Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far)

Expand Messages
  • richard ruquist
    Alex, Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a black hole event horizon. If that were true, there would be no black holes.
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 19, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Alex,
       
      Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a black hole event horizon.
      If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to be incorrect
      I know the correct answer.
      Richard


      From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
      To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
      Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far)

       

      Hi Richard,
      Action at a Distance is defined aT:

      http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html

      as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of gravity, action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance involved".

      On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
      To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
      I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between the two was properly established.

      While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining gravity it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act repulsively.

      I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this can also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
      I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall towards the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!

      These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible) gravitational attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction being induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.

      With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black hole's behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity is both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity escapes 3D but it does not
      disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous manner!

      I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular case.
      That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure distance.
      No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb it into Complex QM.
      In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good opportunity to expound on it.
      In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire nature of gravity.
      As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I suspect this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
      If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by complex forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means here of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal forces!
      Thanks for your question,
      Yours sincerely,
      Alex

      --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@...> wrote:
      >
      > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
      > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
      > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for Counter
      > Intuitive Theories
      >
      >  
      > Hi Jose,
      > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
      > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false premise.
      > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
      > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
      > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
      > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with and
      > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
      > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their joining?
      > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
      > Alex
      >
      > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello,
      > >
      > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
      > > movement.
      > >
      > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
      > >
      > > and
      > >
      > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > You may also free download the books from:
      > >
      > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
      > >
      > > and
      > >
      > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Regards
      > >
      > > Jose Molina
      > >
      >


    • Joe Hyde
      Alex, Richard Was just reading a paper on this at Miles Mathis s site; http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html Joe ________________________________ From:
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 19, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Alex, Richard

        Was just reading a paper on this at Miles Mathis's site; http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html

        Joe




        From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
        To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 1:42:31 PM
        Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far)

         

        Hi Richard,
        Action at a Distance is defined aT:

        http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html

        as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of gravity, action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance involved".

        On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
        To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
        I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between the two was properly established.

        While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining gravity it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act repulsively.

        I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this can also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
        I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall towards the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!

        These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible) gravitational attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction being induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.

        With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black hole's behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity is both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity escapes 3D but it does not
        disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous manner!

        I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular case.
        That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure distance.
        No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb it into Complex QM.
        In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good opportunity to expound on it.
        In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire nature of gravity.
        As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I suspect this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
        If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by complex forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means here of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal forces!
        Thanks for your question,
        Yours sincerely,
        Alex

        --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@...> wrote:
        >
        > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
        > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
        > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for Counter
        > Intuitive Theories
        >
        >  
        > Hi Jose,
        > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
        > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false premise.
        > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
        > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
        > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
        > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with and
        > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
        > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their joining?
        > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
        > Alex
        >
        > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Hello,
        > >
        > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
        > > movement.
        > >
        > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
        > >
        > > and
        > >
        > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > You may also free download the books from:
        > >
        > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
        > >
        > > and
        > >
        > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Regards
        > >
        > > Jose Molina
        > >
        >

      • onlinefriend2010
        Hi Richard, You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM). CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Richard,
          You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
          CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole! It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot escape its gravity.
          It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of re-emerging in a white hole.
          As Miles Mathis points out at:

          http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html

          1> Einstein never implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrong—they are only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial mechanics. I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.

          2> Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance. There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found. And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a normal gravitational field was produced by gravitons—by a transmission of influence-carrying sub-particles.
          Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory. Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational waves.
          I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any need to go into more detail.
          I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that both Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is largely a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it were..
          Yours sincerely,
          Alex

          --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@...> wrote:
          >
          > Alex,
          >
          > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
          > black hole event horizon.
          > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to be
          > incorrect
          > I know the correct answer.
          > Richard
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
          > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
          > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
          > (so far)
          >
          >  
          > Hi Richard,
          > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
          >
          > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
          >
          > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
          > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of gravity,
          > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
          > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
          > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
          > involved".
          >
          >
          > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
          > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
          > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
          > I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
          > the two was properly established.
          >
          > While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining gravity
          > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
          > repulsively.
          >
          > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
          > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
          > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this can
          > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
          > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall towards
          > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
          > believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!
          >
          > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible) gravitational
          > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction being
          > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
          >
          > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black hole's
          > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity is
          > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
          > escapes 3D but it does not
          >
          > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
          > manner!
          >
          > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
          > case.
          > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
          > distance.
          > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
          > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb it
          > into Complex QM.
          > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
          > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
          > opportunity to expound on it.
          > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
          > nature of gravity.
          > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
          > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
          > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
          > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I suspect
          > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
          > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by complex
          > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means here
          > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
          > forces!
          > Thanks for your question,
          > Yours sincerely,
          > Alex
          >
          > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ________________________________
          > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
          > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
          > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for Counter
          > > Intuitive Theories
          > >
          > >  
          > > Hi Jose,
          > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
          > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
          > >premise.
          > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
          > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
          > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
          > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with and
          >
          > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
          > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
          > joining?
          > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
          > > Alex
          > >
          > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Hello,
          > > >
          > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
          > > > movement.
          > > >
          > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
          > > >
          > > > and
          > > >
          > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > You may also free download the books from:
          > > >
          > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
          > > >
          > > > and
          > > >
          > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Regards
          > > >
          > > > Jose Molina
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • richard ruquist
          Alex, The question is how can gravity propagate beyond the event horizon. This is hardly a flaw. It is a huge inconsistency associated with the propagation of
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Alex,
             
            The question is how can gravity propagate beyond the event horizon.
            This is hardly a flaw. It is a huge inconsistency associated with the propagation of gravitons.
            And it is not gravity that directly keeps light from leaving a black hole.
             
            Gravity which can reach beyond the event horizon (as can electrostatics)
            causes space to flow into a black hole.
            At the event horizon, the flow of space equals the speed of light
            so light traveling in the flow cannot escape.
             
            So how can gravity reach beyond the event horizon.
            It obviously can since we detect the presence of a black hole
            from stars spiraling around it. The answer in in my knol.
            Richard


            From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
            To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 7:14:48 AM
            Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far with some new insight)

             

            Hi Richard,
            You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
            CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole! It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot escape its gravity.
            It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of re-emerging in a white hole.
            As Miles Mathis points out at:

            http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html

            1> Einstein never implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrong—they are only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial mechanics. I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.

