Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:25:41 -0700
From: garyvezzoli02215@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Infinity and Eternity and a Time Before, Now and After
To: pacificap@hotmail.com

Thank you.  Allow me to clarify -- I am not necessarily arguing a cyclic universe, and stated simply that the one we live in at this time must be the second one.  Also, the trajectory of mass through space is curvilinear, not space itself.  Would you agree?  Gary C. V.

Hi Gary!

No, as said the origin of the equivalence principle is found in the prior existence of gravitational mass not as is embodied in m=E/c², but in m=hf/c²=kT/c² in quantum form.

The transformtion into Newtonian inertia then CRYSTALLIZED the current mass content in the universe by coupling your other misgiving of the standard models - Coulombic charge - to the inertia precursor in the so termed Higgs Bosonic Restmass Induction (say the Dirac Sea of the Vacuum etc.).

Here then you find what this 'electric charge' represents on the elementary level.

The nature of Coulombic charge represents the transformation-quantum mechanics of the 'higher dimensional'

nature of the electrocharge precursor - the magnetocharge, also known as the colour charges of the gluons and the quarks.

In term of unification physics, the transformation of the Planck parameters was in five stages (the so called superstring classes), the second being the so called Dirac monopole at the GUT-energy level of 2.7x10¹⁶ GeV or a 'particle--mass of 4.8x10^-11 kg.

The preinertial albeit gravitational universe so had an intrinsic curvature of 1/Hubble-Radius~6x10^-27 1/m.

The presence of mass, as in general relativity forms a subset for this intrinsic curvature, as the total mass content of the universe to define such a curvature must be a Mother-BlackHole mass in the 'Strominger' sense of a boundary/initial condition.

So you find a kaleidoscope of local curvatures due to the local inertia content, the total being however related to Mach's principle as the total inertia of the cosmos et al.

But it are not the Machian stars, but the higher dimensional Black Hole encompassment (in 11 dimensions), which so crystallize the meaning of the Machian universe.

As the metric spacetimes are local macroquantum systems in lower dimensional spacetimes; but as they find their true nature in the fractalisation of a holographic- and microquantised universe; the Einsteinian metrics, based on relativistically measured coordinate systems; all reduce to the most basic Schwarzschild metric and the Einstein-Rosen-bridge, that is the wormhole tunnels connecting the universal fractals in omnipresence.

So the reason as to why a proton, an atom or a molecule or you manifests mass-inertially and not mass-gravitationally relies on the nature of the boundary conditions for the Holofractal Black Hole physics.

The 5 stringclasses and the large scale size of the universe relate to ech other via the Cosmic ray spectra and the modular duality coupling between high vibrational energy - small wavelength superbranes and low vibrational energy - large wavelength antisuperbranes.

The minimum holofractal inertial mass for the generation of a wormhole unit is about 6,500 kg for a Schwarzschild Curvature radius of about 10^-22 meters.

The maximum holofractal inertial radius is the Hubble-radius at about 16.9 billion lightyears.

So a supercluster of galaxies forms an important Schwarzschild Curvature boundary condition, calculated at so 236 million lightyears; whilst a typical (dark matter) haloed supergalaxy like Andromeda or the Milky Way is bounded in a Schwarzschild radius of about 6x10²² meters or about 6 million lightyears.

Using this boundary (or supremal) value to calculate a respective Black Hole mass, gives you 2.5x10⁴⁹ kg~1.25x10¹⁹ solar masses; compared to an estimated baryonic+dark matter content for such a galaxy at so 10¹² solar masses is about 2x10⁴² kg and for a diversion factor in the order of 1.25x10⁷.

The holofractal factors for the Planck-scale transform are however approximated by the scalerelative sizes between microquanta and macroquanta, especially the relatively stable structures of atomic configurations. The Rydberg Energy defines the basic quantum form for atomic Hydrogen in E=hf=R_y.hc with R_y~10⁷ 1/m to define the 'quantum jump' between nucleus and electron in terms of the electromagnetic interaction {ElectronRadius=Alpha.ComptonRadius=Alpha².HydrogenRadius=Alpha³/4π.R_y}.

