To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Spiral Theory of Energy & Matter
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2

gonegahgah
STEM theory

Basically my current theory is that gravitational forces of all the stuff of the universe and their constraining gravitational force upon themselves cause light and particles to form spirals as they move through the universe. This is supposed to give light its property of frequency will being able to remain a particle.

The Problem of the Electron

Anyone who has read my previous thread Theory of Spiral Energy will remember that I left off with the dilemma of the Electron and the problems with it being able to have a workable physical shape or form.

I may have an answer to this now and offer it to the scientific community.

Originally I considered a vertical spiral out from the centre of the atom that was standing but spinning like one of those spinning tops. The problem this creates is that the top has a spin in one direction and the inner end has a spin in the opposite direction. In other words it created a negative force at one end and a positive force at the other end. Grab a slinky and see for yourself. Just doesn't sound right to me.

Then I considered a torus spiral spinning around the centre of the torus but the problem with this is that the top of the torus creates a left to right period and the bottom creates a right to left period which again creates opposite forces. Again the electron would be positive at the top or bottom and the opposite side vice-versa. As I said that doesn't sound right to me.

It occurred to me, just before writing this, to think about the gravitational effects and how this would shape an electron. If you recall from my previous thread I said that for light travelling through any medium - including space - that the greater the gravitational pull upon the light the more shorter and fatter the light spiral will get. Hence why light travels slower through glass but faster through air and fastest in space where there is the least pull on it as it travels by.

Well, if we apply this idea to electrons we can come up with something similar in a more confined space and still retain an electron that has only one force (as in negative).

First we take the spinning spiral idea where the spiral starts from the outside and spirals down in the direction of the nucleus. Next we consider the thread of the spiral. That thread being in a confined space is being acted upon by gravity so again it will fatten and shorten and form a spiral of its own.

If you were able to look at it with a microscope (which we can't) you would see the electron as a spiral. If you zoomed into closer to part of the thread of that spiral once you got close enough you would begin to see that that thread was itself actually a spiral.

Let's consider just two iterations of this spiral of a spiral (kind of like a fractal). I say two because it may be that each spiral thread in this constrained space may itself be a spiral and the thread of that spiral may also be a spiral and so on and so on. It may be an infinite number of spirals of spirals just like a fractal.

But as I said let's just consider two iterations. (I could be visualising this wrong but I've considered it and I think I am visualising it right).

Now the main spiral as I originally thought spins on its axis. This makes it a standing spiral as it is considered for the exercise to be in one place. Just like current theory talks about electrons being standing waves except with I replace these with spirals. What this generates is that the second iteration spiral is now not a standing spiral but is actually moving through space like the light spiral.

Now does this fix the problem of generating only a negative force? I think it does. If you look at the beginning of the spiralled spiral from the top you will see a left to right period moving in relation to you. If you look at the end of the spiralled spiral from the bottom you will see a left to fight period moving in relation to you. If you look at it from the side you will also see a left to right period moving in relation to you.

In this way you get a negative force all around the electron.

If you think about it it is kind of like a marriage of my first two ideas.

Phew! I think I've given myself a solution now to the problem I was having with my idea. I hope this helps someone out there to further science and maybe get it on the right track if I turn out to be right. At the moment fundamental science theory seems to be based upon and hinge a little bit on plain old simple magic.
Zephir
Maybe you would be interested about the Aether theory

User posted image
User posted image
TRoc
smile.gif

Happy Days!

The semi-historic meeting of GoneGahGah and Zephir! This should be interesting.

Welcome back G3.


T.Roc




gonegahgah
Hi TRoc. Thank you for your welcome back and your interest in these ideas.

Hi Zephir. I must admit that I am reluctant on the aether idea because the concept tends to convey the idea of a continuous unbroken substance in all directions. I do however agree that thinking of space as a void is problematic as well. For instance you may as well call our atmosphere and anything solid a void too as the closer in you get to them you can then see (well we can't but if you imagine it) that they are largely composed of nothing too.

What does remain in that void though is 'effect'. In no point in space can you hide from 'effect' even if the nearest object of matter is billions of light years away. The effect will be negligible but it will still be there.

If you consider the aether to be all the points of 'effect' of all the existing substance of the universe - and not any of the substance itself - then I would be happier with the idea. I would be even more happier if we were to call it something like the 'fluctuating field of the universe'.

So you could think of space as an atmosphere consisting of atoms that are solar systems, bolders and other matter with light shooting through it.

Zephir, are you able to generate these animated 3D models? I'm asking because I was hoping - if you are able - to see if I could get you to generate the visuals of my 'spiral electron' idea so that I can present them more quickly for anyone interested here.

Thanks
G3
gonegahgah
"Everything is forever changing. What keeps atoms spinning perpetually?" (Nick)

I think that is a very good question Nick. Hopefully science will one day be able to give us an absolute answer that can be shown via a model.

