Nov 13 2007
The Comets
Comet McNaught, C/2006 P1, reached apogee around the Sun at the time of the local publicity on the gravity theory with the newspaper articles and an interview on television. I think of the designation for this comet as follows:
C: for my wife Cynthia;
2006: the year the comet was first spotted, even though pictures from late 2005 showed it;
P: for momentum, the increased electron momentum making the Coulomb force the final mediator of the gravitational force, and the theory a unification theory;
1: for the quantum intrinsic spin number of a photon, though some physicists say that gravity must have an intrinsic spin of 2 to be always attractive.
Comet Holmes, on the other hand, partially blew up on October 24, 2007. This was the two year anniversary of the day the main calculation was started. The main calculation was finished November 12, 2005, a Saturday because I don’t get paid to be a physicist.
About the intrinsic spin, think of gravity as two separate actions after a graviton has been generated. One is the absorption of a graviton by an electron in an atomic orbital, and the second is the resultant centripetal Coulomb force. On average, electrons in a body would have greater mass when traveling in the direction of where the highest flux density of gravitons is coming from. Since an electron gains mass by absorbing a massless photon, which is possible due to special relativity, an intrinsic spin of 1 works out.
Of the two hundred or so emails sent out to scientists, thank you to the small few who responded. I am also very appreciative to the three PhD physicists who each read and analyzed my paper at some point along the way, and gave me feedback.
Just think, in the free world some of your tax dollars may still be going to support string theory!
Quoting Kevin: “On average, electrons in a body would have greater mass when traveling in the direction of where the highest flux density of gravitons is coming from.”
I think that this sentence pulled it all together for me, and now the mechanics of the theory really make sense to me. Even after having understood the ball on a string gaining mass and thus pulling outward analogy, this helped it make sense in a situation where there are large masses and “gravitational fields”. All in all this theory just seems to have that beautifully simple ring of truth to it. The absence of which made me instantly skeptical of, and never comfortable with, string theory when I first learned about it.