I have not just realized, but known a potentially crucial flaw in my theory of gravity relating to Ether attraction and I'll mention it now. It has to do with the bending of light. If the downforce or velocity of Ether increases the closer to a massive body, then light would also seemingly bend more near the surface, or not. Yet on the surface of the Earth we can see that light travels relatively straight. If the velocity and directional momentum of Ether has anything to do with light bending, it would bend significantly more near the surface one would say. I should also say though, that while I dont know the answer yet, at least I ask the question. General Relativity fails to address this issue. And I dont know what any given field theory has to say about it either. Newton however did ask the question "Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays, and is not this action strongest at the least distance?"

I think this calls for a re-evaluation of the model in it's mechanical details in part or whole as to where attraction begins and where it is equalized as to make the bending of light near outer space happen and near the surface not happen. I go back to the order of atomic masses as seen in the periodic table of elements as a starting point. Earth's atmosphere is a heavier element than space and indeed may be in specific theory the starting point of gravity to that of space Ether. Where the surface would act a force on the atmosphere elements, the atmosphere elements would act a force on space elements is the general idea of the order of attraction I have in mind. But yet, our atmosphere stays our atmosphere and is not absorbed by the surface. If that is so you would think our atmostphere is super compressed. If the air around us is compressed to the surface, would that not act a force on us? Not necessarily no, because air pressure and momentum of air are two different things. You need in the case of gravity, a momentum of air in a directional manner to create downforce or drag on a body. Compressed air around you alone will not do it. Also, if you can compress something you can alter it's nature that to a heavier element. All that relating to air pressure is a component of an entirely different model of gravity I could imagine.

As you know, Helium is not an "absorbed" element. HE3 is a more dense, compacted form of Helium and so thus is absorbed and we see this is the case by the composition of the surface of the moon for example. I want to be careful when talking about a bodies atmosphere in relation to attraction as is the case, asteroids have no atmosphere, yet I would hope to suggest that asteroids do have a gravity component to them, which by the way hasn't been proven until we actually land on an asteroid and see if we stick to it or not. It may be though we only need look to a certain select elements as a cause of attraction as in the case of asteroids, Iron being one of them, yet Iron sounds more like gravity as magnetics; that being field theory. Of course if we dont stick to it, then we will blame it on it's size, so I ask the question; If it was larger but with the same composition, would you then stick to it? If you make it too big it then succumbs to isostatic adjustment, eg. It becomes round, But only if it has a gravity component to it. If elemental field theory (specific heavy elements are cause for gravity) is true, then only when you reach X amount volume of localized mass can you create the necessary conditions for gravity inducing elements to form. Of course the question is then, what if not gravity, would compress them in the first place? Obviously such a field theory is false. However keep in mind, magnetics are explained by such.

Here are a couple of articles on quantum probability of photon absorbtion and uncertainty principle, EPR paradox
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/inthebeginning.jsp
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/spooky.jsp

I belive I can answer that question. It is simple, a pair of photons having a %50 chance of being absorbed can be explained by the quantum state of an absorbing medium by which the photon is acting on. In other words, the photons have no connection to which they know the others polarization, but it's the actual measuring device that determines it. Eg. If the device absorbs a photon in S state, then it must allow a second photon to pass through which may be considered in a D state. This is I will call quantum state fullness. If both photons are on a path to hit at near the same time a specific electron, one will be absorbed the other unchanged. However, if 2 photons leave at the same time and travel the same distance to the measuring device and striking the measuring device at the same time but at different planer locals, there is no reason to believe that a coordinated effort is made by the photons by which one has to be the opposite polarization. But again, it's the quantum state of not only the photon, but the measuring device's quantum elemental state that determines the combined probability of a photon being absorbed and being absorbed and at what state. Residual resonance may play a role in determining the quantum state of the measuring device. Eg. It's not imaginable to void an atom of electromagnetic interference from said test prior to measurement.
How is it possible to isolate 2 photons by which to measure and measure alone over any given time frame in a world of constant electromagnetic interaction? Interaction by which if atoms had none between each other, would cease to function, and one of the most active and primary interactions is that of photon exchange. To conclude, the medium or measuring device is prior and during any measurement made, being affected by naturally occuring photon exchange affecting the results of the experiment at any given time. Know with that said, the probability and uncertainty of results is still true unless you know for certain the quantum states of the measuring tools at the local and moment of absorbtion. It is thus in theory that should you be able to predict or manipulate the quantum state of the measuring tool, you could have predictable polarization of the photon in a controlled environment.

