Hi Marius !

Lets try to use logic (citation marks, because logic seems to be a very individual
concept) and remove every technical idea that might exist and look at the universe as
it is. What is inside it ? Well we see lots of stars, planets and dust and/or gas clouds.
That is matter in different form. Somehow this matter is gathering into stars that
shine of some reason, but why is mass driven together ? As human beings we can
imagine some big divine hands ploughing thru space and moving matter to one place to
form a star, but its a bit far out to believe it happens that way. So what is the
reason for gravitational forces ? According to Newtons equations there must be a
force reaching through space, a force acting at the distance. But how ? We can
imagine force lines, similar to magnetic force lines, which can be made visible and
that way partly understand the concept, but it is still difficult, because what is this
line of force made of, why can it move bodies ? Our understanding of things require
something like a line of matter, a rope and then we can understand and accept that
this rope is able to move matter. But in the case of gravity or magnetic and electric
forces, we cant se any ropes and still the matter is moving. Now we wont make any
divine creature responsible for this, it would be too easy, we have to find the cause
for gravitating forces among those things the universe can represent us. So we have
matter and lots of space and time that is all the universe has to give, even though
some people think there must be more, like virtual particles jumping in and out of
existence, as believed by quantum physicists, but this is for me like abracadabra and
so unacceptable. So we have to find other ways of explaining the origin of
gravitational, in space outreaching, forces. So we stop here and have a look at
Newtons law alone.

It is easy to accept that a planet like earth is forcing us down on the surface; this is
life in a nutshell, always fighting against gravity to the end of life, until we are unable
to fight the force anymore and die. We cannot deny this force because we every day
experience it ! So lets have a look at gravity when its getting extreme:

The eigenforce (eigen is a German word, meine Eigenkraft = my own force) (F) a planet is
experiencing by its own gravitation is given by Newtons law of gravitation and here I
will use the Chandrasekhar limit (m
Ch
) as I found it:
Now I defined the Chandrasekhar limit, as I want it to be defined, by use of a
package factor k
R
:

So the radius was experimentally defined by

Newton
R
m G
F
Ch
Ch Ch 33
2
2
0
10 7914555675 , 2 =

=
m C C k R
R Ch
76393 , 443183623
144
4
= = =

) 1 (
) 2 (
Since the mass has to be iron, as the last possible fusion product in a sun, we can
calculate it to be

When this mass is collapsing it can only collapse until the surface orbital velocity
equals the speed of light

this means the collapsed radius of this mass can only become,

but never zero, because nothing with volume zero can have mass, and because
something with volume nothing is nothing ! Equation (5) is also valid before the
collapse, but with the surface orbital velocity it has before collapse
and the radius is now analogue to (5) given by

Strange is that many articles about gravity claim equation (5) to be from Einsteins
general theory of relativity, as you can see (7), this is absolutely not true. I know
that mainstream physicists believe in this more then very exotic concept of black
holes, where the radius goes to zero, but honestly, I couldnt care less what they
believe and if I should be the only person on earth saying this my answer would be
a thundering: rubbish ! This is only my postulate; so true and who the hell am I, but
however, look at the consistence this is giving us:

The linear impulse of a moving body is given of

In order to find the time (t) it takes to move a certain distance (s) we solve the
equation according to the time (t) and get this
) ( 10 174 8659081538 , 2
3
7860 4
30
3
kg
R
m
Ch
Ch
=

=

2
t F s m t F V m = =
) (sec
F
s m
t =

=
) 3 (
) 4 (
) 5 (
) 6 (
) 7 (
) 8 (
) 9 (
C
R
m G
V
co
Ch
=

=
0
0
m m
C
G
R
Ch co
1 6019417881 , 2128
2
0
= =
sek
m
R
m G
V
R G
V
Ch
Ch
Ch
333344649 , 656940
3
7860 4
0
0
2
0
0
=

=

=

m m
V
G
R
Ch Ch
90719 , 443167738
2
0
0
= =
I guess you will accept this as being true. Now how long time would it take for a mass
to collapse from one radius to another ? The equivalent for gravitation is given by
equation (1) and the time (t
co
) it takes for the mass (m
Ch
) to collapse from Radius R
Ch

to radius R
Co

To find that collapse-time we have to solve two integrals, one for the left side and
one for the right side of the equation and we integrate from the radius R
Ch
to the
final collapse radius R
co
, its a dynamic process


