Confirmed: Scientists Understand Where Mass Comes From

By Eliza Strickland | November 21, 2008 10:54 am

quarks gluonsThe standard model of physics got it right when it predicted where the mass of ordinary matter comes from, according to a massive new computational effort. Particle physics explains that the bulk of atoms is made up of protons and neutrons, which are themselves composed of smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks [accounts for] only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent? [AFP]

The answer, according to theory, is that the energy from the interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass (because as Einstein‘s famous E=mc² equation proved, energy and mass are equivalent). Gluons are the carriers of the strong nuclear force that binds three quarks together to form one proton or neutron; these gluons are constantly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron [New Scientist]. The new study finally crunched the numbers on how much energy is created in these fluctuations and confirmed the theory, but it took a supercomputer over a year to do so.

The theory that describes the interactions of quarks and gluons is known as quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. These exchanges bind quarks together by changing a quark property known as color charge. This charge is similar to electric charge but comes in three different types, whimsically referred to as red, green and blue. Six different types of quarks interact with eight varieties of gluons to create a panoply of elementary particles [Science News]. Calculating these interactions was a massive task, as researchers explain in an article in Science [subscription required]. The team used more than a year of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops – or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second [New Scientist].

But what, you may be saying, of the Higgs boson? The Higgs is often mentioned as an elusive particle that endows other particles with mass, and the Large Hadron Collider will search for it when it starts up again next year. But the Higgs is thought to explain only where the mass of the quarks themselves comes from. The new work confirms that the mass of the stuff around us is due only in very small part to the masses of quarks themselves. Most of it comes from the way they interact [Nature News].

Related Content:
DISCOVER: The Glue That Holds the World Together tells the strange story of gluons
DISCOVER: Beyond the Higgs: the LHC might see the quark-gluon plasma that existed just after the Big Bang
80beats: All Systems Go for World’s Largest Particle Smasher

Image: Forschungszentrum Julich/Seitenplan with materials from NASA, ESA, and AURA/Caltech

  • Uncle Al

    The Higgs mechanism is discounted by 95% before the LHC looks! Contemporary physical theory derives from deep mathematical symmetries. Empirical reality is all about symmetry breakings. Yang and Lee demonstrated the hubris of elegance over utility. Approximate physical theory can fail. Gravitation is flummoxed by discrete mass distributions,
    (stereogram) Centers of mass gravitation between the diagonal pair diverges 3.66% difference/average from 28 handshakes projected upon the center of mass line and summed.

    Isotropic vacuum demands angular momentum conservation through Noether’s theorem. Lab and cosmological vacuum EM show perfect isotropy. Equivalence Principle tests validate the massed sector. Do left and right shoes fall identically? If reality is teleparallel gravitation with spacetime torsion, opposed solid single crystals of quartz in space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 will give a net non-zero Eotvos experiment output. Their atomic mass distributions are non-superposable mirror images: 0.113 nm^3 shoes gaplessly 3-D tesselated into self-similar 10^23-member crystals.

    Elegant physical theory is fundamentally wrong for having a falsified founding postulate if the EP has a parity violation. Failure of quantized gravitations is implicit. The nature of mass remains undecided. Somebody should perform the parity Eotvos experiment. Somebody should look.

  • Remigiusz Zarosinski

    Dear Sirs
    I apologize for my English but I hope you try to unerstand what I am writting about and
    I have adequate reason you will be interested to ask for more details of the Universal Theory of the Universe.
    The theory that describes the interactions of quarks and gluons is wrong because interpretation of results of experiments is wrong.
    The Univers started by creating time-space. There are points in time-space and a distance
    between two points is unchangeable. Every point has a force / gravitron / whose value is conditional upon whole energy /also transformed in a mater/ near the point.
    The existence of gravitrons is vital for development and existence of the Universe.
    When value of a gravitron overrun max the force is broken and the point evolves a black
    hole which open for the Universe a new dimension to conquer Emath / the Entity in which
    the Universe was born. During growing of The Universe from the begining new crated elements neccesery to build the time-space where created with surplus which was transformed in static energy / heat, pressure../.Valiue of static energy was increasing and also value of gravitrons.When value of gravitron extended max it created 1st black hole
    and it was begining of transformation from static to kinetic energy.Reducing of the intensity of heat was begining of transformation of energy into a mater.When gravity in a center of the Universe droped to zero the waves of energy moved 1st to the Center and next
    decontractered to meet incoming.It created new black holes, lowered heat and was begining of galaxies.
    The quarks are seeds of time-space and when one reached Emeth not conquered by time-space it created ne point of time-space.It is very important that gravitrons push away quarks from points of time-space and controle movement of a mater in time -space .
    Gravitron has also another very important assigments.One is to continue to register an energy level of the point of time space.Yes !! it is the way the Universe register also what you say what you think and what you dream.We are elements of next transformation from
    energy of life to energy of inteligence.We not only register information / senses / but we also
    process them.We use a brain but also a computers.Do we help the Universe how to process
    all informations registred from every point of the time-space? Possible. Think about
    consequences.I believe that in near future we can download some stored informations to create threedimensional movie from any time and any place from the past to verify not
    what the peple were talking about but at the same time we will know what they were thinking. Politics be aware.
    As you probably see it the electromagnetic field and gravity field are the unite.
    As you know our galaxy and we are moving through the time-space with wery high velocity.Gravitrons control movment of a nuclei.But think about an electron.Is it a part of an atom? And what about its dualism? No! the electron is no part of the atom.The nuclei
    moving near a point of time-space / its mass/ raises gravity and exposes electrons ,released by gravitrons .The gravitron leashed an electron till it accumulate quantum of energy it needs to conquer the Emeth.It is why a gravitron rises when level of any energy near the point rises.
    I am writting science papers to prove my theory.I need time.I know it will revolutionize our
    knowledge about the Universe, and not only in physics .
    Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions.
    Remy Zarosinski

  • peet

    What is it with all these rambling psuedo-physics kooks?

  • Remigiusz Zarosinski

    Dear Peet

    Do you still believe that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is the center of Universe?
    Do you know that your body is 95% “empty space” ?
    Do you know velocity of your body in your movement through time-space ?
    Do you know what did happen during an experiment in Hadron Cillider?
    I had emailed them before to forewarn very high probability /and way /that it could happen.I did not cook it?
    If you think that my theory is wrong say it. It is possible that I see what I want to see not what is to see. Or what is so apparent for me is to difficult to see for you because your believes, what you were taught.
    I apologized for my English but I think you can understend the concept.