The typical scale ratio between the 'supremal' Hubble-Black Hole and a MilkyWay-Black Hole~2x10²⁶/2x10¹⁹=10⁷ and this relates the Planck-Radius to a (3x10²⁰ ev was measured on 15 October 1991 over Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah) Cosmic ray energy of 10²¹ eV in 2x10^-35/2x10^-28.

These are highly approximate values, which indicate the holofractal nature of the cosmos however.
I'm sure that more sophisticated models, taking into account the detailed distribution of the dark matter (which are chirally polarised restmass photons as Higgs photons say) and the dark energy (which is the supremal black hole physics).

So perhaps you can see now, that those boundary curvatures ENCOMPASS cosmological objects gravitationally rather independent on their LOCALISED inertial mass content, but as holofractalisations of the Machian Cosmology.

The galactic core concentrations then become physicalised Black Hole systems and it are these the astrophycicist analyse and study as the SEEDS upon which the (galactic) object evolved upon.

So you, the phycisist Gary Vezzoli represent a Black Hole supremal seed in terms of inertia; however you manifest physically not in your metaphysical 'wormholed' nature, but in a an atomic configuration which 'encompasses' your metaphysical true identity.

John Shadow

Tony -- the equivalence principle is not correct.  We have proven without doubt that gravitational mass and inertial mass are not equivalent, from the standpoint of acceleration and gravity.  The effects of temperature, phase, shape -- entropy in general -- on measurements of mass (which is really showing mass, through a measurement of weight) are different for free-fall, as compared to accelerating a mass in the x-y plane from a zero velocity, or from uniform velocity.  No set of equations or calculations will offset that experimental fact.  Again, as I have said previously, the only meaningful equations on these subjects are time-dependent differential equations, and integral equations.  Everything else is in the realm of a formula, and thus not really fundamental physics.  Space-time as a fabric of the universe is interpreted as curved or warped, because Einstein and Minkowski designed them so, and Einstein upon emigrating to America was highly lauded in popular press and scientific journals.  However, the work is physically un-sound, and therefore the mathematics, though so beautifully elegant, is mostly worth only paradigm value in terms of field theory -- which is simply a model, but cannot possibly, in my opinion, explain what we know about particle physics.  Gary C. V.

Hi Gary!

You have done so perhaps in your personally related agenda; in the laboratory measuring acceleration linked to inertia  carriers such as you describe.

Your anti-Einstein stance wrt to the equivalence principle is based on physical measurement and not the mathematical formalisms of general relativity as such.

You cannot reduce the workings of the universe to inertia calculations, as this inertia is NOT constant in terms of either the gravitational weight or the resistance to acceleration.

The inertia is the manifesto of concentrated 'photonic mass equivalent' and so not a fundamental parameter for an universally valid cosmogenesis.

Even the Gravitational Constant remains constant only in terms of the string parameters, but decreases in laboratory measurements by about 3 parts in 100 billion per year.

This means that the measured nucleon masses have increased by about 60% from a basevalue of about 10^-27 kg since the birth of the universe.

You mention time-dependent differential equations; knowing that the time independent Schroedinger equation is the one intrinsically compatible with the relativities.

So your anti-Einstein position is well justified in the context of the time-dependancy of quantum mechanics, where the first order derivative wrt time becomes incompatible with the second order of the position coordinates.

I so feel, that your position on the statistical supremacy fails a deeper analysis of what the application of the equivalence principle entails in the form I have introduced it.

You favour the reduction of fundamental physics to that of a statistical particle-inertia distribution and so cannot fathom the occurrence of a singular Quantum Big Bang; as the latter invalidates such a stochastic distribution from first principles.

You so require a history of universes, leading to the static nonexpanding universe of Hoyle.

But remember, Fred Hoyle favoured mass creation in his model and I agree with that in principle and as a modified form for his Steady State Cosmology, incorporating expansion (but not acceleration in toto - the present deceleration-acceleration cosmology is restricted to particular redshift intervals, say from z=0.15 to z=1.8 inclusive the supernova type 1a distributions and can be remodeled as a selfintersection of the electromagnetic parameters).

The present status quo cosmology is largely thermodynamically correct (with exception of antimatter scenarios and the virtual gauges) and your 'push gravity' scenarios are not required to model particular accomodate syzygy- and other astronomical phenomena.

But to each adventurer its own. The future new physics shall clarify the matter as not mattering so much.

John Shadow