            2> Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance. There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found. And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a normal gravitational field was produced by gravitons—by a transmission of influence-carrying sub-particles.
            Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory. Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational waves.
            I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any need to go into more detail.
            I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that both Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is largely a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it were..
            Yours sincerely,
            Alex

            --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@...> wrote:
            >
            > Alex,
            >
            > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
            > black hole event horizon.
            > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to be
            > incorrect
            > I know the correct answer.
            > Richard
            >
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
            > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
            > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
            > (so far)
            >
            >  
            > Hi Richard,
            > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
            >
            > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
            >
            > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
            > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of gravity,
            > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
            > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
            > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
            > involved".
            >
            >
            > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
            > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
            > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
            > I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
            > the two was properly established.
            >
            > While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining gravity
            > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
            > repulsively.
            >
            > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
            > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
            > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this can
            > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
            > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall towards
            > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
            > believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!
            >
            > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible) gravitational
            > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction being
            > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
            >
            > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black hole's
            > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity is
            > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
            > escapes 3D but it does not
            >
            > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
            > manner!
            >
            > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
            > case.
            > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
            > distance.
            > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
            > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb it
            > into Complex QM.
            > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
            > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
            > opportunity to expound on it.
            > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
            > nature of gravity.
            > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
            > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
            > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
            > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I suspect
            > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
            > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by complex
            > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means here
            > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
            > forces!
            > Thanks for your question,
            > Yours sincerely,
            > Alex
            >
            > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ________________________________
            > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
            > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
            > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for Counter
            > > Intuitive Theories
            > >
            > >  
            > > Hi Jose,
            > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
            > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
            > >premise.
            > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
            > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
            > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
            > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with and
            >
            > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
            > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
            > joining?
            > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
            > > Alex
            > >
            > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Hello,
            > > >
            > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
            > > > movement.
            > > >
            > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
            > > >
            > > > and
            > > >
            > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > You may also free download the books from:
            > > >
            > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
            > > >
            > > > and
            > > >
            > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Regards
            > > >
            > > > Jose Molina
            > > >
            > >
            >


          • Joe Hyde
            Alex Have you had a chance to look at this series of papers by MM ? ; http://www.milesmathis.com/third.html Joe ________________________________ From:
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Alex

              Have you had a chance to look at this series of papers by 'MM'? ; http://www.milesmathis.com/third.html

              Joe


              From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
              To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:14:48 AM
              Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far with some new insight)

               

              Hi Richard,
              You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
              CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole! It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot escape its gravity.
              It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of re-emerging in a white hole.
              As Miles Mathis points out at:

              http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html

              1> Einstein never implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrong—they are only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial mechanics. I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.

              2> Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance. There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found. And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a normal gravitational field was produced by gravitons—by a transmission of influence-carrying sub-particles.
              Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory. Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational waves.
              I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any need to go into more detail.
              I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that both Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is largely a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it were..
              Yours sincerely,
              Alex

              --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@...> wrote:
              >
              > Alex,
              >
              > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
              > black hole event horizon.
              > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to be
              > incorrect
              > I know the correct answer.
              > Richard
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
              > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
              > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
              > (so far)
              >
              >  
              > Hi Richard,
              > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
              >
              > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
              >
              > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
              > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of gravity,
              > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
              > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
              > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
              > involved".
              >
              >
              > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
              > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
              > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
              > I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
              > the two was properly established.
              >
              > While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining gravity
              > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
              > repulsively.
              >
              > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
              > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
              > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this can
              > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
              > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall towards
              > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
              > believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!
              >
              > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible) gravitational
              > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction being
              > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
              >
              > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black hole's
              > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity is
              > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
              > escapes 3D but it does not
              >
              > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
              > manner!
              >
              > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
              > case.
              > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
              > distance.
              > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
              > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb it
              > into Complex QM.
              > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
              > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
              > opportunity to expound on it.
              > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
              > nature of gravity.
              > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
              > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
              > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
              > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I suspect
              > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
              > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by complex
              > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means here
              > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
              > forces!
              > Thanks for your question,
              > Yours sincerely,
              > Alex
              >
              > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ________________________________
              > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
              > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
              > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
              > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for Counter
              > > Intuitive Theories
              > >
              > >  
              > > Hi Jose,
              > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
              > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
              > >premise.
              > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
              > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
              > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
              > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with and
              >
              > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
              > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
              > joining?
              > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
              > > Alex
              > >
              > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
              > > wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Hello,
              > > >
              > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
              > > > movement.
              > > >
              > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
              > > >
              > > > and
              > > >
              > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > You may also free download the books from:
              > > >
              > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
              > > >
              > > > and
              > > >
              > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Regards
              > > >
              > > > Jose Molina
              > > >
              > >
              >

            • onlinefriend2010
              Hi Joe, It seems to me (just on a brief inspection) that Miles has developed a totally separate but complimentary way of understanding the orbits of the
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Joe,
                It seems to me (just on a brief inspection) that Miles has developed a totally separate but complimentary way of understanding the orbits of the planets.
                While we normally think of Newtonian Planetary Mechanics as being in a flat plane I see them as existing in a bowl like depression across 4D. This is exactly the same as Einstein said but I include a 4th dimension to his approach.
                It is not immediately obvious what is going on to most people, I expect.
                If we lived in a 2D universe where the planets went around in circles we could say that those planets have their axes inclined to differing degrees in 3D. If you take just the perpendicular 3D vectors they would map out contours in a bowl shape or similar. So what I am suggesting happens just the same in 4D but we cannot observe it from our standpoint (at least not directly).
                I would suspect that the E/M field that Miles refers to is directly linked to these contours but I say this without any proof whatsoever and without reading his complete work. I know I tend to break the rules like this but I also say that I am in cases like this so that people know that we are discussing issues here and not laying down proven fact. I can also respond to peoples questions without getting bogged down in details at an early stage.
                I will try and spend some time taking a closer look at Miles work.
                Have a good day,
                Alex

                --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:
                >
                > Alex
                >
                > Have you had a chance to look at this series of papers by 'MM'?
                > ; http://www.milesmathis.com/third.html
                >
                > Joe
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:14:48 AM
                > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                > (so far with some new insight)
                >
                >
                > Hi Richard,
                > You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
                > CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole!
                > It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot
                > escape its gravity.
                > It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can
                > behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of
                > re-emerging in a white hole.
                >
                > As Miles Mathis points out at:
                >
                > http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html
                >
                > 1> Einstein never implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrongâ€"they are
                > only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into
                > classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial mechanics.
                > I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.
                >
                > 2> Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance.
                > There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found.
                > And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He
                > postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and
                > that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a
                > normal gravitational field was produced by gravitonsâ€"by a transmission of
                > influence-carrying sub-particles.
                > Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained
                > with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory.
                > Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the
                > pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that
                > the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational waves.
                > I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any
                > need to go into more detail.
                > I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that both
                > Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is largely
                > a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it were..
                > Yours sincerely,
                > Alex
                >
                > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Alex,
                > >
                > > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
                > > black hole event horizon.
                > > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to be
                > >
                > > incorrect
                > > I know the correct answer.
                > > Richard
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ________________________________
                > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
                > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                > > (so far)
                > >
                > > Â
                > > Hi Richard,
                > > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
                > >
                > > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
                > >
                > > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
                > > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of gravity,
                >
                > > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
                > > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
                > > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
                > > involved".
                > >
                > >
                > > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
                > > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
                > > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
                > > I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
                > > the two was properly established.
                > >
                > > While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining gravity
                >
                > > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
                > > repulsively.
                > >
                > > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
                > > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
                > > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this can
                >
                > > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
                > > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall towards
                >
                > > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
                > > believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!
                > >
                > > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible)
                > >gravitational
                > >
                > > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction being
                > >
                > > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
                > >
                > > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black hole's
                >
                > > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity is
                >
                > > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
                > > escapes 3D but it does not
                > >
                > > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
                > > manner!
                > >
                > > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
                > > case.
                > > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
                > > distance.
                > > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
                > > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb
                > >it
                > >
                > > into Complex QM.
                > > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
                > > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
                > > opportunity to expound on it.
                > > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
                > > nature of gravity.
                > > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
                > > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
                > > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
                > > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I suspect
                >
                > > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
                > > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by
                > >complex
                > >
                > > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means
                > >here
                > >
                > > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
                > > forces!
                > > Thanks for your question,
                > > Yours sincerely,
                > > Alex
                > >
                > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ________________________________
                > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
                > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for Counter
                >
                > > > Intuitive Theories
                > > >
                > > > ÂÂ
                > > > Hi Jose,
                > > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
                > > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
                > > >premise.
                > > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
                > > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
                > > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
                > > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with
                > >and
                > >
                > >
                > > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
                > > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
                > > joining?
                > > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
                > > > Alex
                > > >
                > > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Hello,
                > > > >
                > > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
                > > > > movement.
                > > > >
                > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
                > > > >
                > > > > and
                > > > >
                > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > You may also free download the books from:
                > > > >
                > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
                > > > >
                > > > > and
                > > > >
                > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Regards
                > > > >
                > > > > Jose Molina
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Joe Hyde
                Alex From reading a few of Miles papers I see that he is saying (I think?) that our sun and planets, and I suspect any material object in the universe, emits
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Alex