  • pete

    so if someone can reduce energy, the mass will be reduced. Therefor, it becomes weight less?.

  • george

    If mass is energy then that energy from one end of a mass must be transmitted through the whole mass to the area of the mass that is being say pushed. (for example the side of a heavy pendulum that is being pushed by a hand touching it only in one spot.)

    therefore if there was a way to interrupt the flow of that energy through the mass then you would decrease the object’s resistance to being pushed – its inertia.
    very interestingimplications.

    it means inertia can be controlled by putting an energy insulator in the middle of an object.

  • Ragarnok

    So there is no Higgs particle? the guys at the LHC are not going to like this ;)

  • Anon


    Matter and energy are the same thing (there’s a famous formula equating the two, E = mc²), so by definition, space with nothing in it is mass-less.

  • A Farking Physicist

    As a quantum physicist, I’m really getting a kick out of these comments.

  • kevinc

    I take interest in this stuff when I read it, but I’m no student of it. So let me see if I understand.

    When you measure the mass of a proton or neutron from a distance, you get some amount. But when you look closely at the quarks that comprise the particle, you only find 5% of that amount? And this is because 95% of the mass is not sitting in the quarks but moving between them as energy. Right?

    Assuming that was right — Does this mean that a particle with mass is the same as a bundle of energy that stays clumped together? A proton is a clump of energy made of three clumps that are quarks and lots of filler called gluons? Just like an atom has clumps called protons, neutrons, etc. If so then I think I understand the single mass-energy concept much better.

    So does this mean that if energy moves around from your perspective, it doesn’t pull you with gravity, but if you step back far enough away that it appears to hold still, i.e. it comprises a particle, it does pull you? Could the mass of an object depend on how much energy it has, and how tightly that energy is kept together? Does the swirling energy that comprises a particle produce an interference pattern over time as the particle moves, and is that responsible for particles having properties of waves?

    Well I guess I will be thinking about quantum physics all day now. :) Will someone with more education please clarify this stuff for me?

  • pat

    comments on science-news sites are laugh-out-loud delicious.

  • Conrad J Countess

    This is Conrad Countess

    The origin of mass has to be space itself or the vacuum, as it is not totally empty and has a ground state energy from and within which the universe expands. And sense energy and mass are equivalent, the most basic mass of the universe has to be the ground state energy / mass of the vacuum. Matter gets its mass from space which it is a condensation of; and its motion in space, sense mass also comes from motion. Einstein was right when he said that ?matter is a manifestation of the curvature of space-time? because it is space ? time condensed from particles of space energy in circular and or spherical rotation.

    E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), in other words the rest mass of a particle comes from the circular and/ or spherical motion that it acquires when the angular momentum and speed of the wave when frequency momentum is high enough and equals and balances the speed and momentum of the wave along the linear path, for a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces resulting in circular and or spherical motion. This is why energy equals matter at the conversion factor of c^2 because c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion facto it is an actual conversion frequency where energy turns to matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical form at this frequency/ wavelength of c^2.

    This is what c^2 means geometrically…… Analogous to a line of 1 inch in the horizontal direction times a line of 1 inch in the vertical or 90 degree angular direction to create a square inch, the speed of light in the linear direction times the speed of light in the 90 degree angular direction gives rise to a 90 degree arc which if constant creates circular motion and a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces. This is how a wave turns to a particle and energy acquires rest mass.

    Long version:

    Short version:

    Conrad Countess

  • d

    My brain just exploded, this is why I dropped phsyics and switched to buisness

  • Amos Kenigsberg (Discover Web Editor)

    Howdy. I appreciate that some folks may have a different perspective on some of the big questions about how the universe works, but we’re really focused on the generally accepted major theories of science, and I’d like to try to keep the discussion focused around that.

    Lots of questions here, but just a quick reply: Mass is equivalent to energy in some senses, but it’s not entirely the same. Protons and quarks are particles, not clumps of energy. The energy of the quark interactions does have a certain mass, though—and in fact that’s most of the mass of the proton.

  • Randomhero

    I have limited knowledge about this. So please correct me if i’m wrong.
    Isn’t c (speed of light) constant? Because this would mean that the total mass/ energy would be constant, either on macro or micro lvl, since one of the longest standing law in physics is the preservation of energy.
    I’m probly to dumb for this stuff :/
    Anyway, bummer for HLC

  • Amos Kenigsberg (Discover Web Editor)

    Hey, random. Constant mass/energy of what? c is definitely constant — part of the reason why Einstein called his theory “invariance” rather than “relativity.” In this case, Eliza (who’s on vacation) was talking about the — yes, constant — mass/energy of a proton.

    And this isn’t actually bad news for the LHC! They’re not surprised at all that most of the mass is actually coming from the energy associated with the strong force; it’s been know for some time. They suspect that the presumed Higgs is only responsible for the other 5 percent of mass.

  • ConradCountess

    Hi Amos Kenigsberg (Discover Web Editor)
    This is Conrad Countess again
    How nice it is to get the attention of the (Discovery Web Editor)
    I did not know that you wanted to keep the discussion on generally accepted ideas in physics, I thought the discussion was about, “understanding the origin of mass” and that this was a new discovery, not generally accepted or known.
    So I will just say one more thing and than leave you to your preferred topic
    Here is a very short description, easily understood, concerning the origin of mass.

    Anyone can comment on it or not. And sorry about the typos in the first post as I was in a rush and did not get to edit it. this one is much neater, I promise

    Conrad Countess

  • ApaulO

    I don’t know if you have ever tried this, but it works well for me.

    When you are having a discussion with someone and it becomes a bit ‘technical’ and you feel you are losing ground, quickly interject “E=mc²″ and then turn and walk away.

    E²S… Einstein Exit Strategy

    ok, back to u, egghead.

  • Conrad J Countess

    Hi this is Conrad Countess
    E=mc^2 does not have to be intimidating
    If people look at my geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 objectively, they will no longer be intimidated by it because it is really so simple. If you ask most physicist what E=mc^2 means, they will say that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, and that energy and matter are equivalent and related through mathematical conversion factor (c^2), but they never explain exactly how.
    Well, with this geometrical interpretation, I can show how energy turns to and gets trapped inside of matter. This is because (c^2) is not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, but an actual conversion frequency, where energy tuns to matter, because it gets trapped inside of a closed loop of rotation, which changes a wave to a particle. Analogous to a (line of 1 inch in the horizontal direction times a line of 1 inch in the versicle direction to equal a square inch), (c in the horizontal direction times c in the vertical or 90 degree angular direction creates a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle and a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces for circular and or spherical motion)..
    I can explain this to children and non physicist and they seem to understand it immediately, while physicist tend not to or just pre-tend not to. But really there is no way around it and the truth of it will eventually have to be acknowledged.
    The fierce competition among physicist to make a name for themselves, and to acquire grant money, encourages some to be more concerned with whose right than whats right. And as such, even if you present undeniable evidence, they will never acknowledge it. What a terrible situation for such a prestigious subject and noble people.
    Just look at this email correspondence between me and “Sylvester James Gates”, one of the narrators of “Einsteins Big Idea”, on Nova.
    I sure would like to get him in a debate on Discover website, channel, or magazine. As a matter of fact I”m issuing a challenge to Professor Gates and these prestigious media of science. If you are truly interested in what is scientifically right over who is right, debate or interview me about this.

