I should explain a little bit more about my expanded energy equation. The E in E=mc^2 is total rest mass, kinetic, and potential energy or W+T+V=E. The First Flash Model expands c^2 to linear time-space times curved time-space. I found a relationship between these that led to my expanded equation.

rest mass energy | rest mass
kinetic energy | linear time-space
potential energy | curved time-space

Using studies from solid geometry, I found the algebraic relationship between A,B,C, and a,b,c, in A+B+C=a*b*c.

Here's the basic result:

a((b*c)/3)+b((a*c)/3)+c((a*b)/3)=d=a*b*c

Elements like frame dragging, comic torque, moment of inertia, weak gravitational energy, photogravitics, and angular gravitational energy are illustrated by their basic physical components in the Tile Method (of which I can not easily textually illustrate here).

Anyway, after imputing this equation into Wolfram Alpha, I gleaned a result I didn't expect.

2abc/3 +c(ab/3)=d

Mathematical confirmation of a second universe.

The division of 3 is a component from adding the three averaged values of energy forms. It must be present to properly equate the total energy in the system.

The tile method defines four hierarchies of energy. The highest is cosmic torque of which is represented here as abc.

The c(ab/3) beautifully illustrates how gravitation, mass, and the energy in light dynamically work together relative to the interactions of cosmic torque. The division of three is there for the same reason as explained before.

(b) is linear time-space. (the SR metric for light)
(a) is the total rest mass. (defined by the energy equation)
(c) is of course curved time-space. (the GR metric involving gravitation)

Due to the fact that mass curves time-space we have a wonderful dynamic shown by this c(ab/3).

With all of this explained it still leaves the 2 x cosmic torque.

Cosmic torque is only created by the angular rotation of a universe body. Our universe is known. A second universe remains missing from the picture.

As everyone already knows, I had already believed this but for different reasons. For me personally, this is a eureka moment.

(same thing you posted again in slightly different form above)

Now, either you're using the same pronumerals to represent different variables in this equation, or else it reduces as follows:

2abc/3 + c(ab/3) = 2abc/3 + abc/3 = 3abc/3 = abc

... which is what you derived above. The two terms completely disappear (assuming the same letter means the same thing each time, and with certain assumptions about where brackets could be added to clarify.

Not attacking, trying to understand.

So, c(ab/3)=abc/3

The part where two sources of cosmic torque interact accounts for two thirds of the total energy. Intresting. That must be kinetic energy + potential energy.

The c(ab/3) must represent the total rest mass energy within our universe which also equals 1/3 of cosmic torque.



Yes, that is the nature of the beast with Einstien's energy equation. Some of the most important information completely disappears once the equation is simplified. It goes against what is commonly taught in algebra class. The idea is hammered into our minds to simplify, causing everyone to ignore the mathmatical beauty hidden within perfectly balanced equations.

Think of it like what happens when matter and antimatter cancel each other out becoming a blaze of gamma rays and so forth. The event can be reversed to reveal the cause mathematicly. But it would remain fully hidden if the properties are simplified too much.

This post jumps away from my previous statement, but I think it's an important comment to make.

I was searching the net for a program that can create concentric circles with radial distances that square per circle number when I crossed paths with a topic on the inverse square law.

This law is observed by many if not all natural physical waves. Things like gravity, light, sound, radiation, and luminosity. My mathematics dictionary defines it as "A physical law in which an effect varies inversely as the square of the distance from the source producing the effect."

Studying light, the area it radiates squares by the radius. The First Flash model involves the resultant distance light travels, being squared by cyclical time. An why not. General Relativity defines time as a dimension on equal footing with the three known dimensions of space.

If all other radiating wave phenomina obey the inverse square law, shouldn't the speed of light itself obey it as well? In my search I discovered yet another explorer for truth in physics right on my coattails with this idea and connecting it with the Pioneer Anomoly.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/new_physics1.html

If this fellow fully explores this idea to it's end conclusion (and happens to be an atheist) he's in for a shock.

