Antigravity
ny2292000
Gravitational from first principles and most importantly to derive the
correct equation for Gravitation of bodies in motion. As you know,
Gravitation controls trajectories of planets, galaxies etc and they
are not standing still with respect to each other.
The theory is presented in this blog:
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com
and the specific blog on Gyrogravity and Antigravity is shown here:
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2008/09/gyrogravity.html
Please feel free to ask questions and post comments.
Cheers,
MP
Sam Wormley
What's you name?
Sam Wormley
I assume this is you http://theories.toequest.com/authors/24/Marco-Pereira
Sam Wormley
You wrote "Anisotropic Universe is what I would expect from a 3-D
Big Bang or from any other Big Bang Model with which I am familiar".
"What does Anisotropy means? Well, if you look into the sky we should
be seen a hole (lack of galaxies) in a given direction and that would
be where the Big Bang should had occurred".
My my!
ny2292000
Dear Mr. Wormley,
I explained quite well what I mean about anisotropy (mass anisotropy)
in a 3D space (4D Spacetime). A Big Bang (explosion) within a 3D
manifold would create mass anisotropy.
My my!
I supposed is because you believe hare brain schemes like Inflation
Theory, where space come out of nowhere at the edge of the Universe.
That would be a great solution to the anisotropy problem if there
weren't better ones (mine for instance).
Please, if you make a comment - make it such that one can reply to
it. My my is not an argument. It is a silly interjection.
Cheers,
MP
ny2292000
Dear Mr. Wormley,
My name is not relevant unless you want to use it as part of your
argument.
Cheers,
MP
Uncle Al
>
> I created a theory in which it is possible to derive Newton's Law of
> Gravitational from first principles
You can calculate Newton's G ab initio? Do tell...
> and most importantly to derive the
> correct equation for Gravitation of bodies in motion. As you know,
> Gravitation controls trajectories of planets, galaxies etc and they
> are not standing still with respect to each other.
[snip rest of crap]
Hey stooopid - in your theory, does light fall with twice the
acceleration of matter? That is the empirical obsercation.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
ny2292000
> ny2292000 wrote:
>
> > I created a theory in which it is possible to derive Newton's Law of
> > Gravitational from first principles
>
> You can calculate Newton's G ab initio? Do tell...
>
> > and most importantly to derive the
> > correct equation for Gravitation of bodies in motion. As you know,
> > Gravitation controls trajectories of planets, galaxies etc and they
> > are not standing still with respect to each other.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Hey stooopid - in your theory, does light fall with twice the
> acceleration of matter? That is the empirical obsercation.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dear Uncle Al,
It seems that your really understand Science. Here is my blog with
the derivation of the Gravitational Constant
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2007/11/cosmological-constants-g.html
Please, feel free to ask any questions. You seems to have a keen eye
for the hard questions...:)
That blog contains the equation for G. The derivation is within the
pdf file containing the full theory. Please read it and feel free to
ask poignant questions..>:)
Only by criticism one can create a good theory...:)
Another blog contains the derivation for the vacuum electric
permitivity epsilon zero and the magnetic susceptibility of the
vacuum:
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2007/10/hypergeometrical-universe-epsilon.html
I would expect you would be equally excited by my equation for
Gravitational forces of moving bodies. Newton's law only strictly
works for bodies at rest with respect to each other.
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2008/09/gyrogravity.html
I noticed that I have to show the reference frames. In a non inertial
problem, the precise definition of the reference frame and vectors is
strictly necessary. I will post an update tomorrow. In the meantime,
please feel free to ask questions.
Cheers,
MP
Sam Wormley
Marco, have you considered the possibility that your "offerings" are
too flawed to be considered for publishing?
http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/Censorship.pdf
Affiliation with universities provides some degree of filtering of
flawed papers.
Regards,
-Sam
Uncle Al
>
> On Sep 20, 4:18 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > ny2292000 wrote:
> >
> > > I created a theory in which it is possible to derive Newton's Law of
> > > Gravitational from first principles
> >
> > You can calculate Newton's G ab initio? Do tell...
> >
> > > and most importantly to derive the
> > > correct equation for Gravitation of bodies in motion. As you know,
> > > Gravitation controls trajectories of planets, galaxies etc and they
> > > are not standing still with respect to each other.