    Conrad Countess

  • justme

    WOW! I’m not sure if I feel dumber or smarter for running across this article/comments.

  • Dumber!

    I never understood what E=MC2 really mean’t except for the fact that Albert Einstein used it in relation to the Atomic bomb (I am not sure if that statement is right either lol).

    However, after reading what Conrad Countess wrote, I do have a better understanding of the equation.

  • Dude

    Einstein, at first, claimed that the concept of an atomic bomb was impossible; After the success of the Manhattan project he “changed his mind”, but even if he simply made that statement to prevent the creation of such a heinous weapon it is a mistake to say he was involved.
    @ Conrad Countess
    The concepts you describe in your various linked articles and even in these posts are beyond me and although I would very much like debate some of those points I would most likely find myself lacking, but I would make one critique of your argument if I may: The ability to explain a concept to a child and not a scientist is by no means proves the concept is simple and/ or correct. The scientist has a great deal of education and experience and is therefore far better able to counter your argument and to catch any assumptions or miscalculations; although, I will admit that the competition between scientists is another possible explanation. Either way, if your findings can be either mathematically proven or better yet physically proven through experimentation they will have no choice but to acknowledge your work.

    I’m sorry this comment has very little to do with the article at hand :(

  • Douglas

    To the actual physicists who will inevitably read all these comments and have a good laugh at the expense some of the ignorant masses (bad pun), go easy on us. You are in a position to make this really complex stuff somewhat accessible to a population that finds it absolutely fascinating. Sagan thought this was noble (and profitable) enough to spend a good deal of his life bringing bits and pieces of science down to our level. When you do that, sure we might take these bits and pieces and run in some crazy directions, but just keep pointing us in the right direction. Its for you own good. I am convinced that a lot of public support and funding comes not just from the potential practicality of your discoveries but from the wonder that articles like the one above inspire.

  • Tayga

    Douglas, go easy on yourself. Many modern physicists are just good mathematicians who have forgotten what Einstein said: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” I have a sneaking feeling that much of the 20th Century paradigm in physics will be thrown out in the next 20 years. That includes the expanding universe, Einstein’s gravitation AND the natural occurrence of hadrons smaller than protons and neutrons. Physicists can talk beautifully, after all they are very clever. But they haven’t convincingly explained or demonstrated much in the past 100 years.

  • Tayga

    Tayga: I think a lot of physicists would be pretty pissed off with you saying that. We’ve demonstrated a lot in the past century. The problem is that most of it isn’t at an intuitive level and is difficult to understand without specialist knowledge (except at a conceptual level). Gone are the days when one man could hold in his head the sum of all modern scientific knowledge. Now, a scientist studying electromagnetism probably couldn’t remember the Lorentz transformations off the top of their head, for example.

    Einstein’s gravitation won’t be thrown out either. For the same reason we still use Newton. It’s a good approximation if nothing else. Science is a world of approximations; models that help us understand the world around us. If we took it to be the absolute truth then there would be no more progress.

    We are reaching the experimental limits of what we can discover about the small scale structure of the universe which may put a stop on things for a while. I agree that many modern theories are just mathematical constructs with little bearing on reality: assumptions that fit the sensibilities of those working on it rather than having much concrete reasoning. String theory is the worst offender in this case. However, out of this will develop the correct theory, well, the theory closer to the truth. Whether we will ever truly understand the nature of reality is up for debate, but the iterative process of the scientific method will bring us ever closer.

  • Xsjado

    Oops, sorry. Somehow put the wrong name in the name field. I am the above.

    Tayga isn’t schizophrenic.

  • lulu

    Tayga, there is no question that quarks exist. The question that most physicists refuse to ask is- Are they a precursor or a derivative?

    Some time in the last 50 years, we started confusing “smaller” and “fundamental”.

    When I hear many collider scientist talk, I often feel like they are trying to convince us that toast is a fundamental precursor to bread.

    Xsjado- Wholly agree with your 2nd 2 paragraphs, but your first paragraph springs from the meme of modern scientific posturing. Go be pissed of… It doesn’t change the fact that the number of major breakthroughs per scientist has been in decline for 50 years.

    Replacing belief with truth is exactly what scientists should aspire to do. Unfortunately, modern physics has focused on replacing belief with math.

  • drew hempel

    O.K. but what about Moffat’s new book REDEFINING GRAVITY. It seems to take this new result into a larger framework of discussion, undermining it’s supposed validation of anything.

  • drew hempel

    Sorry I meant John Moffat’s REINVENTING GRAVITY. I’ll email him to see his take. Thanks.

  • Conrad J Countess

    I appreciate your comment and hope that you really did understand E=mc^2 better after reading my work.

    I appreciate your comment too. You say that the concepts I describe are beyond you, but they are not. Maybe I need to do a better job of explaining them to you, or maybe you just like debating. I think that I have provided mathematical proof for it if you look again at the logic and geometry of the concept. But it is much easier to explain and demonstrate in person and that is one reason why I really would like to be interviewed by Discover Web Editor, Magazine, or TV show. As for debating I would like to debate Professor “Sylvester James Gates Jr of Nova because of what he said in email

    not to be disrespectful, but because I know that I am right

    Suppose that I am right. Would it not be worth it to all parties involved, generating much interest, and a better understanding, after over 100 years of E=mc^2. to understand geometrically how energy gets trapped inside of and turns to matter at the mathematical conversion factor of c^2. And suppose that I am right again, would it not be a tragedy and irresponsibility, to let such a discovery go unexamined and unexplored by the scientific community at large.

    It is precisely because c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, but an actual conversion frequency where energy turns to matter because it gets trapped in a closed loop of rotation. We know the mathematical formula E=mc^2, but the geometry gives the math form and contains much more information than just the formula alone. When c in the linear direction equals and balances c in the 90 degree angular direction, for a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, this results in circular and or spherical motion. The 2 forces at a 90 degree angle to each other create a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle. This is analogous to a line of 1 inch in the horizontal direction times a line of 1 inch in vertical direction equaling a square. Energy in motion, following this 90 degree angle, follows a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle. This is c^2 and the point at which energy or E = matter or m. This is precisely why E= mc^2.