Why does a magnet hover above a superconductor with no charge in it? If you spin it it will keep spinning. I think part of the answer to your question may relate to that the electron is in a stable form and position and is basically hovering with neglible resistance. Things move much more easily on ice then on grass. They move even easier on a magnetic field.

It may also have something to do with the non-divisible laws of the substance of the Universe but I'm not sure how close we are to absolutely knowing those laws.

Maybe the fields are condusive to the electron continuing to spin?
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Sep 25 2005, 11:19 PM)
are you able to generate these animated 3D models

Hi, gonegang... whatever...

The Aether is the common denominator of the evolutionary environment, which are the both the vacuum, both the particles made from. It doesn't interfere with the relativity theory - instead of this, it heavily depends on it. By the Aether theory, the vacuum is formed by the gravity, i.e. space-time fluctuations, by the same way, as the observable particles, but it's dimension metric is lower (6D), than in the case massive particles (6 - 12). The fluctuation are having character of mixture the flat gravity waves and the so called gravity quantum loop interaction waves (i.e. photons). The Aether behaves like a common matter from the gravity interaction perspective, so its behavior is predictable. For example, the light wave looks like the elastic deformation of it.

I can make the animations of the 'spiral electron', of course - but as I've pointed out previously, it's rather approximate model of the real electron behavior.

User posted image

The space-time convolution in particles has no character of spiral, but rather multidimensional toroidal wave (twistor field), which is heavily deformed to the shape of the multidimensional manifold due to quantum effects. I'm using the spiral model for the explanations of the super-symmetry (parity, chirality, helixity) dependencies with respect of charge sign and matter-antimatter character of elementary particles for long time, but I'm always emphasize, it has no direct relation to the internal particle topology by the same way, as the simple planetary model of atom has no relation to the real atom orbital topology.

So I recommend to use this model with caution.
gonegahgah
Hi Zephir,

Thank you for your explanation.

In my previous travels on here I have actually been trying to cobble together a model that only has three dimensions. I realise that your model has more dimensions but that's okay. I'm trying to fathom how things could occur with just the three.

Would it be a waste of your time to do an animation for me or would you be able to spare some time for me?

I'm looking for a top view, side view and under view of my model of an electron to demonstrate how it generates the same period (wavelength) with the same effective relative rotation no matter which way you look at the electron. In so much it should then generate the same negative force all over and be a particle and a wave at the same time.

In my model the electron is a string in the shape of a pulled out spiral and that spiral path is also a continuous spiral itself. I feel that this would be the most stable shape.

One of the problems I have with a toroid is that the inside is closer to the opposite side than the outside. I feel this would create instabilities. Also as I said before I feel that it creates an opposing rotation for top and bottom generating an opposite force on top and bottom. A spiral instead can maintain a more even spread of substance than a toroid.

The other problem I have with a toroid is the need for the 'substance' to be moving in relation to itself through the centre and around the outside. With a toroid to me it is like trying to push water easily through the wide outside but getting jammed by the smaller inside. Kind of like sticking different size pipes together and not expecting turbulance. I could imagine that a toroid would be fighting with itself.

My spiral model doesn't require the substance to be moving in relation to itself. Instead the whole spiral spinning in a relatively stable state generates its force by the overall periodic oscillation in relation to other particles and light.

It also allows for a shape that can be more varied such as tear drop shapes, etc., to conform to the contour forces of the atom. Have you seen those egg cups that are made out of a single coil of wire. Kind of like that.

Would you have the time to generate an animation like this for me?
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Sep 26 2005, 09:12 AM)
would you be able to spare some time for me

OK, just put some side view/horizontal projection here, together with the rotation axis. The coil number in both dimensions convoluted is welcomed, too.

The common problem of "just a three dimension" theories is, they doesn't explain the "three" number, i.e. they're intuitive - but anthropocentric. The electron spin invariance with respect to its rotation is demonstrated by this picture.
gonegahgah
Thanks Zephir.

I've done up a rough idea using Corel Draw 12. I've saved it as a picture. Can you tell me how to put my picture in a post here?

If you have a yahoo.com.au (or maybe any yahoo account) you should be able to see my picture at Picture of Electron

You may have to join the group or not. I'm not sure.

G3
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Sep 28 2005, 11:56 AM)
If you have a yahoo.com.au (or maybe any yahoo account) you should be able to see my picture[/URL]

You may have to join the group or not.  I'm not sure.

G3

Sorry gonegahgah,

as I've no account on the yahoo web site yet - but you can send me this picture to the zephir@atlas.cz mail account, instead.
gonegahgah
Hi Zephir,

I have sent an email to you now. I hope it will help you to create an animation of my proposal for a possible model of an electron.

Thanks
G3
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Sep 29 2005, 10:55 PM)
I have sent an email to you now....

Sorry, but no mail has come in my mail box with picture yet....

