Some clue on TPU device operation

[aleks]

Well, special relativity puts a fundamental limit on speed of any particle or wave: speed of light. If DC acoustic waves exist, their speed is infinite (or close to infinite). According to some measurements (mentioned in Gravity and Antigravity article referenced in my hypothesis), "Tom Van Flandern calculates from binary-pulsar data that gravitons must propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light!"  Tom Van Flandern, ?The speed of gravity ? what the experiments say?, Meta Research Bulletin, 6:4, 1997, pp. 49-62.

I've described my understanding that DC acoustic wave should travel at an infinite speed because its frequency is equal to zero. The length of the wave can be equated as: L=s/f. (s - speed of sound, f - frequency, in oscillations/second). In the case of f=0 the formula becomes non-functional. So, I'm deducing that speed of DC acoustic wave becomes infinite. Well, you may argue of course, but only experiment may show if that's the case or not. Not to say that "by understanding" the front of this wave should not propagate, but should immediately change conditions. Only normal acoustic waves can have a propagating wavefront that causes gradual compression, followed by decompression (action and reaction). DC acoustic wave would not be DC if it propagated that way as well. DC acoustic waves do not cause reaction.

This is of course a deduction, but it looks pretty logical to me, and is supported by observation and measurements. E.g. gravity is higher near ocean surface because ocean waves naturally cause a lot of DC acoustic waves because of movements of masses of water, and these movements are probably "expansive" rather than compressive; vortex is a result of "expansive" movement in my opinion; when waves collide this creates a "compressive" movement.

As for the acoustic waves travelling in vacuum, I'm pretty sure that if you apply normal acoustic waves theory (which deals with probabilities of molecular mechanics and collisions) to acoustic waves hundreds kilometers long and SPL of thousands dB, it will penetrate any vacuum and may travel at unexpectable speeds - N.Tesla was mentioning this fact (the so called atmospheric "barrier" for waves he wanted to send to Moon - the barrier was actually imposed by vacuum surrounding earth's atmosphere).

[HopeForHumanity]

Well, special relativity puts a fundamental limit on speed of any particle or wave: speed of light. If DC acoustic waves exist, their speed is infinite (or close to infinite). According to some measurements (mentioned in Gravity and Antigravity article referenced in my hypothesis), "Tom Van Flandern calculates from binary-pulsar data that gravitons must propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light!"  Tom Van Flandern, ?The speed of gravity ? what the experiments say?, Meta Research Bulletin, 6:4, 1997, pp. 49-62.

I've described my understanding that DC acoustic wave should travel at an infinite speed because its frequency is equal to zero. The length of the wave can be equated as: L=s/f. (s - speed of sound, f - frequency, in oscillations/second). In the case of f=0 the formula becomes non-functional. So, I'm deducing that speed of DC acoustic wave becomes infinite. Well, you may argue of course, but only experiment may show if that's the case or not. Not to say that "by understanding" the front of this wave should not propagate, but should immediately change conditions. Only normal acoustic waves can have a propagating wavefront that causes gradual compression, followed by decompression (action and reaction). DC acoustic wave would not be DC if it propagated that way as well. DC acoustic waves do not cause reaction.

This is of course a deduction, but it looks pretty logical to me, and is supported by observation and measurements. E.g. gravity is higher near ocean surface because ocean waves naturally cause a lot of DC acoustic waves because of movements of masses of water, and these movements are probably "expansive" rather than compressive; vortex is a result of "expansive" movement in my opinion; when waves collide this creates a "compressive" movement.

As for the acoustic waves travelling in vacuum, I'm pretty sure that if you apply normal acoustic waves theory (which deals with probabilities of molecular mechanics and collisions) to acoustic waves hundreds kilometers long and SPL of thousands dB, it will penetrate any vacuum and may travel at unexpectable speeds - N.Tesla was mentioning this fact (the so called atmospheric "barrier" for waves he wanted to send to Moon - the barrier was actually imposed by vacuum surrounding earth's atmosphere).

Gravitons are a mathematical particle that "explains" gravity. Because there virtual (at least thats what I heard) they can exceed the speed of light (or go slower). But I completely agree with you, it's just plain wrong to make an exception this big. This is the failure in our excepted system.

[aleks]

     In the equation E=mc2 what is considered mass.    If an atom is considered as a whole wouldn't an electron leaving it's orbital be considered a conversion of the atom's mass into energy?  I know it's only 1/1800 of the proton mass but it is mass.  If a dc linear pulse is sent through a field of atoms and results in adding inertia to electrons in one direction and protons in the other would this qualify as conversion of mass to energy?  I see it more as the potential energy stored in the inertial frame of the proton and electrons being exchanged with the ambient inertial frames.  The restructuring of the mass in the future as potential energy of the ambient inertial field being returned to the atomic resonance or atomic mass.  This whole procedure having very little to do with gravitons.  I am beginning to doubt the existence of gravity at all.  Just potential energy exchange from one inertial frame to the other.  The Suns gravity is nothing more than a result of how much potential energy it has in it's resonant inertial frame.