    Now we have a geometrical picture of this equation which I can describe much better if I am interviewed.

    I really would like to here from Amos Kenigsberg (Discover Web Editor).
    This article is about the origin of mass, and an understanding of the geometry of E=mc^2 will add to that understanding. As an editor, do you have an obligation to dig deeper into an idea if it is a good one or are you restricted to just generally accepted major theories of science. Post like these can reveal a wide range of ideas from extremely bad ones to extremely good. Will you let the good ones go by.
    Discovery website can be a discoverers, discoverer and that could be another good story.
    I am an independent researcher and discoverer who has confidence in his work and wants to call attention to it. Not just to get attention for myself, but because it may very well be a major contribution to the scientific knowledge base of humanity.

    Conrad J Countess

  • Mike S

    Very cool story, understandably nonlinear debate, very cool story!

  • Conrad J Countess

    I just thought of an excellent way to sum this up. The geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 as E=mc (circled), explains the nature and origin of rest mass. From what I gather, rest mass is the mass that these scientist, who spent billions on the LHC and 100 trillion calculations a second for a year more or less on, were looking for. Most physicist consider space and photons to be massless and so were more concerned with finding the origin of rest mass. But really space is not massless as it has a ground state energy = to h and neither are photons, which have mass/energy = to M or E=hf/c^2. And furthermore rest mass is just (relative mass in closed loop rotation) when energy or (E) (equals) (=) a frequency (hf), where the linear speed and momentum equals and balances the 90 degree angular speed and momentum or (c^2), for a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces to enable circular and or spherical motion. Thus (c^2) directly corresponds to(h/2pi) which is also energy in circular motion, as well as Einstein’s and Minkowski’s, (ct).
    So there you have it… another more simpler explanation of the origin of rest mass.
    This is from a passages in
    article on String Theory by, Michio Kako, August 2005 Discovery.

    Einstein once said that “the creative principle
    resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true
    that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.” If so,
    some enterprising physicist could vindicate string theory as early as
    tomorrow. The remarkable proof of the theory might not cost years of
    effort and billions of dollars. It might come instead from the most
    basic tools of science: paper, pencil, and a human brain.

    You can say the same thing of the nature and origin of rest mass, if one considers this geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2. Because its already been done. There is no way around it and the large expensive projects alluded to will only confirm it

    I’ll bet all my credibility on this and challenge any physicist in the world to disprove it, and any physicist in the world with objectivity, guts, and more concern about, (what is right) than (who is right), to collaborate it

    Conrad J Countess

  • Conrad J Countess

    In above post it should read. Thus (c^2) directly corresponds to(h/2pi) which is also energy in circular motion, as well as Einstein’s and Minkowski’s, (ct x square root of -1), but browser did not process symbol for square root.


  • PaleBlueDot

    Conrad: Armchair physicists are a dime a dozen. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who with no education or background claim to have “come up with the most revolutionary and ground shaking idea since Newton got hit in the head with an apple”. Everyone wants to be the next Einstein; to be remembered as the guy who was so smart he revolutionized the world with the sheer force of his intellect, and do it without any actual training. I can respect that, because it is a fairly awesome fantasy. The difference between most people and Einstein is that while he was never 100% confident in his theories, almost all armchair scientists are so completely sure that they are right, that no matter what anyone says, it is impossible to convince them that they are wrong.

    Conrad, your arguments and assertions that you are right cause you to reek of this undebatable certainty. This is not to say that you are wrong. I’m not a particle physicist, I’m a student studying meteorology, actually. For all I know you could be right on the money, but until you firm everything up, and stop being so darn certain that you are right, nobody is going to want to touch it.

    Probably the best thing you can do is to stop throwing down your melodramitic glove to challenge the physics community to these “duels of credibility”. Instead, ask a Mathmetician or a Physicist to review your math, just to make sure there’s not any terrible calculation errors. This part is NOT a debate of the substance of your theory, it’s just to make sure that your equations are sound and you didn’t, for example, misplace a decimal point or forget to carry a 2 or something. It’s important that you do this though, since often people can be blind to errors in their own work.

    The next challenge I have for you is to try and translate your theory into an algorithm that can be coded into a computer model, and then see if you can get someone out there with time on their hands to code it for you.

    The last part is probably the hardest. Try to find time on a supercomputer to crunch your process. If your theory is sound, or even fairly close, you should be able to model it on a powerful computer. Essentially, that’s what the researchers in the original article did. They had an idea, they fleshed it out, created a computer model of their idea, and when they ran it, the model produced the expected results, that matched with their observations in the real world.

    My point is that real physicists aren’t just simply indoctrinated with some mystical knowledge from a book that simply sprang into existence one day, they’ve arrived at their conclusions with rigorous (and often very expensive) testing, retesting, refining, testing some more, etc… If you want to be taken seriously, you have to show some sort of shred that you’ve persued beyond the “I know I’m right and an article in a ‘science for non-scientists (Discover, SciAm, etc)’ magazine seems to sort of support me” phase, and make you’re idea more testable.

  • Conrad J Countess

    Hi PaleBlueDot

    That was a very educated way to talk down to someone and maybe I should be offended.
    Or maybe I’m just to dumb to be offended or just to confident. What do you think? Why do you insist on concentrating on the way I say something instead of what I am saying, because you are missing the point.
    Sometimes you have to be bold and confident to get heard, and I try to do that just as much as I try to be so clear that the evidence speaks for itself. And sometime I like to mix it up. Your talking down to me should have offended me more that my confident assertion, backed by clear logic and geometry offended anyone else, but it did not because the more one claims they know, the more they reveal what they don’t know. And in this case, you my friend, just don’t know. Did you understand the logic and geometry at all because it should stand on its own.
    The statement I just made applies to me also, and I know there are lots of things that I don’t know, but I do know what I am talking about in this case. Obviously you don’t believe that paper, pencil ,and the human brain are enough to figure this out but I do.
    Math details are minor compared to the main idea and the details can be worked out along the way although I think that with an objective analysis of the logic, math, and geometry that I used is sufficient. It can be improved though, just like every thing else.
    I am tempted to rest my case now but I’ll wait to see whats next, I am not offended… hope that no one else is either.