We solve both integrals and get
I hope you still agree with me, now we solve for the time t
co
and get


This is almost the time of my new constant (k
R
) divided by square root 2

but there is a small and surprising deviation of exactly

So here we suddenly meet the Lorentz-factor, but with a plus under the root sign and
that is because surface orbital velocity is imaginary, so with a real velocity of a
spaceship as an example, this factor has of cause a minus under the square root sign.
Now why do you think this factor is showing up, surely not by accident ?! If I
had made this investigation by using only a few decimals, instead of using
consequently all 13 decimals my calculator is able to give, I would never have found
2
2
2
2
Co
Ch
Ch Ch
Ch Ch
t
R
m G
R m t F s m

= =
( )
( )
Co
Co Co
Ch Co Ch
R R
t R R m G
R R m

=
0
2
0
2
0 0 2 2
2
1
( )
Sek
m G
R R R R
t
Co Co
Co
832 0453194864 , 1
2
0 0
0 0
=

+
=
( )
0
2
0
0
2
0 0
0 0
dR
R
t m G
dR R m
Co Co
R
R
Ch
R
R
Ch
} } |
|
.
|

\
|
=
Sek t 672 0453169761 , 1
2
144
4
=

2
2
2
0
1 1 878 0000024014 , 1 ) , (
672 0453169761 , 1
832 0453194864 , 1
) , (
C
V
C R
m G
t t
Sek
Sek
t t
o
Ch
Ch
co
co
+ =

+ = = A
= A
) 10 (
) 11 (
) 12 (
) 13 (
) 14 (
) 15 (
this small deviation. In the beginning I thought this was the normal deviation, from
the normal Lorentz-factor, given by the surface orbital velocity of the
Chandrasekhar limit, which is
I thought that this very small deviation was a consequence of my calculators
rounding, until I had to make a bigger investigation, because of errors I found caused
by the wrong Lorentz-factor. When I saw what the reason was, I was very surprised.
Most scientists from the pre-computer time used to calculate with a slide rule and
logarithm tables using three to four decimals, they didnt have a chance to find this
tiny difference, if they ever made calculation of the same kind as I did. I made then
a check with 54 decimals and confirmed my suspicion. This shows how important it
really is to make very exact calculations, by using as much decimals as possible and
never simplify equations, a thing many scientists like to do, as I several times noticed.
But however, some Danish guys did laugh at me because I used consequently all 13
available decimals in my calculations. Their argument was that our physical constants
only had few decimals, so I was crazy to do so yeah, there are many ignorant people
out there and they all know that Einstein was right, but only because they read it in
the newspapers

It is not easy to see that this Lorentz-factor really is present, so let me show where
it is hidden; we rewrite equation (13) and get

My humble question is, why did nobody ever think about this and investigate it ?
It was obviously more interesting to follow ideas about time-travel and other rubbish.
As said before, the plus under the square root is because the surface orbital velocity
is imaginary. The reason for this is explained on my page:

http://waseinsteinright.blogspot.com/p/some-thoughts-about-completeness-of.html



QED
C
V
t
k V
R
t
C
R
V
R
m G
R R
m G
R R
t
o
co
E o
co
co
o
co Co co
Co
2
2
4
2 4 8
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0 0
2
0
0 0
0
2
1
2
144
1
1
2
144
2
144
2
2 2 2 2
+

=
+

=


+


=

) 16 (
878 0000024014 , 1 1 ) (
985 0000024014 , 1
1
1
2
2
2
2
= + = +
=

=
C
V
C
V
o
o

So collapse time is given of

Suddenly the Lorentz factor appears just by using Newtons equations and the
result is still made of pure constants. Unfortunately there is maybe reason to doubt
this result, because looking at the speed of the collapse we get this:

This will be a big problem for Einsteinian physicians, because the speed of light seems
not to listen to their requirements and goes square root 2 higher than allowed by
them. I must admit, that under those circumstances I have no problem with it,
because such a mass collapse is a very extreme event, blowing up a mass of that size
in just about 7 microseconds