                  From reading a few of Miles papers I see that he is saying (I think?) that our sun and planets, and I suspect any 'material' object in the universe, emits what he calls B-photons which are not your regular sun emitting photons that we see as light but he seems to say that the electromagnetic field are generated or depend on these B-photons which are much smaller then electrons but that bombard everything in the universe...he says that they return at the poles and are emitted at the equators of stars and planets...I suppose it's not dependent on an objects 'spin' but I don't remember. It seems that by him the gravitational field is a 'resultant field from the gravitational and EM field being in vector opposition to each other. I could have hashed up his explanation a little or at least left it incomplete but it seems that these B-Photons are responsible for giving a torque tot he planets and such that he says gravity alone cannot.

                  In his 'Section 4: Electromagnetics' is this paper; http://www.milesmathis.com/venus.html - The E/M fields of solar system bodies - that whole section, papers 63 - 83, deals with how all of this plays out.


                  His 'Un-Unified Field' is here; http://www.milesmathis.com/uft.html which ties it all together but the other papers bring other aspects of it 'into focus' or give the application of it, the 'mechanical workings' so to speak.

                  I bought his paper back book and am reading through it at the moment, but I don't think it has all of his papers because it would be a much larger book I think. He says at one point that he has written over 1,500 papers.

                  He also has some papers where he talks about complex numbers and he deals with Pi in a few papers as well...

                  I have found every single paper interesting so far...at least the titles of those I have not read yet.

                  I am in no position to criticize any ones position, as I have said before, because I don't have the requisite training or experience in these fields but I can understand the logic presented and in the case of Miles Mathis I can even do some of the math and generally follow his arguments. I have found bits and pieces of this with others on the Internet but no one that completely wraps it up and hits all the bases (those that he has dealt with that is!) that he does and in a very understandable way, at least to me!

                  Glad to be here though!

                  Thanks.

                  Joe


                  From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                  To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:07:39 AM
                  Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far with some new insight)

                   

                  Hi Joe,
                  It seems to me (just on a brief inspection) that Miles has developed a totally separate but complimentary way of understanding the orbits of the planets.
                  While we normally think of Newtonian Planetary Mechanics as being in a flat plane I see them as existing in a bowl like depression across 4D. This is exactly the same as Einstein said but I include a 4th dimension to his approach.
                  It is not immediately obvious what is going on to most people, I expect.
                  If we lived in a 2D universe where the planets went around in circles we could say that those planets have their axes inclined to differing degrees in 3D. If you take just the perpendicular 3D vectors they would map out contours in a bowl shape or similar. So what I am suggesting happens just the same in 4D but we cannot observe it from our standpoint (at least not directly).
                  I would suspect that the E/M field that Miles refers to is directly linked to these contours but I say this without any proof whatsoever and without reading his complete work. I know I tend to break the rules like this but I also say that I am in cases like this so that people know that we are discussing issues here and not laying down proven fact. I can also respond to peoples questions without getting bogged down in details at an early stage.
                  I will try and spend some time taking a closer look at Miles work.
                  Have a good day,
                  Alex

                  --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > Alex
                  >
                  > Have you had a chance to look at this series of papers by 'MM'?
                  > ; http://www.milesmathis.com/third.html
                  >
                  > Joe
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                  > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:14:48 AM
                  > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                  > (so far with some new insight)
                  >
                  >
                  > Hi Richard,
                  > You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
                  > CQM does not
                  explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole!
                  > It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot
                  > escape its gravity.
                  > It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can
                  > behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of
                  > re-emerging in a white hole.
                  >
                  > As Miles Mathis points out at:
                  >
                  > http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html
                  >
                  > 1> Einstein never implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrongâ€"they are
                  > only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into
                  > classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial mechanics.
                  > I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.
                  >
                  > 2> Einstein cannot
                  explain how a massive object curves space at a distance.
                  > There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found.
                  > And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He
                  > postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and
                  > that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a
                  > normal gravitational field was produced by gravitonsâ€"by a transmission of
                  > influence-carrying sub-particles.
                  > Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained
                  > with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory.
                  > Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the
                  > pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that
                  > the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational
                  waves.
                  > I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any
                  > need to go into more detail.
                  > I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that both
                  > Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is largely
                  > a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it were..
                  > Yours sincerely,
                  > Alex
                  >
                  > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Alex,
                  > >
                  > > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
                  > > black hole event horizon.
                  > > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has
                  to be
                  > >
                  > > incorrect
                  > > I know the correct answer.
                  > > Richard
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                  > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
                  > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                  > > (so far)
                  > >
                  > > Â
                  > > Hi Richard,
                  > > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
                  > >
                  > >
                  href="http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html">http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
                  > >
                  > > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
                  > > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of gravity,
                  >
                  > > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
                  > > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
                  > > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
                  > > involved".
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
                  > > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
                  > > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
                  > > I would
                  not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
                  > > the two was properly established.
                  > >
                  > > While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining gravity
                  >
                  > > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
                  > > repulsively.
                  > >
                  > > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
                  > > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
                  > > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this can
                  >
                  > > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
                  > > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall towards
                  >
                  > > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
                  > > believe anyone has put forward
                  an explanation for this at this time!
                  > >
                  > > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible)
                  > >gravitational
                  > >
                  > > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction being
                  > >
                  > > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
                  > >
                  > > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black hole's
                  >
                  > > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity is
                  >
                  > > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
                  > > escapes 3D but it does not
                  > >
                  > > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
                  > > manner!
                  > >
                  > > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
                  > > case.
                  > > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
                  > > distance.
                  > > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
                  > > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb
                  > >it
                  > >
                  > > into Complex QM.
                  > > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
                  > > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
                  > > opportunity to expound on it.
                  > > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
                  > > nature of gravity.
                  > > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
                  > > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
                  > > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my
                  theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
                  > > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I suspect
                  >
                  > > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
                  > > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by
                  > >complex
                  > >
                  > > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means
                  > >here
                  > >
                  > > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
                  > > forces!
                  > > Thanks for your question,
                  > > Yours sincerely,
                  > > Alex
                  > >
                  > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richard ruquist <yanniru@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > ________________________________
                  > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                  > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
                  > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for Counter
                  >
                  > > > Intuitive Theories
                  > > >
                  > > > ÂÂ
                  > > > Hi Jose,
                  > > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
                  > > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
                  > > >premise.
                  > > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
                  > > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
                  > > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
                  > > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with
                  > >and
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
                  > > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
                  > > joining?
                  > > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
                  > > > Alex
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In
                  href="mailto:complexquantummechanics%40yahoogroups.com">complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Hello,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
                  > > > > movement.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
                  > > > >
                  > > > > and
                  > > > >
                  > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > You may also free download the books from:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
                  > > > >
                  > > > > and
                  > > > >
                  > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Regards
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Jose Molina
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >

                • onlinefriend2010
                  Hello Joe, Thanks for the news. Niles has covered areas I am unaware of concerning the magnetic behaviour of the planets. He must be well read. I have no
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 28, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Joe,
                    Thanks for the news. Niles has covered areas I am unaware of concerning the magnetic behaviour of the planets. He must be well read.
                    I have no problems with what you have outlined.
                    I did look at the Moon's Drift from the point of view of gravitational and magnetic waves but found some errors in my calculations. After 11 years I seem to have mislaid some of my papers too so I cannot go back and see what worked and what did not!
                    I figure that if we can solve the Annual Drift of the Moon we will have a very good idea about the magetic fields of the other planets.
                    Perhaps Miles would like to try with my hypothesis and plug his data in?
                    Any how what I was going to propose is this:
                    I use gravity and magnetism as a flux (showing such a flux is possible elsewhere). The intitial gravitional flux (GF) from the Sun keeps the Earth in orbit but because it has a moon the situation is a little more complicated.
                    I used my knowledge of carry over moments in building technology and steel framed buildings to propose these fluxes carry over.
                    Initially there is a reflection of some of the initial GF the Earth experiences directed to the Moon.
                    The Moon similarly would not absorb all the flux but reflect a proportion back to the Earth.
                    Now in this situation you cannot go back and forth forever so I propose 2 or 3 carry over calculations. At this point I would say the GF is too small for the Moon to transmit/reflect to the Earth.
                    However that GF is enough to cause the Annual Drift of the Moon.
                    I know this is a brave expanation on the back of virtually no evidence. I do not worry about that as with mathematical modelling you just keep trying different models until you approach a good approximation.
                    Anyway I believe Miles concept is more exact in many regards and just offer this as a way forward for him.
                    Yours sincerely,
                    Alex

                    --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Alex
                    >
                    > From reading a few of Miles papers I see that he is saying (I think?) that our
                    > sun and planets, and I suspect any 'material' object in the universe, emits what
                    > he calls B-photons which are not your regular sun emitting photons that we see
                    > as light but he seems to say that the electromagnetic field are generated or
                    > depend on these B-photons which are much smaller then electrons but that bombard
                    > everything in the universe...he says that they return at the poles and are
                    > emitted at the equators of stars and planets...I suppose it's not dependent on
                    > an objects 'spin' but I don't remember. It seems that by him the gravitational
                    > field is a 'resultant field from the gravitational and EM field being in vector
                    > opposition to each other. I could have hashed up his explanation a little or at
                    > least left it incomplete but it seems that these B-Photons are responsible for
                    > giving a torque tot he planets and such that he says gravity alone cannot.
                    >
                    > In his 'Section 4: Electromagnetics' is this
                    > paper; http://www.milesmathis.com/venus.html - The E/M fields of solar system
                    > bodies - that whole section, papers 63 - 83, deals with how all of this plays
                    > out.
                    >
                    > Also see this; http://milesmathis.com/charge.html and
                    > this; http://www.milesmathis.com/coul.html
                    >
                    > His 'Un-Unified Field' is here; http://www.milesmathis.com/uft.html which ties
                    > it all together but the other papers bring other aspects of it 'into focus' or
                    > give the application of it, the 'mechanical workings' so to speak.
                    >
                    > I bought his paper back book and am reading through it at the moment, but I
                    > don't think it has all of his papers because it would be a much larger book I
                    > think. He says at one point that he has written over 1,500 papers.
                    >
                    > He also has some papers where he talks about complex numbers and he deals with
                    > Pi in a few papers as well...
                    >
                    > I have found every single paper interesting so far...at least the titles of
                    > those I have not read yet.
                    >
                    > I am in no position to criticize any ones position, as I have said before,
                    > because I don't have the requisite training or experience in these fields but I
                    > can understand the logic presented and in the case of Miles Mathis I can even do
                    > some of the math and generally follow his arguments. I have found bits and
                    > pieces of this with others on the Internet but no one that completely wraps it
                    > up and hits all the bases (those that he has dealt with that is!) that he does
                    > and in a very understandable way, at least to me!
                    >
                    > Glad to be here though!
                    >
                    > Thanks.
                    >
                    > Joe
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                    > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:07:39 AM
                    > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                    > (so far with some new insight)
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi Joe,
                    > It seems to me (just on a brief inspection) that Miles has developed a totally
                    > separate but complimentary way of understanding the orbits of the planets.
                    > While we normally think of Newtonian Planetary Mechanics as being in a flat
                    > plane I see them as existing in a bowl like depression across 4D. This is
                    > exactly the same as Einstein said but I include a 4th dimension to his approach.
                    > It is not immediately obvious what is going on to most people, I expect.
                    > If we lived in a 2D universe where the planets went around in circles we could
                    > say that those planets have their axes inclined to differing degrees in 3D. If
                    > you take just the perpendicular 3D vectors they would map out contours in a bowl
                    > shape or similar. So what I am suggesting happens just the same in 4D but we
                    > cannot observe it from our standpoint (at least not directly).
                    > I would suspect that the E/M field that Miles refers to is directly linked to
                    > these contours but I say this without any proof whatsoever and without reading
                    > his complete work. I know I tend to break the rules like this but I also say
                    > that I am in cases like this so that people know that we are discussing issues
                    > here and not laying down proven fact. I can also respond to peoples questions
                    > without getting bogged down in details at an early stage.
                    > I will try and spend some time taking a closer look at Miles work.
                    > Have a good day,
                    > Alex
                    >
                    > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Alex
                    > >
                    > > Have you had a chance to look at this series of papers by 'MM'?
                    > > ; http://www.milesmathis.com/third.html
                    > >
                    > > Joe
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ________________________________
                    > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                    > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:14:48 AM
                    > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                    > > (so far with some new insight)
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Hi Richard,
                    > > You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
                    > > CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole!
                    > >
                    > > It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot
                    > > escape its gravity.
                    > > It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can
                    > > behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of
                    > > re-emerging in a white hole.
                    > >
                    > > As Miles Mathis points out at:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html
                    > >
                    > > 1> Einstein never implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrongâ€"they
                    > >are
                    > >
                    > > only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into
                    >
                    > > classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial
                    > >mechanics.
                    > >
                    > > I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.
                    > >
                    > > 2> Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance.
                    > > There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found.
                    > > And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He
                    > > postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and
                    > > that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a
                    > > normal gravitational field was produced by gravitonsâ€"by a transmission of
                    > > influence-carrying sub-particles.
                    > > Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained
                    > > with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory.
                    >
                    > > Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the
                    > > pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that
                    >
                    > > the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational waves.
                    > > I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any
                    > > need to go into more detail.
                    > > I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that
                    > >both
                    > >
                    > > Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is
                    > >largely
                    > >
                    > > a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it were..
                    > > Yours sincerely,
                    > > Alex
                    > >
                    > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richardruquist <yanniru@>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Alex,
                    > > >
                    > > > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
                    > >
                    > > > black hole event horizon.
                    > > > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to
                    > >be
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > > incorrect
                    > > > I know the correct answer.
                    > > > Richard
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ________________________________
                    > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                    > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
                    > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                    > >
                    > > > (so far)
                    > > >
                    > > > Â
                    > > > Hi Richard,
                    > > > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
                    > > >
                    > > > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
                    > > >
                    > > > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
                    > > > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of
                    > >gravity,
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
                    > >
                    > > > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
                    > > > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
                    > >
                    > > > involved".
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
                    >
                    > > > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
                    > > > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
                    > >
                    > > > I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
                    > >
                    > > > the two was properly established.
                    > > >
                    > > > While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining
                    > >gravity
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
                    > > > repulsively.
                    > > >
                    > > > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
                    > >
                    > > > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
                    > >
                    > > > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this
                    > >can
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
                    > > > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall
                    > >towards
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
                    > > > believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!
                    > > >
                    > > > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible)
                    > > >gravitational
                    > > >
                    > > > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction
                    > >being
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
                    > > >
                    > > > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black
                    > >hole's
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity
                    > >is
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
                    > >
                    > > > escapes 3D but it does not
                    > > >
                    > > > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
                    > >
                    > > > manner!
                    > > >
                    > > > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
                    >
                    > > > case.
                    > > > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
                    > > > distance.
                    > > > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
                    >
                    > > > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb
                    > >
                    > > >it
                    > > >
                    > > > into Complex QM.
                    > > > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
                    > > > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
                    >
                    > > > opportunity to expound on it.
                    > > > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
                    >
                    > > > nature of gravity.
                    > > > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
                    > > > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
                    > > > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
                    > >
                    > > > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I
                    > >suspect
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
                    > > > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by
                    > > >complex
                    > > >
                    > > > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means
                    > > >here
                    > > >
                    > > > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
                    > > > forces!
                    > > > Thanks for your question,
                    > > > Yours sincerely,
                    > > > Alex
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richardruquist <yanniru@>
                    > > > wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > ________________________________
                    > > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                    > > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
                    > > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for
                    > >Counter
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > > Intuitive Theories
                    > > > >
                    > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
                    > > > > Hi Jose,
                    > > > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
                    > > > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
                    > > > >premise.
                    > > > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
                    > > > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
                    > > > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
                    > > > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with
                    >
                    > > >and
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
                    > > > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
                    > > > joining?
                    > > > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
                    > > > > Alex
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
                    >
                    > > > > wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Hello,
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
                    > > > > > movement.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > and
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > You may also free download the books from:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > and
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Regards
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Jose Molina
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Joe Hyde
                    Alex I m slow in replying...I broke a leg... literally! Thanks for the reply, we are all looking for answers of course! I think that he may have an answer for
                    Message 9 of 14 , Oct 30, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Alex