    Conrad Countess

  • PaleBlueDot

    I’m not trying to talk down to you Conrad, I’m merely pointing out that you are NOT doing science, you are making a STATEMENT. You’re statement could be a testable hypothesis, but you can’t claim to have “findings” until you actually go out and FIND something. The point that you are at in your assertions is the “Hey, I’ve got a neat idea” stage. Now you need to do something, ANYTHING to give your position credibility. That can come in many ways, either by mathematically proving it, computer modeling, or in the absolute best case, actually showing that EM energy turns into a massive particle. Now that would get people’s attention!

    Most scientists work for there ENTIRE LIVES to generate the evidence and observations relevant to their great ideas, and there are more than a few that have passed away before they’ve seen their ideas tested, but their process has involved a lot of energy, time, and sacrifice on their part, just to see one experiment happen, and through all that time there is a strong possiblity that the answer they get will totally prove them wrong, but they still do it. Of course, you have to realize that if you come out here with guns blazing with your idea, with no background in the field, telling people that have been wrapped in thought about this stuff for half a CENTURY that they are flat out wrong and you’re right, how does that make them more likely to listen to you?

    Personally I’m skeptical of your ideas, which is not a bad thing, skepticism is a healthy thing in science. Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. It’s your idea, your passion, prove it to us! I don’t want to see a page with wavy lines and talking smiley faces, show us some more tantalizing evidence! If you’re right, then you get the glory, the right to say I told you so, and the satisfaction that you changed the way the world thinks (not to mention the technological possiblities your idea would enable). If you’re wrong, oh well, there’ve been lots of wrong ideas in the history of science, and nobody will ridicule you for at least giving it an honest shot. I will await your results Conrad!

  • Conrad J Countess

    O K PaleBlueDot

    Heres mathematical proof or did you already see this:

    Who are you really? I got a feeling that you are not just a meteorology student, because you are pleading the physicist case with to much involvement and sympathy. I know that there are theory assassins out there who are sent out to discredited theories that are threatening to certain parties theory of economic interest. Are you one of them?
    I do not wish to hurt anyones pride or livelihood by figuring out something that thousands of educated people who studied for years could not, but I did. And whats more important, what is right or who is right? And whats more important still, bringing the truth about the interconnectedness of the Universe to humanity, so we can be more at home here, or protecting someones hurt feelings because they did not discover this first?
    I look at physic as a noble subject studied by noble people. But you are disillusioning me by telling me that physicist are sensitive to some kind of foolish intellectual pride. I would have thought that they were beyond that and would be happy to get at the truth no mater where it came from.

    I’ll tell you how I really feel
    I just revealed to the world, that the most famous equation in the world “Einstein’s E=mc^2”, when looked at geometrically shows that (E or energy) = (m or rest mass) x (c^2, which is the speed of light in circular rotation), thus revealing the origin of rest mass. This is also the unification of (General Relativity) and (Quantum Theory), another landmark goal in physics, And the hits just keep on coming.
    If you think that I should shut up or that you can discourage me, all you are really doing is letting me know that someone is nervous. And that I am at least on the right track. Well I think I am there and that anyone who looks at this objectively will see that I am correct and that you are hiding something. This is too important keep quite about, and what I should really do is “Go Tell it on the Mountaintop” or better still “Go Tell it on the Internet”

    The speed of light squared is the speed of light circled and the pivotal point around which a new revolution in physics is taking place. Any interested parties, do not let anyone do your thinking for you, look at the evidence objectively, It speaks for itself.

    Short version:
    Long Version::
    Related evidence:

    Conrad J Countess

  • John

    wow. i cant believe i just read all of that. Conrad, you have a great idea, but lighten up a bit man. Being as harsh as you portray yourself to be, will only hurt your case. I read what you said, and it makes sense to me, although I am no expert by any means, but your tone turns me off of the idea. Presentation is the most important part, sell with your words, tone, and presentation. Then your ideas will be heard with open ears.

    Sorry to everyone else to adding ANOTHER comment onto this haha

  • Anonanonanon


    It seems like you feel that PaleBlueDot was trying to discourage you, when I get the impression he was trying to show you how you could get more people to accept your idea.

    For example, I’m not a mathematician. I’ve seen mathematical ‘proofs’ showing that 1=2. They all contained some flaw or false assertion that was not obvious. By the same token, I’ve seen proofs that 0.999…=1 – again with mathematical proofs that looked similar to the ones for 1=2.

    Although the idea of 0.999… equaling 1 made sense to me, and I didn’t see any flaws in those proofs, what actually convinced me was the amount of independent verification available for 0.999… being the same value as 1.

    By the same token, I don’t have the background to prove or disprove your idea. Having objective opinions and verification of your idea would lend it credibility and authenticity.

  • Conrad J Countess

    Thank you both for the constructive criticism, John and Anonanonanon, both your points are well taken.
    Isn’t it true that when photons enter a gravity field they increase in frequency according to equation E=hf/c^2? If so than x-rays or gamma rays entering a strong enough gravity field should create electrons when frequency reaches E=hf =mc^2.
    If the Earths gravity field is strong enough, that it should be possible to shoot a x-rays or gamma rays from outer space to a target on Earth and see the transformation to electrons. And perhaps nature does this sometime in cosmic ray showers.
    See Einstein’s Big Idea on Nova web site; E=mc^2 Explained by Neil deGrasse Tyson
    American Museum of Natural History
    In it he states in pp 2: If you get high enough energy X-rays passing by your room, spontaneously, unannounced, unprompted, unscripted, they will make electrons.
    Could this be an example of this transformation?

    Conrad J Countess

  • Conrad J Countess
  • Jude Austin

    If E=MC2, and Mass essentially is energy, then that equation is false.

  • datactrl

    Hilarious. The few that are good at sounding like they know what they are talking about are arguing with the one’s that openly don’t know what they are talking about.. and none of it is on topic.

  • Conrad Countess

    One last attempt to sum things up

    See this from:,

    “Light is an electromagnetic wave that can carry angular momentum by way of circular polarization. Transverse waves such as light, can have polarization in two directions, “left-right”, “up-down” or any combination thereof. As an analogy, you can shake the end of a slinky up and down, left to right, or at some arbitrary angle. Linear polarization occurs when these two components occur in phase, e.g. you shake the end of your slinky back and forth along the same path. When the two components are of equal amplitude but 90 degrees out of phase, however, circular polarization is created. This is what happens when you shake the end of your slinky in a circular motion.”

    If this is true we might extend the above logic base on experimental evidence to include that two similar components in the up/down and back/forth or x and y planes of equal amplitude and 90 degrees out of phase, may cause circular motion, along the x and y plane just as I have suggested. And that when this occurs in all three dimensions or x-y -z planes, that this might cause a 3D standing spherical wave. Perhaps experiments along the same lines as that mentioned above will bear this out.