Is a photon's state predetermined? Yes and no. Conservation of energy levels can be preserved from point A to B given no decay is present, however, know that a photon does not leave point A and arrive at point B freely or unexchanged. It is the exchange of quanta energy by means of the photon that may alter the final measured state of the photon. We have what you would call dual personalities, in other words, the photon will change charateristic states during it's travel. You could even say and rightfully so, that it's not the same photon. It has similar charateristics but it's not the same one. It's a clone if you will. It's the alteration of a cloned photon's charateristics by process of exchange that polarization may be included. Thus we can say polarization will change from point A to point B and not just once over, many times. You may think of polarization as a spin state of a particle; Because it is spinning, any given surface local will change coordinates relative to the background. It is not this coordinate that we measure at any given time perhaps but the fractional percentage of probability that it will be in one of two states. Perhaps a photon will rapidly change from spin north to spin south, and you can only measure it in such a state, not the state during transition, hence we have 1 or 0, positive or negative. Also it could be suggested that it is the exchange from electron to electron that alternates the polarization or spin state. With that said it could be stated that it is the number of exchanges that occur from point A to point B that help to determine final measured state.

Dec 9 2003
An article on spintronics and the spin of the Electron relating to magnetic fields
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A735-759A-1CDD-B4A8809EC588EEDF&chanID=sa008

"One such idiosyncrasy is a quantum property of the electron known as spin, which is closely related to magnetism. Devices that rely on an electron's spin to perform their functions form the foundation of spintronics (short for spin-based electronics), also known as magnetoelectronics."

"An intuitive notion of how an electron's spin works is suggested by the name itself. Imagine a small electrically charged sphere that is spinning rapidly. The circulating charges on the sphere amount to tiny loops of electric current, which create a magnetic field similar to the earth's magnetic field. Scientists traditionally depict the rotation by a vector, or arrow, that points along the sphere's axis of rotation. Immersing the spinning sphere in an external magnetic field changes its total energy according to how its spin vector is aligned with the field."

"In some ways, an electron is just like such a spinning sphere of charge--an electron has a quantity of angular momentum (its "spin") and an associated magnetism, and in an ambient magnetic field its energy depends on how its spin vector is oriented. But there the similarities end and the quantum peculiarities begin. Electrons seem to be ideal dimensionless points, not little spheres, so the simple picture of their spin arising from actual rotation doesn't work. In addition, every electron has exactly the same amount of spin, equal to one half the fundamental quantum unit of angular momentum. That property is hardwired into the mathematics that describes all the elementary particles of matter, a result whose significance and meaning are another story entirely. The bottom line is that the spin, along with a mass and a charge, is a defining characteristic of an electron."

I'd have to take exception to the statement that an Electron is a dimensionless point. If that were true, we would have to question many things that otherwise make sense given the Electron is a geometrical mass. What that suggests is something entirely outside the box such as a holographic matrix grid by which the location of an Electron on a 2D plane dictates the visual and physical 3D realm or something similarly bizarre. Not only that but if we say this, then we might as well say a Photon and every other named particle is dimensionless which is just wrong. Then of course the question is what is the physical realm made of? My only guess as to why the author even said that is because that is what the Electron "Appears to look like" not what it is, and that is because it is just too small and too fast. Ask anyone who works at a particle collider what they think of the Electron or any other particle as a "dimensionless point object" and they will have no idea what your talking about and I'd have to agree.

Dec 11 2003

It's worth noting that radiation in space is everywhere in the form of Ions of every element on the periodic table up to Iron.

More on Ions - http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wposion.html
Ions, like fermions, may be understood as a class of particles rather than a single unique particle.
Hydrogen, the simplest atom, has one electron. When that electron is removed, we get the simplest positive ion, the proton; like the electron, it is a fundamental particle, but 1836 times heavier. The chemical symbol for hydrogen is H, but for the proton it is H+. The next heavier atom is that of helium (chemical symbol He) and it contains two electrons. Its nucleus consists of two protons and also two neutrons, particles similar to the proton but with no electric charge. The Sun gets its energy by combining protons (some of which convert to neutrons in the process) into helium, deep in the Sun's core; since the helium nucleus is an unusually stable combination of particles, energy is released in the process.

The completely ionized helium atom He++, missing both electrons, is also known as the "alpha particle". Just as in the Sun and in most stars, hydrogen is the most abundant element with helium next, so the solar wind consist mostly of protons, with 5% alpha particles and small numbers of heavier ions. A somewhat similar composition exists among cosmic rays.

