Submissions | Add Your Comments | Physics Site Links | Home Page |

Email: Dragan Turanyanin |

Dragan Turanyanin

**Walter Babin, Jan 16, 2008:**

This is in direct conflict with some accepted dogma: Relativity theory as indicated in your post, and also,
the **energy** of electromagnetic radiation is supposedly dependent on **frequency** according to
de Broglie. The following indicates that its velocity is independent of frequency.

"The speed of light is independent of frequency to within a factor of 6x10^-21. Bradley Schaefer of Yale (203-432-3806, schaefer@grb2.physics.yale.edu) bases this estimate on the observed arrival of gamma rays from distant explosive events in the cosmos, such as gamma-ray bursters. If the speed of light (c) were slightly different for the different frequency ranges, then some light waves would show up before the others, but this is not the case. The best previous effort to locate a frequency dependency for c, deduced from light coming from the Crab pulsar, was at the 5x10^-17 level."

This contradicts the SA. comment. If velocity is independent of frequency and frequency is the measure of energy, one or the other claim is incorrect.

**Dragan Turanyanin, Jan. 16, 2008:**

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?titl...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

1. Scientific American August 22, 2007 Hints of a breakdown of relativity theory? "The MAGIC gamma-ray telescope team has just released an eye-popping preprint (following up earlier work) describing what might be the first observational hint of quantum gravity. What they've seen is that higher-energy gamma rays appear to travel through space a little bit slower than lower-energy ones, contrary to one of the postulates underlying Einstein's special theory of relativity -- namely, that radiation travels through the vacuum at the same speed no matter what....The team ruled out the most obvious conventional effect, but will have to do more to prove that new physics is at work -- this is one of those "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" situations. But if the high-energy gammas really did lose the cosmic race, we're talking Big Discovery."

This agrees with our insight and calculation about gravyphoton mass existence in the lower limit of E-69 kg. What this news is reporting, if true, it would be exactly a confirmation of both of our stances:

2. changeable c ("light speed")

2.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/...ing_kilogram_3

"The 118-year-old cylinder that is the international prototype for the metric mass, kept tightly under
lock and key outside Paris, is mysteriously losing weight - if ever so slightly. Physicist Richard Davis
of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres, southwest of Paris, says the reference
kilo appears to have lost 50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies."

"The mystery is that they were all made of the same material, and many were made at the same time and kept under the same conditions, and yet the masses among them are slowly drifting apart," he said. "We don't really have a good hypothesis for it."

Well, if we exclude all the other more-less possible ordinary reasons, this could be a first direct proof of one fundamental law

m = m_0exp(-HeaM/r) ~= m_0(1- HeaM/r)

where m_0 is mass of the etalons far of any M, Hea = G/c^2 and M would be mass of Earth in this case. The above law we can see in two way: 1. as an expression of mutual dependence of all cosmic masses and 2. as sort of a gravitational decaying process of each and every mass in a given static G-potential.

To be clear, in this particular case, mass m of each etalon depends on its geographic altitude relative to geoid. Or in other words, static G-potential is not in the form of -k/r but in the form of exp(-K/r). Surprisingly, these about 50 micrograms per kilogram(~5E-8) are in significant agreement with Earth's HeaM/R (~ E-8). As to our best knowledge, this is for the first time that we are able to make the conclusions on this precision in gravity. It is amazing by itself we do that on the quantum gravity-space level and with the kilogram's etalon.

As last but not least, this also could be one of the first direct evidences to our claim that

Hea = 7.4E-28 m/kg

is the natural constant but neither G nor c by themselves. Or in other words, it seems quite clear that neither Newton's nor Einstein's "physics" could really be the rightful description of the cosmic dynamics.

**Dragan Turanyanin, Jul. 8, 2006:**

Gravity, Mass, Photon & Change of Paradigm

It seems very actual and it could be of a wider interests. So, let us go in medias res.

1.) Considering a photons mass, could be interesting:

b) Under reference [1] of a) you can find a fine list of authors who worked around a similar idea: Einstein, De Broglie, Bass, Schrodinger, Desser, Narlikar etc. See also mainstream Okuns papers on lanl about constants, photon, mass and gravity.

c) recently on arXiv: Tajmar & de Matos (in-lab gravitomagnetic effects, photograviton S-1 non-zero rest mass expectations etc.), Shidarth (Lorentz symmetry break)...

d) Quite interesting and in line with some of my previous discussions is a notation: "The historical path was from electrodynamics to the demonstration that the speed of light was constant (Michelson-Morley experiments) to the Lorentz transformation and the group structure of spacetime. Then it was realized from the study of relativistic dynamics that any particle with vanishing mass will propagate with the speed of light. BUT CLEARLY, THE SPEED OF LIGHT C_EM AGREES WITH THE UNIVERSAL SPEED, C_ST, ONLY TO WITHIN THE EXPERIMENTAL PRECISION OF MICHELSON-MORLEY TYPE EXPERIMENTS (OR PUT DIFFERENTLY, THE PHOTON HAS ZERO MASS ONLY WITHIN SOME ACCURACY LIMITS) and the causal cone need not coincide with the light cone. IF ONE WERE TO PROVE EXPERIMENTALLY THAT THE PHOTON IS MASSIVE THEN THE STANDARD DERIVATION OF RELATIVITY FROM ELECTROMAGNETISM WOULD HAVE TO BE ABANDONED. (my caps, see Ellis G.F.R., Uzan J-Ph., c is the speed of light, isnt it?, http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0305099).