                      I'm slow in replying...I broke a leg... literally!

                      Thanks for the reply, we are all looking for answers of course!

                      I think that he may have an answer for this too...which he calls 'the charge field'...on his site he has papers 
                      of almost any imaginable subject...well not quite...but most subjects that would come up in the group...


                      Here is a list of his papers that may shed some light on what you have been working on;



                      His whole section on Gravity is good too and that may be good reading as well...

                      I like his 'Preface' and 'The Central Discoveries of this Book' section at the top of
                      the web page.

                      Again thanks for the reply!

                      All The Best

                      Joe




                      From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                      To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:29:50 AM
                      Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far with some new insight)

                       

                      Hello Joe,
                      Thanks for the news. Niles has covered areas I am unaware of concerning the magnetic behaviour of the planets. He must be well read.
                      I have no problems with what you have outlined.
                      I did look at the Moon's Drift from the point of view of gravitational and magnetic waves but found some errors in my calculations. After 11 years I seem to have mislaid some of my papers too so I cannot go back and see what worked and what did not!
                      I figure that if we can solve the Annual Drift of the Moon we will have a very good idea about the magetic fields of the other planets.
                      Perhaps Miles would like to try with my hypothesis and plug his data in?
                      Any how what I was going to propose is this:
                      I use gravity and magnetism as a flux (showing such a flux is possible elsewhere). The intitial gravitional flux (GF) from the Sun keeps the Earth in orbit but because it has a moon the situation is a little more complicated.
                      I used my knowledge of carry over moments in building technology and steel framed buildings to propose these fluxes carry over.
                      Initially there is a reflection of some of the initial GF the Earth experiences directed to the Moon.
                      The Moon similarly would not absorb all the flux but reflect a proportion back to the Earth.
                      Now in this situation you cannot go back and forth forever so I propose 2 or 3 carry over calculations. At this point I would say the GF is too small for the Moon to transmit/reflect to the Earth.
                      However that GF is enough to cause the Annual Drift of the Moon.
                      I know this is a brave expanation on the back of virtually no evidence. I do not worry about that as with mathematical modelling you just keep trying different models until you approach a good approximation.
                      Anyway I believe Miles concept is more exact in many regards and just offer this as a way forward for him.
                      Yours sincerely,
                      Alex

