Also, Field Theories in Word:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc
& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdfFitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
Dr. Milo Wolff and W. Gilmour discuss Wave Density and the
"Equation of the Cosmos"
If you want Energy from controllable fusion power instead of oil then you better read this!
This thinking is the route to controllable fusion power where the half life of the radioactive waste is in microseconds instead of thousands of years like fission power.
As Dr. Wolff says, This is important!
Begin forwarded message: > From: milo wolff <milo.wolff@quantumMatter.com> > Date: June 14, 2010 10:06:16 PM PDT > To: W Gilmour <wgilmour@I-zoom.net>, > Cc: milo wolff <milo.wolff@quantumMatter.com> > Subject: Re: Speed of C > > > On Jun 14, 2010, at 1:01 PM, W Gilmour wrote: > >> Hello Dr Milo Wolff ; >> Daniel Fitzpatrick suggested that I forward this speculation to you >> as you may find it interesting. >> >>W. Gilmour > > > Hi Mr. W. Gilmore and Fitz, > Yes. Very interesting. > > In my opinion your coincidences are real properties of the Universe. > They relate to the fact that: > 1.) all properties of matter depend on the density of the "space' > in which the matter exists. > 2.) Space density , in turn, depends on the total of all the > waves in the Universe. > > These 2 properties are two of the 3 basic axioms of the Universe, of > the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). They underlie all the Natural > Laws - the basis of all physics and science. Thus your results are > important and fundamental. > > A neat summary of them is the "Equation of the Cosmos" that you seem > to have independently found. Congratulations. > > You can find the "Equation" in my books: Schroedinger's Universe" > and "Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe." Both are sold > at Amazon.com > > These properties that you have found also have other consequences > well worth exploring - Keep up the good work. > > Milo. > > P.S. IMHO, 'Inflation' and the present theory of the Big Bang > - starting from nothing but pure energy - have little scientific > basis. They are part of Fantasyland. > >Milo Wolff >> >> >> >> >> From W. Gilmour >> >> Hello: Milo Wolff & Fitz, >> Here is a simple speculation using Newtonian mechanics. >> >> Lets suppose the properties of light [mass equivalence according to >> E=mc^2] are set by the value of the mass of the universe as a whole >> out to the visible horizon [sort of a Machs principle type of >> argument] >> >> Lets suppose that we treat the universe as a potential well [out to >> the >> visible horizon] and that the minimum kinetic energy of a photon is >> exactly equal to the minimum required to raise it out of this >> potential well. >> >> This would require that mC^2=GMm/R [where M=Mu mass of >> Univ (out to Horizon)] >> Plugging in the values yields. Mu/Ru=1.347x10^27 Kg/meter >> Mass of the universe divided by the current radius, [both out to >> the limits of the visible horizon. >> >> You might ask, what the heck does Mu/Ru give us? But lets carry on >> and see where it leads. >> >> In order to see if this ratio is even in the right ballpark, we could >> use this Mu/Ru to calculate a density of the universe and see if >> it's even >> close to what is observed and now accepted, i.e. critical density. >> Using the currently accepted value of the Hubbles constant and latest >> research indicates a flat universe, we use Euclidean geometry where >> density=M/4.189R^3. >> Working out a density yields 10^-29 gm/cm^3. >> >> This not only is in the right ballpark, it's bang on, right at the >> critical density. >> >> What else might we do to see if Mu/Ru is correct? >> We arrived at Mu/Ru by using a photon traveling the maximum >> distance across the mass of the universe out to the visible horizon. >> Why not try the other extreme, and use the minimum distance that a >> photon may traverse and the mass of a photon, and see if >> this ratio is even close? >> >> The plank units come to mind where the plank mass equals >> 2.1767x10^-8KG and the plank length equals 1.616x10^-35 m. >> >> Dividing yields, m/r= 1.347x10^27 Kg/meter >> >> It's Identical! The same ratio has returned! >> We seem to have arrived at the same ratio from three different >> starting points. Could this just be coincidence? >> >> A further speculation suggests a VSL theory. >> The current contender against Inflationary theory, is a varying >> velocity of C theory put forward by John Moffat, University of >> Toronto as well >> as Dimitri Nanopoulos and Keith Randall of Texas A&M University. >> So for the final speculation we look to see what the original >> expression mC^2=GMm/R, has to say about C as a f(n) of time. >> If we assume the mass of the universe is constant [safe], >> And that G is a constant [not so safe, I suspect G may change & >> complicate things]. >> >> We see that the velocity C squared is a f(n) of the reciprocal of R >> and thus of time. >> >> I.e. C decreases as the universe expands [evolves] >> >> Example; >> At 10^-35 sec [plank time] after the big bang, it would yield a >> Velocity of C=10^39 m/sec. [At time of decoupling C would be less] >> Inflation doesn't enter into the equations at this point and >> complicate things, since VSL theories replace inflation. >> >> This value of M/R (if correct) may be significant, since it is >> determined using hard empirical constants rather than soft >> observational data. >> Comments appreciated >> Thanks >> W Gilmour >