I've even created a yahoo account, but I'm able to see any picture, obtaining the message

Error GROUP_CHECK gpg13.bc.scd.yahoo.com:GROUP_CHECK

I'm able to publish on the yahoo site without problems, as you can see bellow - so the picture linking problem is on your side.

user posted image
gonegahgah
This seems to work at least to allow you to see my rough sketch using Corel Draw.

Picture of Speculated Approximate Model of Electron

I'm not having any luck embedding my picture.

The single continuous line in the front and top views represents a string of universal substance that gives the appearance of a tear drop.

I've tried, by using the little boxes depicting zoom ins, to show you that I mean for each line to be a spiral also.
So the single continuous line in the views is meant to be a spiral with the line depicted as its axis of spiral from top to bottom.

The only rotation is of the whole tear drop as shown.

I look forward to seeing your animation. Let me know if I need to clarify this more.

Thanks
G3
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 1 2005, 12:30 PM)
Picture of Speculated Approximate Model of Electron

Sorry, but your picture link simply doesn't working for me... dry.gif
philip347
Zephiras stuff is nice.

Im thinking like a two hundred and twenty dollar textbook, which I would love to read.

Well?

Hey on this thread.'

Remember that Vader ended up throwing the Emperor down a power shaft conduit, as a result of technology meeting some of the wizard-like guilds?
gonegahgah
Yeah his stuff is. If only I could do same. But then, if only I could get a picture to show here at all... sad.gif

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VQAAA8Abu9e...i2/Electron.gif

Dam, that didn't work either!!!

Zephir,

Try this msn group: Spiral Theory of Energy & Matter
and click on "Pictures" at left.
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 2 2005, 11:16 AM)
Try this msn group: Spiral Theory of Energy & Matter and click on "Pictures" at left.

OK, I have it at least - but electron doesn't look like this, really... wink.gif

user posted image

Nevertheless, If you wanna this....

user posted image
philip347
Re Zepher: Please present the shape of an atom, from what you know, Zepher?
Zephir
QUOTE (philip347+Oct 2 2005, 03:51 PM)
Re Zepher: Please present the shape of an atom, from what you know, Zepher?

user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image
philip347
Re; Knew atoms were not symmetrical, more than ten years ago.

The politics of rage stipulate, that the Bohr models must be followed.

The necessity of practicality, in the new range, means that accuracy is what must be attained.

Thank you
gonegahgah
You rock Zephir. Thank you.

user posted image

What I like about this model is that no matter where you are in relation to the electron you would get the same direction and approximate force acting upon you.

Could I possibly get you do a second animation for me that shows this again, again with two views, but one looking from the top, and the other view from the bottom with only that half visible for both? This would be so that both ends can be seen more clearly. The side view is perfect as it is.

Thanks
G3
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 3 2005, 11:42 AM)
a second animation for me that shows this again, again with two views, but one looking from the top, and the other view from the bottom with only that half visible for both?

Please, submit some sketch again - I'm not sure, what do you exactly mean...

But I believe, the most natural shape in the particle world is torroid (i.e. t-duality, be more specific).
gonegahgah
Hi Zephir,

What I mean is exactly like the second view (top view) that you animated for me but without the bottom half visible. (This is so that I can see what the top half is doing clearly without the bottom half adding to the confusion). But also a second view the same as the top view but flipped over so that only the bottom can be seen looking from underneath.

So basically chopping what you did for me for the top view in half between the top and bottom and showing the top half on the left and the bottom half on the right.

G3
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 3 2005, 12:22 PM)
This is so that I can see what the top half is doing clearly without the bottom half adding to the confusion

By my opinion, it'll just increase the confusion instead - because the left part of animation wouldn't correspond to the right one...

You can download the original 3D Studio Max scene here and adjust it using a trial version of this SW easily..
gonegahgah
Cool. Thanks Zephir. I'll give it a try. I've only got a 200MB internet limit so I'll hopefully get my brother to download the 3D Studio Max demo for me one day soon.

The Stability of Spirals

What I like about spirals is that no part of themselves has to move in relation to themselves. In otherwords each part of the spiral remains in a constant relationship to the rest of the spiral. I feel that this would give them the greatest stability.

The toroidal model requires the substance or force of be moving in relation to itself. To me this may be an unstable situation.

Spirals tend to be the natural shape that we get at our visible level when you have a substance that is fluid in nature that is surrounded by forces. Some examples are whirlpools and tornados. So I have attempted to extrapolate this idea down to the subatomic level.

A Universal Substance

History shows us that we discovered that all the atoms where made out of the same ingredients being electrons, protons and neutrons. Before that realisation people thought that all the different elements where indivisible (the word atom means indivisible) and therefore different particles in the own right.

It was quite a paradigm shift to find that they all shared the same ingredients being electrons, protons and neutrons. Well I wondered if this commonality didn't go even further. I wondered if everything that exists could be made out of a single ingredient. I wondered if absolutely everything could possibly be made out of a single Universal substance.