                      --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Alex
                      >
                      > From reading a few of Miles papers I see that he is saying (I think?) that our
                      > sun and planets, and I suspect any 'material' object in the universe, emits what
                      > he calls B-photons which are not your regular sun emitting photons that we see
                      > as light but he seems to say that the electromagnetic field are generated or
                      > depend on these B-photons which are much smaller then electrons but that bombard
                      > everything in the universe...he says that they return at the poles and are
                      > emitted at the equators of stars and planets...I suppose it's not dependent on
                      > an objects 'spin' but I don't remember. It seems that by him the gravitational
                      > field is a 'resultant field from the gravitational and EM field being in vector
                      > opposition to each other. I could have hashed up his explanation a little or at
                      > least left it incomplete but it seems that these B-Photons are responsible for
                      > giving a torque tot he planets and such that he says gravity alone cannot.
                      >
                      > In his 'Section 4: Electromagnetics' is this
                      > paper; http://www.milesmathis.com/venus.html - The E/M fields of solar system
                      > bodies - that whole section, papers 63 - 83, deals with how all of this plays
                      > out.
                      >
                      > Also see this; http://milesmathis.com/charge.html and
                      > this; http://www.milesmathis.com/coul.html
                      >
                      > His 'Un-Unified Field' is here; http://www.milesmathis.com/uft.html which ties
                      > it all together but the other papers bring other aspects of it 'into focus' or
                      > give the application of it, the 'mechanical workings' so to speak.
                      >
                      > I bought his paper back book and am reading through it at the moment, but I
                      > don't think it has all of his papers because it would be a much larger book I
                      > think. He says at one point that he has written over 1,500 papers.
                      >
                      > He also has some papers where he talks about complex numbers and he deals with
                      > Pi in a few papers as well...
                      >
                      > I have found every single paper interesting so far...at least the titles of
                      > those I have not read yet.
                      >
                      > I am in no position to criticize any ones position, as I have said before,
                      > because I don't have the requisite training or experience in these fields but I
                      > can understand the logic presented and in the case of Miles Mathis I can even do
                      > some of the math and generally follow his arguments. I have found bits and
                      > pieces of this with others on the Internet but no one that completely wraps it
                      > up and hits all the bases (those that he has dealt with that is!) that he does
                      > and in a very understandable way, at least to me!
                      >
                      > Glad to be here though!
                      >
                      > Thanks.
                      >
                      > Joe
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                      > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:07:39 AM
                      > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                      > (so far with some new insight)
                      >
                      >
                      > Hi Joe,
                      > It seems to me (just on a brief inspection) that Miles has developed a totally
                      > separate but complimentary way of understanding the orbits of the planets.
                      > While we normally think of Newtonian Planetary Mechanics as being in a flat
                      > plane I see them as existing in a bowl like depression across 4D. This is
                      > exactly the same as Einstein said but I include a 4th dimension to his approach.
                      > It is not immediately obvious what is going on to most people, I expect.
                      > If we lived in a 2D universe where the planets went around in circles we could
                      > say that those planets have their axes inclined to differing degrees in 3D. If
                      > you take just the perpendicular 3D vectors they would map out contours in a bowl
                      > shape or similar. So what I am suggesting happens just the same in 4D but we
                      > cannot observe it from our standpoint (at least not directly).
                      > I would suspect that the E/M field that Miles refers to is directly linked to
                      > these contours but I say this without any proof whatsoever and without reading
                      > his complete work. I know I tend to break the rules like this but I also say
                      > that I am in cases like this so that people know that we are discussing issues
                      > here and not laying down proven fact. I can also respond to peoples questions
                      > without getting bogged down in details at an early stage.
                      > I will try and spend some time taking a closer look at Miles work.
                      > Have a good day,
                      > Alex
                      >
                      > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Alex
                      > >
                      > > Have you had a chance to look at this series of papers by 'MM'?
                      > > ; http://www.milesmathis.com/third.html
                      > >
                      > > Joe
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ________________________________
                      > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                      > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:14:48 AM
                      > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                      > > (so far with some new insight)
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Hi Richard,
                      > > You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
                      > > CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole!
                      > >
                      > > It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot
                      > > escape its gravity.
                      > > It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can
                      > > behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of
                      > > re-emerging in a white hole.
                      > >
                      > > As Miles Mathis points out at:
                      > >
                      > > http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html
                      > >
                      > > 1> Einstein never implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrongâ€"they
                      > >are
                      > >
                      > > only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into
                      >
                      > > classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial
                      > >mechanics.
                      > >
                      > > I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.
                      > >
                      > > 2> Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance.
                      > > There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found.
                      > > And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He
                      > > postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and
                      > > that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a
                      > > normal gravitational field was produced by gravitonsâ€"by a transmission of
                      > > influence-carrying sub-particles.
                      > > Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained
                      > > with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory.
                      >
                      > > Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the
                      > > pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that
                      >
                      > > the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational waves.
                      > > I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any
                      > > need to go into more detail.
                      > > I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that
                      > >both
                      > >
                      > > Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is
                      > >largely
                      > >
                      > > a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it were..
                      > > Yours sincerely,
                      > > Alex
                      > >
                      > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richardruquist <yanniru@>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Alex,
                      > > >
                      > > > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
                      > >
                      > > > black hole event horizon.
                      > > > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to
                      > >be
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > incorrect
                      > > > I know the correct answer.
                      > > > Richard
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > ________________________________
                      > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                      > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
                      > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                      > >
                      > > > (so far)
                      > > >
                      > > > Â
                      > > > Hi Richard,
                      > > > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
                      > > >
                      > > > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
                      > > >
                      > > > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
                      > > > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of
                      > >gravity,
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
                      > >
                      > > > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
                      > > > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
                      > >
                      > > > involved".
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
                      >
                      > > > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
                      > > > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
                      > >
                      > > > I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
                      > >
                      > > > the two was properly established.
                      > > >
                      > > > While I do not think push gravity answers all the problems of defining
                      > >gravity
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
                      > > > repulsively.
                      > > >
                      > > > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
                      > >
                      > > > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
                      > >
                      > > > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this
                      > >can
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
                      > > > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall
                      > >towards
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
                      > > > believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this time!
                      > > >
                      > > > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible)
                      > > >gravitational
                      > > >
                      > > > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction
                      > >being
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
                      > > >
                      > > > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black
                      > >hole's
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity
                      > >is
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
                      > >
                      > > > escapes 3D but it does not
                      > > >
                      > > > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
                      > >
                      > > > manner!
                      > > >
                      > > > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
                      >
                      > > > case.
                      > > > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
                      > > > distance.
                      > > > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
                      >
                      > > > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb
                      > >
                      > > >it
                      > > >
                      > > > into Complex QM.
                      > > > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
                      > > > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
                      >
                      > > > opportunity to expound on it.
                      > > > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
                      >
                      > > > nature of gravity.
                      > > > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
                      > > > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
                      > > > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
                      > >
                      > > > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I
                      > >suspect
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
                      > > > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by
                      > > >complex
                      > > >
                      > > > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means
                      > > >here
                      > > >
                      > > > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
                      > > > forces!
                      > > > Thanks for your question,
                      > > > Yours sincerely,
                      > > > Alex
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richardruquist <yanniru@>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > ________________________________
                      > > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                      > > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36 AM
                      > > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for
                      > >Counter
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > > Intuitive Theories
                      > > > >
                      > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
                      > > > > Hi Jose,
                      > > > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
                      > > > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
                      > > > >premise.
                      > > > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
                      > > > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
                      > > > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
                      > > > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with
                      >
                      > > >and
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
                      > > > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
                      > > > joining?
                      > > > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
                      > > > > Alex
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
                      >
                      > > > > wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Hello,
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
                      > > > > > movement.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > and
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > You may also free download the books from:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > and
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Regards
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Jose Molina
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >

                    • M Idrees Husain
                      Heal well and hope you get as good as a 20 year old. This too shall pass. By QM effects, it should heal fast, but with the relativistic effect, it may not
                      Message 10 of 14 , Oct 30, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Heal well and hope you get as good as a 20 year old. This too shall pass. By QM effects, it should heal fast, but with the relativistic effect, it may not have happened at all.
                        id


                        From: Joe Hyde <josephhyde@...>
                        To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 1:01:14 PM
                        Subject: Re: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far with some new insight)

                         

                        Alex

                        I'm slow in replying...I broke a leg... literally!

                        Thanks for the reply, we are all looking for answers of course!