    This along with the recent picture of electron shown on you tube, seem to support my geometrical description.

    1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons
    2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron’s/matter
    3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) fro electron and that electron was also a wave.
    4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi
    If we draw progressively shorter waves with progressively higher energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which might create a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces and 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d. This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, (spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half the cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of cases a forward spinning positron emerged
    A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically demonstrated incorporating Planck’s, Einstein’s, deBroglie’s, and Bohr’s ideas, as well as the two recent pieces of experimental evidence, including creation of circular polarized wave and recent picture of electron.

    It just all seems to fit together so neatly that it is statistically improbable that it could be just coincidence

    P.S. Einstein’ and Minkowskie’s (ct) x (square root of -1) , equating a fundamental unite of time with a fundamental spacial length, also collaborates this. Geometrically,( square root of -1) serves same purpose as c in the 90 degree angular direction to create 90 backward rotation or arc in case of geometrical interpretation of c^2 leading to Electron. According to this source:
    An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1
    by Paul J. Nahin page 54 paragraph 2:
    “multiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense
    Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.”

    Besides uniting (time and length) as stated above with (energy and matter) as well as (charge) because really (E=mc^2) = (ct)x(square root of -1), it could very well be, and I believe that it is, the long awaited solution to the quantum gravity problem.

    Take it apart any way you like, but I see no way around it


  • Conrad J Countess

    Here is the long and short of it

    People tuning in to this blog are interested in where mass comes from. Two ideas were presented which collaborate each other in some ways.
    One is result of an experiment that cost Billions of dollars and 200 trillion calculations a second for over a year to arrive, at and the other which collaborated it in some ways, I arrived at with the cost of pen paper and the human brain. The ideas are basically that mass comes from kinetic energy of motion, and more accurately, that rest mass comes from kinetic energy in circular and or spherical motion which can also be considered energy at c^2, which is energy in circular and or spherical rotation.

    And so (E=mc^squared) = (E=mc^circled) = (ct x square root -1) = (h/2pi)
    c= (square root -1)

    As far as the Higgs particle is concerned, that the LHC, which also cost billions is looking for, I can say this. The speed of light barrier which may or may not be caused by Higgs particle or particles of some type, is what causes the drag that creates the buildup of mass from a basic ground state mass/energy, which already exist. It is not necessary although it would be enlightening, to find out what even the most empty space or ground state energy is composed of in order to trace the very beginning of the origin of mass. Or maybe it is.
    It is said that waves cease to exist when they become smaller than the inter- molecular or granular state of the substance that the wave is traveling through. Perhaps energy at c in all directions which is c in spherical motion, is not only where waves turn to particles, but also mirrors the granular state of the most empty space. Maybe we just cannot perceive this except through inference, because of some gestalt perception barrier.
    Einstein said that it was not necessary to find an aether that pervades all of space , but whats the difference between an aether, ground state energy, or Higgs particle? They would all provide drag that create mass and possibly a preferred direction to motion of massive objects. Either way, the trace for the origin of mass or the origin of the universe itself may never end unless we conclude that it comes from its own self. This has to be true to some extent because if everything is interrelated in space and time than what is here now, comes from what was here before, as an extension of it, and so on. But it’s one thing to say that universe. ” is what it is”, and quite another to logically and mathematically describe what the universe is, but not entirely.


  • Tim

    E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled) … that is the funniest thing I’ve read in 2009. OMG hahaha.

  • Conrad J Countess

    Hi Tim

    It takes a certain amount of incite to understand (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), but if you look at my web site explaining it you would see that I am right.

    The speed of light squared or (c^2), geometrically is c in the linear direction times c in the 90 degree angular direction, which is analogous to (a line of 1 inch in the linear direction times a line of 1 inch in the 90 degree or vertical direction to create a square inch). But it is also analogous to a centrifugal force being balanced by a centripetal force at a 90 degree angle to it to create circular motion. Matter or rest mass is created from energy in circular and or spherical motion and c^2 is where this transformation of energy to matter takes place. E=mc^2 or energy equals rest mass at the mathematical conversion factor of (c^2) precisely because (c^2) is not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, but is an actual conversion frequency at high end of EM spectrum, where energy turns to matter. This is because at this frequency/wavelength, energy takes on a circular and or spherical form. I don’t mind explaining it to anyone who still doesn’t understand it, and I don’t take offense to anyone thinking that it is funny. Not because I know that I will get the last laugh, because I am not the type to brag with I told you so, but because I know how hard it is to accept revolutionary ideas. But if anyone looks at this objectively, which is how science is suppose to be done, you will see too that it is true, and there is no way around it.


  • b3ar

    @ Conrad:

    I get the concept, if not the math. You’re saying that matter is energy spinning at the speed of light, and that the spin is creating mass.

    What the article is saying (way up there at the top of the page) is that it is the interactions of gluons and quarks, as well as gluons ‘popping into and out of existence’ that create mass.

    With all due respect, it sounds as though QCD theory is a more detailed explanation of the same phenomenon.

  • Conrad J Countess

    Hi bgar, this is Conrad Countess

    Been away for a while, but so glad people are still interested.

    You are correct, and both ideas do in fact collaborate each other.
    Theirs is more detailed, but also more expensive and complicated.
    The whole idea behind the experiment and blog is to understand the origin of mass, and in particular, “rest mass”.
    The cheapest and simplest way to understand this is to understand the geometrical interpretation of (E=mc squared) as (E=mc circled) or E=mc sphered in 3d.
    Not that the big expensive experiments, such as the LHC (Large Hadron Collide r), and the computer experiment in this article are not worth it, after all they do provide lots of jobs, promote international cooperation between scientist, as well as doing things that a single individual could not. But just as garbage in leads to garbage out, for computer experiments, and inaccurate and incomplete basic assumptions such as “frequency leads to v2, interpreted as infinity, instead of c2, which is rest mass, through energy in circular and or spherical rotation, sometimes a self taught individual, without such basic assumptions, thinking outside the box, can see from a deeper foundation, a fuller scope of a problem, and find the solution.
    This is in and of itself a lesson to be learned in the advancement of physics as well as any other subject.
    Beside it can bolster confidence in the individual mind, for finding things that the large expensive machines could not. Furthermore, I being an “African American”, it may even bolster more confidence in minorities just as Barrack Obama’s election has. And God knows that we all need more confidence in ourselves and each other.
    People have lots of competitive time, money, and pride invested in these expensive projects of conventional physics, and I understand the reluctance to share and acknowledge credit for such a competitive task. But sooner or latter it will be acknowledged, and it will be on record who does and who doesn’t, and people will be asking for explanations.
    At a time such as this, when the world needs the truth about the world and our place in it, so that we may act more in accord with it, can we afford to be more concerned about whose right than whats is right?
    The truth is the truth, with or without me, as well as with or without people titles and or degrees. It should be our focus more than who discovered it first.
    I just thank God that I had the privilege to be the one to discover this, and give all the glory to God, only hoping to be acknowledged because in this world we need a certain measure of acknowledgment. But more importantly, we need to acknowledge the creative principle of the universe itself.
    May the truth prevail over those and that which seek to obscure it.