Another try to answer your question. Well, I do not know that much about structure of the matter (beside usual atomic and particle models), but what I think should be correct is the assumption that electron's kinetic energy is "captured" by the atom. An example would be a push-push button lock: first push locks the door and the spring holds potential energy, second push unlocks the door and the spring converts potential energy into kinetic energy and the button goes out. I pretty much believe electrons work the same way: it is like filling bullet magazine: you keep adding bullets and the spring accumulates more and more potential energy at the same time keeping bullets compacted. In this case, the amount of stored potential energy is not related to the push required to release it, especially if the whole system is based on balance of forces: just add a bit of disbalance and electrons will be firing out of it returning all potential energy used to keep them together, to kinetic form (heat and electricity, mainly heat).

Also, if E=mc^2 is invalid (how can you really check it?) various masses (proton, neutron, etc) may not be valid as well, and quantum mechanics generally may need a lot of changes. Proton is a hydrogen atom without an electron, and that may suggest that it is a system of electrons that stores potential energy, so it may not be a whole new particle: just a combination of electrons "locked" to each other, maybe even via gravity force which may be the "last element" that keeps electrons together (not to mention that gravity force is ultra-high near the center of its emission - not to forget that force may be shielded by attracted electrons; by the way, pressure in the center of an acoustic mode is also ultra-high though it is not obvious). Well, hydrogen being a proton, and proton being a hydrogen is a problematic cross-reference in my opinion. What's more important is to understand how this hydrogen-proton is formed: well, from quarks of course, but it all becomes pretty complex to study.

As for the gravity, according to my hypothesis, proton being so "massive" suggests that its internal structure may be tuned to produce DC acoustic waves and hence it creates a lot of energy that attributes to mass. However, it may in reality be composed of more "bread and butter" particles like electrons (they are known to repel from each other, but if you add a source of strong gravity force the electrons may stick to each other and store some potential energy). If much potential energy is stored in proton's structure, such particle may produce mass DC acoustic waves for a long time, but eventually it will of course, disintegrate. Protons being the most wide-spread substance in the universe suggests that the idea of self-assembly of particles under some field like gravity to be valid. Who knows, maybe electron looks more like a four-leaf clover and not as a bubble?

[sparks]

    Thankyou for considering my posts.  I really do believe that all mass is simply the amount of potential energy in a given inertial frame.  The potential energy comes in the form of vibrations. I believe Einstein called it the at rest energy.  The more potential energy in an inertial frame the more mass.  I also believe charge has to do with the spinor resonance of the field.  The neutron mass could then be explained as that portion of the vibrations of an atomic structure that does not achieve spinor resonance. 
    Just alot of theory until you do the math.   

[aleks]

    Thankyou for considering my posts.  I really do believe that all mass is simply the amount of potential energy in a given inertial frame.  The potential energy comes in the form of vibrations. I believe Einstein called it the at rest energy.  The more potential energy in an inertial frame the more mass.  I also believe charge has to do with the spinor resonance of the field.  The neutron mass could then be explained as that portion of the vibrations of an atomic structure that does not achieve spinor resonance. 
    Just alot of theory until you do the math.   

Well, it's up to you how you build your theory (whatever works best for you). However, in my opinion "mass" is not created automatically by potential energy. Compacted spring does not change its mass. Mass is created by a specific combination of particles "locked" to each other and in prolonged motion, so mass cannot be created by particles without internal structure that could create kinetic energy waves (acoustic or phonon waves). For example, if we dismiss the normal understanding of the matter, we may assume that electron has no mass. However, two electrons CAN create kinetic energy waves if they collide or pass nearby each other, and so system of two electrons has its own mass. And so, a single electron cannot attract surrounding matter while a system of two electrons may attract surrounding matter. But both a single electron and a system of two electrons DO gain kinetic energy in gravity field (which is, according to my hypothesis is a field that transfers acoustic energy instantly to all surrounding objects and thus creates a gradual length standard deviation due to its "infinite speed").

Charge is a very simple concept in my opinion. Charge cannot be lower than an elementary electric charge (electron's charge), so all charges are quantized by this charge. Since electron cannot be infinitesimal (otherwise it would be hard to build it into kinetic theories), it is pretty safe to assume that electron has a field which repels from alike fields, and this field can be expressed as a scalar field gradient (this should allow for elasticity of interactions and potential energy storage). And so, when we are talking about a charge, we mean how many electrons with such field are present in a volume of space. How the field is created? I do not know, and this is probably not important at all. But on a quicker idea, electron may represent an anti-gravity formation itself (however, this will suggest that it has some internal structure - I just hope this subdivision is finite).