Stellar Splitting and pairing NEW Black holes foun

Sloat, If you need a constant that varies for your new model(I like the new perspective here) use h. h varies because the time is not fixed. You have E=hf which is the energy of a bundle of photons. The photon is fixed by frequency/wavelength/speed of light so only the time varies but thats enough to make h a variable beause you need to insert the time into the hf part. Thats commonly and wrongly done by a very sloppy math trick but you can do it right ad see if it works for your new model.

Hi Jim, I thought I'd take a look at the higgs in order to make some sort of prediction based on my proposed speed of gravity.

The higgs is theoretically about 120 times the proton mass. So what's its frequency? It will be, for that value 2.72247789486E 25 cps.

Bite the bullet and say it should be 2.71828182846E 25 cps. (an exponential in there) Divide that by the proton mass times the speed of gravity squared to get
1.19815047913E 02 times the proton mass for the higgs.

mass of proton = 1.6726231E-27 kg
speed of gravity squared = 1.35639139448E 50 metres per second

I actually got a letter back from the under secretary of state for science, saying that the LHC had passed its safety checks. I feel a bit two faced if I'm waiting on the mass of the higgs to be buttonholed. Oh well, it's all part of life's rich tapestry.

(Edited) Oops! thats not wrong, it just doesn't make a prediction, that the boys and girls of CERN won't have made.
2.718E 00 is built into the electromagnetic frequency of the higgs. That would mean that it's also built into the gravitational energy of the higgs. The higgs would be a gravitational information particle. Again that points to the idea of gravity taking an exponential rather than a square law. I need to think about this a bit more.

Sloat, It would be interesting if the higgs was a 120 proton mass object, how would it be different than a 120 proton mass atom?

Hi Jim, Ill have to get back to you on this one, as Ive got the flu and even the simplest maths is too much for me. I think the higgs mass is interesting in terms of my proposed speed of gravity. I do not accept that this thing has zero angular momentum.

Its born out of big bang theory, and thats looking rather ropey these days. It also assumes that nothing can go faster than light. The higgs is a boson so the vacuum is presumably made of something like tin, or antimony, but it acts like one giant atom, as its a bose einstein condensate.

At the moment Im thinking along the lines that such a mass, does have angular momentum, and therefore a frequency. Its electromagnetic frequency is exactly the same number as its gravitational energy. What I think Ill find; when I can clear the flu; is that the hidden gravitational mass is the reciprocal of the planck mass.

(note, if you look up the planck mass on wikipedia, theres a missing cube with the relationship between the compton wavelength and the Scwartchild radius. It should be the compton wavelength cubed divided by pi)

Something I've been thinking about, look at that natural log graph of any particle, then think about prime numbers. An f.m. universe is going to have less and less primes as it approaches infinity but that's still an infinite number of primes.

Have a read of these two articles to get an idea of where I think we should be going with this. Thee's half a million dollars up for grabs as well, so that can't be bad!

[url] plus.maths.org/issue27/features/sautoy/index.html [/url]
[url] plus.maths.org/issue28/features/sautoy/index.html [/url]

(Edited) I sent an email to Marcus du Sautoy, don't expect an answer, unless he just looks at it as a maths problem. If he thinks of it as a physics problem then his eyes will just glace over and he will mutter the infamous mantra that nothing can go faster than light. Actually the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity is just a ratio, it can be any two numbers you like. Only one of them is going to be very slow.

Sloat, I am always puzzled by the use of speed of gravity by people making models. Why do you have the need for gravity moving at all? Why not look at gravity as a force that can be described by a field and is part of material just like EMF is part of energy? It might be helpful to look at matter and energy existing with different rules. After hundreds of trying the sameol/sameol it seems there is some madness in science that needs treatment.