                        I think that he may have an answer for this too...which he calls 'the charge field'...on his site he has papers 
                        of almost any imaginable subject...well not quite...but most subjects that would come up in the group...


                        Here is a list of his papers that may shed some light on what you have been working on;



                        His whole section on Gravity is good too and that may be good reading as well...

                        I like his 'Preface' and 'The Central Discoveries of this Book' section at the top of
                        the web page.

                        Again thanks for the reply!

                        All The Best

                        Joe




                        From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                        To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:29:50 AM
                        Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM (so far with some new insight)

                         

                        Hello Joe,
                        Thanks for the news. Niles has covered areas I am unaware of concerning the magnetic behaviour of the planets. He must be well read.
                        I have no problems with what you have outlined.
                        I did look at the Moon's Drift from the point of view of gravitational and magnetic waves but found some errors in my calculations. After 11 years I seem to have mislaid some of my papers too so I cannot go back and see what worked and what did not!
                        I figure that if we can solve the Annual Drift of the Moon we will have a very good idea about the magetic fields of the other planets.
                        Perhaps Miles would like to try with my hypothesis and plug his data in?
                        Any how what I was going to propose is this:
                        I use gravity and magnetism as a flux (showing such a flux is possible elsewhere). The intitial gravitional flux (GF) from the Sun keeps the Earth in orbit but because it has a moon the situation is a little more complicated.
                        I used my knowledge of carry over moments in building technology and steel framed buildings to propose these fluxes carry over.
                        Initially there is a reflection of some of the initial GF the Earth experiences directed to the Moon.
                        The Moon similarly would not absorb all the flux but reflect a proportion back to the Earth.
                        Now in this situation you cannot go back and forth forever so I propose 2 or 3 carry over calculations. At this point I would say the GF is too small for the Moon to transmit/reflect to the Earth.
                        However that GF is enough to cause the Annual Drift of the Moon.
                        I know this is a brave expanation on the back of virtually no evidence. I do not worry about that as with mathematical modelling you just keep trying different models until you approach a good approximation.
                        Anyway I believe Miles concept is more exact in many regards and just offer this as a way forward for him.
                        Yours sincerely,
                        Alex

                        --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:

