I did not find much as far as EGRET recording the gamma radiation of
Jupiter and
Saturn and their respective moons. I am under the impression that
EGRET did not
record those Jovian moons.

--- quoting from this website ---
http://www.universetoday.com/2005/03/31/earth-seen-in-gamma-rays/

"If our eyes could see high-energy gamma rays, this is what the Earth
would look like from space," said Dr. Dirk Petry of NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Other planets � most famously,
Jupiter � have a gamma-ray glow, but they are too far away from us to
image in any detail."

--- end quoting ---

I suppose when GLAST the successor gamma-ray telescope to EGRET begins
operations
that one of its planned recordings will be the Jupiter and Saturn
satellites. Now when it
does so, the reports are going to be astounding to everyone who
believes and accepts the
old ideas in physics and astronomy of black-holes and Big Bang.
Astounding and strange
because they will find, if I am correct, they will find that the gamma
radiation of the Earth to
Moon and of the Jupiter to its satellites and of Saturn to its
satellites are the brightest gamma
radiation images in our Solar System.

Why would that be?

Because the truth about gravity as a force is that gravity is Positron
Space. And so, where
you have imbalances in gravity, it plucks out the Positron Space and
channels antimatter
into the region where the imbalance in gravity occur. The greatest
tidal forces of gravity
in our Solar System are Earth to Moon and Jupiter to its Satellites
and Saturn to its Satellites.
So that these incidents of Gravity-Tidal-Forces draws the Positron
Space into leaking of
antimatter. And where this antimatter leaks into the Earth to Moon
surroundings, this
antimatter quickly encounters regular normal matter and annihilates
and we see it as
gamma radiation.

The reason behind, and the mechanism behind Pulsars is this same tidal
gravity leakage
of antimatter.

So I hope they get the GLAST up and running soon and focus on what
the image of
Jupiter and its moons are in gamma-radiation. If my theory of Gravity
= Positron Space
is correct and that Tidal Forces are the brightest gamma images then
the satellites of Jupiter
should be so very bright for Io and Europa and Ganymede.

Now this new mechanism to explain how pulsars work and which
trashcanns the old physics
theories of black-holes, makes me want to explain Gravity = Positron
Space in the Schrodinger
Equation for an atom that is the Atom Totality. Can the Schrodinger
Equation have enough
room to explain how antimatter can be the Space of ordinary matter?
After thinking about this
question for hours yesterday, I have come to a conclusion that the
Schrodinger Equation
is not big enough to accomodate antimatter being Space. And even
though Dirac Equation
is where Dirac conceived the idea of the existence of positrons.

So what is missing in Physics Theory that the Schrodinger Equation and
Dirac Equation
cannot handle Gravity = Positron Space, where the dots of the electron-
dot-cloud in the
Schrodinger Equation cannot handle the idea that the "cloud" is
antimatter to the dots in
the cloud.

If the Schrodinger Equation cannot handle it, then what in Physics can
handle Gravity > Positron Space.

The answer, I believe at this moment, may surprize most people, for it
surprizes me
somewhat. The answer is that Schrodinger Equation, although powerful,
is not really as
powerful as the Maxwell Equations.

So I am going to have to write a book on the "Lowest Terms of
Physics". Recently I said I
had to write a book on the lowest-terms of economics, political
science, biology, and chemistry
but I said that physics needs no lowest-term book since it encompasses
all the sciences.
Now I see I have to write a Lowest Terms of Physics book. Others would
call them Foundation books
as the Foundation of Physics or the Foundations of Economics. But I
like the name
Lowest-Terms for it signifies so much more than the term "foundation"
since old science has
inflated the word "foundation" and so inflated that it has become
meaningless.

Has any physicist ever tried to deduce the Maxwell Equations starting
from the Schrodinger
or Dirac Equation? Or vice versa? I doubt they ever got far, because I
doubt that either one
is deducible from the other. I believe they are independent of one
another and this Gravity > Positron Space indicates they are independent.

For the book "Lowest Terms of Physics" I envision three things that
make up physics:
(1) Periodic Chart of Elements: something to work with and work on
(2) Maxwell Equations: the worker on the elements
(3) Schrodinger or Dirac Equation: description of an Element

I am on vacation and will dive into this after August.

The mechanism of Gravity = Positron Space and why the Moon is brighter
in gamma-rays
image than the Sun is because of Tidal forces that leaks out
antimatter and subsequently
annihilates yielding gamma radiation. Can that mechanism come out of
the Schrodinger
or Dirac Equations? No way, for they are descriptive equations. But
that mechanism can
come from the Maxwell Equations. Where in the Maxwell Equations can
you have such a
mechanism? The answer is surprizingly simple and fresh. The
displacement current in the
Maxwell Equations. Has anyone evaluated the displacement current
whether it is 10^40 weaker
with respect to Ampere's Law? Or that it can be 10^40 weaker relative
to the Ampere Law?

So that when Maxwell found the missing piece of the Maxwell Equations
by adding a term to
Ampere's Law which we know today as the displacement current, well,
has anyone looking into
the idea that the displacement current is Gravity = Positron Space.

The displacement current of Maxwell's added term to Ampere's Law is
not derivable from
either the Schrodinger or the Dirac Equations, and since it is not
derivable, means the
Maxwell Equations are independent of Dirac Equation.