QM on the other hand has given us a theory with a wealth of newer particles (examples: gluons, quarks, etc, etc).

So with this question in mind I tried to think how everything could be made out of this universal substance.

Spiral Light

That is where 'spirals' eventually sprang from in a chance remark I made in one post. Then the more I thought about it the more it grew on me.

I explored how light could be a spiral instead of a wave. From the side it would still look like a wave. But it would also be a particle. Being a spiral it would have a wavelength (period) and be a particle at the same time. I'm hoping this addresses the wave/particle duality problem that physics has.

Of course others here made me aware of polarisation. I still have to obtain some polaroid filters and explore this for myself. Polarisation is given as an example of why light couldn't be a spiral. I will have to study some actual filters.

Spiral Electrons

I then wondered if electrons would then be a spiral also. I hadn't yet devised the model that you animated for me Zephir. I came across the theory that electrons were standing waves. I couldn't imagine how a standing wave could be stable as it shakes all over the place. A standing spinning spiral seemed more stable to me.

Eventually I realised that a simple 3D spiral would probably generate the opposite forces top and bottom and couldn't answer that to myself. I'm hoping the model you animated for me Zephir heads towards addressing that.

You can see with the model that Zephir did for me that it actually looks overall like a wave from the side. The animation has a slight wobble though. If there were no wobble you would tend to see a smooth overall wave movement.

Maybe I will prove to be wrong but this is where I am at the moment on my path towards the universal substance out of which everything is made.
gonegahgah
Possible Explanation Why Light Slows Down in Denser Mediums

Another thing that my Spiral Theory offers is an explanation towards why light slows down through denser mediums and speeds up again upon exiting.

If light is a string spiral of substance subject to 'gravitational pull' and 'gravitational rotation' then the denser the medium it is going through the more pull that will be exerted width-wise on the light.

This would cause the light to fatten and as it fattens it also shortens in the process. The conversion from length to greater width results in a slowing of that part of the wave going through the denser medium as it contracts.

Upon exiting the denser medium the light spiral is able to thin under its own self-pull and as such it springs out at its faster speed.

Possible Explanation Why 'Constant' Speed of Light is Speeding Up

This would also explain why the 'constant' speed of light would seem to be speeding up. As the density of our visible locality of the Universe decreases this allows the light spiral to thin even further and travel faster.
gonegahgah
Constant Rate of Free Fall

The Theory of GR explains free fall by creating this idea of space and time having geometry. It does away with the idea of gravitation pull altogether. Things simply follow a geometric time/space path that the large mass has created in all directions around itself.

One of the problems that gave rise to this thinking was that there seemed that there was never a rational explanation of constant free fall. It was simply an accepted observation and fact.

Whether you drop a bus or a marble they will both hit the ground at the same time. This seemed to go against the logic that heavier objects should have more attraction to the Earth and should therefore fall faster. Or the opposite thinking where heavier objects have more inertia/momentum and are less likely to be moved so should fall at a slower rate of acceleration.

Obviously if you push a marble with your finger it will move easily. Try doing that with a bus though and you will soon find that the heavier bus has more inertia than the little marble.

My belief is that every ounce of substance attracts every ounce of substance. Further, regardless of what those ounces are attached to this attraction remains the same.

When you attempt to apply a force to something that force is divided out over the whole mass of the marble and bus. Gravitational pull is not divided out. Instead every ounce of the Earth attracts every ounce of the bus and every ounce of the marble.

The funny thing with gravity is that no contact is made. It is an effect and not a mechanical action. If we suddenly had billions of aliens visit us we would not suddenly have to share our gravity with them and so get lighter. Every atom of the Earth would pull them down to it with the equal force that it pulls us down.

Gravity is not a force that gets divided by the mass of the object it is acting upon. As I explained you would need several people to move a bus but you could push a marble by yourself. Gravity acts upon every ounce of the bus with equal force just as it does for the marble. Inertia therefore does not come in to play except as a constant for all masses being G. Things still take time to speed up but the rate of acceleration is always the same.
gonegahgah
Density of the Universal Substance

We have all come across the idea of a constant speed of light. I'm yet to be convinced but there may be factors that influence the speed and frequency of the light.

In the universe I am exploring there is a single ingredient I've been calling the Universal Substance.

The properties I attribute to it are:

- It can not be a singularity.
- The substance does not compact or expand of itself.
- The substance must form shapes using gaps - also termed void - to expand or compact.
- Any part of the substance by nature has a direct attraction to all other substance.
- The substance can form patterns combined with relative motions.
- These 'motions' increase or decrease the effect of the direct attraction.
- The decrease can be to the point where two motions will overcome the gravity and repel each other.
- The substance tries to reach a point of balance.
- This limits the patterns and motions that can be found.
- The limitations of these patterns, motions and standard gravitation give us the constants that we find.