The deviation from 2 is
Everything still is very consistent with the used constants, which is surprising,
because if all this is just a stupid idea I got by using the factor k
R
, but otherwise
completely wrong in its concept, I still ask my self: how come its working so well ?
However I am convinced that the theory of gravitation by Sir Isaac Newton can
produce everything, and more right then Einsteins theories ever could do it, because
this must be the true equations Mother Nature is giving us (not me, I just found
those equations experimentally and by accident, so its not my theory !!).
So now the linear impulse is given of

and the gravitational and non-linear impulse is given of

Now Albert, what does this say about your principle of equivalence ?
) ( 832 0453194864 , 1 1
2
144
1
2
144
1
2
144
2
2
4
2
2
4 2
0
4
Sek
C
V
k
k
C R
m G
t
o
E
E
Ch
Ch
Co
= +

=
=
+

C
sek
m
t
R R
Co
ko
= =

1 9999711823 , 1 526 , 423967505

0
6
2
2
6
2
0
0 0
1 1 5 0000144090 , 1
1 9999711823 , 1
2
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ = =
C
V
C R
m G
o
2
2
1
C
V
V m P
Lin
=
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
3
0
1 1
C
V
iV m
C
V
R
m G
iP
m
Grav
+ = +

=
) 18 (
) 19 (
) 20 (
) 21 (
) 22 (
To find the energy we integrate equation (21) and get this
But I cannot integrate equation (22) the same way, because when the collapse is done,
there are about 7 microseconds and the velocity (iV
0
) becomes real, so that simply
means that the energy of the explosion is also given by equation (21), calculations
about the energy flux from the collapsed mass confirm that exactly. So here goes
Einsteins E=mC
2
... and what about the holy grail, conservation of energy ? This will
never be accepted, even though it seems to be right, at least to me. Einsteins
Impulse goes to infinity, when the speed approaches the speed of light, but same
time he will let time go to infinity was he sleeping by that time, how big can an
impulse = kg*m/sec be, when sec goes to infinity ?? Answer:


ZERO !


But now back to your doubts and my convictions, you write:

What do you think? Can you explain time dilation to me - how two instances of 'one second' can be different for
two observers - without reverting to 'experiments' or even 'observation'; what I feel is a very easy way out of
having to give a valid reason, and explanation, of something.

First of all, Einsteins bloody stupid observers (and trains struck by lightnings), who
try to observe things practically unobservable for anybody lets through them out,
they are more or less useless, because nobody on earth can observe the time-flow in a
spaceship. And we wont talk about inertial systems either; they make crazy sounds in
my ears and my foot starts looking for a butt to kick. why make things so
complicated whilst they are so easy ?

The universe has mass, space and time, period and the interaction between those
allows the phenomenon energy. With those ingredients alone it makes this fabulous
nightly heaven we can observe with our telescopes. Because of some reason mass has
the somewhat strange tendency of gathering in stars and stars are gathering in
galaxies, that is what we can observe. With good telescopes we also see that stars
are forming in clouds of dust and gas, formerly hydrogen and helium. Exactly how a
star is forming out of a gaseous cloud, is not my concern, I can see it happens and it
must be because of this strange attraction matter has toward matter. Her it
becomes a bit understandable that mainstream physics together with Einstein want
}

= =
C
C m
dV
C
V
V m E
0
2
2
2
3
1
to bend space around matter, but no Newtonian forces can bend something you cant
touch otherwise could the weak Newtonian forces of my arms bend a little space
too, the problem comes when you look for the handles to bend the space. So all what
I can do is bending the space containing a piece of thin iron, or even easier with
copper or tin, but space its self doesnt bend, so this concept is, honestly, absolutely
crazy, and only used because the idea gave so fantastic, but irrational possibilities,
like time-travel and black holes, a finite universe and a point of creation, the Big
Bang, so that even the superfluous pope agreed with physics. How can a grown up
rational person consider a solution like that ?

Every gravitating mass (Sun) has a surface orbital velocity and by the time it has
produced so much iron that the mass no longer is capable of carrying its own weight,
the star is collapsing in its dimensions and the supernova takes over. If the mass is
exactly one Chandrasekhar limit, the mass will disappear in a spherical explosion of a
fantastic dimension, the energy to achieve this masterpiece of destruction is given by
Or quite surprising by our well known constants (just think about that !)

Marius, I am not allowed to doubt this ever, I have to fight for it !

We have seen what happens (collapse) in the situation where the surface orbital
velocity is approaching the speed of light and here it was quite obvious that a certain
factor (Lorentz/Newton) is influencing the time of the process. The only difference
from a linear impulse to a gravitational impulse is the sign under the square root of
the Lorentz factor, or in other words, the difference is in the velocity, which is real
in case of the linear impulse and imaginary in case of the gravitational impulse. This
was never looked at in this way, never ever; I searched the Internet for many nights
to find something indicating that this was considered somewhere, but without any
result. All I could find was stuff even more weird than Einsteins work is.