An atom can become ionized by the absorption of light. The atom of barium is particularly easy to ionize, because its outermost electron is very loosely bound. If a mass of barium is vaporized in space, producing a barium cloud, much of the barium becomes ionized by sunlight within less than a minute. The cloud then moves in response to electric forces in space, and can be used to study the electrical field in space.

To be continued

Dec 12 2003

My goal is next with regards to my gravity model, to make it work in all aspects and senerios seen in nature. One such is the rings around saturn that are composed of small fragments of materials, the other involving a close orbit of neutron stars that may eventually collide. In both cases we have to assume for a varible degree of downforce.
The material fragments that are the rings of saturn must not be subjected to extremely great forces otherwise they would be sucked in and at the same time we must assume a certain velocity of those particles - in other words centrifugal force balanced against downforce involving varibles of velocity, mass, and geometry. I think my model comes through just fine to explain gravity in this senerio but I originally question that the incoming downforce by saturn would be too great for such rings to remain in orbit as they would be "swept downstream" if you will. However and again, it depends on the force that is actually excerted on the rings. This senerio can also be related to human made satellites around the planet Earth and with that in mind we know how that works and I've already considered such when contemplating my model and I believe it works.

Now with regards to a pair of massive stars on a death spiral towards each other. This one is more difficult to correctly assume that my model works with it. I have nothing particular in mind but I wonder though given the unique situation, is there enough free space to be absorbed by both stars? What is the interference and side effects of a tugg of war with free space ether? Directly between them, map the flow of ether. At very near proximity would an attraction of ether come from not only free space but unabsorbed available ether within the neighboring star? Last but not least, is the downforce caused by suction of ether great enough in this situation to cancel out or balance against centrifugal forces which must be amazingly strong given such massive objects and velocities.

Dec 22 2003

From the Uoregon

"Action at a Distance :
The Newtonian view of the universe may be described as a mechanistic interpretation. All components of the universe, small or large, obey the laws of mechanics, and all phenomena are in the last analysis based on matter in motion. A conceptual difficulty in Newtonian mechanics, however, is the way in which the gravitational force between two massive objects acts over a distance across empty space or in electromagnetism how a magnetic force operates between two charged particles. Newton did not address this question, but many of his contemporaries hypothesized that the forces were mediated through an invisible and frictionless medium which Aristotle had called the ether. The problem is that everyday experience of natural phenomena shows mechanical things to be moved by forces which make contact. Any cause and effect without a discernible contact, or action at a distance, contradicts common sense and has been an unacceptable notion since antiquity. Whenever the nature of the transmission of certain actions and effects over a distance was not yet understood, the ether was resorted to as a conceptual solution of the transmitting medium. By necessity, any description of how the ether functioned remained vague, but its existence was required by common sense and thus not questioned.

After 1916 Einstein strove to produce what is now called the theory of relativity into a formulation that includes gravitation, which was still being expressed in the form imparted to it by Newton; i.e., that of a theory of action at a distance. Einstein did succeed in the case of gravitation in reducing it to a local-action theory, but, in so doing, he increased the mathematical complexity considerably, as Maxwell, too, had done when he transformed electrodynamics from a theory of action at a distance to a local-action theory."

"Center of Mass:
The word particle has been used in this article to signify an object whose entire mass is concentrated at a point in space. In the real world, however, there are no particles of this kind. All real bodies have sizes and shapes. Furthermore, as Newton believed and is now known, all bodies are in fact compounded of smaller bodies called atoms. Therefore, the science of mechanics must deal not only with particles but also with more complex bodies that may be thought of as collections of particles.

To take a specific example, the orbit of a planet around the Sun was discussed earlier as if the planet and the Sun were each concentrated at a point in space. In reality, of course, each is a substantial body. However, because each is nearly spherical in shape, it turns out to be permissible, for the purposes of this problem, to treat each body as if its mass were concentrated at its centre. This is an example of an idea that is often useful in discussing bodies of all kinds: the centre of mass. The centre of mass of a uniform sphere is located at the centre of the sphere. For many purposes (such as the one cited above) the sphere may be treated as if all its mass were concentrated at its centre of mass.

To extend the idea further, consider the Earth and the Sun not as two separate bodies but as a single system of two bodies interacting with one another by means of the force of gravity. In the previous discussion of circular orbits, the Sun was assumed to be at rest at the centre of the orbit, but, according to Newton's third law, it must actually be accelerated by a force due to the Earth that is equal and opposite to the force that the Sun exerts on the Earth.