> >
> > [snip rest of crap]
> >
> > Hey stooopid - in your theory, does light fall with twice the
> > acceleration of matter? That is the empirical obsercation.
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
>
> Dear Uncle Al,
>
> It seems that your really understand Science. Here is my blog with
> the derivation of the Gravitational Constant
> http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2007/11/cosmological-constants-g.html
>
> Please, feel free to ask any questions. You seems to have a keen eye
> for the hard questions...:)
Wipe, flush, wash your hands.
"It turned out that for you to have a single description of
Gravitation and Electromagnetism, you need a Cosmological Time
dependent G"
Hopelessly wrong by simple deep space observation.
--
Uncle Al
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Mr. Wormley,
>
> I explained quite well what I mean about anisotropy (mass anisotropy)
> in a 3D space (4D Spacetime). A Big Bang (explosion) within a 3D
> manifold would create mass anisotropy.
>
> My my!
>
> I supposed is because you believe hare brain schemes like Inflation
> Theory, where space come out of nowhere at the edge of the Universe.
> That would be a great solution to the anisotropy problem if there
> weren't better ones (mine for instance).
If you were in my class, I'm make you write an essay on "inflation"
to find out what you really know about negative-pressure vacuum energy
and the concept of exponential expansion driven by the former.
ny2292000
> ny2292000 wrote:
> > Dear Uncle Al,
>
> > It seems that your really understand Science. Here is my blog with
> > the derivation of the Gravitational Constant
>
> > Please, feel free to ask any questions. You seems to have a keen eye
> > for the hard questions...:)
>
> > That blog contains the equation for G. The derivation is within the
> > pdf file containing the full theory. Please read it and feel free to
> > ask poignant questions..>:)
> > Only by criticism one can create a good theory...:)
>
> > Another blog contains the derivation for the vacuum electric
> > permitivity epsilon zero and the magnetic susceptibility of the
> > vacuum:
>
> > I would expect you would be equally excited by my equation for
> > Gravitational forces of moving bodies. Newton's law only strictly
> > works for bodies at rest with respect to each other.
> >http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2008/09/gyrogravity.html
>
> > I noticed that I have to show the reference frames. In a non inertial
> > problem, the precise definition of the reference frame and vectors is
> > strictly necessary. I will post an update tomorrow. In the meantime,
> > please feel free to ask questions.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > MP
>
> Marco, have you considered the possibility that your "offerings" are
> too flawed to be considered for publishing?
> http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/Censorship.pdf
>
> Affiliation with universities provides some degree of filtering of
> flawed papers.
>
> Regards,
> -Sam
Dear Sam Wormley,
In the past I was associated with Universities and followed and
academic career. It just happened that it was not in the area of
Cosmology or Particle Physics.
Your comment showed the same kind of prejudice that others had shown.
You tried to deem my work not worthy of publication because you
suppose I don't have or never had an association with academia.
You just provided the lowest, most prejudiced "scientific" argument.
I qualified as such because you had the opportunity to read the theory
and create a scientific counter-argument. Instead you just posed as a
bigot. Didn't use my name to do so, but "guessed" I wasn't a
professional scientist and tried to use that as a scientific argument.
I believe people like you shouldn't associate yourselves with
Science. You just give Science a bad name.
Please, feel free to redeem yourself and provide a counter-argument to
anything I wrote.
Cheers,
MP
Uncle Al
>
> On Sep 20, 9:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > ny2292000 wrote:
> > > Dear Uncle Al,
> >
> > > It seems that your really understand Science. Here is my blog with
> > > the derivation of the Gravitational Constant
> > >http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2007/11/cosmological-con...
> >
> > > Please, feel free to ask any questions.
idiot
> > > That blog contains the equation for G. The derivation is within the
> > > pdf file containing the full theory. Please read it and feel free to
> > > ask poignant questions..>:)
> > > Only by criticism one can create a good theory...:)
idiot Big G cannot be calculated. Big G is an observed coupling
constant.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html
> > > Newton's law only strictly
> > > works for bodies at rest with respect to each other.