                        >
                        > Alex
                        >
                        > From reading a few of Miles papers I see that he is saying (I think?) that our
                        > sun and planets, and I suspect any 'material' object in the universe, emits what
                        > he calls B-photons which are not your regular sun emitting photons that we see
                        > as light but he seems to say that the electromagnetic field are generated or
                        > depend on these B-photons which are much smaller then electrons but that bombard
                        > everything in the universe...he says that they return at the poles and are
                        > emitted at the equators of stars and planets...I suppose it's not dependent on
                        > an objects 'spin' but I don't remember. It seems that by him the gravitational
                        >
                        field is a 'resultant field from the gravitational and EM field being in vector
                        > opposition to each other. I could have hashed up his explanation a little or at
                        > least left it incomplete but it seems that these B-Photons are responsible for
                        > giving a torque tot he planets and such that he says gravity alone cannot.
                        >
                        > In his 'Section 4: Electromagnetics' is this
                        > paper; http://www.milesmathis.com/venus.html - The E/M fields of solar system
                        > bodies - that whole section, papers 63 - 83, deals with how all of this plays
                        > out.
                        >
                        > Also see this; http://milesmathis.com/charge.html and
                        > this;
                        target=_blank>http://www.milesmathis.com/coul.html
                        >
                        > His 'Un-Unified Field' is here; http://www.milesmathis.com/uft.html which ties
                        > it all together but the other papers bring other aspects of it 'into focus' or
                        > give the application of it, the 'mechanical workings' so to speak.
                        >
                        > I bought his paper back book and am reading through it at the moment, but I
                        > don't think it has all of his papers because it would be a much larger book I
                        > think. He says at one point that he has written over 1,500 papers.
                        >
                        > He also has some papers where he talks about complex numbers and he deals with
                        > Pi in a few papers as well...
                        >
                        > I have found every single paper interesting so far...at least the titles of
                        > those I have not read yet.
                        >
                        > I am in no
                        position to criticize any ones position, as I have said before,
                        > because I don't have the requisite training or experience in these fields but I
                        > can understand the logic presented and in the case of Miles Mathis I can even do
                        > some of the math and generally follow his arguments. I have found bits and
                        > pieces of this with others on the Internet but no one that completely wraps it
                        > up and hits all the bases (those that he has dealt with that is!) that he does
                        > and in a very understandable way, at least to me!
                        >
                        > Glad to be here though!
                        >
                        > Thanks.
                        >
                        > Joe
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@...>
                        > To:
                        ymailto="mailto:complexquantummechanics%40yahoogroups.com">complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:07:39 AM
                        > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                        > (so far with some new insight)
                        >
                        >
                        > Hi Joe,
                        > It seems to me (just on a brief inspection) that Miles has developed a totally
                        > separate but complimentary way of understanding the orbits of the planets.
                        > While we normally think of Newtonian Planetary Mechanics as being in a flat
                        > plane I see them as existing in a bowl like depression across 4D. This is
                        > exactly the same as Einstein said but I include a 4th dimension to his approach.
                        > It is not immediately obvious what is going on to most people, I expect.
                        > If we lived in a 2D universe where the planets went around in circles we could
                        > say that those planets have their axes
                        inclined to differing degrees in 3D. If
                        > you take just the perpendicular 3D vectors they would map out contours in a bowl
                        > shape or similar. So what I am suggesting happens just the same in 4D but we
                        > cannot observe it from our standpoint (at least not directly).
                        > I would suspect that the E/M field that Miles refers to is directly linked to
                        > these contours but I say this without any proof whatsoever and without reading
                        > his complete work. I know I tend to break the rules like this but I also say
                        > that I am in cases like this so that people know that we are discussing issues
                        > here and not laying down proven fact. I can also respond to peoples questions
                        > without getting bogged down in details at an early stage.
                        > I will try and spend some time taking a closer look at Miles work.
                        > Have a good day,
                        > Alex
                        >
                        > --- In
                        href="mailto:complexquantummechanics%40yahoogroups.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:complexquantummechanics%40yahoogroups.com">complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Alex
                        > >
                        > > Have you had a chance to look at this series of papers by 'MM'?
                        > > ; http://www.milesmathis.com/third.html
                        > >
                        > > Joe
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ________________________________
                        > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                        > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:14:48 AM
                        > > Subject:
                        [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                        > > (so far with some new insight)
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Hi Richard,
                        > > You actually point out a flaw in the existing theory of Conventional QM (CQM).
                        > > CQM does not explanation or prove that light can propogate beyond a black hole!
                        > >
                        > > It merely says that the mass of a black hole is so massive that light cannot
                        > > escape its gravity.
                        > > It is my theory of Complex QM that provides a mechanism in which light can
                        > > behave like this and travel down a black hole with the possibility of
                        > > re-emerging in a white hole.
                        > >
                        > > As Miles Mathis points out at:
                        > >
                        > > http://www.milesmathis.com/cm.html
                        > >
                        > > 1> Einstein never
                        implies that Kepler and Newton's theories were wrongâ€"they
                        > >are
                        > >
                        > > only incomplete. Import the finite speed of light and the tensor calculus into
                        >
                        > > classical theory and you have current wisdom with regard to celestial
                        > >mechanics.
                        > >
                        > > I agree my extensions to these theories support this view.
                        > >
                        > > 2> Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance.
                        > > There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found.
                        > > And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He
                        > > postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and
                        > > that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a
                        > > normal gravitational field was produced by gravitonsâ€"by a transmission of
                        > > influence-carrying sub-particles.
                        > > Miles picks out another good point. The gravitational waves can be explained
                        > > with my rewriting of Prime Number Theory in my Complex Analytic Number Theory.
                        >
                        > > Basically I use the primes as defining waveforms which I assert follow the
                        > > pattern of complex forces. It is a small step from this to further assert that
                        >
                        > > the elusive gravitons follow these paths and also define gravitational waves.
                        > > I have not done so until now as, again, it is only when challenge I feel any
                        > > need to go into more detail.
                        > > I do not know your particular preferences in all of this but I suspect that
                        > >both
                        > >
                        > > Miles and my views are not as far apart as you may at first think. It is
                        > >largely
                        > >
                        > > a matter of looking at the other side of the coin, as it
                        were..
                        > > Yours sincerely,
                        > > Alex
                        > >
                        > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richardruquist <yanniru@>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Alex,
                        > > >
                        > > > Based on your explanation, neither light nor gravity could propagate beyond a
                        > >
                        > > > black hole event horizon.
                        > > > If that were true, there would be no black holes. So your explanation has to
                        > >be
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > incorrect
                        > > > I know the correct answer.
                        > > > Richard
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > ________________________________
                        > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                        > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 4:42:31 PM
                        > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Re: Global Physics > Gravity in Complex QM
                        > >
                        > > > (so far)
                        > > >
                        > > > Â
                        > > > Hi Richard,
                        > > > Action at a Distance is defined aT:
                        > > >
                        > > > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/action_at_a_distance.html
                        > > >
                        > > > as "The idea that forces between objects, such as gravity, act without any
                        > > > intervening mechanism. As originally conceived, in Newton's theory of
                        > >gravity,
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > action at a distance was seen as occurring instantaneously, regardless of the
                        > >
                        > > > distance involved. Today, it is recognized that interactions involve a time
                        > > > delay that cannot be less than the time taken for light to cross the distance
                        > >
                        > > > involved".
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > On the one hand Newton is given as a source of support while on the other it
                        >
                        > > > ignores Newtom's Law of Action and Reaction.
                        > > > To link Action at a Distance with gravity may be a source of error in itself.
                        > >
                        > > > I would not link the setting of custard with magnetism until the link between
                        > >
                        > > > the two was properly established.
                        > > >
                        > > > While I do not think push gravity answers all the
                        problems of defining
                        > >gravity
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > it does help to fill the gap of how gravity can sometimes seem to act
                        > > > repulsively.
                        > > >
                        > > > I do not have a complete explanation of gravity myself but I am tending to go
                        > >
                        > > > towards the belief that the displacement of a body from 3D into 4D (no matter
                        > >
                        > > > how very small) is the cause of gravitational attraction. Notice that this
                        > >can
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > also be considered "regardless of the distance involved".
                        > > > I would put this forward as a reason why a feather and metal ball fall
                        > >towards
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > the surface of the Earth at the same speed when dropped together. I do not
                        > > > believe anyone has put forward an explanation for this at this
                        time!
                        > > >
                        > > > These feather and metal balls would create very litle (negligible)
                        > > >gravitational
                        > > >
                        > > > attraction to the Earth on their own in my opinion. I see that attraction
                        > >being
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > induced by the Earth's gravity in agreement with conventional physics.
                        > > >
                        > > > With my definition in mind for gravity (rudimentary as it is) the black
                        > >hole's
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > behaviour is a result of the warping of 3D into 4D. The "escape" of gravity
                        > >is
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > both right and wrong then in my view. I would say it was correct that gravity
                        > >
                        > > > escapes 3D but it does not
                        > > >
                        > > > disappear but is projected into 4D in a seamless, predictable, and continuous
                        > >
                        > > > manner!
                        > > >
                        > > > I suppose I could say the same about Action at a Distance in this particular
                        >
                        > > > case.
                        > > > That is that it is both right and wrong! It all depends on how you measure
                        > > > distance.
                        > > > No doubt you are already familiar with the existing theory on the folding of
                        >
                        > > > dimensional planes to create wormholes. I agree with that analysis and absorb
                        > >
                        > > >it
                        > > >
                        > > > into Complex QM.
                        > > > In conclusion I would just say that I see Action at a Distance as meaning
                        > > > something different to conventional QM and your question has given me a good
                        >
                        > > > opportunity to expound on it.
                        > > > In fairness I should show you why I am struggling with dtermining the entire
                        >
                        > > > nature
                        of gravity.
                        > > > As I have answered your question so far all is well. However I ponder how
                        > > > gravity exists as a force acting between galaxies. I suspect that galactic
                        > > > gravitation acts at a fractal level and my theory on FractalQuantum Mechanics
                        > >
                        > > > cannot answer this problem to my complete satisfaction at this time! I
                        > >suspect
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > this is the case because of the spiral nature of galaxies.
                        > > > If I am correct elliptical galaxies would have their shape determined by
                        > > >complex
                        > > >
                        > > > forces while spiral galaxies have a much greater mass (so there may a means
                        > > >here
                        > > >
                        > > > of checking my hypothesis) and would have their shape determined by fractal
                        > > > forces!
                        > > > Thanks for your
                        question,
                        > > > Yours sincerely,
                        > > > Alex
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, richardruquist <yanniru@>
                        > > > wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Without action at a distance, how can gravity escape black holes?
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ________________________________
                        > > > > From: onlinefriend2010 <alexross53@>
                        > > > > To: complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 5:42:36
                        AM
                        > > > > Subject: [complexquantummechanics] Global Physics > Organisation for
                        > >Counter
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > > Intuitive Theories
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
                        > > > > Hi Jose,
                        > > > > Thanks. I will download the books and take a look.
                        > > > > I see that the book agrees with me that Action At a Distance is a false
                        > > > >premise.
                        > > > > I think it is a pity that there is no organisation for scientists and
                        > > > > mathematicians that have unusual or counter intuitive theories.
                        > > > > There could then be a platform for them to present their work in public.
                        > > > > Perhaps we could start such an organisation as a yahoo group to start with
                        >
                        > > >and
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > > then as a charity (more open and inclusive than the Nobel Institute)?
                        > > > > Should membership be subject to three existing members approving their
                        > > > joining?
                        > > > > Just a thought, anyone got any ideas or thoughts on this?
                        > > > > Alex
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Molina" <donmagufo@>
                        >
                        > > > > wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Hello,
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > There is a new book in English developing Global Mechanics regarding
                        > > > > > movement.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.molwick.com/en/matter/index.html
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > and
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/index.html
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > You may also free download the books from:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z053-global-mechanics-books.pdf
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > and
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        target=_blank>http://www.molwick.com/en/ebooks/z055-physics-dynamics.pdf
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Regards
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Jose Molina
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >


                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.