Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> I did not find much as far as EGRET recording the gamma radiation of
> Jupiter and
> Saturn and their respective moons. I am under the impression that
> EGRET did not
> record those Jovian moons.
>
> --- quoting from this website ---
> http://www.universetoday.com/2005/03/31/earth-seen-in-gamma-rays/
>
> "If our eyes could see high-energy gamma rays, this is what the Earth
> would look like from space," said Dr. Dirk Petry of NASA Goddard Space
> Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Other planets =EF=BF=BD most famously,
> Jupiter =EF=BF=BD have a gamma-ray glow, but they are too far away from
u=
s to
> image in any detail."
>
> --- end quoting ---
>
> I suppose when GLAST the successor gamma-ray telescope to EGRET begins
> operations
> that one of its planned recordings will be the Jupiter and Saturn
> satellites. Now when it
> does so, the re****ts are going to be astounding to everyone who
> believes and accepts the
> old ideas in physics and astronomy of black-holes and Big Bang.
> Astounding and strange
> because they will find, if I am correct, they will find that the gamma
> radiation of the Earth to
> Moon and of the Jupiter to its satellites and of Saturn to its
> satellites are the brightest gamma
> radiation images in our Solar System.
>
> Why would that be?
>
> Because the truth about gravity as a force is that gravity is Positron
> Space. And so, where
> you have imbalances in gravity, it plucks out the Positron Space and
> channels antimatter
> into the region where the imbalance in gravity occur. The greatest
> tidal forces of gravity
> in our Solar System are Earth to Moon and Jupiter to its Satellites
> and Saturn to its Satellites.
> So that these incidents of Gravity-Tidal-Forces draws the Positron
> Space into leaking of
> antimatter. And where this antimatter leaks into the Earth to Moon
> surroundings, this
> antimatter quickly encounters regular normal matter and annihilates
> and we see it as
> gamma radiation.
>
> The reason behind, and the mechanism behind Pulsars is this same tidal
> gravity leakage
> of antimatter.
>
> So I hope they get the GLAST up and running soon and focus on what
> the image of
> Jupiter and its moons are in gamma-radiation. If my theory of Gravity
> =3D Positron Space
> is correct and that Tidal Forces are the brightest gamma images then
> the satellites of Jupiter
> should be so very bright for Io and Europa and Ganymede.
>
> Now this new mechanism to explain how pulsars work and which
> trashcanns the old physics
> theories of black-holes, makes me want to explain Gravity =3D Positron
> Space in the Schrodinger
> Equation for an atom that is the Atom Totality. Can the Schrodinger
> Equation have enough
> room to explain how antimatter can be the Space of ordinary matter?
> After thinking about this
> question for hours yesterday, I have come to a conclusion that the
> Schrodinger Equation
> is not big enough to accomodate antimatter being Space. And even
> though Dirac Equation
> is where Dirac conceived the idea of the existence of positrons.
>
> So what is missing in Physics Theory that the Schrodinger Equation and
> Dirac Equation
> cannot handle Gravity =3D Positron Space, where the dots of the
electron-
> dot-cloud in the
> Schrodinger Equation cannot handle the idea that the "cloud" is
> antimatter to the dots in
> the cloud.
>
> If the Schrodinger Equation cannot handle it, then what in Physics can
> handle Gravity =3D
> Positron Space.
>
> The answer, I believe at this moment, may surprize most people, for it
> surprizes me
> somewhat. The answer is that Schrodinger Equation, although powerful,
> is not really as
> powerful as the Maxwell Equations.
>
> So I am going to have to write a book on the "Lowest Terms of
> Physics". Recently I said I
> had to write a book on the lowest-terms of economics, political
> science, biology, and chemistry
> but I said that physics needs no lowest-term book since it encomp*****
> all the sciences.
> Now I see I have to write a Lowest Terms of Physics book. Others would
> call them Foundation books
> as the Foundation of Physics or the Foundations of Economics. But I
> like the name
> Lowest-Terms for it signifies so much more than the term "foundation"
> since old science has
> inflated the word "foundation" and so inflated that it has become
> meaningless.
>
> Has any physicist ever tried to deduce the Maxwell Equations starting
> from the Schrodinger
> or Dirac Equation? Or vice versa? I doubt they ever got far, because I
> doubt that either one
> is deducible from the other. I believe they are independent of one
> another and this Gravity =3D
> Positron Space indicates they are independent.
>
> For the book "Lowest Terms of Physics" I envision three things that
> make up physics:
> (1) Periodic Chart of Elements: something to work with and work on
> (2) Maxwell Equations: the worker on the elements
> (3) Schrodinger or Dirac Equation: description of an Element
>
> I am on vacation and will dive into this after August.
>
> The mechanism of Gravity =3D Positron Space and why the Moon is brighter
> in gamma-rays
> image than the Sun is because of Tidal forces that leaks out
> antimatter and subsequently
> annihilates yielding gamma radiation. Can that mechanism come out of
> the Schrodinger
> or Dirac Equations? No way, for they are descriptive equations. But
> that mechanism can
> come from the Maxwell Equations. Where in the Maxwell Equations can
> you have such a
> mechanism? The answer is surprizingly simple and fresh. The
> displacement current in the
> Maxwell Equations. Has anyone evaluated the displacement current
> whether it is 10^40 weaker
> with respect to Ampere's Law? Or that it can be 10^40 weaker relative
> to the Ampere Law?
>
> So that when Maxwell found the missing piece of the Maxwell Equations
> by adding a term to
> Ampere's Law which we know today as the displacement current, well,
> has anyone looking into
> the idea that the displacement current is Gravity =3D Positron Space.
>
> The displacement current of Maxwell's added term to Ampere's Law is
> not derivable from
> either the Schrodinger or the Dirac Equations, and since it is not
> derivable, means the
> Maxwell Equations are independent of Dirac Equation.
Looks like the above is going to impact several of my books on physics
and
I need to add a chapter in several books with these ideas of Gravity =3D
Positron Space
and Gravity is the Displacement Current in Maxwell Equations.
Now the reason Maxwell saw a need to add the extra term in Ampere's
Law, was that
the Ampere Law would decrease the speed of light and would not have
light waves as
a transverse wave. So Maxwell devised a term that would end up with
light-waves as
transverse waves and where the speed of light is its actual speed and
not less.
Now the Displacement current is a tiny current and far too small for
Ampere or even
Maxwell to experimentally measure. So how small can the Displacement
Current become?
Can it be so small as to be 10^40 smaller than the Ampere component? I
am not certain
of this answer but reasonably asserting that the Displacement current
can be 10^40 smaller
than the Ampere component.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
