Stellar Splitting and pairing NEW Black holes foun

Hi Jim, the three body problem is really a problem for pure maths. The restricted three body problem does occur in nature but we are never going to find a three star system where all three stars have the same mass. Never is a horrible word but I would argue that its down to the speed of gravity being so very much faster than that of light, that disordered systems are not allowed to persist.

If you were a graviton you could watch the animation of superposed gravity waves when the three particles are arranged in a three, four, five triangle. They might be hurtling around at the speed of light but to you they are standing still. However the wave pattern is changing continuously at the speed of gravity. Theres order to it though.

If one of the particles emits a photon of rest mass about 1E - 64 kg, h of its mass, then it also emits part of its gravitational mass, which is the electromagnetic mass of an electron. If the other two particles dont want to accept a photon then the vacuum takes up that gravitational mass and can create a virtual electron. That would be one of the bumps in the wave pattern. However, that bump is moving through the course of the animation, inside an equilateral triangle of bumps, from the bottom left particle up to the barycentre. Its also continuously changing from a bump to a dip.

Now a little jump, the pure three body problem is fundamental to chaos theory. Chaos theory is at the heart of the crisis in society and also physics. The Newtonian world view of an ordered societal progress was suddenly thrown into doubt. At the heart of order was found disorder.

Henri Poincare, an undoubted genius, how did he deal with Einstein? Well, he worked with Lorentz on relativity but he simply ignored Einstein. It cannot be said that Poincare was an anti-Semite, he defended Dreyfus over a long period.

I think weve got to look at what Lorentz and Poincare were doing, to see why, what I believe to be a fudge, happened.

Sloat, If a photon has a mass of~10E-64kg what is its frequency? In all chemical reactions the unit of exchange is 1.6x10E-19J and the equals ~1.7x10E-36kg which would be the mass of some basic particle. Why do you believe in the existence of the electron? Where do virtual and real particles get sorted out? Does the real universe have a need for virtual particles? I agree three mass gravity systems are unstable but how does this assumption relate to the Earth/moon/sun gravity fields?

Hi Jim, that's just the electron volt, a unit of convenience. That's not an exchange unit at all. If chemists have some sort of favourite number,then I would say its going to be -286 kJ/mol, the energy release on combining hydrogen and oxygen. Chemists don't usually bother giving the answer in electron volts, unless they are using an electric current to split something say.

Its complicated but this is a good explanation for anyone interested. [url] www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/chemener.html [/url]

I did give my frequency of the basic photon on the last page, it was 3.18055197809E 03 cps

On the question of virtual particles. If we think of all particles as being waves then the wave goes on forever This photo shows what the natural log cosine particle looks like. A big clump at one end and a longer and longer wavelength to infinity. When these f.m. particles superpose, I think we'll get real particles but particles that can move faster than light. I've no great problem at present with them being called virtual, I do think though, the assumption that the physics of the vacuum is chaotic is dubious. I think its going to turn out to be very ordered.



One idea is that the vacuum is chaotic because the vacuum is shared by the multi verse. If every quantum choice is made, and the vacuum is chaotic then we would have a near infinity of chaotic vacuums. Thats simply absurd.

I think I'll leave the restricted three body problem vis a vis the sun, moon and earth for Tom. [][][8D]

Sloat, The unit is observed in all reactions and has been measured since Faraday did it 160 years ago. The mole is quite few units of energy~6x10E23 units. Have you read "Blackhole Wars"? Some of the stuff you are doing is kicked around in that book. The author has the same assumptions about what is the true meaning of E=hf as you and everyone else and so maybe you could find something useful there about QM and Q-gravity, gravity waves and the like.

Sloat, Your"basic photon"has a frequency of 3180.5hz? Is that right? It has a wavelength of many kilometers? Is this photon observed in nature? If not do you know the lowest frequency photon observed in the natural world?

Hi Jim, very low frequencies do occur in nature but they are rather difficult to study. A tank circuit that could transmit over a distance at that frequency, and lower, has been built though. HAARP in Alaska can do it. They will have a tank circuit for that frequency, as its about the height of the d layer in the atmosphere. The trouble is that no one is making ionosphere heaters for the fun of pure science. Very long waves go through water and rock, to get a few watts go round, and through, the earth means using a power plant large enough for a small city. It's something of a military nature.

Building two tank circuits right next to each other will work though. They don't need an ariel the size of a county shire.

I'll have to do some reading up on chemistry, I'm very rusty on the subject. I presume you're talking about cations and anions? The thing is, I've never read anything of chemists doubting the electron's existence. Something must carry the negative charge. Why we have a pos and neg charge in the first place is a different question. Doing away with the electron is simply not going to happen in a hurry. Its far to useful a concept.

So, I've been looking at water. Divide 285.8 kJ/mol by Avagadros number to get the energy per molecule. Three atoms in the molecule so divide by three to get something very close to an electron volt. My problem is that I seem to have lost a charge somewhere, as there are four electrons involved in the bond. Theres also the hydrogen bond to consider in the chain of a water molecule. Then there's the problem of water molecules being forced by magnesium to take on an ice like structure, where a protonic semiconductor current can flow.

I think I'll have to put this problem on the back burner for now. Too much like hard work.