Now what happens when a linear accelerated device, like a spaceship, should approach
the speed of light ? The answer is like in the gravitational case, the mass would
collapse in its physical dimensions and finally, by the time it has reached the speed of
light, disappear in a spherical radiation of the mass, which now is pure energy
(explosion, I guess), to every direction in the universe. The time of the spaceship
would slow down in its speed until time stands still, which indicates that the speed of
Watt
G
C
P
Ch
52
0
5
10 481 6291847256 , 3 = =
Watt
R
C m
P
t
C m
P
co
Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch
52
3
0
2
10 482 6291847256 , 3 =

=
) 23 (
) 24 (
light is reached. But no observer would ever be capable of observing this; no distance
would shrink, but the dimensions (all three) of the spaceship. Long before the
spaceship has reached the speed of light, every living creature will probably be dead,
because mass is changing in a way which makes biological processes at some time
impossible, but this is an assumption only, anyway human beings will never find out of
it for sure, its impossible.

There is a little, but logical proof for my postulate that mass will shrink in its
dimensions on the way to the speed of light. When they make experiments with
large accelerators, it is observed that close to the speed of light the energy for the
acceleration has to be increased in order to achieve higher velocities. When the mass
is collapsing in its physical dimension with this factor:

it becomes quite understandable that they have to increase the energy to the
accelerator, because the coupling factor from the accelerating field is decreasing
with the same factor and that could be judged as an increasing mass, if you believe in
fairy tales also ! Now all this and very much more, can be found consistently just by
making the assumption I made:

The speed of light multiplied by the package factor for spherical atoms equals
the radius of the Chandrasekhar limit.

But now the final attempt of an explanation, how come that there is a thing that can
act at the distance, without any physical connection. What is a gravitational force and
why can it act at the distance ? I have thought long time about it in the last 12 years
of research and the most probable answer was coming after I had a look at the
consequences of all this for the dimensions of our physical constants. So my answer
to that is as follows:

Gravitational time dilation has to be accepted as a fact and we can, even though its
difficult, measure a time gradient, which is decreasing as you move away from the
source of gravitational force. Those experiments where done so often with positive
results, proving not Einstein, but the Lorentz-factor, that we are not allowed to say
the measurements where wrong. The last and very accurate experiment was made
with the satellite Gravity Probe, this satellite should prove that space is bend and
08694784 , 208204
3
4
144
2
12
4
2
=
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

E
k
m C R
Ch
76393 , 443183623
144
4
= =

) 25 (
) 26 (
that is what they believe, but actually it proved that there is a detectable time
gradient around the gravitating Mother Earth.

So we can say that a mass placed in an area where a time gradient is present, is
accelerated in the direction of slowest speed of time, which is the surface of the
gravitating mass. A mass has physical proportions, so on one side, the side closest to
the surface of the gravitating mass, time-flux is a little bit slower then on the
opposite side and this forces the mass to move until it meets resistance at the
surface of the mass it is fallen down, so we (I) conclude that a time gradient is
equivalent to a force. This difference in time-flux is of cause continuing at the
surface of the gravitating mass and that is the cause for weight. That is the origin of
the force acting at a distance, and is the reason why mass is hard and why atoms do
exist. Atoms are in time frozen fractions of a stream of energy. That may sound very
exotic, but this is my explanation.
So since invisible strings made of nothing cannot pull a mass in any direction, it can
only be the time-gradient, simply because there is no other thing as mass, space and
time and all three of them can make energy, by acting together ! In fact mass is in
time frozen energy. But mass doesnt like to be frozen in time, so it attracts other
mass until there is enough mass to let supernova again give freedom. This leaves still
many questions to be answered, but I prefer to see it that way.

