Hello to all:

I have been working on a different approach to the magnetic moment
anomaly, pieces of which I have asked about in some recent posts.

I have now put enough together to give everyone an idea of where I am
headed with this, in the file linked below. (Download and open if left
click does not work.)

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/second-order-anomaly-1.pdf

I would appreciate any comments as to whether this is possibly on a
fruitful track in general, and of course, any specific comments or
corrections as well.

The main demonstration of the paper as of this rough draft, is to show
that by employing a wavefunction *different than* a plane-wave
wavefunction, the gyromagnetic g-factor will necessarily differ from
g=2.

ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE = INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Note:
AP = Anthropic Principle
ID = Intelligent Design
ST = Secular Trend
SPOG = Scientific Proof Of God

There IS such a thing as ID, but it is not what Dembski
and Behe think it is.

Hammond (2003) has published the world's first SPOG (copy
of peer published paper posted on website below).

This proof shows that "God" is caused by the ST in human
growth, specifically brain growth.

The average person is only 80%% fully grown according to
ST data. Hence the average person only has the Intelligence
of a 14 year old... the entire adult human race on average
only has a mental age of 14!

Electricity is a repulsive force. But where is the other pole or
opposite charge which gives attraction?

There is matter time and background empty space-time. Matter time is
the property of time possessed by a clock in motion through space. All
clocks are in motion as Einstein said: there is no absolute rest.
Matter in motion has slightly slower time property than the the empty
time continuum. Empty time is fastest time that light moves through
and possesses.

Mitch Raemsch; Time is Two Continuums

I am just beginning to grapple with relativity theory and am hoping
somebody here can answer my (possibly 'fuckin stooopid') questions
within the framework of the 'orthodox theory of relativity' (Read:
Cranks, please don't apply).

Consider a universe devoid of all matter and energy except for a test
body X and two observers A and B.

Let's suppose A is 'inertial' and (by definition, since X is free)
observes X to follow a straight world-line. Further, suppose that B is
'non-inertial' and (again, by definition) observes X to follow a
curved world-line. According to (my currently naive understanding of)
GTR, each observer can describe the observed world-line of X as a
geodesic of their spacetime with respect to a metric tensor field they
derive from Einstein's equation.

Now this makes sense for A, because there is (essentially) no matter
or energy in the universe, so Einstein's equation yields a flat metric
tensor (I imagine - I won't pretend to have demonstrated this claim).
But how does B explain the curvature in his metric tensor when his
universe (being the same as that of A) is also devoid of matter or
energy?

Have you ever built a sandcastle? It is funny, isn't it?
Gravity at large scales is like wet sand, it is adherent.
Now, choose a spatial flat region in that sandy beach.
Build your sandcastle. Call that castle a galaxy. Now, pay
attention to the surroundings of your castle, you have
moved sand from those surroundings to be piled up in
your castle. What does it mean? Your castle can be regarded
as a positive distribution of energy density with respect to
the flat sandy beach, but the surroundings of your castle
now have a negative distribution of energy density. What
does it mean a spatial region with negative energy density?
If light propagates at speed c in a region with zero energy
density, d=0, then in a region with d<0 the light would travel
faster, and in a region with positive energy density, d>0, light
would travel slower. So, the dark matter halos of galaxies are
actually outer regions with d<0. Outer stars in galactic disks
near the halos would still be in slightly negative energy densities.
The conclusion is, we observe flat galactic rotation curves
for galaxies, and even for clusters of galaxies, because of our
privileged position of the solar system inside the Milky Way. ...

Acceleration creates new motion and therefore new mass by the Gamma
factor.

Mitch Raemsch

<

<
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/37/22/23112237.jpg
<
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
<
http://www.edconrad.com
<
=====
<

Hi Ng

I'm researching quaternions in physics and came to a formular for G by
this method.
Now I don't know if that makes any sense.
It's a quote from my text:
http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6&skipauth=true

The turn of the orientation has the effect of an inverse. A switch would
gain a conjugate. To get the energy related to mass, we change from
timelike to spacelike and have to square c to get the energy. The shadow
area is supposed to be a measure for the strength of a force. We have to
square that again to compare gravity to Coulomb force or have something
in the area of c^4 (8.1 *10^33 m^4/s^4).
There is a factor needed (not yet known) to interchange the 'form'.
First guess: m*M*G*r=e²/4¶ r ε, r=c*t, t(r)=r²(t)/2e
G=t²/8¶ c²t² εm²=1/(8*¶ *ε*c^4)

What I actually did is this: I claimed that the energy in a
gravitational field of an object should be the same as in the electric
field and put the formulars for gravity equal to em-force.
Then follow some tricks with quaternions and then I came to this formula.

"The Einstein Hoax"

The Einstein Hoax was written to counter an intellectual "fast shuffle"
which used Dr. Einstein's Special Relativity (which is easily seen to be a
mathematical copy of the earlier Lorentz Transformations...