model leaves space with no positive force at
all. Thus, this model is asymmetrical with respect to the relative properties of the two identities involved (mass and space).

But, there is a sense in which Newton's model is symmetrical: it is 'statically operative' (the meaning of this term may be understood when you look at Einstein's model in contrast). Thus, Newton's model possesses two realms of logical geometry. (It is already apparently scientifically acceptable to suppose that space exerts a force upon mass only after mass has warped space, and that this assumes that space exerts a force upon mass at all. Both of these ideas are what I call "nonsense factors".)

Einstein's model of gravity supposes that mass is still (in a sense) the primary correlate of gravity, but that this is only by way of three "nonsense factors" (NF):

1. space exerts a force upon mass

2. mass exerts a force upon space

3. space does not exert a force upon mass until first mass has exerted a force upon space.

Thus, Einstein's model is symmetrical with respect to the properties assumed (1 + 2), which is an improvement, in that regard, in logical symmetry over Newton's model. But, Einstein's model accomplishes this only as a trade-off with the other logical geometry:

NF 3 constitutes a logically progressive relationship between space and mass (it is progressively operative), which does not match this model's symmetry of properties. It's an odd kind if circular reasoning, and I suppose that one could invent some others like it in other areas of physics just to show how odd it is.

The Immediate Effect (IE) model that I have come up with is symmetrical both with respect to the properties assumed and in the logical relationship between these properties.  Additionally, this model allows space to be a positive force while allowing mass to be a positive force (space has the positive force of gravity and mass has the positive force of inertia). It seems to me that Einstein's model makes mass to have no inertia since, as I can suppose, in his model,
motion does not obtain except in the sense of a warpage of space. It is this warpage of space which I suppose is exactly what the astrophysics of space probes is claimed to show---that there is no truly straight path. I say there is.

According to the IE model, the further into a linear mass you go, the less weight per unit of mass will be exerted upon you in the direction if the line. Potentially, if the linear mass extends far enough and you are in the center of the line, you will have no weight upon you from this mass. This implies that the larger are two masses that are near each other, or in contact with each other, the less force is required *per unit mass* to separate them.

If space is warped by mass, then how does mass travel freely through space? If the bowling-ball-on-a-mattress analogy to the standard Relativity model is worth much, then this would be like sending the bowling ball rolling across the mattress: there is resistance involved. And, obviously, if a mass is pushed into the space warpage of another mass, which means that the first mass encounters resistance in going in the opposite direction, then the other mass, when traveling alone, should experience resistance in the direction of travel. The IE model has the same kind of problem. That is, with respect to the problem of unequal forces encountered in the direction of motion, I see no real difference between the standard Relativity model
and my IE model.

All physical objects other than space itself (which means light and all particles are physical objects) are seen to insulate against the "pressure" of space, so that when two objects are near each other, they act as porous shields for each other. Picture this like two orbs of semi-clear water in a light box in zero G. They will block the light that is coming at each other from their respective 'far sides' of the box. If we imagine, for purpose of analogy, that light exerts a pressure upon water, then these two orbs will be pushed toward each other. In motion, they will revolve around each other. If one of these orbs is very large and the other very small, the small orb will orbit the large orb just like we know of gravity. Further, the apparent gravitational shielding which the Lageos artificial satellites experience during their eclipses with Earth is readily accounted for by this model.

If there are ever any standard gravitational physicists reading this, I hope they will tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree and, if so (or if not), why.

pnpmacknam@email.msn.com

Response from Dr. Siepmann: 

Great minds can converge on the correct answer albeit from different directions. I agree that Newton knew something that he did not have the data or technology to prove. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,
Dr. Siepmann

Red Tape or The Establishment Wins?

Once again the ongoing saga of Dr. Bibhas R. De (a theorist being eschewed by the established scientific community and in particular the DOE).  We have published this author’s initial foray into this vast wasteland in the Comments section of Vol. 3-5 (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Comments/c3-5.htm).

The two main concerns that he expresses are:

• Evasion of scientific criticism by Government-funded scientists;
• Relentless suppression of attempts to air said criticism.

I’ll leave the reader to make their own opinions.  His most recent quixotic letter to the Inspector General of the US Department of Energy and more information about his efforts can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/ .