Author Archives: Ross Nickel


The Nobel Prize was recently awarded for the discovery that the neutrino has mass. Neutrinos then should follow my equation 6. The required data is uncertain so the result would represent only a ballpark value. The value of the rest mass was chosen as 0.32 ev/c2 and the rest radius as 3 x 10-17 cm from Wikipedia.

m2 = r0m0c2 / G

m2 = ( 3 x 10-17 cm )( 0.32 ev/c2 )( 1.8 x 10-33 g/ev )( 9 x 1020 cm2/ sec2 ) / 6.67 x 10-8 cm3 /g sec2

m = 1.53 x 10-11 g = 8.5 x 10+21 ev = 8.5 x 10+15 Mev

This would be its maximum value on traveling at its absolute velocity, V, where

V2 = c2 – Gm0/r0 = c2 – ( 1.13 x 10-12 cm / sec )2

This is far from the largest value reported, around 108 Mev, seen in turbulent stellar gases. As with the cosmic rays the neutrinos  are part of other gravitational systems so only part of their absolute velocity is observed.


Since this paper was written two new discoveries were made at CERN. In the first,

Ds3*(2860)ˉ, a meson that contains a charm anti-quark and a strange quark, was found. .

The number 2860  is the mass of the particle in the units of MeV/c2.

Using the quark table contained here, the kinetic energy component of the mass equivalence is 1548 + 510 = 2038 MeV/c^2

In the second discovery, physicists observed the first particle with one quark from each family: Ξ−b, consisting of one

bottom, one strange, and one down quark, in two higher energy states.  They observed signatures for two particles at

masses of 5935 and 5955 mega-electron-volts

These tables yield kinetic energy values of 5790 and 5795 MeV.


An equation (1) is presented which introduces a velocity term based upon Newton’s law of gravity. This term is included in equation (2) which is proposed as a universal velocity law. These two equations are then used to: 1. establish a maximum energy ceiling for cosmic rays, 2. account for the rotational velocities of stars formed from interstellar clouds, 3. predict solar planetary velocities, 4. apply them to the universe itself. Quantities are calculated which have not been calculated before, with modest success.


Beta Pictoris b was recently found to be the fastest rotating planet known to date. Its 56,000 mph is equal to 2.5 x 106 cm / sec.

Taking the orbit to be 9.0AU and its period to be 20.5 years means its orbiting velocity is 1.3 x 107 cm / sec. Combining the velocities vectorially would result in an overall velocity of 1.3 x 107 cm / sec.

If this total velocity squared is expressed as G x mass / radius , then using the mass as being 3J and the radius 1.65 rJ gives:

v2 = ( 6.67 x 108 cm3 / g sec2 ) ( 1.33 x 1031g ) / 1.18 x 1010 cm

and v = 2.7 x 107 cm / sec

Reuters: The head-spinning speed at which Beta Pictoris b whirls, the scientists said, lends support to the notion that a planet’s rotational velocity is closely related to its size: the bigger, the faster.

“Yes, the relation between mass and spin velocity was already known in our solar system,” said University of Leiden astronomy professor Ignas Snellen, another of the researchers.

“We now extend it to a more massive planet to see that the relation still holds. We need to observe more planets to confirm this is really a universal law,” Snellen added.

This paper suggests that, while mass and radius are factors in determining rotational velocity, also so is the orbital velocity which is determined by the distance of the planet from its sun.


Light may not travel at ‘the speed of light’ unless its mass equivalent is zero and its wavelength is infinite if it follows the equation: c2 + V ^2 = G x mass / radius, where V is its absolute velocity. However, as the mass equivalency difference between visible light and gamma rays is so small, the speeds would have to be known to at least 15 significant figures to distinguish between them. Even a cosmological event at the edge of the universe releasing both visible light and gamma rays would result in an immeasurable arrival time difference. The entire electromagnetic spectrum travels at the same speed within our measuring capability.
However, this would not be true for enormously energetic photons according to the above equation. Perhaps, the most extreme case would be for a photon such as described in ‘an exercise’. Photons approaching even a fraction of that mass equivalency would be undetectable because of their almost infinitesimal wavelength and pass through ordinary matter.
There are no known cosmological events capable of producing such massively energetic photons. However, that may not be true during the conditions of the Big Bang. Once formed, they could still be existence today. Their properties should resemble those attributed to ‘dark matter’. That possibility should be taken into serious consideration.


Equations 1 and 2 may be written as: m ( c2 – V2 ) = Gm2/r , where V is the absolute velocity of the object. This equation is stating that the total positive energy of an object is equal in amount to its gravitational energy which is negative. The net total energy of objects in our universe, and the universe itself ,is zero, just as a planet revolving around a sun at a certain velocity while spinning at an equivalent opposite velocity could have no intrinsic net movement. Some physicists have speculated in the past that this is the case with our universe.
If this theory is correct our universe was created not from energy but from nothing!


If the Milky Way galaxy is treated as a single body, what velocity would equation 1 predict it to have? Using the values from Wikipedia ( total mass: 1.2×10^12 solar masses, diameter: 1.1 kilo light years) gives a total velocity of 780 km/s. Measured value of rotation of stars in the outer edge is 254 km/s. As is observed in the the star chart, the calculated value is greater than the observed rotation presumably due to a large revolving velocity around some other structure.


Special Relativity states that as the velocity of an object increases so too does its mass ( Equation 3 in my notation). However, Equation 2 predicts that as the overall velocity of an object increases the velocity associated with mass and mass itself should decrease. I was puzzled by this dilemma; if both equations were correct how could they yield contradictory conclusions. It finally occurred to me how this could be so: only if both absolute velocity and mass are constant and unable to change. Locally, velocities can and do vary and relativistic effects may be observed.