    Conrad J Countess

  • Alexander

    The problems with all of physics is real and “reel”
    the experimental readings in physics is all fraud that burnet the LHC
    Einstein’s Relativity Theory derived from Kepler’s Light Visual Deceptions Equation: S = r Exp ỉ ω t; sin ω t= v/c; v=speed; c=light speed
    By Joe Nahhas
    Abstract: Relativity theory can be derived from Kepler’s light visual deception equation S = r Exp ỉ ω t; sin ω t = v/c; v = speed and c = light speed. And all the experimental data used to support “proofs” of relativity theory fits deceptions formulas better than all of published papers of Einstein and all other physicists and astrophysicists combined.
    A- Special theory of relativity: Length contraction and Time dilations and Δ E = mc² and
    B- General theory of relativity: Advance of perihelion light bending gravitational red shifts and Shapiro’s time delay

    Object at r ——-Light sensing of moving objects ———– (seen as) S
    r —— Cosine (wt) + i sine (wt) ——– S = r [cosine (wt) + i sine (wt)]
    Particle ————————- Light —————————— Wave
    Newton ——– Kepler’s Time dependent ——– Newton’s Time dependent

    A-Special theory of relativity

    1-Lenght contraction

    Line of Sight: r cosine wt: light aberrations
    A moving object with velocity v will have when visualized through light sensing a light aberration angle (wt); w = constant and t= time

    Also, sine wt = v/c; cosine wt = √ [1-sine² (wt)] = √ [1-(v/c) ²]
    Where v = velocity; c = light velocity
    A visual object moving with velocity v will be seen as S
    S = r [cosine (wt) + i sine (wt)] = r Exp [i wt]; Exp = Exponential

    S = r [√ [1-(v/c) ²] + ỉ (v/c)] = S x + i S y

    S x = Visual location along the line of sight = r [√ [1-(v/c) ²]

    This Equation is special relativity Length Contraction formula and it is just the visual effects and caused by light aberrations of a moving object along the line of sight.

    In a right angled velocity triangle A B C: Angle A = wt
    Angle B = 90°; Angle C = 90° -wt
    AB = hypotenuse = c; BC = opposite = v; CA= adjacent = c √ [1-(v/c) ²]

    2- Time dilatations
    Along the line of sight; S x = r cosine wt
    Hypotenuse = S x = [c t x] = c t √ [1-(v/c) ²];
    Where t = self time; t x = time by others

    t x = t √ [1-(v/c) ²]; and
    t = {1/√ [1-(v/c) ²]} t x

    These are time dilatation equations given by Einstein’s special relativity theory.

    3- Δ E= mc²

    S = r Exp (ỉ ω t); sin ω t =v/c; v = c sin ω t; r = -(c/ω) cosine ω t;
    And r. v = (-c²/ω) sin ω t cosine ω t

    P = d S/d t = (v + ỉ ω r) Exp (ỉ ω t); v² = c² sin² ω t; ω² r² = c² cosine² ω t
    P² = (v + ỉ ω r). (v + ỉ ω r) Exp [2(ỉ ω t)] = [v² -ω² r² +2ỉ ω (r. v)] Exp [2(ỉ ω t)]

    P² = [c² sin² ω t - c² cosine² ω t - 2c²ỉ sin ω t cosine ω t] Exp [2(ỉ ω t)]
    P² = – c² [cosine² ω t - sin² ω t + ỉ sin 2ω t] Exp [2(ỉ ω t)]

    P² = -c² Exp [4(ỉ ω t)]
    E = mP²/2 = – mc²/2 [cosine² 2ω t - sin² 2ω t + 2ỉ sin 2ω t cosine 2ω t]

    E = (-mc²/2) {1-2sin² 2ω t + 2ỉ [1- 2sin² ω t] 2[sin ω t cosine ω t]}
    E = (-mc²/2) {1- 2(v/c) ² + 4ỉ [1- 2(v/c) ²] (v/c) √ [1- (v/c) ²]}

    If v = 0 then E (1) = (-mc²/2); and
    If v = c then E (2) = (mc²/2) then

    Δ E = E (2) – E (1) = (mc²/2) – (-mc²/2)
    Δ E = mc²

    B- General Theory of relativity

    What is the visual effect for angular velocity along the line of sight? At Perihelion It is called the Advance of perihelion. Let us derive that

    Areal velocity is constant: r² θ’ =h Kepler’s Law

    h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
    S = r Exp (ỉ wt); r² θ’= h = S² w’

    h = S²w’= [r² Exp (2iwt)] w’=r²θ’; w’ = (θ’) exp [-2(ỉ wt)]
    And w’= (h/r²) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = (h/r²) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]

    With w’ = w’ (x) + ỉ w’(y); w’(x) = (h/r²) [1- 2sine² (wt)]
    Δ w’= w’(x) – (h/r²) = – 2(h/r²) sine² (wt) = – 2(h/r²) (v/c) ² v/c=sine wt

    Angular velocity (h/ r²) (Perihelion/Periastron) = [2πa.a√ (1-ε²)]/Ta² (1-ε) ²= [2π√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²

    Δ w’ = [w'(x) – h/r²] = -4π {[√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² radian per second
    [180/π; degrees][100years=36526days; century] x [3600; seconds in degree]

    Δ w” = (-720x36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²]/(1-ε)²} (v/c)² seconds of arc per century

    This equation gives the rate of advance of perihelion of Mercury with better results than all of Albert Einstein’s publications and better than all of published physics.

    The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 – ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²- –.) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
    v=√ [G m M / (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<<M; Solar system

    1- Advance of Perihelion of mercury.