This remarkable result means that, as the Earth orbits the Sun and the Sun moves in response to the Earth's gravitational attraction, the entire two-body system has constant linear momentum, moving in a straight line at constant speed. Without any loss of generality, one can imagine observing the system from a frame of reference moving along with that same speed and direction. This is sometimes called the centre-of-mass frame. In this frame, the momentum of the two-body system is equal to zero."

Now we see the truth that Newton must have realized the Sun could not be fixed. He himself wrote the 3rd law, all that is left is to agree the Sun and planets follow that law, which I'm sure he did. I retract my ealier statement about GR based on Newtonian mechanics being flawed, I was mislead.

"CP violation:
CP violation is the violation of the combined conservation laws associated with charge conjugation (C) and parity (P) by the weak nuclear force, which is responsible for reactions such as the decay of atomic nuclei. Charge conjugation is a mathematical operation that transforms a particle into an antiparticle, for example, changing the sign of the charge. Charge conjugation implies that every charged particle has an oppositely charged antimatter counterpart, or antiparticle. The antiparticle of an electrically neutral particle may be identical to the particle, as in the case of the neutral pi meson, or it may be distinct, as with the antineutron. Parity, or space inversion, is the reflection in the origin of the space coordinates of a particle or particle system; i.e., the three space dimensions x, y, and z become, respectively, -x, -y, and -z. Stated more concretely, parity conservation means that left and right and up and down are indistinguishable in the sense that an atomic nucleus throws off decay products up as often as down and left as often as right.

For years it was assumed that charge conjugation and parity were exact symmetries of elementary processes, namely those involving electromagnetic, strong, and weak interactions. The same was held true for a third operation, time reversal (T), which corresponds to reversal of motion. Invariance under time implies that whenever a motion is allowed by the laws of physics, the reversed motion is also an allowed one. A series of discoveries from the mid-1950s caused physicists to alter significantly their assumptions about the invariance of C, P, and T. An apparent lack of the conservation of parity in the decay of charged K mesons into two or three pi mesons prompted the Chinese-born American theoretical physicists Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee to examine the experimental foundation of parity itself. In 1956 they showed that there was no evidence supporting parity invariance in weak interactions. Experiments conducted the next year verified decisively that parity was violated in the weak interaction beta decay. Moreover, they revealed that charge conjugation symmetry also was broken during this decay process. The discovery that the weak interaction conserves neither charge conjugation nor parity separately, however, led to a quantitative theory establishing combined CP as a symmetry of nature. Physicists reasoned that if CP were invariant, time reversal T would have to remain so as well. But further experiments, carried out in 1964, demonstrated that the electrically neutral K meson, which was thought to break down into three pi mesons, decayed a fraction of the time into only two such particles, thereby violating CP symmetry. CP violation implied nonconservation of T, provided that the long-held CPT theorem was valid. In this theorem, regarded as one of the basic principles of quantum field theory, charge conjugation, parity, and time reversal are applied together. As a combination, these symmetries constitute an exact symmetry of all types of fundamental interactions.

No completely satisfactory explanation of CP violation has yet been devised. The size of the effect, only about two parts per thousand, has prompted a theory that invokes a new force, called the "superweak" force, to explain the phenomenon. This force, much weaker than the nuclear weak force, is thought to be observable only in the K-meson system or in the neutron's electric dipole moment, which measures the average size and direction of the separation between charged constituents. Another theory, named the Kobayashi-Maskawa model after its inventors, posits certain quantum mechanical effects in the weak force between quarks as the cause of CP violation.

The attractive aspect of the superweak model is that it uses only one variable, the size of the force, to explain everything. Furthermore, the model is consistent with all measurements of CP violation and its properties. The Kobayashi-Maskawa model is more complicated, but it does explain CP violation in terms of known forces.

CP violation has important theoretical consequences. The violation of CP symmetry, taken as a kind of proof of the CPT theorem, enables physicists to make an absolute distinction between matter and antimatter. The distinction between matter and antimatter may have profound implications for cosmology. One of the unsolved theoretical questions in physics is why the universe is made chiefly of matter. With a series of debatable but plausible assumptions, it can be demonstrated that the observed matter-antimatter ratio may have been produced by the occurrence of CP violation in the first seconds after the " big bang," the violent explosion that is thought to have resulted in the formation of the universe (see big-bang model).