> > >http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2008/09/gyrogravity.html
hopeless idiot
> > > I noticed that I have to show the reference frames.
Noticed? NOTICED?
> Dear Sam Wormley,
> Your comment showed the same kind of prejudice that others had shown.
> You tried to deem my work not worthy of publication because you
> suppose I don't have or never had an association with academia.
Your "work" is not worthy of publication because it is crap. It
contradicts observation. It is already empirically falsified. It is
wrong. It is crap.
> Please, feel free to redeem yourself and provide a counter-argument to
> anything I wrote.
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
--
Uncle Al
Sam Wormley
> On Sep 20, 9:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Marco, have you considered the possibility that your "offerings" are
>> too flawed to be considered for publishing?
>> http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/Censorship.pdf
>>
>> Affiliation with universities provides some degree of filtering of
>> flawed papers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Sam
>
> Dear Sam Wormley,
>
> In the past I was associated with Universities and followed and
> academic career. It just happened that it was not in the area of
> Cosmology or Particle Physics.
I was (and am) suggesting to you that your "stuff" is not publishable
because it is wrong--contradicted by observation. Nothing more. If
you are a true scientist you will take the time to learn why it is
wrong.
greysky
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:48E7F207...@hate.spam.net...
> ny2292000 wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 20, 9:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> > ny2292000 wrote:
>> > > Dear Uncle Al,
>> >
>> > > It seems that your really understand Science. Here is my blog with
>> > > the derivation of the Gravitational Constant
>> > >http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2007/11/cosmological-con...
>> >
>> > > Please, feel free to ask any questions.
>
> idiot
>
>> > > That blog contains the equation for G. The derivation is within the
>> > > pdf file containing the full theory. Please read it and feel free to
>> > > ask poignant questions..>:)
>> > > Only by criticism one can create a good theory...:)
>
> idiot Big G cannot be calculated. Big G is an observed coupling
> constant.
>
Awww... what a marroon you are. Everyone who is someone knows that 'Big G'
is a breakfast cereal company. Sheesh.....
G=EMC^2 Glazier
climbing out of of its container. #2 Our galaxies being pushed apart.
bert
ny2292000
> ny2292000wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 4:18 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > >ny2292000wrote:
>
> > > > I created a theory in which it is possible to derive Newton's Law of
> > > > Gravitational from first principles
>
> > > You can calculate Newton's G ab initio? Do tell...
>
> > > > and most importantly to derive the
> > > > correct equation for Gravitation of bodies in motion. As you know,
> > > > Gravitation controls trajectories of planets, galaxies etc and they
> > > > are not standing still with respect to each other.
>
> > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > Hey stooopid - in your theory, does light fall with twice the
> > > acceleration of matter? That is the empirical obsercation.
>
> > > --
> > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
>
> > Dear Uncle Al,
>
> > It seems that your really understand Science. Here is my blog with
> > the derivation of the Gravitational Constant
>
> > Please, feel free to ask any questions. You seems to have a keen eye
> > for the hard questions...:)
>
> [snip]
>
> Wipe, flush, wash your hands.
>
> "It turned out that for you to have a single description of
> Gravitation and Electromagnetism, you need a Cosmological Time
> dependent G"
>
> Hopelessly wrong by simple deep space observation.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al,
If you read the equation for G you will realize that it depends upon
the 4D Radius of the Universe which increases at the speed of light
since the beginning of times.... thus it obviously depends (inversely)
with time, that is, at 7.5 billion years ago, G was twice as large as
now...etc...
Please learn how to read before posting other observations...:)
Cheers,
MP
ny2292000
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dear Uncle Al,
Which observation are you referring to?????????
If you are considering a time dependent G, you are really need to
learn how to read...:)
Just read the equation for G that I provided.
Say what you want to say about the science... Don't waste time trying
to offend me... You just look stupid doing so...)
Cheers,
MP
Sam Wormley
> If you read the equation for G you will realize that it depends upon
> the 4D Radius of the Universe which increases at the speed of light
> since the beginning of times.... thus it obviously depends (inversely)
> with time, that is, at 7.5 billion years ago, G was twice as large as
> now...etc...