3.)What really failed in the strong field domain r_g = 1 is SR/GR itself; r_g = GM/c^2.
This is a wrong theory from the very beginning. Let me say: totally wrong
kinematical/geometrical paradigm. Linearization of GR through linearized metrics is a
mathematical trick (similar to the QED renormalization). Real linear gravity is
Heaviside-like vector gravitodynamics (my very youthful idea and totally independent
work, but during the past decade, very actual again in Nielsen, Jefimenko, Strelcov and
recently Tajmar & de Matos, de Mees, Nduriri etc.). Some of the above authors stay in
line of SR, some of them still in linearized GR but I totally stepped out (but from
Newtons picture definitely). The most interesting conclusion/consequence is that
Lorentzs gamma is only a special case of one more fundamental scale factor incorporated
in the above gravitodynamics. I call it hi-factor, i.e. 1/sqrt[exp(2 r_g/r) (v/c)^2].
Because exp(2 r_g/r) >= 1 then could be v>=c. There is no SR limits at all and (in all
experimental limits) THE GRAVYPHOTON COULD HAVE SOME REST/PROPER MASS AS A CONSEQUENCE
NOT AS AN ASSUMPTION. But if you are TR believer you have an honest escape:

b) if r_g/r is much less than 1, i.e. weak field, most of GR (but there are fundamental differences from the very begining) is covered and

c) if r_g/r =1 we are out of all classical pictures, GR failed, and follows the non-linear wave space-gravity with a totally original, still unobserved but realistic phenomena (e.g. H-quantization, origin of mass, gravitonium? see D. Turanyanin, Wave Gravity, the natural way towards Plancks scale, GSJ, 2005). Dr. S. Arteha, Space Institute Moscow, private communication, thinks of it: I believe that Lorentz-type generalization of the theory of gravitation can be useful and that resonance (wave) phenomena (and some "quantum" effects) for gravitation can be present in reality.

Really, we are in the front of Great Change (say of paradigm)!

**Dragan Turanyanin, Nov 8, 2005:**

Very interesting and intriguing is M. Mathis’ general project/attempt on demystifying “Physics”. The
first mystification comes with first “closed system” which is the Galilei-Newton’s mechanics (besides
Euclid’s Elements). Of course, main reason is a pragmatic simplification in the shadow of the
Brache-Kepler’s observations (calculus is from the same matrix of thoughts). It seems that further developing
of “Physics” (giving some unquestionable results), stays in the same line of a growing mystification
because of constant needs for quantitative simplifications . The XX century’s kinematical-geometrical
“abstract and deductive” STR-GTR-QM-QFT-TOE concepts are climax of the story. All of that I find as a
confusion if not as a pure illusion (see Introduction part of “Wave Gravity”, GSJ, October 2005).
Generally speaking, our “science” becomes more Ptolemaic then ever. In his gravity set of articles Miles
is asking about gravitation mechanism in contrast to abstract and questionable Newton-Einstein concepts.
The way could be found but in the deep change of paradigm (as a theory and first qualitative and
quantitative results I consider above “Wave Gravity” and “On Interaction of Mot. Masses”, Journal of
Theoretics, Extensive Papers, November 2004 or GSJ, 2005)

Considering this particular paper (“Superposition”), I find it very similar to an idea of Ph. Kanarev’s torus-helicoidal modeling of electron’s dynamics (see Model of the Electron, Apeiron, Vol.7 Nr.3-4, (2000) Internet: redshift.vif.com). Bergman-Wesley’s picture is pretty much the same (see Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment, 1990). In my opinion (and to some extend similar to Kanarev), behind it is a natural meaning of angular momentum and the corresponding conservation law. At this point could be mentioned my long term insight (similar to lucid Gouyou Huang, Decay and Spin.., Journal of Theoretics, vol. 6, 2004) about angular momentum as an universal charge idea (e.g. Planck’s h IS charge, every rotary or spining system IS charge; so there is chalange for an experimentalist to perform Cavendish-like experiment – Coulomb force will be find and real foundation of EM is there).

Although this kind of reexaminations of the fundaments are welcome and in quite good timing, there still exists possibly dangerous “nihilism” and too easy refutation of valid results. Also we must not oversimplify our picture (common sense often is not so sensible!). That could be a way of loosing its truth, beauty and harmony.