Hello again all!
This thread is for discussing the nature/mechanisms of GRAVITY/INERTIA/TRANSLATION/PROPAGATION etc. in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 16 2005, 10:55 PM)
Hello again all!
This thread is for discussing the nature/mechanisms of GRAVITY/INERTIA/TRANSLATION/PROPAGATION etc. in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.
RealityCheck.
.
My thoughts are as followed...
Our Universe is a closed system where two basic components exist.
Evidence suggests this as Time and Mass, Time being a quantum of change to Mass.
Mass has been defined as being charges of a positive and a negative force throughout the universe. i.e. "closed system"
And the local area where positive and negative forces entangle there exists a neutralized field of these forces which define an Atom.
If we consider each Atoms mass and summed them to a quantum it would be the major quantum or component of the universe, the other quantum would be Time.
Hence two basic components...
So where does gravity come into it, is this not another force?
NO! what is important to note is time is a record of change, when change occurs its quantum is enlarged, and because of this enlarged quantum, Mass being the only other quantum is forced to shed part of its quantum to Times quantum so that the system is always at equilibrium, as there is nothing beyond the closed system that can be quantified and entered into it or placed elsewhere. "closed system"
Now heres where gravity comes into it. If mass changes, times quantum changes with it, and Time being the sum of change inflates or increases, this quantum now has gained a portion of Masses quantum, and in return Times quantum increases pressure by squeezing Masses quantum's, which in turn if two Masses are close to each other the point of line between them has a less force exerted so mass is forced or pushed to other mass along the shortest line to each other right up to where the pressure between them is equal to the rest of their surfaces pressure, leaving gaps
At this point I can hear individuals exclaim hang on! that suggests mass is deflating! "shrinking!"
But if we note that if all mass is deflating to times quantum at the same rate our ruler or measurement would also be effected, and we would never be aware that this is occurring!
So how did I come up with all this? heaps of calculus and the following..
A/. Black holes.. Let me suggest some serious research of what we know about them to save me entering it here.
B/. The universe gives evidence of Redshift which suggests that the universe is expanding and whats more at an increasing rate! or is it!??? Could it be that our local area of the universe due to less local mass is shedding to time at a different time rate to the greater universe which has far more mass elsewhere.
Lets look at Redshift briefly and ask should the Redshift measured go out of range so that we cant measure it any more what then! yes indeed how do we measure Dark matter and or Cold matter?
It's way out of our instruments capacity to detect it. because of the different velocities of the electromagnetic waves that are beyond our speed of lights velocity or on the other end of spectrum, electromagnetic waves would seem like a stagnant field rather than a rising and falling charge!
This thread is for discussing the nature/mechanisms of GRAVITY/INERTIA/TRANSLATION/PROPAGATION etc. in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.
RealityCheck.
.
My thoughts are as followed...
Our Universe is a closed system where two basic components exist.
Evidence suggests this as Time and Mass, Time being a quantum of change to Mass.
Mass has been defined as being charges of a positive and a negative force throughout the universe. i.e. "closed system"
And the local area where positive and negative forces entangle there exists a neutralized field of these forces which define an Atom.
If we consider each Atoms mass and summed them to a quantum it would be the major quantum or component of the universe, the other quantum would be Time.
Hence two basic components...
So where does gravity come into it, is this not another force?
NO! what is important to note is time is a record of change, when change occurs its quantum is enlarged, and because of this enlarged quantum, Mass being the only other quantum is forced to shed part of its quantum to Times quantum so that the system is always at equilibrium, as there is nothing beyond the closed system that can be quantified and entered into it or placed elsewhere. "closed system"
Now heres where gravity comes into it. If mass changes, times quantum changes with it, and Time being the sum of change inflates or increases, this quantum now has gained a portion of Masses quantum, and in return Times quantum increases pressure by squeezing Masses quantum's, which in turn if two Masses are close to each other the point of line between them has a less force exerted so mass is forced or pushed to other mass along the shortest line to each other right up to where the pressure between them is equal to the rest of their surfaces pressure, leaving gaps
At this point I can hear individuals exclaim hang on! that suggests mass is deflating! "shrinking!"
But if we note that if all mass is deflating to times quantum at the same rate our ruler or measurement would also be effected, and we would never be aware that this is occurring!
So how did I come up with all this? heaps of calculus and the following..
A/. Black holes.. Let me suggest some serious research of what we know about them to save me entering it here.
B/. The universe gives evidence of Redshift which suggests that the universe is expanding and whats more at an increasing rate! or is it!??? Could it be that our local area of the universe due to less local mass is shedding to time at a different time rate to the greater universe which has far more mass elsewhere.
Lets look at Redshift briefly and ask should the Redshift measured go out of range so that we cant measure it any more what then! yes indeed how do we measure Dark matter and or Cold matter?
It's way out of our instruments capacity to detect it. because of the different velocities of the electromagnetic waves that are beyond our speed of lights velocity or on the other end of spectrum, electromagnetic waves would seem like a stagnant field rather than a rising and falling charge!
QUOTE
Evidence suggests this as Time and Mass, Time being a quantum of change to Mass.
Could you detail the evidence?
I think it would be wise to determine first if "gravity" causes the "time gradient" around mass or if the "time gradient" around mass causes "gravity" or if the two are even related.
QUOTE
Montec
I think it would be wise to determine first if "gravity" causes the "time gradient" around mass or if the "time gradient" around mass causes "gravity" or if the two are even related.
I think it would be wise to determine first if "gravity" causes the "time gradient" around mass or if the "time gradient" around mass causes "gravity" or if the two are even related.
In a curved space you have a situation where the rate of change of time varies with position. If you are within curved space there is a certain amount of choice about where 'next' (in time) is located, it could be (say) to the left, a small step in time, or to the right - a larger step forward in time. Your 'next' position in time is also a change in position (seen from the outside). A person (suitably protected) near a planet will slide towards the planet with increasing velocity simply because their 'next' is in the direction of the planet. As far as the moving person is concerned absolutely nothing is happenning - there is no force - they are simply moving forwards in time the same as anyone else - in their case this results in a change of position (seen from outside). I suggest this is the underlying relationship between curved space, gravity and time gradient.
-C2.
Hi Confused2
Hmm, shift in "locus" from time gradient results in distance per unit time (velocity) that increases as the time gradient increases (we have acceleration). Relativistic velocity results in time per unit distance for some unit of mass, IE time slows and apparent mass increases. Works for me except for momentum and inertia.
The $64k (or larger) question is: How does mass(particles,twisted energy?,Strings?) interact with space (3D bulk +?) in a way to explain both of the above results?
Hmm, shift in "locus" from time gradient results in distance per unit time (velocity) that increases as the time gradient increases (we have acceleration). Relativistic velocity results in time per unit distance for some unit of mass, IE time slows and apparent mass increases. Works for me except for momentum and inertia.
The $64k (or larger) question is: How does mass(particles,twisted energy?,Strings?) interact with space (3D bulk +?) in a way to explain both of the above results?
The best answer I have found stems from insights in relativity - namely that the derivation of special relativity using c=1, eliminating the constant gives the units of mass as length.
Einstein also suggested that gravitational effects propagate as waves.
It is therefore supposed that mass is caused by 3dimensional standing matter waves in space with an amplitude corresponding to their 'mass'. The greater the mass the greater the amplitude, and so curvature of space at that point.
Einstein also suggested that gravitational effects propagate as waves.
It is therefore supposed that mass is caused by 3dimensional standing matter waves in space with an amplitude corresponding to their 'mass'. The greater the mass the greater the amplitude, and so curvature of space at that point.
If light propagation is effected by the slower time due to gravity then gravity's propagation would too. Where time slows down in gravity so does light. Therefore the propagation of gravity would also slow down.
Gravity's propagation would slow down around a black hole. You would have to wait on gravitational changes just like you would have to wait for light.
Gravity's propagation would slow down around a black hole. You would have to wait on gravitational changes just like you would have to wait for light.
Here's one way of looking at the gravity quandary.
In classical mechanics (CM) – "gravity is the tendency for objects with mass to accelerate towards each other." In GR – "a gravitational singularity (GS) theoretically preceded the big bang."
So clearly, they disagree. The mass of a "big bang" would have gone towards itself. Ouch! The "big squeeze" or no big bang at all.
In GR – "gravity is the result of mass curving space-time. In QM – "the graviton is the particle that carries the 'gravitational force' and/or space-time is of a discrete nature."
No gravitational force detected in either case.
In CM – "every object in the Universe attracts every other object, with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects, that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."
No gravitational force detected here either, but let's use a portion of this statement to take a stab at gravity. Let's pull out one word – "center".
We already have a slight problem. We have not detected the absolute center of mass. Until we find the absolute (indivisible) "wavystringicle", all centers are relative and approximate.
Let's say for arguments sake, we did. Let's say we isolated the most absolute shape there could be – a perfect sphere. For it to be a building-block, would require it to have a spatial extent, so let's say it does. Unless one wants to consider it a point with no exent, that does not have a position in a greater spatial extent, which would be beyond the context of physics as we know it.
We now have another problem. If we look at it in isolation, we can find the center, but we can't find any other information. In a perfect sphere (no irregularities) with no outside reference (isolation), there are no possibilities other than the still point of center. There are no directions, because all "directions" are the same. This means there is no movement. Spin, size, and position are impossible. The relative is impossible.
So how does this speak to gravity or any other "physical" consideration? The other considerations being the building block itself, space, time, the big bang, singularities, black holes, the big crunch, etc.
I would have to get metaphysical/philosophical. I'll stop here.
In classical mechanics (CM) – "gravity is the tendency for objects with mass to accelerate towards each other." In GR – "a gravitational singularity (GS) theoretically preceded the big bang."
So clearly, they disagree. The mass of a "big bang" would have gone towards itself. Ouch! The "big squeeze" or no big bang at all.
In GR – "gravity is the result of mass curving space-time. In QM – "the graviton is the particle that carries the 'gravitational force' and/or space-time is of a discrete nature."
No gravitational force detected in either case.
In CM – "every object in the Universe attracts every other object, with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects, that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."
No gravitational force detected here either, but let's use a portion of this statement to take a stab at gravity. Let's pull out one word – "center".
We already have a slight problem. We have not detected the absolute center of mass. Until we find the absolute (indivisible) "wavystringicle", all centers are relative and approximate.
Let's say for arguments sake, we did. Let's say we isolated the most absolute shape there could be – a perfect sphere. For it to be a building-block, would require it to have a spatial extent, so let's say it does. Unless one wants to consider it a point with no exent, that does not have a position in a greater spatial extent, which would be beyond the context of physics as we know it.
We now have another problem. If we look at it in isolation, we can find the center, but we can't find any other information. In a perfect sphere (no irregularities) with no outside reference (isolation), there are no possibilities other than the still point of center. There are no directions, because all "directions" are the same. This means there is no movement. Spin, size, and position are impossible. The relative is impossible.
So how does this speak to gravity or any other "physical" consideration? The other considerations being the building block itself, space, time, the big bang, singularities, black holes, the big crunch, etc.
I would have to get metaphysical/philosophical. I'll stop here.
EE: Re: "gravity". and CG
A month or so ago, I calculated the gravitational force between an electron and a proton in an H atom assuming the C.G. of the electron was central within the atom (it is everywhere, isn't it?) and the proton nucleus was displaced one proton radius off center. Unless I made a mistake, the newtonian gravitational force was about equal to the coulombic force when electron was on shell! whatever that might mean was a blind alley then, so I went off in another, of many, direction. I can post the derivation if you think it means anything. I have killed many ideas like this because of the question, SO WHAT?
A month or so ago, I calculated the gravitational force between an electron and a proton in an H atom assuming the C.G. of the electron was central within the atom (it is everywhere, isn't it?) and the proton nucleus was displaced one proton radius off center. Unless I made a mistake, the newtonian gravitational force was about equal to the coulombic force when electron was on shell! whatever that might mean was a blind alley then, so I went off in another, of many, direction. I can post the derivation if you think it means anything. I have killed many ideas like this because of the question, SO WHAT?
I'm trying to think of what you mean by "CG". Talk to me about "(it is everywhere, isn't it?)" Also any other directions you've gone in. Try to use concepts expressed in language as much as possible, and physics terms as little as possible. We're having som fun.
CG is center of gravity, assuming the electron is "everywhere at all times" within the shell.i.e., it act everywhere with respect to the center of the shell where the proton is but the proton can shift it's position within the shell for short times >finite. ...So does the shell change position or does the proton change position, i.e. "motion". Let's allow "Planck length" movements. ha ha!
Some recent research has looked at time a dilation field, which is a concept I have been looking at for some time (first published 1989). We accept that time moves more slowly in a gravitational field - why? The more mass in a given region the greater the gravity hence the slower time passes. In the early universe all matter was closer together hence time passed more slowly as the universe expands time accelerates. This can explain dark matter and dark energy. Mass has inertia, resistance to acceleration in space, it also has resistance to acceleration in time. The laws of conservation guarantee that as an object resists moving forward in time it must move in space toward an area of lower entropy (greater mass).
The complete hypothesis is obviously far more complicated and far too lengthy to include in a forum post.
The complete hypothesis is obviously far more complicated and far too lengthy to include in a forum post.
QUOTE (sdogv+Aug 5 2006, 08:58 PM)
CG is center of gravity, assuming the electron is "everywhere at all times"...
Sorry it took so long to respond to this, I missed it.
It's the center that is everywhere at all times. This is the fundamental reality. Not the electron (any substance, space, time, or "force") or gravity.
All, but gravity, is the multi-faceted illusion of size, direction, and movement at or from center.
Gravity is the fact, that any movement at or from center, is an equal movement in the opposite direction, at or towards center.
The center is everywhere.
Sorry it took so long to respond to this, I missed it.
It's the center that is everywhere at all times. This is the fundamental reality. Not the electron (any substance, space, time, or "force") or gravity.
All, but gravity, is the multi-faceted illusion of size, direction, and movement at or from center.
Gravity is the fact, that any movement at or from center, is an equal movement in the opposite direction, at or towards center.
The center is everywhere.
Space and time only have relevance when matter is involved, isn't it possible that both are a result of matter? Personally, I think of space time as a dimensionality to get around the idea of gravitons, which I've always thought were a convoluted cop out. If gravitons exist and COP (Causal Ordering Postulate) is still violated, how is that better than assuming the elastic sheet space-time model which can integrate superluminal phenemonon like Bell's theorem while providing a framework to understand of why the violation of COP is sensible...
QUOTE (VonBraun+Oct 22 2006, 05:48 PM)
Space and time only have relevance when matter is involved, isn't it possible that both are a result of matter?
Couldn't it also be seen, as all of them having an equal relevance?
Mass is a "container" for space and time, as well as it's "contained" within them.
The problem is, that to contain or be contained, requires a "surface".
A surface has to be determined for all three.
"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." – Einstein
It's a bit difficult to find a surface in this statement. Maybe QM thinks it has a surface, but then again, it's uncertain.
Couldn't it also be seen, as all of them having an equal relevance?
Mass is a "container" for space and time, as well as it's "contained" within them.
The problem is, that to contain or be contained, requires a "surface".
A surface has to be determined for all three.
"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." – Einstein
It's a bit difficult to find a surface in this statement. Maybe QM thinks it has a surface, but then again, it's uncertain.
Empty space-time exists. 
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
Nick - Empty of what?!
Why is gravitation not electromagnetism?
Why is gravitation not electromagnetism?
Oh, I see. It's Mass versus Charge, and we have yet to connect the two.
QUOTE (Tor+Dec 19 2005, 09:29 PM)
Could you detail the evidence?
Sorry I did not answer any earlier,
I forgot to apply a tracking on this thread..
Even so I must admit your query is a challenging one.. because my reasoning is based on how mass is calculated and or messed around with in me converting it from a single dimension to two or more, or back again..
Anyway here are some considerations..
The first consideration would be mass at rest..
For a mass that is 2 by 2 by 2 obviously it equates to a single dimension equaling 8
With the above equation - On one side I have expressed a three dimensional mass where on the other side I have converted the three dimensions into one dimension..
Now if the mass was a closed system the single dimension can not be with change. and hence deemed as Potential energy, As only kinetic energy implies to changes..
Before I move on let me point out that a mass can be in either one of two states, Potential Energy and or Kinetic energy, Potential energy implies mass at rest or with a set and unchanging quanta.. (closed to changes)
Kinetic Energy implies change and or work and we should be mindful its at the expense of a fraction of available Potential energy..
Here's an example of a Potential 299792458 meters and if we divide the potential up we have an example of maximum available kinetic energy.. 299792458 meters/second..
Therefore a time function or reference to change is actually a fraction of potential energy derived from the system, but note by dividing up the single dimension we now have a two dimensional expression the basis for Potential Kinetic Energy..
Until then Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (earls+Oct 13 2007, 12:57 AM)
Oh, I see. It's Mass versus Charge, and we have yet to connect the two.
Mass is Potential Kinetic energy..
If we have an area experiencing one second of a velocity @c we could imply the area as a near vacuum..
The near vacuum has the speed of light at maximum velocity, and this should be obvious via with no opposing velocities..
but what if an area experiences two velocities from opposite directions?
For instance here is an area with one velocity "----" and I could imply the whole area is a near vacuum.. make a note the model is four wide..
Here we have the same area but it is experiencing a moment with opposing velocities "=--" Note how the whole area is compressed to only three wide because somewhere there has been an increase in a dimensions potential from one to two, note how if we consider further moments the increase in potential or mass is shifted "-=-"
Now lets take a look at the mass a little closer
And lets depict it as Potential Kinetic Energy with a charge to it!
In this model lets restrict Kinetic energy to a left or right inertia or force.. and we will depict it as either "<" or ">"
My next symbol will depict compression and or potential energy "()" and this area should be considered as consisting of converging and crossing velocities (Potential kinetic energy)
OK here is our fundamental Particle the basis for all mass..
<()> if we considered the kinetic Energies inertia or exertion we could state it is positive so lets define this Particle to be Positively charged..
so far so good.. but now we have to worry about a magical Particle with a magical attraction and or pull to it.. The Electron!
The Electron has been described as opposite in charge to the Proton and in theory or calculus this is easy as all we do is assign it as a negative number, unfortunately in reality the electrons beckoning (attraction) unto other mass is a little more complex, because if I depict it, here is the conundrum
>()<
Where is the inertia or force compressing the core of the electron originating from? keep in mind the inward inertia is what makes the neutralized core possible
but where does the inward inertia or velocity come from?
well for this we need to consider two or more protons!
so lets add them in!
<()>()<()>
Our next step is to then remove all restrictions to our model and allow inertia in all directions so that we may consider our Protons are exerting outward in all directions and the electrons are areas that are experiencing these exertions as an inward exertion to their core! Yeah just like the average schmo would perceive gravity!
So before I move on note here and now - How we have the same problem with gravities magical pulling Inertia! So just be mindful as to why we don't advocate to gravity as a magical pull! and or in fact should insist all forces are repulsive!
No ifs and no Butts! <Yeowch>
I said no butts! 
Anyway there is how all electromotive charges and Potential Kinetic Energy as mass conforms and complies with each other..
AND
That's both theoretically and importantly practically and or in reality!
Of course this has the Atom a lot more accurate than the age old one from Uni! But what the hey! That's how its always been with Universities!
Years and in some cases decades behind!
Until next time Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Mass is Potential Kinetic energy..
If we have an area experiencing one second of a velocity @c we could imply the area as a near vacuum..
The near vacuum has the speed of light at maximum velocity, and this should be obvious via with no opposing velocities..
but what if an area experiences two velocities from opposite directions?
For instance here is an area with one velocity "----" and I could imply the whole area is a near vacuum.. make a note the model is four wide..
Here we have the same area but it is experiencing a moment with opposing velocities "=--" Note how the whole area is compressed to only three wide because somewhere there has been an increase in a dimensions potential from one to two, note how if we consider further moments the increase in potential or mass is shifted "-=-"
Now lets take a look at the mass a little closer
And lets depict it as Potential Kinetic Energy with a charge to it!
In this model lets restrict Kinetic energy to a left or right inertia or force.. and we will depict it as either "<" or ">"
My next symbol will depict compression and or potential energy "()" and this area should be considered as consisting of converging and crossing velocities (Potential kinetic energy)
OK here is our fundamental Particle the basis for all mass..
<()> if we considered the kinetic Energies inertia or exertion we could state it is positive so lets define this Particle to be Positively charged..
so far so good.. but now we have to worry about a magical Particle with a magical attraction and or pull to it.. The Electron!
The Electron has been described as opposite in charge to the Proton and in theory or calculus this is easy as all we do is assign it as a negative number, unfortunately in reality the electrons beckoning (attraction) unto other mass is a little more complex, because if I depict it, here is the conundrum
>()<
Where is the inertia or force compressing the core of the electron originating from? keep in mind the inward inertia is what makes the neutralized core possible
but where does the inward inertia or velocity come from?
well for this we need to consider two or more protons!
so lets add them in!
<()>()<()>
Our next step is to then remove all restrictions to our model and allow inertia in all directions so that we may consider our Protons are exerting outward in all directions and the electrons are areas that are experiencing these exertions as an inward exertion to their core! Yeah just like the average schmo would perceive gravity!
So before I move on note here and now - How we have the same problem with gravities magical pulling Inertia! So just be mindful as to why we don't advocate to gravity as a magical pull! and or in fact should insist all forces are repulsive!
No ifs and no Butts! <Yeowch>
I said no butts! Anyway there is how all electromotive charges and Potential Kinetic Energy as mass conforms and complies with each other..
AND
That's both theoretically and importantly practically and or in reality!
Of course this has the Atom a lot more accurate than the age old one from Uni! But what the hey! That's how its always been with Universities!
Years and in some cases decades behind!
Until next time Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hello all
This is an abstract two dimensional model that I am currently (not set in stone) using to understand how all the current known forces interact.
Let’s start with two parallel mirrors and a beam of light.
Inertia: A beam of light that enters at an angle of less than 180° to the plane of the mirrors will bounce back and forth between the mirrors and move to the opposite side of the mirrors. The energy of the light beam moves from one side of the mirrors to the other in a straight line at a speed determined by the incident angle. Any deformation of the mirrors will result in a change in direction and/or speed of the energy (beam of light).
Gravity: The mirrors are easily deformed and react to the photon momentum contained in the beam of light. The deformation creates a concave surface that tends to focus/contain the energy as it moves across the mirrors. Higher energies create greater area of deformation in the mirrors as well as changing the distance between the mirrors for the local deformation. If we look at one side of the deformation area we can see that the mirrors are no longer parallel. Energy contained in the reflecting light beam is accelerated toward the center of deformation.
Time: Let’s suppose that the mirrors are very close together and only allow a few resonant modes/frequencies to exist for the energy/light. The energy contained in the light beam cannot be lost as it moves across the mirrors. Frequency is length per unit time. Resonance is a boundary condition that imposes frequency constraints on energy transfer as functions of length and rate/speed (distance per unit time) of energy movement. Resonance can also be a condition where there is no decay/change in the amount of energy present. So for the quantified energy (resonant modes) to remain constant where the distance (length) between the mirrors changes then “time” as the only other variable must change. A change in mirror separation whether real or virtual will affect time. When the distance between the mirrors increases from deformation then the time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant. When the path of the light is not 90° to the mirrors then time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant.
Let’s now replace “energy” with “primitive particle” (quarks, electron, and positron) and the mirrors with M-brane boundaries on both sides of an interface involving two colliding M-branes.
Particle interaction/deformation of the boundaries can create resonant conditions in the boundaries between particles. These resonances involve energies that also propagate at 180° to the boundaries.
Charge is the result of one or more energy modes (singular or groups) affecting the structure (permeability/permittivity) of the interface between colliding M-branes.
We can then say that EM radiation is a skin effect on the boundaries and has a speed that is affected by changes in the interface (thickness, permeability, and/or permittivity)
This is an abstract two dimensional model that I am currently (not set in stone) using to understand how all the current known forces interact.
Let’s start with two parallel mirrors and a beam of light.
Inertia: A beam of light that enters at an angle of less than 180° to the plane of the mirrors will bounce back and forth between the mirrors and move to the opposite side of the mirrors. The energy of the light beam moves from one side of the mirrors to the other in a straight line at a speed determined by the incident angle. Any deformation of the mirrors will result in a change in direction and/or speed of the energy (beam of light).
Gravity: The mirrors are easily deformed and react to the photon momentum contained in the beam of light. The deformation creates a concave surface that tends to focus/contain the energy as it moves across the mirrors. Higher energies create greater area of deformation in the mirrors as well as changing the distance between the mirrors for the local deformation. If we look at one side of the deformation area we can see that the mirrors are no longer parallel. Energy contained in the reflecting light beam is accelerated toward the center of deformation.
Time: Let’s suppose that the mirrors are very close together and only allow a few resonant modes/frequencies to exist for the energy/light. The energy contained in the light beam cannot be lost as it moves across the mirrors. Frequency is length per unit time. Resonance is a boundary condition that imposes frequency constraints on energy transfer as functions of length and rate/speed (distance per unit time) of energy movement. Resonance can also be a condition where there is no decay/change in the amount of energy present. So for the quantified energy (resonant modes) to remain constant where the distance (length) between the mirrors changes then “time” as the only other variable must change. A change in mirror separation whether real or virtual will affect time. When the distance between the mirrors increases from deformation then the time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant. When the path of the light is not 90° to the mirrors then time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant.
Let’s now replace “energy” with “primitive particle” (quarks, electron, and positron) and the mirrors with M-brane boundaries on both sides of an interface involving two colliding M-branes.
Particle interaction/deformation of the boundaries can create resonant conditions in the boundaries between particles. These resonances involve energies that also propagate at 180° to the boundaries.
Charge is the result of one or more energy modes (singular or groups) affecting the structure (permeability/permittivity) of the interface between colliding M-branes.
We can then say that EM radiation is a skin effect on the boundaries and has a speed that is affected by changes in the interface (thickness, permeability, and/or permittivity)
QUOTE (Montec+Dec 30 2007, 08:49 AM)
Hello all
This is an abstract two dimensional model that I am currently (not set in stone) using to understand how all the current known forces interact.
Let’s start with two parallel mirrors and a beam of light.
Inertia: A beam of light that enters at an angle of less than 180° to the plane of the mirrors will bounce back and forth between the mirrors and move to the opposite side of the mirrors. The energy of the light beam moves from one side of the mirrors to the other in a straight line at a speed determined by the incident angle. Any deformation of the mirrors will result in a change in direction and/or speed of the energy (beam of light).
Gravity: The mirrors are easily deformed and react to the photon momentum contained in the beam of light. The deformation creates a concave surface that tends to focus/contain the energy as it moves across the mirrors. Higher energies create greater area of deformation in the mirrors as well as changing the distance between the mirrors for the local deformation. If we look at one side of the deformation area we can see that the mirrors are no longer parallel. Energy contained in the reflecting light beam is accelerated toward the center of deformation.
Time: Let’s suppose that the mirrors are very close together and only allow a few resonant modes/frequencies to exist for the energy/light. The energy contained in the light beam cannot be lost as it moves across the mirrors. Frequency is length per unit time. Resonance is a boundary condition that imposes frequency constraints on energy transfer as functions of length and rate/speed (distance per unit time) of energy movement. Resonance can also be a condition where there is no decay/change in the amount of energy present. So for the quantified energy (resonant modes) to remain constant where the distance (length) between the mirrors changes then “time” as the only other variable must change. A change in mirror separation whether real or virtual will affect time. When the distance between the mirrors increases from deformation then the time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant. When the path of the light is not 90° to the mirrors then time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant.
We must keep in mind "Light" is a fraction of Potential Energy converted to Kinetic energy..
Yes that's right! "A fraction of Potential energy" converted to "Kinetic energy" in transferring and or propagating Electromagnetic waves, which if we consider it from the point of view from an electronic Engineer it's simply a rising and falling voltage in a circuit "SOLID" which if this wave is designed for transmission is simply transferred from a solid mass (antenna) to another mass which is simply with a higher ratio of Kinetic energy "Less compression to it and or less crossing velocities"
Whether the mass that the electromagnetic wave has to traverse is a Gas or a near Vacuum it is always at maximum velocity.
And we can prove this by calculating the speed of light if our solid were fully decompressed. For some clarity I recommend you read my previous Post..
This means with a mirror the electromagnetic waves are transferred from a gas to a solid a medium, which if we consider this change in medium it is with a significant compression to it..
In reality the mirror is a receiver and a transmitter without amplification to it so as the electromagnetic waves are re-transmitted there is a signal loss, it should be noted all materials and or mass have this re-transmission properties (reflection) and it is used in many fields of Science and Industry to our advantage..
So what am I getting at?
Well if we consider electromagnetic waves can be created in electronic circuits and then propagated from the circuit (solid) to a gas or near vacuum (Space) then when does the quanta of the electron become a Photon? or vice Vs when does the Photon become an electron as it merges with the mirrors Mass or our antenna's Mass?
To fully understand this morphing we need to fully understand the atoms structure via theses forces and or the inertia of each respective POSTULATED Particle with its given quanta for our theoretical calculations, and whats more we must fully understand how Force and motion and or Potential energy and Kinetic energy play it's role for postulated Particles structure AND theoretical Charge.
Finally I would like to say:- Please don't take this Post of mine as down talking and or Lecturing, All I want is that Physics advances to a new exciting level of complete clarity..
Jolly New Year to Ya all~Ya hear?
Peter J Schoen..
This is an abstract two dimensional model that I am currently (not set in stone) using to understand how all the current known forces interact.
Let’s start with two parallel mirrors and a beam of light.
Inertia: A beam of light that enters at an angle of less than 180° to the plane of the mirrors will bounce back and forth between the mirrors and move to the opposite side of the mirrors. The energy of the light beam moves from one side of the mirrors to the other in a straight line at a speed determined by the incident angle. Any deformation of the mirrors will result in a change in direction and/or speed of the energy (beam of light).
Gravity: The mirrors are easily deformed and react to the photon momentum contained in the beam of light. The deformation creates a concave surface that tends to focus/contain the energy as it moves across the mirrors. Higher energies create greater area of deformation in the mirrors as well as changing the distance between the mirrors for the local deformation. If we look at one side of the deformation area we can see that the mirrors are no longer parallel. Energy contained in the reflecting light beam is accelerated toward the center of deformation.
Time: Let’s suppose that the mirrors are very close together and only allow a few resonant modes/frequencies to exist for the energy/light. The energy contained in the light beam cannot be lost as it moves across the mirrors. Frequency is length per unit time. Resonance is a boundary condition that imposes frequency constraints on energy transfer as functions of length and rate/speed (distance per unit time) of energy movement. Resonance can also be a condition where there is no decay/change in the amount of energy present. So for the quantified energy (resonant modes) to remain constant where the distance (length) between the mirrors changes then “time” as the only other variable must change. A change in mirror separation whether real or virtual will affect time. When the distance between the mirrors increases from deformation then the time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant. When the path of the light is not 90° to the mirrors then time rate must decrease for the energy and resonant modes to remain constant.
We must keep in mind "Light" is a fraction of Potential Energy converted to Kinetic energy..
Yes that's right! "A fraction of Potential energy" converted to "Kinetic energy" in transferring and or propagating Electromagnetic waves, which if we consider it from the point of view from an electronic Engineer it's simply a rising and falling voltage in a circuit "SOLID" which if this wave is designed for transmission is simply transferred from a solid mass (antenna) to another mass which is simply with a higher ratio of Kinetic energy "Less compression to it and or less crossing velocities"
Whether the mass that the electromagnetic wave has to traverse is a Gas or a near Vacuum it is always at maximum velocity.
And we can prove this by calculating the speed of light if our solid were fully decompressed. For some clarity I recommend you read my previous Post..
This means with a mirror the electromagnetic waves are transferred from a gas to a solid a medium, which if we consider this change in medium it is with a significant compression to it..
In reality the mirror is a receiver and a transmitter without amplification to it so as the electromagnetic waves are re-transmitted there is a signal loss, it should be noted all materials and or mass have this re-transmission properties (reflection) and it is used in many fields of Science and Industry to our advantage..
So what am I getting at?
Well if we consider electromagnetic waves can be created in electronic circuits and then propagated from the circuit (solid) to a gas or near vacuum (Space) then when does the quanta of the electron become a Photon? or vice Vs when does the Photon become an electron as it merges with the mirrors Mass or our antenna's Mass?
To fully understand this morphing we need to fully understand the atoms structure via theses forces and or the inertia of each respective POSTULATED Particle with its given quanta for our theoretical calculations, and whats more we must fully understand how Force and motion and or Potential energy and Kinetic energy play it's role for postulated Particles structure AND theoretical Charge.
QUOTE
Let’s now replace “energy” with “primitive particle” (quarks, electron, and positron) and the mirrors with M-brane boundaries on both sides of an interface involving two colliding M-branes.
Particle interaction/deformation of the boundaries can create resonant conditions in the boundaries between particles. These resonances involve energies that also propagate at 180° to the boundaries.
Charge is the result of one or more energy modes (singular or groups) affecting the structure (permeability/permittivity) of the interface between colliding M-branes.
We can then say that EM radiation is a skin effect on the boundaries and has a speed that is affected by changes in the interface (thickness, permeability, and/or permittivity)
I think the clunky and restrictive concept of theoretical particle's has had its day, the LHC I think will point this out in the next fifty years or so, maybe sooner if some bright spark with a lot more advanced reasoning abilities joins the Team..Particle interaction/deformation of the boundaries can create resonant conditions in the boundaries between particles. These resonances involve energies that also propagate at 180° to the boundaries.
Charge is the result of one or more energy modes (singular or groups) affecting the structure (permeability/permittivity) of the interface between colliding M-branes.
We can then say that EM radiation is a skin effect on the boundaries and has a speed that is affected by changes in the interface (thickness, permeability, and/or permittivity)
Finally I would like to say:- Please don't take this Post of mine as down talking and or Lecturing, All I want is that Physics advances to a new exciting level of complete clarity..
Jolly New Year to Ya all~Ya hear?
Peter J Schoen..
Hello all,
Seeing Laidback here, I thought it would be appropriate to put in something which has come out from our discussion in particles have mass , how thread:
Speaking about scale, one thing already can be postulated as a definite outcome of that thread:
Galaxies are too small in their scale where they exists to have gravitational mass. So Newtons law of gravitation has nothing to do in scales below the existence of such a mass. Therefore, it came as no big surprise that it does not work in any galaxy, nor between galaxies.
Now, the usual way around it is Dark matter, which contributes gravitational mass where needed somehow.....
Other way is to make G a function of acceleration, which is may be better since it at least does not create non-existing mass, but does not explain either.
Third way is to understand that we are looking below quantum world at that scale when looking at galaxies, and start to study the laws that are there as they represent themselves- because, with some insight, they might be applicable to sub quantum scales in our location.
Galactic Astronomy, in that sense, becomes a sub quantum microscope science. If we could relate the properties (both size and complexity) of scale at galaxies ( probably primarily derivable from redshifts ) and the properties of forms there, we would start classifying what we should. Unfortunately, dynamics are difficult to notice as time is almost frozen(huge) at those scales compared to our time. So the only chance is to observe various galaxies of the same scale at different dynamic moments and to reconstruct the history .
Seeing Laidback here, I thought it would be appropriate to put in something which has come out from our discussion in particles have mass , how thread:
Speaking about scale, one thing already can be postulated as a definite outcome of that thread:
Galaxies are too small in their scale where they exists to have gravitational mass. So Newtons law of gravitation has nothing to do in scales below the existence of such a mass. Therefore, it came as no big surprise that it does not work in any galaxy, nor between galaxies.
Now, the usual way around it is Dark matter, which contributes gravitational mass where needed somehow.....
Other way is to make G a function of acceleration, which is may be better since it at least does not create non-existing mass, but does not explain either.
Third way is to understand that we are looking below quantum world at that scale when looking at galaxies, and start to study the laws that are there as they represent themselves- because, with some insight, they might be applicable to sub quantum scales in our location.
Galactic Astronomy, in that sense, becomes a sub quantum microscope science. If we could relate the properties (both size and complexity) of scale at galaxies ( probably primarily derivable from redshifts ) and the properties of forms there, we would start classifying what we should. Unfortunately, dynamics are difficult to notice as time is almost frozen(huge) at those scales compared to our time. So the only chance is to observe various galaxies of the same scale at different dynamic moments and to reconstruct the history .
I have to add a slight correction to yesterdays post:
I do not know about any references since this is purely mathematical thinking that leads to this idea.
Basically, differentiation is downscaling by and infinite amount, with loss of information. Integration is up scaling, with information gain, but in chaotic form ( integration constant is arbitrary). This is all true in below quantum, continuous space, where infinitesimals are possible physically.
The only functions able to transfer information about form between scale is periodic function as they do not change form. However, chaos enter phase information is with each up scaling.
Now, if we accept that there is no medium for EM waves to be transferred ( and there is none in our scale), we can not disprove the idea that EM waves are perceived only in the scale of receiver- so between source and detector we can not prove it is EM waves or waveforms of smaller scales reaching us since as we place detector, anywhere in the "path of EM" , we bring the information out to our scale, which is quantized, so in a sense finite compared to scales below.
When we detect EM we in fact detect wave forms from lower scales as only continuous scales can generate really sinusoidal waves. In our scale, wave/particle dualism kicks in as our scale is not able to express waveforms as continuous functions. There fore uncertainty relation.
Since we detect galaxies by studying EM waveforms, we have no chance of knowing from which scale below quantum they originate, or where is the location of their origination, since speed of transfer 2 scales below quantum scale is infinite from our point of view.
Actually, what we detect, is information flows which look like they look in detectors. Now, if what happens would in galaxies would be in scales above quantum, gravitation would hold- that is at least what our experience tells us- that in our scale, above quantum, the combined effects of information flows and expressions leads to 1/r^2 force between spherical masses, which can be easily also attributed to force between 2 informationally heavy expressions flowing in a flow of less complex entities- like Reynolds number would be rather big. Quite big.
So if this does not show up in galaxies, they must be in scales above our or below. Actually, both is possible. But, both of these scales ( and there are many sub quantum and above quantum) will display complexity smaller than our scale- the difference being that sub quantum scales are infinitely smaller, and relatively better ordered than our scale, freezing with each scale more and more as it reaches perfect solid state in first scale if ever there is one, so not detectable physically, only mentally, while above our scales would have more chaos component, but less complexity than our scale. So to redefine previous conclusion:
Galaxies exhibit the same complexity as sub quantum scales, but higher entropy than our scale ( while sub quantum scales have lower entropy and are able to generate negative entropy upscale). Why-because the increasing entropy ( integration constants) at higher scales disables complexity, degrading the structures below the complexity of our scale. We are sitting in the last scale having negative entropy enough to fight the increasing effects of integration constants ( heat) , so by definition the most complex scale but unfinished ( not as ordered as is first sub quantum scale , whose complexity is still expressible exactly).
So I was wrong when calling them exact microscopes of sub quantum- in fact, Astronomy is noisy microscopy of sub quantum, but the noise should be possible to calculate out, so that without that heat noise, we would be able to get very near sub quantum structures, and classify them based on astronomic observations.
Happy New Year!
I do not know about any references since this is purely mathematical thinking that leads to this idea.
Basically, differentiation is downscaling by and infinite amount, with loss of information. Integration is up scaling, with information gain, but in chaotic form ( integration constant is arbitrary). This is all true in below quantum, continuous space, where infinitesimals are possible physically.
The only functions able to transfer information about form between scale is periodic function as they do not change form. However, chaos enter phase information is with each up scaling.
Now, if we accept that there is no medium for EM waves to be transferred ( and there is none in our scale), we can not disprove the idea that EM waves are perceived only in the scale of receiver- so between source and detector we can not prove it is EM waves or waveforms of smaller scales reaching us since as we place detector, anywhere in the "path of EM" , we bring the information out to our scale, which is quantized, so in a sense finite compared to scales below.
When we detect EM we in fact detect wave forms from lower scales as only continuous scales can generate really sinusoidal waves. In our scale, wave/particle dualism kicks in as our scale is not able to express waveforms as continuous functions. There fore uncertainty relation.
Since we detect galaxies by studying EM waveforms, we have no chance of knowing from which scale below quantum they originate, or where is the location of their origination, since speed of transfer 2 scales below quantum scale is infinite from our point of view.
Actually, what we detect, is information flows which look like they look in detectors. Now, if what happens would in galaxies would be in scales above quantum, gravitation would hold- that is at least what our experience tells us- that in our scale, above quantum, the combined effects of information flows and expressions leads to 1/r^2 force between spherical masses, which can be easily also attributed to force between 2 informationally heavy expressions flowing in a flow of less complex entities- like Reynolds number would be rather big. Quite big.
So if this does not show up in galaxies, they must be in scales above our or below. Actually, both is possible. But, both of these scales ( and there are many sub quantum and above quantum) will display complexity smaller than our scale- the difference being that sub quantum scales are infinitely smaller, and relatively better ordered than our scale, freezing with each scale more and more as it reaches perfect solid state in first scale if ever there is one, so not detectable physically, only mentally, while above our scales would have more chaos component, but less complexity than our scale. So to redefine previous conclusion:
Galaxies exhibit the same complexity as sub quantum scales, but higher entropy than our scale ( while sub quantum scales have lower entropy and are able to generate negative entropy upscale). Why-because the increasing entropy ( integration constants) at higher scales disables complexity, degrading the structures below the complexity of our scale. We are sitting in the last scale having negative entropy enough to fight the increasing effects of integration constants ( heat) , so by definition the most complex scale but unfinished ( not as ordered as is first sub quantum scale , whose complexity is still expressible exactly).
So I was wrong when calling them exact microscopes of sub quantum- in fact, Astronomy is noisy microscopy of sub quantum, but the noise should be possible to calculate out, so that without that heat noise, we would be able to get very near sub quantum structures, and classify them based on astronomic observations.
Happy New Year!
QUOTE (Ivars+Jan 1 2008, 07:25 PM)
Hello all,
Seeing Laidback here, I thought it would be appropriate to put in something which has come out from our discussion in particles have mass , how thread:
Speaking about scale, one thing already can be postulated as a definite outcome of that thread:
Galaxies are too small in their scale where they exists to have gravitational mass. So Newtons law of gravitation has nothing to do in scales below the existence of such a mass. Therefore, it came as no big surprise that it does not work in any galaxy, nor between galaxies.
Now, the usual way around it is Dark matter, which contributes gravitational mass where needed somehow.....
Other way is to make G a function of acceleration, which is may be better since it at least does not create non-existing mass, but does not explain either.
Third way is to understand that we are looking below quantum world at that scale when looking at galaxies, and start to study the laws that are there as they represent themselves- because, with some insight, they might be applicable to sub quantum scales in our location.
Galactic Astronomy, in that sense, becomes a sub quantum microscope science. If we could relate the properties (both size and complexity) of scale at galaxies ( probably primarily derivable from redshifts ) and the properties of forms there, we would start classifying what we should. Unfortunately, dynamics are difficult to notice as time is almost frozen(huge) at those scales compared to our time. So the only chance is to observe various galaxies of the same scale at different dynamic moments and to reconstruct the history .
Let me make it clear that my reasoning agrees with Newtons laws on Force and Motion, but I do not agree with his postulations on Gravity!
I repeat I do NOT agree with Newtons reasoning on Gravity!
Newton would have done us a great favour if he had not attempted to explain gravity:- What with the very little data that was available to him, via SPACE FLIGHT was not an option back then..
Since Newton, We have discovered that even in the near vacuum (SPACE) we have gravitational inertia.. note how I refer to gravity as an inertia rather than as a force.
This is because my reasoning has it, that the whole Universe is a single mass that is with varying degrees of compression to it and or ratios of potential and Kinetic energy to it, where the more compressed (less Kinetic) a region is the relatively more solid it would present itself as (Blueshifted electomotive forces), on the other end of the scale the more de-compressed mass presents itself as(Highly Kinetic), and the less force and or less opposing velocities we would experience or be able to detect hence we imply the region as a near vacuum an area or region of maximum Velocity with respects to "c" The speed of light..
Whats important to consider is the inertia and its direction of EXERTION that implies gravitational forces is actually and quite simply from another Potential..
So if we consider each and every galaxy as if a region of compression which has even further compressed areas and or regions with even more compression to it, and therefore is with an inertia to decompress, so that there we have our galaxies reason for its existence and each of the other respective compression points all with an inertia to decompress, and if we apply this to all of our planets and their respective compression points and what the hey? Why don't we apply this inertia to all our Postulated particles and their respective electromotive forces and or charges?
I know it seems I have over simplified but if our earths atmosphere and our Oceans depths points us always back to a compression point then why do we over look the inertia responsible for it? I mean why not treat gravity as a proper inertia and or force rather than some magical attractive force? I mean how does that work!??? as it defies Newtons Laws on Force and Motion!
Unification of forces already exists! As gravity is simply an inertia resulting from an increased Potential and or force, and as "Ivars" points out all we need to consider are all concerns via each of the RELATIVE scale's
Nuff Waffled, Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Seeing Laidback here, I thought it would be appropriate to put in something which has come out from our discussion in particles have mass , how thread:
Speaking about scale, one thing already can be postulated as a definite outcome of that thread:
Galaxies are too small in their scale where they exists to have gravitational mass. So Newtons law of gravitation has nothing to do in scales below the existence of such a mass. Therefore, it came as no big surprise that it does not work in any galaxy, nor between galaxies.
Now, the usual way around it is Dark matter, which contributes gravitational mass where needed somehow.....
Other way is to make G a function of acceleration, which is may be better since it at least does not create non-existing mass, but does not explain either.
Third way is to understand that we are looking below quantum world at that scale when looking at galaxies, and start to study the laws that are there as they represent themselves- because, with some insight, they might be applicable to sub quantum scales in our location.
Galactic Astronomy, in that sense, becomes a sub quantum microscope science. If we could relate the properties (both size and complexity) of scale at galaxies ( probably primarily derivable from redshifts ) and the properties of forms there, we would start classifying what we should. Unfortunately, dynamics are difficult to notice as time is almost frozen(huge) at those scales compared to our time. So the only chance is to observe various galaxies of the same scale at different dynamic moments and to reconstruct the history .
Let me make it clear that my reasoning agrees with Newtons laws on Force and Motion, but I do not agree with his postulations on Gravity!
I repeat I do NOT agree with Newtons reasoning on Gravity!
Newton would have done us a great favour if he had not attempted to explain gravity:- What with the very little data that was available to him, via SPACE FLIGHT was not an option back then..
Since Newton, We have discovered that even in the near vacuum (SPACE) we have gravitational inertia.. note how I refer to gravity as an inertia rather than as a force.
This is because my reasoning has it, that the whole Universe is a single mass that is with varying degrees of compression to it and or ratios of potential and Kinetic energy to it, where the more compressed (less Kinetic) a region is the relatively more solid it would present itself as (Blueshifted electomotive forces), on the other end of the scale the more de-compressed mass presents itself as(Highly Kinetic), and the less force and or less opposing velocities we would experience or be able to detect hence we imply the region as a near vacuum an area or region of maximum Velocity with respects to "c" The speed of light..
Whats important to consider is the inertia and its direction of EXERTION that implies gravitational forces is actually and quite simply from another Potential..
So if we consider each and every galaxy as if a region of compression which has even further compressed areas and or regions with even more compression to it, and therefore is with an inertia to decompress, so that there we have our galaxies reason for its existence and each of the other respective compression points all with an inertia to decompress, and if we apply this to all of our planets and their respective compression points and what the hey? Why don't we apply this inertia to all our Postulated particles and their respective electromotive forces and or charges?
I know it seems I have over simplified but if our earths atmosphere and our Oceans depths points us always back to a compression point then why do we over look the inertia responsible for it? I mean why not treat gravity as a proper inertia and or force rather than some magical attractive force? I mean how does that work!??? as it defies Newtons Laws on Force and Motion!
Unification of forces already exists! As gravity is simply an inertia resulting from an increased Potential and or force, and as "Ivars" points out all we need to consider are all concerns via each of the RELATIVE scale's
Nuff Waffled, Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
G'day,
Don't know if you're interested, I'm just starting my third year of astrophysics this year, but the reason I'm studying it is because some years ago while I was manic I developed a theory of time, gravity & the nature of the universe. At the moment its just a philosophical explanation of how time & space work, I'm studying astro so I can do all the maths & stuff (finally this year we do relativity).
Anyway, I developed this theory entirely from first principles, and it appears to obey all experimental data.
So if anyone wants a copy you can email me,
Serious_spears@yahoo.com.au
It should explain everything Einstein did but it also explains things like dark matter, and dark energy and stuff.
Don't know if you're interested, I'm just starting my third year of astrophysics this year, but the reason I'm studying it is because some years ago while I was manic I developed a theory of time, gravity & the nature of the universe. At the moment its just a philosophical explanation of how time & space work, I'm studying astro so I can do all the maths & stuff (finally this year we do relativity).
Anyway, I developed this theory entirely from first principles, and it appears to obey all experimental data.
So if anyone wants a copy you can email me,
Serious_spears@yahoo.com.au
It should explain everything Einstein did but it also explains things like dark matter, and dark energy and stuff.
Hello RealityCheck, et al
The stage two discussion involves the concept of "motion" in an OMNI-DIRECTION space.
This breaks down into two concepts.
1) There exists an actual distance along a vector in the direction of movement.
2) The movement "mechanism" is inherent to the moving object. At this point in the concept there are no external forces. All you have is the OMNI-DIRECTION space and the object.
The "mechanism" can not loose energy as it moves an object along a vector. (Or there needs to be a continuous supply of energy to power this "mechanism")
The "mechanism" must interact with OMNI-DIRECTION space.
Comments and/or questions welcome.
The stage two discussion involves the concept of "motion" in an OMNI-DIRECTION space.
This breaks down into two concepts.
1) There exists an actual distance along a vector in the direction of movement.
2) The movement "mechanism" is inherent to the moving object. At this point in the concept there are no external forces. All you have is the OMNI-DIRECTION space and the object.
The "mechanism" can not loose energy as it moves an object along a vector. (Or there needs to be a continuous supply of energy to power this "mechanism")
The "mechanism" must interact with OMNI-DIRECTION space.
Comments and/or questions welcome.
Well, blow smoke on this so I can see a fire!!
First draft for AAPT Meeting, Harper College, 3/15/08
"KISS" PHYSICS
ABSTRACT:
The motivation for this paper evolves from the last 6 words in Roger Penrose’s ROAD TO REALITY, namely, " –something that we all have missed…..". Several hundred viewpoints, (of thousands available from google searches,) were screened. Time, mass, and gravity are prominent subjects; e.g., a NATO report (1) involving some 50 abstracts, a journal report on origin of mass (2), and gravity (3), respectively.
Without time there is no mass. Without mass there is no light. A "kiss" approach (trial and error) used dimensional analysis to derive a different slant on Physics. In short, from a given position, a mass travels from "here" to "there" while light is conceived to move such that it encompasses "area", not distance.
The formulas for Planck constant, light velocity and gravityb are interpreted such that their meanings suggest mass has a will to increase its size for a longer time c of existence.
Extremely short time primeval states appear below the Planck size while Biology correlates over 21 orders of magnitude (bacteria to whales) above. (Shades of panspychism!)
________________________________________________________________
(1) Time: Geometry, Physics, and Perception, May 21-4 (2002)
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/arw_slovak.html
(2)http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770/page/4
(3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301003 (Others pending)
Tentative relations
(a) So that c= ~108 meter2 /second2 considered as meter2 /second/second
(
Fg = G (M m r)/ r 3 (i.e., same except cubic meters in G makes sense.
©. t e =~ (M r 2 )/ h (i.e."existence" is about 10 –23 seconds for hydrogen nucleus..
_
First draft for AAPT Meeting, Harper College, 3/15/08
"KISS" PHYSICS
ABSTRACT:
The motivation for this paper evolves from the last 6 words in Roger Penrose’s ROAD TO REALITY, namely, " –something that we all have missed…..". Several hundred viewpoints, (of thousands available from google searches,) were screened. Time, mass, and gravity are prominent subjects; e.g., a NATO report (1) involving some 50 abstracts, a journal report on origin of mass (2), and gravity (3), respectively.
Without time there is no mass. Without mass there is no light. A "kiss" approach (trial and error) used dimensional analysis to derive a different slant on Physics. In short, from a given position, a mass travels from "here" to "there" while light is conceived to move such that it encompasses "area", not distance.
The formulas for Planck constant, light velocity and gravityb are interpreted such that their meanings suggest mass has a will to increase its size for a longer time c of existence.
Extremely short time primeval states appear below the Planck size while Biology correlates over 21 orders of magnitude (bacteria to whales) above. (Shades of panspychism!)
________________________________________________________________
(1) Time: Geometry, Physics, and Perception, May 21-4 (2002)
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/arw_slovak.html
(2)http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770/page/4
(3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301003 (Others pending)
Tentative relations
(a) So that c= ~108 meter2 /second2 considered as meter2 /second/second
(
Fg = G (M m r)/ r 3 (i.e., same except cubic meters in G makes sense.©. t e =~ (M r 2 )/ h (i.e."existence" is about 10 –23 seconds for hydrogen nucleus..
_
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 2 2008, 05:40 PM)
My input will address precisely those things....things which are implicitly posed in the questions asked for stahe-II inputs from EVERYONE wishing to participate in the special TOE/COSMOLOGY sub-forum 'novel theorising method' project.
Yes, you are right.....there MUST BE a 'continuing' INPUT of 'energy' (impetus? of some sort) to DRIVE that universal DYNAMICS....otherwise there would be no 'process' and hence no chamge/phenomena to 'observe', hehehe.
And yes, you are right to ponder whether translation/propagation of 'perturbation feature properties' through that omni-direction 'arena' is 'lossless' and 'timeless'; or whether the 'energy input' need be 'continously input' even for 'uniform velocity motion' or whether 'no further' impetus/energy input is necessary UNLESS 'accelerating' that 'feature/properties'.
Stage-II seeks to identify the nature of the 'driving force' that makes for CHANGE (LOCALISED IMBALANCES) in an otherwise UNCHANGING (GLOBALLY BALANCED) omni-directional POINT MATRIX of 'direction-coincidence points' MATRIX identified/theorised at completion of STAGE-I process.
You obcviously grasp the main thrust of what is needed for stage-II inputs, so go to it!....and we'll compare/justify all the ideas from everyone as usual....and hopefully arrive at the next logical result which will 'indicate' the next logical step/questions for STAGE-III.
Are you talking to me?
Are you talking to me?
Are... YOU... talking... to... ME?
Then ask Ivars!
He is at some weird stage where *number* becomes *thing*, and that thing is... a sign. As in plus or minus.
Very strange, very, very strange! It will go just about like this:
Yes, you are right.....there MUST BE a 'continuing' INPUT of 'energy' (impetus? of some sort) to DRIVE that universal DYNAMICS....otherwise there would be no 'process' and hence no chamge/phenomena to 'observe', hehehe.
And yes, you are right to ponder whether translation/propagation of 'perturbation feature properties' through that omni-direction 'arena' is 'lossless' and 'timeless'; or whether the 'energy input' need be 'continously input' even for 'uniform velocity motion' or whether 'no further' impetus/energy input is necessary UNLESS 'accelerating' that 'feature/properties'.
Stage-II seeks to identify the nature of the 'driving force' that makes for CHANGE (LOCALISED IMBALANCES) in an otherwise UNCHANGING (GLOBALLY BALANCED) omni-directional POINT MATRIX of 'direction-coincidence points' MATRIX identified/theorised at completion of STAGE-I process.
You obcviously grasp the main thrust of what is needed for stage-II inputs, so go to it!....and we'll compare/justify all the ideas from everyone as usual....and hopefully arrive at the next logical result which will 'indicate' the next logical step/questions for STAGE-III.
Are you talking to me?
Are you talking to me?
Are... YOU... talking... to... ME?
Then ask Ivars!
He is at some weird stage where *number* becomes *thing*, and that thing is... a sign. As in plus or minus.
Very strange, very, very strange! It will go just about like this:
QUOTE (Montec+)
The stage two discussion involves the concept of "motion" in an OMNI-DIRECTION space.
To get to a "direction" you have to have a FROM and a TO. TO and FROM are observers, or observing 0's, and they lead to:
But there is NO distance in a universe of 1 or 2 objects. So that there has to be a third object in order for TO and FROM to exist. Thus that second and third objects MUST necessarily be either external to the system (distance between two spaces plus an object) OR it MUST necessarily be internal to the system.
But there is NO distance in a universe of 1 or 2 objects. So that there has to be a third object in order for TO and FROM to exist. Thus that second and third objects MUST necessarily be either external to the system (distance between two spaces plus an object) OR it MUST necessarily be internal to the system.
The "mechanism" can not loose energy as it moves an object along a vector. (Or there needs to be a continuous supply of energy to power this "mechanism")
The external mechanism or the internal mechanism? They can be and in fact are identical.
The third object is external to the two AND is lossless *but* if the mechanism is OMNI-DIRECTION and there are two types of it which belong to different scales of magnitude (either because the mechanism is internal or external to the system) then if the two mechanisms are identical except for size scale, and even so they can not ever be the same, then one is numeric and the other one is sign-y. One can be omni-directional only as long as the other one is unidirectional. I found... mass or charge?
Marge? Chass?
I am going to go kiss the mirror right now!
(DO check with Ivars, by all means.)
To get to a "direction" you have to have a FROM and a TO. TO and FROM are observers, or observing 0's, and they lead to:
QUOTE
This breaks down into two concepts.
1) There exists an actual distance along a vector (TO and FROM) in the direction of movement.
2) The movement "mechanism" is inherent to the moving object. At this point in the concept there are no external forces. All you have is the OMNI-DIRECTION space and the object.
1) There exists an actual distance along a vector (TO and FROM) in the direction of movement.
2) The movement "mechanism" is inherent to the moving object. At this point in the concept there are no external forces. All you have is the OMNI-DIRECTION space and the object.
But there is NO distance in a universe of 1 or 2 objects. So that there has to be a third object in order for TO and FROM to exist. Thus that second and third objects MUST necessarily be either external to the system (distance between two spaces plus an object) OR it MUST necessarily be internal to the system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This breaks down into two concepts. 1) There exists an actual distance along a vector (TO and FROM) in the direction of movement. 2) The movement "mechanism" is inherent to the moving object. At this point in the concept there are no external forces. All you have is the OMNI-DIRECTION space and the object. |
But there is NO distance in a universe of 1 or 2 objects. So that there has to be a third object in order for TO and FROM to exist. Thus that second and third objects MUST necessarily be either external to the system (distance between two spaces plus an object) OR it MUST necessarily be internal to the system.
The "mechanism" can not loose energy as it moves an object along a vector. (Or there needs to be a continuous supply of energy to power this "mechanism")
The external mechanism or the internal mechanism? They can be and in fact are identical.
QUOTE
The "mechanism" must interact with OMNI-DIRECTION space.
The third object is external to the two AND is lossless *but* if the mechanism is OMNI-DIRECTION and there are two types of it which belong to different scales of magnitude (either because the mechanism is internal or external to the system) then if the two mechanisms are identical except for size scale, and even so they can not ever be the same, then one is numeric and the other one is sign-y. One can be omni-directional only as long as the other one is unidirectional. I found... mass or charge?
Marge? Chass?
I am going to go kiss the mirror right now!
(DO check with Ivars, by all means.)
Hello RealityCheck, et al.
After further review ( I slept on it ), I find that I left out one important concept in my previous post. That is the definition of the object.
In OMNI-DIRECTION space an object can only be "NON-OMNI-DIRECTION space". This is OMNI-DIRECTION space that is limited/confined in at least one direction or vector. Further more, the direction of movement can only be along this same vector. Any movement not along this vector would be undefined since there would be no difference between the object space and OMNI-DIRECTION space.
This implies that for an object to move freely in a 3D universe then the OBJECT-SPACE of the object must be confined in those same 3D vectors/dimensions.
How the confinement works in relation to just the OMNI-DIRECTION space is the next puzzle.
Of course this definition of an "object" is subject to discussion and/or comments.
After further review ( I slept on it ), I find that I left out one important concept in my previous post. That is the definition of the object.
In OMNI-DIRECTION space an object can only be "NON-OMNI-DIRECTION space". This is OMNI-DIRECTION space that is limited/confined in at least one direction or vector. Further more, the direction of movement can only be along this same vector. Any movement not along this vector would be undefined since there would be no difference between the object space and OMNI-DIRECTION space.
This implies that for an object to move freely in a 3D universe then the OBJECT-SPACE of the object must be confined in those same 3D vectors/dimensions.
How the confinement works in relation to just the OMNI-DIRECTION space is the next puzzle.
Of course this definition of an "object" is subject to discussion and/or comments.
QUOTE (Montec+Mar 4 2008, 09:17 AM)
Hello RealityCheck, et al.
After further review ( I slept on it ), I find that I left out one important concept in my previous post. That is the definition of the object.
Oh, you are editing after the fact! You are cheating!!!
But I thought all of us... uh, all of me had agreed that the one-and-only object had 3 parts independent of the distance it has to cover because if there are only two points in a universe *distance* can not exist. ANd if there are 3 (non-space) points in a universe, the least universe that fits all distances *and* allows their existence remains a plane thus...
But I thought all of us... uh, all of me had agreed that the one-and-only object had 3 parts independent of the distance it has to cover because if there are only two points in a universe *distance* can not exist. ANd if there are 3 (non-space) points in a universe, the least universe that fits all distances *and* allows their existence remains a plane thus...
This implies that for an object to move freely in a 3D universe then the OBJECT-SPACE of the object must be confined in those same 3D vectors/dimensions.
...I don't exactly understand how we get to this 3D universe in this sentence yet! Will think about it further, sorry...
After further review ( I slept on it ), I find that I left out one important concept in my previous post. That is the definition of the object.
Oh, you are editing after the fact! You are cheating!!!
QUOTE
In OMNI-DIRECTION space an object can only be "NON-OMNI-DIRECTION space". This is OMNI-DIRECTION space that is limited/confined in at least one direction or vector. Further more, the direction of movement can only be along this same vector. Any movement not along this vector would be undefined since there would be no difference between the object space and OMNI-DIRECTION space.
But I thought all of us... uh, all of me had agreed that the one-and-only object had 3 parts independent of the distance it has to cover because if there are only two points in a universe *distance* can not exist. ANd if there are 3 (non-space) points in a universe, the least universe that fits all distances *and* allows their existence remains a plane thus...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In OMNI-DIRECTION space an object can only be "NON-OMNI-DIRECTION space". This is OMNI-DIRECTION space that is limited/confined in at least one direction or vector. Further more, the direction of movement can only be along this same vector. Any movement not along this vector would be undefined since there would be no difference between the object space and OMNI-DIRECTION space. |
But I thought all of us... uh, all of me had agreed that the one-and-only object had 3 parts independent of the distance it has to cover because if there are only two points in a universe *distance* can not exist. ANd if there are 3 (non-space) points in a universe, the least universe that fits all distances *and* allows their existence remains a plane thus...
This implies that for an object to move freely in a 3D universe then the OBJECT-SPACE of the object must be confined in those same 3D vectors/dimensions.
...I don't exactly understand how we get to this 3D universe in this sentence yet! Will think about it further, sorry...
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Mar 4 2008, 03:02 PM)
...I don't exactly understand how we get to this 3D universe in this sentence yet! Will think about it further, sorry...
Uh, Montec, how about collapse as a permanent condition? As in *umbrella* collapse?
Uh, I will think about it further, I was looking for where I longly and boringly talked about that so much that I so thoroughly humiliated the thread owner with my astounding knowledge that he immediately tried to assassinate my character as if I had a character to be assassinated you know some people just don't really see themselves in a mirror and such but anyway... didn't find the right post yet...
Uh, Montec, how about collapse as a permanent condition? As in *umbrella* collapse?
Uh, I will think about it further, I was looking for where I longly and boringly talked about that so much that I so thoroughly humiliated the thread owner with my astounding knowledge that he immediately tried to assassinate my character as if I had a character to be assassinated you know some people just don't really see themselves in a mirror and such but anyway... didn't find the right post yet...
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 16 2005, 05:55 PM)
Hello again all!
This thread is for discussing the nature/mechanisms of GRAVITY/INERTIA/TRANSLATION/PROPAGATION etc. in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.
RealityCheck.
.
Dark matter is aether.
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
This thread is for discussing the nature/mechanisms of GRAVITY/INERTIA/TRANSLATION/PROPAGATION etc. in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.
RealityCheck.
.
Dark matter is aether.
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.