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 420 March 29, 1999 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

Direct CP violation has been observed at Fermilab by the KTeV collaboration. An important way of apprehending the basic nature of time and space (in the finest tradition of Greek philosophy) is to ask "what if" questions. For example, will a collision between particles be altered if we view the whole thing in a mirror? Or what if we turn all the particles into antiparticles? These propositions, called respectively parity (P) and charge conjugation (C) conservation, are upheld by all the forces of nature except the weak nuclear force. And even the weak force usually conserves the compound proposition of CP. In only one small corner of physics---the decay of K mesons---has CP violation been observed, although physicists suspect that CP violation must somehow operate on a large scale since it undoubtedly helped bring about the present-day preponderance of matter over antimatter.

K mesons (kaons) are unstable and do not exist outside the interiors of neutron stars and particle accelerators, where they are artificially spawned in K-antiK pairs amidst high energy collisions. K's might be born courtesy of the strong nuclear force, but the rest of their short lives are under control of the weak force, which compels a sort of split personality: neither the K nor anti-K leads a life of its own. Instead each transforms repeatedly into the other. A more practical way of viewing the matter is to suppose that the K and anti-K are each a combination of two other particles, a short lived entity called K1 which usually decays to two pions (giving K1 a CP value of +1) and a longer-lived entity, K2, which decays into three pions (giving K2 a CP value of -1). This bit of bookkeeping enshrined the idea then current that CP is conserved.

All of this was overthrown when in 1964 the experiment of Jim Cronin and Val Fitch showed that a small fraction of the time (about one case in every 500, a fraction called epsilon) the K2 turns into a K1, which subsequently decays into two pions. This form of CP violation is said to be indirect since the violationoccurs in the way that K's mix with each other and not in the way that K's decay. One theoretical response was to say that this lone CP indiscretion was not the work of the weak force but of some other novel "superweak" force. Most theorists came to believe, however, that the weak force was responsible and, moreover, that CP violation should manifest itself directly in the decay of K2 into two pions. The strength of this direct CP violation, characterized by the parameter epsilon prime, would be far weaker than the indirect version. For twenty years detecting a nonzero value of epsilon prime has been the object of large-scale experiments at Fermilab and for nearly as long at CERN. In each case, beams of K's are sent down long pipes in which the K-decay pions could be culled in sensitive detectors.

At the APS Centennial meeting in Atlanta last week, both groups discussed their work. The KTeV group at Fermilab reported a definite result: a ratio of epsilon prime to epsilon equal to 28 (+/- 4) x 10^-4, larger than the theoretical expectation. As for the NA48 group at CERN, Lydia Iconomidou-Fayard (lyfayard@in2p3.fr) said that data analysis was still proceeding and no definite measurement could be reported at this time. The principal conclusion was stated by KTeV co-spokesman Bruce Winstein (bruce@uchep.uchicago.edu, 773-702-7594): Before the new experiments direct CP violation had not been established, owing to the large uncertainty in the early measurements of epsilon prime; the new experiment, by contrast, does succeed in establishing a nonzero value for epsilon prime, thus providing a new way to probe (a parameter that can be measured in the lab) this cosmologically-important and most mysterious feature of particle physics.

(a) The neutral K meson and its antimatter counterpart can both be thought of as a combination of a short-lived particle K1 (green squiggle) which mostly decays into two pions (each indicated by the letter p) and a long-lived particle K2 (red squiggle) which decays mostly into three pions. (b) In some rare cases, however, the K2 (CP= -1) turns into a K1 (CP= 1), which then decays into two pions. This is evidence for indirect CP violation. (c) To illustrate how K mixing comes about, consider the analogy with polarized light. Ordinary light from the sun contains light of all different polarizations (the direction of the light wave's electric field). But if the light is passed through a Polaroid filter oriented vertically, some of the light will be blocked and only that portion with a vertical polarization will emerge. In this beam there can be no light with a horizontal orientation. Next pass the light through a filter oriented at 45 degrees to the vertical. The light that emerges (at even lesser intensity) will now be oriented at the same 45 degrees; this light can be said to have a component which has vertical polarization and a component with horizontal polarization. The proof that some of the beam is now horizontally polarized (whereas a moment before the light was exclusively vertical) is that some light does emerge from a third polarizer oriented horizontally. Something like this is at work in converting K1's and K2's into each other just as vertically polarized light is turned into horizontal. Instead of polarizers, however, the K's are made to pass through thin slabs of matter, in which beams of short-lived K's are "regenerated" from beams of pure long-lived K's. (d) The recently observed case in which K2's are seen to be decaying directly into two pions. This is evidence of direct CP violation."