Constrictions on Light

If light is a spiral of this universal substance as I am suggesting then there would need to be something to stop the light collapsing in upon itself. After all the light might move through space with its closest companion being itself. If the light as a whole moved as a length of something then you could expect it to get shorter under its own pull until it formed a ball of substance. After all it travels a long way through space.

I am aware that there is much other light around it and that it's weight is very tiny - even compared to electrons - but nether-the-less you would expect some compaction over time if it weren't for other factors.

(I am already aware that current theory states that light has no weight, mass, matter or substance but that is one of the things I dispute).

Why would the light maintain a spiral shape? Why would it get shorter in denser mediums as it gets fatter and why not instead the substance of which it is made just thin out.

I believe it has to do with stability and balance. In this respect a wave of light that travels around a heavy mass like a sun would retain its original shape at equal distances of influence from that sun except where it ended up with a different speed through the influences of the universe.
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 5 2005, 09:48 AM)
The toroidal model requires the substance or force of be moving in relation to itself. To me this may be an unstable situation.

Spirals tend to be the natural shape that we get at our visible level when you have a substance that is fluid in nature that is surrounded by forces

The torus is the shape, which can be derived as a closed loop using a single vibration in each spatial dimension. The simple open-ended string looks a rather artificial concept, here.

user posted image


QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 5 2005, 09:48 AM)
Well I wondered if this commonality didn't go even further.

You're right. By the Aether theory all is formed by Aether, i.e. mutual space time vibrations.

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 5 2005, 09:48 AM)
From the side it would still look like a wave. But it would also be a particle.


The particle appearance of light is the quantum mechanic (i.e. interference) effect.

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 5 2005, 09:48 AM)
I couldn't imagine how a standing wave could be stable as it shakes all over the place..


If you're able to realize the atom orbital as the standing wave - so it wouldn't be problem to imagine the electron too. And you're true again - it's not the stable system, being observed as a whole - the universe collapses gradually by its own gravity, being supported by anything. But electron doesn't vibrate in emptiness, it vibrates in equilibrium the neighboring quantum loops of vacuum, being supported by it as the buoyancy in liquid - so it not collapses alone, but just together with the rest of vacuum as the whole.
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 7 2005, 01:31 AM)
..why the 'constant' speed of light would seem to be speeding up...

Why do you think so?

User posted image

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 7 2005, 01:31 AM)
..Why Light Slows Down in Denser Mediums...


By the Aether theory the light speed decreases in the massive medium, because part of its energy spreads accross the convoluted dimensions by the high local speed. Therefore the overall light speed decreases, whereas the gravity speed retains the same...

user posted image

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 7 2005, 01:31 AM)
..The substance does not compact or expand of itself... It can not be a singularity...


The Aether wave theory has no problem with the singularity concept. Try to bring up the concept of the water droplet surface (phase interface (mem)brane) during the condensation of the vapor at the supercritical conditions.
gonegahgah
Zephir, it is fantastic to have the skills to illustrate your ideas. Cool.

I know that my ideas are completely unsupported. Except thank you to Good Elf on questioning the idea that increasing velocity increases mass.

I do like to think about there just being one universal substance; a substance from which everything is made. It would seem that everybody here would prefer that there be multiple existences of "stuff" that are all different to each other.

History of the Fabric of Everything

We have had an interesting journey through our history in terms of determining the substances of the universe. In that time we have come up with many different ways to explain things.

We had a time where we believed that all things were made from four substances: earth, water, air and fire.

At another time we cottoned on to atoms. Now we had dozens of particles such as: hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, etc., etc. Atoms were thought to be the smallest thing possible. They were thought to be indivisible; which is what 'atom' meant.

Then some great explorists came up with the idea that atoms were made up of three particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons. So now we had four particles again including radiation. From these four particles everything was made.

Being the nature of man we were not satisified with this and sort to see if even these things shared something in nature. Hence the birth of the idea of quantum physics and a whole gamut of particles: gluons, quarks, bosons, etc., etc.

Now we have our string theorists as well with their 11, 12, or more maybe dimensions. But their common substance is the string which exists purely as a vibration through multiple of those dimensions.

It is out of these things that we now have the 'magic' that we call 'science'. You could almost get to the point of believing that we exist only as a thought.

The Birth of Spirals

<back later. this is the 3rd time my typing has dissappeared because of shortcuts... how frustrating... I had typed a whole lot forgetting to copy/paste it and lost a whole lot>
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 12 2005, 11:55 PM)
I do like to think about there just being one universal substance; a substance from which everything is made

The Aether theory names the universal substance "Aether" and explains its existence using the mutual space-time oscillations, which are forming the energy potential, mass/gravity field and 1D+1T spatial dimensions at the same time.

It means, the Aether is formed just by vibrations of space-time geometry!
philip347

The Kabhalist support the theory of spiral matter.

I do not socially understand them.

However in the illustration that Zephir has provided, if the energy loops are set to be a flowing pattern, then this possibly could account for lateral movement, within micro particles?