Steve Carlip wrote in 26 Dec 2001:
> This is ultimately an experimental question. In general
> relativity, G is constant, but one can invent alternative
> theories of gravity (``scalar-tensor theories,'' for example)
> in which it is not.
>
> The present observational limits, though, are that if G
> changes at all, it's by less than about one part in 10^12
> per year. There are several ways to get these limits:
>
> -- We know the positions of the Moon (through laser
> ranging) and Mars (through radar ranging of the Viking
> landers) very accurately---the Moon, for instance, to
> within about a centimeter. Changes in G would cause
> predictable changes in orbits, and our measurements
> are so good that even very small changes can be ruled
> out.
>
> -- Binary pulsars---pairs of neutron stars orbiting each other,
> in which one of the stars is a pulsar---have orbits that can
> also be measured very accurately, basically because a pulsar
> keeps time as well as a very good atomic clock. By looking
> for orbital changes that would occur if G varied, we can
> again rule out changes to a high degree of accuracy.
>
> -- The details of the Sun's internal structure depend on
> its history, and they would be different if G had varied
> substantially over its lifetime. By using helioseismology,
> we can get a pretty good picture of the Sun's interior, and
> use this to rule out changes in G. Here the measurements
> are much less accurate, but even small changes would add
> up over the multi-billion year history of the Sun.
>
> -- There are other measurements that also limit variation
> of G, though somewhat less strongly: for example, by
> looking at the timing of ancient eclipses, which would
> change if G had been different. These observations
> typically give limits of less than a part in 10^10 or so
> per year.
>
> Steve Carlip
ny2292000
Dear Sam,
I see that you are not an experimentalist otherwise you would go to my
site and experiment the equation to see if it provides G. On the other
hand, you are not a theorist since you cannot understand that what is
a Fundamental or Cosmological Constant is not necessarily fundamental.
There is always a possibility that someone really intelligent will
derive it in a more fundamental paradigm. I did that.
Thus try to have an open mind (which might require you to acquire a
mind in the first place)...:)
Make your insults in the form of objections to my theory. It is much
more productive and make you look and sound less idiotic.
Cheers,
MP
> <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....>
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
ny2292000
> ny2292000wrote:
Sam,
This is a scientific list. You can always provide an argument - a
scientific argument. To say that my stuff is unpublishable does not
shed any light on why....:) Feel free to tell me why. What is
contradicting observation. That cannot be that difficult.
Cheers,
MP
ny2292000
> ny2292000wrote:
Sam,
Despite of your demonstration of lousy manner and closed mind (e.g.
stating that G can only be observed and not calculated), I would
always welcome an actual criticism.
You seem to have easily found contradiction between my theory and
reality. It should be very easy to just state them. If you just
tossed around some links to tests for General Relativity without even
trying to understand what I wrote, them you are really worthless.
On the hand, if you actually have something to say - a real scientific
argument - something that someone with your amazing intellect can
clearly and easily state as being wrong in my theory, I am ready to
hear.
Be a scientist...:) Make your argument.. Don't be a chicken..
Cheers,
MP
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 4, 6:45 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> ny2292000wrote:
>>
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> I see that you are not an experimentalist otherwise you would go to my
> site and experiment the equation to see if it provides G. On the other
> hand, you are not a theorist since you cannot understand that what is
> a Fundamental or Cosmological Constant is not necessarily fundamental.
> There is always a possibility that someone really intelligent will
> derive it in a more fundamental paradigm. I did that.
>
> Thus try to have an open mind (which might require you to acquire a
> mind in the first place)...:)
>
> Make your insults in the form of objections to my theory. It is much
> more productive and make you look and sound less idiotic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> MP
>
It is always interesting that non-scientists have no interest in
finding flaws in their theories.
ny2292000
please feel free to came and present your argument. I value your
expertise...
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2008/10/vacuous-criticism.html
Cheers, Sam
MP
Sam Wormley
Why do my responses matter to you?
ny2292000
>
> > Cheers, Sam
>
> > MP
>
> Why do my responses matter to you?
Sam,
I respect someone like yourself and would love to discuss my ideas
with you.
This is not a challenge or by any means a macho competition or pecking
order stuff... I've just believe I have an idea that should be part
of the scientific discussion.