I should quickly state that I do not agree with everything on this site, just some interesting parallels.

Sorry, but a quick question on your above link concerning hydrogen atoms. Do hydrogen atoms rise in a vacuum within a gravitational field?

I started reading the link but it bothered me I couldn't find where it addressed that question. As in, I've always been told that the reason hydrogen balloons fall backward when suddenly stopping a car is because the other atoms are heaver (denser) and they fall forward. So that is what I'm thinking of is all heaver atoms displace hydrogen in a gravitational field. Am I missing some explanation on the link?

You're correct: hydrogen balloons rise in air due to buoyancy: the air is more dense than the hydrogen, so the air sinks and forces the hydrogen upward. Same happens to individual hydrogen molecules, we just can't see it happening. Hydrogen does not have anti-gravity, so if we just had a hydrogen balloon, or a hydrogen molecule, in a chamber that was otherwise a complete vacuum, it would fall (toward the centre of the planet or the nearest massive object).

Hmm... I missed that point. I referanced the link due to his points on the relationship between the inverse square law and the Pioneer anomoly.

This issue with hydrogen and inertia seems a bit odd. The effect described shouldn't have anything to do with Earth's gravitational field.

This is the common explanation. (I tend to agree with it.)



If the site I refered to says that this is an effect resultant of gravitation then I would protest that their idea is fringing on crack pot science verses solid physics. I should have read the site more thoroughly.

The inverse square law applies to 'intensity' type quantities (electric, magnetic and gravitational field strength, light intensity and so on). It is a consequence of fairly simple 3D reasoning.

Say you have a particular light source: let's use the sun. It puts out a particular amount of light in every direction: the same amount. Now, imagine the solar energy that lands on a 1 square mile area of the earth's surface. The earth is at about 93 million miles from the sun. One square mile receives 4 billion kilowatt-hours of solar energy in a year.

That square mile can be imagined as one square mile in a sphere that totally surrounds the sun at a distance of 93 million miles. Knowing that the surface area of a sphere is given by 4πr^2 we find that the total surface area of that sphere is about 1.1 x 10^17 square miles (on the order of 100 quadrillion...). The total annual energy output of the sun is then found by multiplying that number by the 4 billion kilowatt-hours for each square mile, and yields a mind-boggling 4.3 x10^26 kWh/year.

Now, here's the crux of the matter. If we imagine that same sphere at half the distance from the sun, and given that the surface area of the sphere is related to the square of the radius, the surface area would be 1/4 as large. The same total energy would be being output by the sun, but the sphere over which it was spread would be smaller. So (there are a couple of ways to think about it that amount to the same thing), either you would have 4 billion kWh/year over 1/4 the area (1/4 of a square mile), or you would have 4 times as much (16 kWh/year) passing through each square mile.

The argument for doubling the distance from the sun is the same, and shows that at double the earth's orbit (Mars is a bit further than that, but not much) there would be 1/4 as much energy passing through each square mile of the sphere (and therefore falling on a square mile of the planet). This is part of the explanation for why Mars is so much colder than Earth.

And that's the inverse square law: double the distance (2x), divide the intensity by 4 (the square of 2). Triple the distance, divide it by 9 (the square of 3), and so on.

But speed is not an intensity quantity. It is not shared out over the surface of the sphere. Imagine a billion motorbikes, speeding outward away from the sun at 100 mph. As you move further out, the bikes will spread out away from one another, so there'll be fewer bikes per unit of area: the 'intensity' of the bikes will decrease, in accordance with the inverse square law. But their *speed* will not be effected: they will still be travelling at 100 mph, just farther apart.

Hope this is helpful.

Bravus:


True. I do sense that you're making a counter point. Speed should not be used even when it aids one's mind visually on this subject. In light of this, Bravus has correctly pointed out that the following quote is improperly stated:



Instead of "speed of light" it would be far more accurate to say "light's rate of time", as truely weird as that sounds.

Ok, yeah, that is clearer and makes sense. It's in line with General Relativity, the idea that time changes as one moves away from large masses.