16th July 00:11
It seems to me that once you see what centrifugal force can do then
you must KNOW the surroundings are pulling in some manner.
I said OK -- how is this being done via the surroundings?
We know electrons can bond with each other causing magnetism. We also
know electrons bond with each other causing sigma and pi bonding.
We know the sigma bond is the strongest bond.
We know you cannot have a pi bond unless there is also a sigma bond
I worked for many years looking at sigma and pi bonds until I figured
out what was really going on.
I had to go back 70 years to the old Niels Bohr model of the atom
where the electron actually revolved around the nucleus.
There are only two ways electrons can bind to cause magnetism:
1. a polar binding where the two electrons spin the same way on the
same spin axis. (This is the strongest magnetic bond.)
2. a spin up electron and a spin down electron both in the same spin
plane. (While this - sigma bond - is the weakest bond in magnetism it
is the strongest bond in chemical bonding.)
Because these attracting electrons are continuously in the same
orbital plane and their attractive bond is of a longer duration than
the pi or polar bond, which only occurs whenever these two electrons
happen to pass over each other.
OF COURSE you have to return to the past 70 years ago to view it as
actual motion in the microcosm.
Once this is done then you can see quanta being cause via sigma bonds.
You make one more assumption and say that all sigma bonds are the same
strength all the way out to the Hubble limit.
NOW you see exactly why a quantum of light from a star comes to your
eye with no energy lost whatsoever over that immense distance.
You ten say it's only the number of these bonds - nothing else - that
varies as the square of the distance.
Frequencies are involved with light quanta and with violet light the
frequency is twice the red light frequency. So you are having twice as
many swings of the bat with red light in the same time period as you
are with violet light so a quantum of violet light comes out with
twice the energy as a quantum of red light.
And if you look at a light quanta this way then it acts something like
the coil in your car. The coil creates a voltage after the voltage is
removed from the coil.
WELL the quanta of light is received via your eye as your eye releases
the sigma bond from the star. (Sort of like the coil)
I worked all this out years ago and tried to find problems with it and
It won't work without the surroundings balancing everything either.
Even though gravity bends light -- electrons are not causing gravity
or much of inertia or gyroscopic inertia. That's another story where
you get into translational motion!
From: milo wolff <milo.wolff@QuantumMatter.com> Subject: MACH AND EXPLOSIONS
To: "Zeus" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 7:08 PM
On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:38 AM, Zeus wrote:
Spinning stars are acting more like fermions than we suspect: each
individual star has more effective quark to quark binding with the
black holes in the middle of all the galaxies — in the far away "fixed
stars" — than it does with closer stars where there are no black
holes. Therefore, with more far off binding than close binding, stars
have fermion behavior.
This is why we have spectacular supernova explosions: at first a
potential supernova star shrinks and not only gets denser but gets
stronger too because this internal quark to quark translational
binding is increasing causing the strength to increase while also
shrinking the star. So this star is actually getting stronger and
shrinking, via internal binding increase.
OK FOR A FIRST PREMISE.
But the quark to far distant surrounding quark translational binding
is now increasing as well giving the shrinking star far more mass.
Please remember, these quarks must impedance match before this
translational binding can take place, so these supernova quarks are
forced to find quarks with an equally high impedance match in the far
off surroundings and these finally can only be found in the black
holes; so while the supernova internal binding is increasing, at the
same time its binding to the quarks in the surrounding universe is
increasing too (giving it more mass). However, this mass increase is
accompanied by the surrounding black holes in the universe trying to
pull the star apart. In the end it is this tremendous black hole
binding force in the surrounding universe that wins out and pulls the
star apart in all different directions.
A REASONABLE IDEA TO START. SINCE NOBODY KNOWS, THEY CANNOT SAY YOU
A supernova doesn't blow apart; it actually gets pulled apart by all
the black holes that are in the middle of all the galaxies in the
THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING NEW CONCEPT. I LIKE IT. "WE ARE PART OF
Centrifugal force is a similar force but it is only a pull from the
surroundings in one plane whereas with the supernova the pull from the
surroundings is a scalar pull in all directions. It's hard to believe
at this day and age that those asleep at the switch in our
universities do not even understand that centrifugal force is a pull
from the surroundings. Berkeley understood this. Mach understood this
and Einstein's first wife evidently understood this; whether Einstein
really understood this will be up to future historians to decide.
Now we begin to see why elements, stars and galaxies tend to be a
certain size. Every mass increase is also an increase in the inertial
pull of the surroundings in all directions.
That's what mass is: mass is the inertial pull of the surroundings in
YOU HAVE USED MACH'S PRINCIPLE RE-WRITTEN. THE STANDARD MODEL DOES
NOT INCLUDE IT. CANNOT BE TRUE WITHOUT MACH.
Life exists on earth because of supernova explosions. Life may end if
we encounter a supernova explosion in our own galaxy too.
RIGHT. BOMBS IN BAHGDAD ARE QUITE ENUF!
Anyway, we would not even be here were it not for all those black
holes in the middle of all the galaxies surrounding us.
RIGHT. WITHOUT THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE, WE DON'T EXIST.