Any good idea always benefit from criticism.
Please accept my request for criticism. If you cannot find a weak
point in my theory, I will be happy to collaborate with you instead.
By the way, my theory has five non-compact dimensions, thus there is a
4D spacetime that is perfectly consistent with Strict Relativity. That
should help in directing your critique...:)
Contrary to your assertion, I am totally interested in finding flaws
in my theory.
It looks that Uncle All was the one that called me stupid...:) what
can I say, I am wrong sometimes...:)
Cheers,
MP
ps- please add comments to my blog. It is easy for me to find them.
Thanks
ny2292000
>
> > Cheers, Sam
>
> > MP
>
> Why do my responses matter to you?
By the way, thanks for the link to relativity tests... Any time there
is something being tested, there is always a question if there is
another theory that would make the same prediction. Since my theory is
consistent with relativity, a site with tests to relativity shed
little light.
I was really interested in your view of the flaws in my theory. You
were fast in seeing them, thus you should be able to articulate them
without trouble. That is why I continued asking for your critique.
There should be something that jumps up from my blog....:)
Cheers,
MP
Marco Pereira
> > I created a theory in which it is possible to derive Newton's Law of
> > Gravitational from first principles and most importantly to derive the
> > correct equation for Gravitation of bodies in motion. As you know,
> > Gravitation controls trajectories of planets, galaxies etc and they
> > are not standing still with respect to each other.
> >
> > The theory is presented in this blog:
> > http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com
> >
> > and the specific blog on Gyrogravity and Antigravity is shown here:
> > http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2008/09/gyrogravity.html
> >
> > Please feel free to ask questions and post comments.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > MP
Dear Sam Wormley,
My name is Marco Pereira
Here is some information about my theory and the chronology of my articles. The theory has been public since 2006, and I am yet to have the pleasure of engaging in a nice scientific discussion with someone from academia. I received from members of this group name calling but never a single argument.
You can be my guest.
Marco Pereira
Here is the info you should read, watch before commenting about my work and how it evolved since 2006.
There is a theory that reproduces Einstein's successes and avoids Einstein's failures and that is Quantum Mechanical... It is called The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).
The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM
HU Basics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuGlDECvifc
Recasting Newton's Laws of Dynamics in the Space Stress Strain Paradigm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-5u1WAp6o
Big Pop Article
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1
Here I created a map for the observable and unobservable Universe and located Earth on it:
https://www.quora.com/According-to-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-HU-where-is-our-universe-within-the-hyperspherical-hypersurface/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=2&srid=3aDA
Here is how I created the map of the Hyperspherical Universe from the knowledge obtained by the Planck Satellite:
3D galaxy density map of the current universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqkbCAzcJM
and here is how I challenged Einstein's theory:
https://www.quora.com/How-would-anyone-defend-general-relativity-from-Marco-Pereiras-HU-challenge/answer/Marco-Pereira-1
Here is my take on the Dark Stuff:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-status-as-of-2019-of-the-search-for-dark-matter/answer/Marco-Pereira-1
REFERENCES
Smarandache, F. (2007). Hadron Models and related New Energy issues. "Hadron models and related New Energy issues" by Florentin Smarandache
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp/283/
Smarandache, F., & Christianto, V. (2007). Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry Supersymmetry. "Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry" by Florentin Smarandache and Victor Christianto
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp/76/
Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. World Scientific News, 82, 1–96.
http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-90.pdf
Pereira, M. (2018). The Case for a Fourth Spatial Dimension and the Hyperspherical Force. World Scientific News, 98, 127–139.
http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf
Pereira, M. (2018). The Hypergeometrical Force: The Coma Cluster without Dark Matter. World Scientific News, 101, 222–228.
http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WSN-101-2018-222-228.pdf
Pereira, M. (2019). The Optical Path of Ancient Photons and the Supernova Project. World Scientific News, 130, 195–215.
http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/WSN-130-2019-195-215.pdf
Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 17(5).
https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume17/3-The-Hypergeometrical-Universe.pdf
Pereira, M. A. (2010). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmology and Standard Model. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1316(1).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3536448
Marco Pereira. The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - Equation of State, this article.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1