So lets have a look at this, I made some calculations about the size of an iron planet
just big enough to let 1 kg of mass feel the force of 1 Newton, the mass of this
planet is about 1926,8755 times smaller then planet Earth and will have a
gravitational acceleration 1 m/sec
2
. The mass in this example is iron (7860 kg/m
3
) and
the weight is 3,1013937975721E21 kg with a radius of 455004,04 meter. From the
centre of this planet to its surface is a time deviation of 0,9999999999975, this
means that one second in the centre (where no gravitational forces are acting) of the planet
is standard second of the universe, (if we for a moment assume the universe empty of mass,
only our small iron planet is existing) but on the surface of our iron planet this one second is
only 0,9999999999975 seconds long. So when you measure the time difference from
centre to surface and the difference is 0,0000000000025 seconds, then you know
that there is a force of 1 Newton, acting on 1 kilogram mass. In other words the
speed of the time flow is only 299792457,99925 instead of 299792458 m/sec. The
speed of light is still c=299792458 m/sec, but when your planet should collapse it
needs only to gain 299792457,99925 m/sec because it already has a surface orbital
velocity of 674, 5398728778 m/sec, but imaginary velocity ! Velocities in gravitation
are added and subtracted this way:

sec m sum V
V C sum V
/ 99925 , 299792457 ) (
) 5398728778 , 674 2999792458 ( ) ( ) (
2 / 1 2 2 2 / 1 2 2
=
= =
As you see, to be accurate I should have calculated with more decimals then I have
on my calculator. But it is the surface orbital velocity determining the time dilation
and usually its so small we can forget about it and we do, but this is the origin of
gravitational forces. You have to remember that the dimension Newton for a force
is a pure human concept; well every dimension for physical values is human made.

This must be the right explanation; I just hope that the description is not too
confusing, since English is not my mother language.

And the difference from gravitational to magnetic forces is nothing but the
dimension of time, as I have seen. As an example: The gravitational force of a planet
on its self has dimension Newton/sec
6
, but the force between to electrical charges
has dimension Newton/sec
18
gravitational energy is Watt/sec
8
, but the energy
between to charges has the same dimension all this is still to examine closer, what I
not yet had time to do. And all this is explaining why quantum mechanics are so weird
that even the elite is sometimes arguing that something may be missing yes it is !
So basically I agree with you that time (a second) is the same in every place in the
infinite universe, with the exception of the time surrounding a gravitational body and
the time for a fast moving vehicle of some kind. But this does not shrink the distance
to a star in any way, or increases the mass of this vehicle. It increases the density !!
Apart from that are those time dilations so small, that its crazy to argue that time in
the universe is relative, but this relativity, caused by the average density of the
universe, is the reason why far away supernova explosions seem to be stretched in
time. At the end of the article about Olbers paradox, on my page, is a copy of an
article from the magazine Sky and Telescope, describing a very very far supernova.

So when a quantum of plasma by some reason reaches the speed of light it freezes in
time, because time is, for this small particle alone, standing still. Think about it this
is why mass exists in time; you can see it today, tomorrow and next year. The
question still is, why exactly the weight of a hydrogen atom, which is the Lego brick
of all matter, and why exactly with the physical dimensions given ?

The number of atoms in the Chandrasekhar limit Na
Ch
and the constant k
R
give the
radius of the iron atom


m
mp m
R
Na
C R
Fe
Fe
Ch
Fe
10
3 / 1
3
3 / 1
3
3 / 1
8
2
10 371 2397240530 , 1
7860 144 4
56 3
7860 144 4
3
144

=
|
|
.
|

\
|


=
|
|
.
|

\
|


=
|
|
.
|

\
|

) 27 (
And this gives the radius of the hydrogen atom (not the Bohr radius)


The radius of the iron atom and the hydrogen atom are related this way
Up to this point everything fits beautiful and I can get the connection to the
hydrogen atom of Niels Bohr, but as soon I try to calculate the other atoms density
and radius, difficulties arise and I cant calculate their density, yet I am still
searching for a connection, with some desperation, because that would finish the
whole thing.

Now I tried to the best of my abilities explaining why I have this believe, this
conviction of the function of the universe. I dont know whether or not I hit the
head of the nail with my explanation, but for now I think I should stop and let you
read my wild thoughts. Hope that it will tell you more, or better, enough and it
doesnt matter if you should agree with me

Since your question triggered me, I will make some new calculations with about 50
decimals, hopefully to show the exact equivalence between a time gradient and the
gravitational forces. I will send you the results as soon as I finished them.

Hope you have a nice day
Bernhardt
m
mp
R
H
11
3 / 1
10 85 6913340791 , 3
7860 4
3

=
|
.
|

\
|


=

m R R
m R R
H Fe
Fe H
10
3 / 1
4
11
3 / 1
4
10 375 2397240530 , 1
144
56
10 85 6913340791 , 3
56
144

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
= |
.
|

\
|

) 28 (
) 29 (
) 30 (