    G=6.673×10^-11; M=2×10^30kg; m=.32×10^24kg
    ε = 0.206; T=88days; c = 299792.458 km/sec; a = 58.2km/sec
    Calculations yields:
    v =48.14km/sec; [√ (1- ε²)] (1-ε) ² = 1.552
    Δ w”= (-720x36526x3600/88) x (1.552) (48.14/299792)²=43.0”/century

    2- DI Herculis Apsidal motion solution: derived from S= r exp [ỉ ω t]
    (See other articles by Joe Nahhas)

    W° (ob) = (-720×36526/T) x {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} [(v*/c) + (v°/c)] ² degrees/ century

    Where v* = v (center of mass) = 106.38km/sec; v° (spin difference) = 0
    T = orbital period; ε = eccentricity; c =light speed

    Application 3: Gravitational red shift: Pound Rebka Experiment

    S = r Exp [î ω t]

    1/S = 1/r Exp [-ỉ ω t]
    And λ (S) = λ (r) Exp [-ỉ ω t]; λ = wavelength

    Then υ(s) = υ(r) Exp [ỉ ω t]; υ = frequency
    And υ(S) = υ (r, t) = υ(r, 0) υ (0, t) = υ(r) υ (0, t)
    With sin ω(r) t = v/c; cosine ω(r) t = √ [1-(v/c) ²]

    Then υ (r, t) = υ(r, 0) {√ [1-(v/c) ²] + ỉ (v/c)} = Real {υ(r, t)} + Imaginary {υ(r, t)}
    Real {υ (r, t)} = υ (r, 0) √ [1-(v/c) ²] ≈ υ (r, 0) [1 - 1/2(v/c) ²]

    Δ υ (r, t) = real {υ (r, t)} – υ (0, t)
    Δ υ (r, t) = -υ (r, 0)/2 [(v/c) ²]
    Δ υ(r, t)/υ(r, 0) = -1/2(v/c)²[up]-{1/2(v/c)²[down]} = – (v/c) ²
    v² = 2gh; g = 9.81km/s² gravitational acceleration; h = height

    Δ υ/υ [Total] =-[2gh/c²]
    4- Light bending: Lord Edenton experiment
    S = r Exp [ỉ ω t]; From Kepler's Equation: r² θ' = h = 2A/T
    h = S²(r, t) θ'(r, t) = r² (θ, t) θ' (θ, t) = r² (θ, 0) Exp [2ỉ ω t] θ' (θ, t) = 2A/t
    And θ' (θ, t) = θ' (θ, 0) θ'(0, t) = [h/ r² (θ, 0)] Exp [-2ỉ ω(r) t]
    Then θ '(θ, t) = [2A/t r² (θ, 0)] {1 – 2sin²ω(r) t – 2ỉ sin ω(r) t cosine ω(r) t}
    Now [t θ'(θ, t)] = [2A/r² (θ' 0)] [1 - 2sin²ω(r) t] -2ỉ [2A/r² (θ, 0)] [sin ω(r) t cosine ω(r) t]
    = Δ x + i Δ y
    Δ θ = Δ x – [A/r² (θ, 0)] = – [A/r² (θ, 0)][4sin²ω(r)t]; sin ω(r)t = v/c
    Δ θ = – [A/r² (θ, 0)](v/c) ²
    (v/c) ² ≈ 1.75"; v² = GM/R; G = Gravitational constant; M = Sun mass; R = sun radius
    Δ θ = [A/r² (θ, 0)] [1.75"]; A = area
    The values depend on near by stars and the measured values fit this equation.
    Russians in 1936; Δ θ = 2.74
    [A/r² (θ, 0)] = π/2
    Δ θ = π/2(1.75") = 2.74"

    Application 5: Shapiro time delay (Vikings 6, 7; 1977)
    Mars ————————— Middle—- Sun ————- Earth
    The center of mass is the sun. The sun produces a velocity field given by
    v = √ [GM/a (1- ε²/4)]
    From above t =2 arc length/c=2d Δ w/c = (8π r/c) (v/c) ²; Δ w=4π (v/c) ²; r = 2a=d
    t = 16πGM/c³ (1-ε²/4); ε = [a (1) -a (2)]/ [a (1) + a (2)] = .2075
    t = (8πd/c) (v/c) ²= 8π (377,536,987.5/299792.458) (26.6575872/299792.458)²=250μs
    If d = 2a (1-ε²/4), then t = 247.597μs value theorized actual measured value is 250μs
    All this is not due to space-time but due to light aberration caused by moving planets.
    θ'(0,0) = h(0,0)/r²(0,0) = 2π/T
    θ' (0,t) = θ'(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π/T} Exp (-2iwt)
    θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ'(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]
    θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,t)(x) + θ'(0,t)(y); θ'(0,t)(x) = θ'(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]
    θ'(0,t)(x) – θ'(0,0) = – 2θ'(0,0)sine²(wt) = – 2θ'(0,0)(v/c)² v/c=sine wt; c=light speed
    T [θ'(0, t) - θ'(0, 0)] = -4π (v/c) ²
    Δ θ = -4π (v/c) ² Earth-Mars
    The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 – ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²—) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
    v=√ [Gm M/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<<M; Solar system
    ΔΓ = 2 arc length/c = 2[Δ θ] 2d/c = 2[- 4π (v/c) ²] 2d/c; ΔΓ = -8πd/c (v/c) ²;
    ΔΓ = 8πd/c³ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)] =16πGM/c³ (1-ε²/4) = Γ0 (1 – ε²/4)
    ε = [a (planet 1) - a (planet 2)]/ [a (planet 1) + a (planet 2)] =0.2075 Mars-Earth
    Γ0 = 16 πGM/c³= 247.5974607μs=universal constant; ΔΓ = 250μs Mars-Earth.
    Joe All right reserved

  • Jefferson Vaksman

    I have a little secret to share. I came across a web page (actually I was invited) and it offers a secret way to get unlimited income and traffic to affiliate links without the need for a website, or practically anything else. Basically, this is an underground software that you simply have to see to believe. With this software, you can forget about writing articles, creating blogs, submitting to directories, building more and more websites and everything else. What this software actually does is something that you have never seen before. And I guarantee you’ll understand the genius of it within 30 seconds. This software system generates results in as little as 30 seconds, so there’s no waiting around for traffic or to “see if this works”. Go ahead and take a look at the video presentation and see what you think ->

  • Sql 2005 SP4

    Sweet site, super design, real clean and employ pleasant.

  • mens heel lift inserts

    I just wanted to provide feedback as well as say that I seriously appreciated reading your blog publish here.

  • natural remedies for anxiety

    Doesn’t mass come from eating too much?

  • Alphonso Pelle

    This website won’t show up appropriately on my iphone 4 – you may wanna try and repair that


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.

See More

Collapse bottom bar

Login to your Account

E-mail address:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »