Stellar Splitting and pairing NEW Black holes foun

Hi Jim, there's loads of stuff on the web about the ultraviolet catastrophe but I've never found anything which I would recommend. Stuff tends to go straight into rather heavy quantum mechanics, or simply states that there were two equations that eplained either end of the black body spectrum.

Sloat, I never found more than what you have described anywhere in books or on line. The two prior equations were some how intergrated into what we now call Planck's constant but its never explained how he did this. I was hoping maybe some German language book might have this story. I also wonder how large was the pin hole in the device that generated the data about blackbody radiation. It seems to me the planck energy bundle is a product of pin hole observations which were made before Planck made the calculation. Its too bad history of stuff like this gets lost because no one cares to keep records. And of course, history has greatly effected these details of science.

Hi Jim, I think we really need to see the stuff that Planck wrote where he fretted over the work he'd done. He does say that his own working left him disturbed and he tried all ways to come up with an answer that was classical.

The thing is, I have no problems with the number h, or with a quantised world. I do have problems with h being considered dimensionless, and with his concept of paired resonating particles. He did consider that the vacuum itself is made of these pairs and not just the walls of black body objects.

If we say that the speed of gravity is much faster than light, then we have to account for a huge amount of energy that hides itself away somehow. That means we have to look at what Planck was saying about why we dont find ultra high frequency particle pairs.

I think that we have two sorts of space. Electromagnetic and gravitational. We can consider the gravitational space to be informationally much much smaller than the electromagnetic space that we are so familiar with. I've also said that there's an exponential within the Lorentzian. Information theory and entropy also have an exponential associated with them.

In Joe Keller's thread we had been talking about Dayton Miller's work on Aether drift. If we are moving through a stationary aether then the speed of light will differ as we rotate our interferometer. Dayton Miller did not find the expected velocity change but neither did he find no change at all.

It's as if we have a bubble of aether that knocks down the change in velocity to next to nothing. An odd point, would be that for Newton's infinite speed of gravity, there would be no aether drift at all.

Let's look at Planck's use of the ratio h / k where k is Boltzman's constant (worked out by Planck actually) obviously it relates energy and entropy. Playing a hunch, I also put in the fine structure constant, h / k*alpha
(Maybe something to think about here. h / k *alpha = 6.57665313249E-09
and h = 6.6260755E-34
Perhaps in the vacuum k*alpha = 6.6260755E-9
It might also be worth looking at the idea that energy values always come out very close to a positive natural number.)

What I'm trying to do here is sort out something to get rid of troublesome quantum proper fraction numbers. For the ftl Lorentzian where c^2 / b^2 = h We can just say, if you go ten times the speed of light that's 10h. Go at half light speed though and thats 1 / 2 h That's not supposed to happen.

Anyway half , h / k *alpha = 6.57665313249E-09 to give us the variation in the speed of light for the vacuum. 3.288325355E-09 So, about 3 billionth of a metre over a one light second run. Interferometers simply dont have one light second arms, so Dayton Miller got lucky when he just did the experiments in air and not thr vacuum.

Sloat, The problem with Planck's constant is how it is used or more exactly-misused. Basically its a radiation law that states how much energy is in a bundle of photons. The misuse is in assuming this bundle is one photon and the therefore the photon gains energy with increasing frequency. The bundle gains energy for sure. The photon is a constant energy that gains force with increasing frequency. 6.67x10E-34js is energyxtime and time gets lost when the math wiz does-as you say-sweeps the scrap under the rug. The result is a bundle of photons that gains energy by packing more and more photons into the bundle as frequency increases.

Hi Jim, we know that Planck was not very happy with what he considered to be a stop gap measure to resolve a major crisis in physics. He worked at it for a number of years (I couldnt find how many) he had to have considered its dimensions, as quantum mechanics had not been invented. Thats why it might be good to see if his notes from the period are extant.

Suppose we took a rock and dropped it into a lake, then at each ripple peak we imagined a sphere. Wed end up with a russian doll and a section through it would show us a profile of lows and high densities. Lets call that a photon, or a nested photon if you will.

This water wave is going to be an a.m. wave, its amplitude falls off. However as soon as we introduce the idea of a natural log fall off to gravity we end up with a f.m. wave. The amplitude of the wave stays at one but the wavelength gets longer and longer, to infinity. We also get a wave peak at x equals one. Above one the wave peaks travel at a high rate, they actually accelerate away in a pulse. Below x equals one the wave pulse travels back towards zero but this wave is much slower. It superposes onto a frequency dense core. So dense in fact that we would call it matter.

Changing the subject slightly. I thought Id take a look at the fine structure constant, as up to now its only showed its head when me and Joe were talking about Dayton Millers work.

e^2 / barh 4pi epsilon = a = e^2 c mu / 2h
epsilon = the permitivity of free space
mu = permeability of free space
e = the charge on an electron or proton
a = the fine structure constant alpha

Kick that round a bit to solve for h. I want to put that into the Lorentzian when
h = c^2 / b^2 Taking b to be the speed of gravity.

We get, h = e^2 mu/ 2a epsilon Stick that into the Lorentzian and think about it for a few moments. First thought, this is a charged particle moving at the speed of light. Charge is conserved, so we peg that. The permitivity of free space gets smaller by 2a A quick calculation using alpha as 1 / 137, do it properly with the full value later. 8.854187818E-12 * 2 * 1 /137 = 1.29258216321E-13

This must alter the permeability constant as well making it about a thousand times smaller. Lets accept that for the moment and look at the only thing that can change if we go over or below the speed of light. It can only be the permeability of the vacuum. If we liken mu and epsilon to stress and strain, then the vacuum as substance, can only tolerate so much stress but huge amounts of strain, or vis versa.

Still not sure what to make of this but it does suggest that in a particle accelerator theres a degree of electromagnetic decoupling.

I thought I'd better add something here. Me and Cosmicsurfer talked about negative refractive index. One of us pointed out that to make gravitational space have a negative refractive index and electromagnetic space a positive index was a tad vainglorious.

Gravitational space holds vast amounts of energy, which it can only transfer to electromagnetic space, through a tiny surface at the Swartzchild radius. Electromagnetic space holds very little of the universe's energy, and is incredibly slow. Its not the tortoise and the hair but the hair and watching paint dry. A very boring race to watch.

I left it as neg r.i. for reasons of my poor fragile ego and also, the main reason, because it didn't matter, and I thought it would make finding relationships of constants easier. It does make far more sense though to reverse things. We live in neg r.i. space. The core of any mass object has a pos r.i and a neg r.i. e.m "atmosphere." Vacuum particles would then be inside out. neg r.i. cores, pos r.i. "atmospheres."

That doesn't make a huge change to the maths but that f.m. exponential wave, with a peak at x = one, can have a reversed fast wave and slow wave. The fast wave can have things surf in towards the centre and light surf out from the centre.