This is so, as not all atoms are round, or as being described as by the Bohr model.

So atoms have been shown to be of all differing shapes.

So instead of a classically held circular orbit, that the electron has around the nucleus, there would be a superposition.

So this micro route, could at times possibly translate to a lateral position.

So there would be angular torque and momentum problems, with these micropostion movements.

Then these super-positions, might be timed by frequency alone.

These tracks, however held in a forced memory state.

This is a brand new way of looking at atoms, as well as their atomic shells.

The descriptive and "I cant stress this enough", is important, to anyone working with either atomic level physics, or molecular modeling, as now, exact models, of chemistry and other utilities, possibly could be made as scenarios, in engineering?

So a very exacting shape of the atom, and this projected use and or augmentation, is very, very, vital.
Zephir
QUOTE (philip347+Oct 13 2005, 03:46 AM)
This is so, as not all atoms are round, or as being described as by the Bohr model.

There is interesting point in quantum mechanic in particular: I believe, all so called "quantum effects" are just result of observing the massive particle in motion through a layer of spacetime (Aether) deformed by the particle motion, which is commonly known as the de Broglie wave. It's a sort of the gravity micro-lensing effect as the a very close situation to the observation of fish swimming near the water surface through the surface undulated by the energy of fish motion by such a way, the image of it observable by light will be deformed. You can experimentally test this behavior using a Java applet here (the particle is moveable using a left mouse button).

User posted image

So, it means, all the so called "quantum effects" are just a sort of space-time transformation and after then we can ask - how should the particle/fish appear WITHOUT such a transformation, it means what's a "real" shape of particle and how it looks like? There is a lot of models of such "real" atoms structure, mostly based on the polyhedral models, or Bohmian loop model. The simple Bohr/Schrodinger atom models are sort of it, too.
But the observation of particle at the rest state (i.e. at the absolute zero temperature) won't help us, just because there is a massive zero point energy fluctuations of vacuum, corresponding the Brownian motion of water. So here is no chance to observe the "real shape" (i.e. "undeformed") of electron at its lowest quantum energy state directly using a light, you have to use a some lower dimension gravity wave, which wasn't observed yet, just because it doesn't interact with light directly, too. It means, the real shape of electron, atom etc. has just a limited theoretical importance by now, because it can never been observed directly.
philip347
Re Zephir; I will be honest.I was exposed some time ago, to data, that showed the shape of atoms, was not symmetrical.

In fact, they were many differing shapes, some like Japanese origami, which is folded paper sculpture.

In respects to what you have just offered here Zephir, this seems to be a self reinforcing energy, complex pattern, rather than the actual shape of the atom.

So again, I do concur that the teaching of the Bohr teaching model does have disciplinary merit, in understanding how the atom might work, however the actual model, as this possibility would reference to top scientific level access, this would be a differing reference.

I believe the data you have shown, might be referred to as a close looped locked energy spiral, however not a full representation of a proper atom energy pattern.

So something here, would be missing, would it not?
Zephir
QUOTE (philip347+Oct 18 2005, 05:36 AM)
might be referred to as a close looped locked energy spiral, however not a full representation of a proper atom energy pattern

Concerning the "close looped locked energy spiral", it is the elementary particle model (like the free electron) - not the atom model. I'm not disussing the atom shape models here.
Curunen
Wow yes! This is absoballylutely super.
Oh, sorry, I'm new here, but I just couldn't withold myself. Spirals!
My scientific knowledge is very small, being still young, but certain things have given me a firm belief of spirals constituing everything. In taiji, energy is directed in spiral paths, for one.
I think this book may be of interest:

The Way of Truth

I apologise for my hasty non-thought through post. But this is wonderful smile.gif#

Oh btw hello smile.gif my names Shiv, 17 , Ruislip /England smile.gif
gonegahgah
The Effect of Rotational Gravitational Force

First off, gravity isn't even considered to be a force by Einstein physics. Instead - in an almost aetheristic type fashion - gravity is instead meant to stretch the fabric of time and space. Everything is then meant to just move through this fabric.

But Einstein has said, to the effect, that an 'aether' may as well not exist because it is immaterial (translation: has no effect upon anything). Einstein did not support an aether theory. I would be disinclined to do so as well.

So on the one hand Einstein didn't support an 'aether' but on the other hand he believed that time and space - which themselves would appear to be just as immaterial - as being able to be stretched like you would a fabric.

(Just as an aside: An interesting thing to note is that this stretching of time and space doesn't invade into adjacent areas like you would expect for a fabric. Instead it stretches within itself.)

Is it So

I am presently disinclined to accept the principle of time, space or as originally thought an aether being any fabric of any sort.

Yet science has additionally born us the four forces with which to explain things: gravitational force, electromagnetic force, weak attraction force, strong attract-repel force. The last one - the strong force - is one of those interesting conumdrums in that it is supposed to pull protons towards each other but if they try to get too close to each other then the force goes into reverse and acts to repel so that they stay in this balance. The closer they get the stronger the repel. Very un-gravity like.

The Gravity Conspirator

How is it that we have four forces and not just one universal characteristic that a universal force would seem to intellectually suggest? A universal theory of everything would logically try to reduce everything to a common principle. Yet we seem to have all these separate unconnected principles to achieve our Universe.

Well let's look at our gravitational force. It would appear to be quite a weakling. The electromagnetic force is stated as being thousands of times stronger than gravitational force. (I remember reading something to this effect. I would absolutely welcome if someone can give me the correct ratios again rather than more poor recollection).

Yet I think that there are some interesting observations that may show you that gravitation is a much stronger force than we realise. These are based upon the principle of rational gravitational effects.

(Sorry, "Work-In-Progess". Have got to get going but will return here soon).
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Nov 14 2005, 10:18 PM)
gravity isn't even considered to be a force by Einstein physics

Gravity is the fundamental force, which is proportional of the Ricci tensor (spacetime curvature). If you collapse the space, the force increases by the same way, as you're more closer to the source of interaction. The larger the deformation is, the stronger is the gravity influence. As the result, the strongly collapsed vortexes of spacetime fabric can serve as the source of very intensive interactions - i.e. baryonic or leptonic charge.
gonegahgah
Principles of Gravity

Principle 1 - Points of Substance Have a Gravitational Attraction to Each Other

When points of substance exist they attempt to accelerate towards all other existing points of substance.

Einstein physics says instead that mass causes time and space to distort around itself and that this causes objects to 'fall' into the distortion. As I've said, I believe time and space are as immaterial as an aether, and that the mutual substance attraction is the true cause.

Principle 2 - Points of Substance Attract All Other Points of Substance Equivalently

For any point of substance all other points of substance will be attracted towards it equivalently.

Whether you have one other point of substance or a billion other points of substance they will all still be attracted to our point of substance. They will all be attracted to our point of substance with the same amount of attraction. Having a greater quantity of substance does not reduce the desire of points of substance to accelerate towards all other points of substance.

Principle 3 - The Greater the Concentration of Points of Substance the Greater the Attraction to that Local Area

If you have more localised points of substance then you will have a greater concentration which will attract more other points of substance than less concentrated or further points of substance.

Hence why the Earth can accelerate a cannon ball or marble faster than those two things can accelerate the Earth. The Earth has a greater concentration of points of substance than do the cannon ball or marble. The Earth therefore is much more attractive.

Principle 4 - Points of Substance Have Momentum

Points of substance have a relative speed, direction and place in space. They will continue to have those unless acted upon by force and their change of speed and direction will only be relative to the force.

Principle 5 - Greater Local Concentrations of Points of Substance Does Not Increase the Attraction Those Points Have to Other Points of Substance

Principles 1 through 4 add up to one thing: if you have a heavier body and a lighter body the heavier body will be no more deviated by a third local concentration of points of substance than will the lighter body.

Each point of substance in the heavier body is attracted to the third body with equivalent amount but each point of substance in the heavier body also carries the same momentum - or desire not to change speed and direction. So although there are more points of substance in the heavier body each point has its own attraction and its own momentum. Accordingly both bodies will 'fall' towards the third body with the same acceleration.

Galileo demonstrated this with his famous tower experiment where he dropped pairs of different weighted objects at the same time yet - despite their different weights - they hit the ground at the same time.

Unfortunately Einstein physics has created the idea of gravitational distortion of space and time to explain the above. Supposedly the parabolic distortion of time and space towards the gravitational body creates a faster 'dip' as you get closer to the body.

Again I don't dispute the formulas but I think my explanation is the one that is accurate.

There is a very big different in perspective. Einstein looks at bodies distorting the space and time around them and other objects simply fall into these 'dips'. Mine says that the other objects are attracted to that body and it is this that changes their path.

Mine solves the problem of different weights by saying that the total attraction a body has to another in no way offsets its total momentum.

Okay now we get into the meaty stuff...

Principle 6 - Points of Substance Have an Orientation to Each Other

Points of substance exist within the three dimensions of space. Despite them being points they will still have an orientation within those three dimensions relative to other points of substance.

Principle 7 - Points of Substance Will Try to Maintain Their Orientation to Other Points of Substance

Points of substance will resist having their orientation changed relative to other points of substance. In other words they will always try to face the same way to each other.

Of course they predominently fail but they still try to do so and this has an impact.

Principle 8 - When Orientation Is Not Maintained This Causes Drag

Einstein coined the term frame dragging which extended upon his direct gravitional time-space distortion. I am pleased to see that he did but again his perspective disagrees with mine. Again I don't disagree with the formulas just the reason.

Einstein said that rotating objects dragged time and space around themselves. Again I think time and space are immaterial. I say that the changing orientation of the points of substance to each other causes that drag.

Principle 9 - This Drag Can Cause Some Rotation

Where it is not inhibited then the changing orientation of points of substance to each other will actually change the rotation speed and direction of those points of substance.

For example if you were able to isolate two points of substance and send them past each other without any relative rotation they would experience a change in direction, a change in vector speed and they would also develop a rotation.

The same can be seen for large planets too if you send them past each other but you also have to take into account density fluctuations throughtout the planets.

Principle 10 - Direct Gravitational Force Between Points of Substance Is Diverted When Changing Orientation Occurs

When points of substance move across each other this changes the direction of gravitational pull between them. It no longer exists as a direct line between the two points but is changed to a vector.

Even though we are talking about points of substance those points still have an orientation. In otherwords each point has negative and positive x, y and z spatial co-ordinates. They can not just be thought of as a little centre point influence of gravity; their orientation is important. If you orbit around the point you are continually changing your orientation to it - unless it and you are spinning in time with your orbit.

As objects approach each other they accelerate and as they leave they decelerate. In a 'frictionless' evironment these would balance out but the change of orientation aspect creates the necessary change in momentum that may contribute to such things as the rare capture of moons without collision. It most probably also causes the effect of Mercury's advancing orbit.

Principle 11 - A Balance of Rotational Forces Can Generate Co-operative and Counter Forces to Gravity

If you can get rotational forces to travel in opposition then this would tend to generate a repel. If they work in tadem then you would tend to generate an attraction.

This is how I am seeing electrons and the nucleus working. The spiral form of the electron I describe generates a periodic wave force by redirecting gravitational force. When it comes up against another electron the two create an opposing periodic wave force which overcomes their gravitational pull towards each other. This is the negatives repel each other that we experience. However the electrons and the nucleus have co-operative periodic wave force which increases their attraction towards each other in excess of gravity.

There must be one of two reasons why the electron doesn't fall into the nuclues (not including the repel of other electrons as obviously the hydrogen electron has no other pushing electrons by itself.

It must be either the case that: 1) as the electron gets closer to the nucleus that the nucleus causes the electron to deform in such a way that it begins to generate an opposition force at the correct distance. In this way it never crashes into the nucleus. If the electron moves away from the nucleus the attraction increases as the electron reforms and as it gets too close then the attraction turns to repel as the electron deforms under the gravity of the nucleus. or 2) the nuclueus has gravity vortexes that attract and trap the electron.

Principle 12 - Gravitational Force is a Lot Stronger than We Realise

To support the idea of the turning of gravitational force into electromagnetic force as described in the last principle then it would be that the true gravitational attraction of substance is actually a lot greater than atoms suggest. Because the electrons and nucleus of an atom involve enormously fast changes of orientation between the different particles this means that a great deal of their gravitational force is actually being transformed into electromagnetic force.

So electrons would have a lot more direct gravity than mass indicates if they were able to maintain orientation. Instead our universe is a lot lighter because the particles in atoms have continually changing internal orientation which redirects gravity to electromagnetism.
gonegahgah
Gravity and Electromagnetism

It is the last few principles that I really want to explore.

If gravitational pull is mainly being converted to electromagnetism within our atoms due to a balanced and rapidly changing orientation model - as I have been describing - then this would suggest that gravity is a whole lot stronger than we realise. The effective gravity would be being a whole lot less due to that conversion process.

It has become common practice to use gyroscopes to counter movement in movie cameras and other instruments and gyroscopes have their famous demonstration of defiance of gravity.

Also these demonstrations of conversion of gravity by Professor Eric Laithwaite would seem to be pertinent.

It is these things that should show that my rough principles above may have some plausibility.

Experiment Proposal

Funnily enough I would like to use magnetism to hopefully demonstrate this changing orientation effect. I believe that it will show the effect of a balanced changing orientation. I would then say that this demonstrates the effect that gravity would probably also have.

What the experiment requires is:

- a turning disk on the bottom attached to a motor
- several magnets that are about 10cm x 1cm on the north and south ends x whatever length
- a fixed disk on the top which is affixed overhead to scales

You would probably need about 64 of these magnets (the more the better).
Of these 32 would be affixed to the bottom turning disk and 32 to the top disk

The magnets would be attached around the edge of each disk so that they would be about 30 degrees off perpendicular towards the centre.
The top disk would have the north poles pointing down.
The bottom disk would have the south poles pointing up.

There would be two experiments:
Experiment 1) The magnets on the top and bottom would be aligned ( / / / / looking from the top except in a full circle)
Experiment 2) The magnets on the top and bottom would cross each other ( XXXX looking from the top except in a full circle)

The top disk and its magnets would be positioned fairly close to and directly above the bottom disk and its magnets in both experiments but not so close that the magnets will actually contact.
The experiment would involve spinning the bottom disk rapidly and seeing whether this causes the top disk to weight more or less.

I predict that where the top and bottom are aligned that the attraction will increase and the top disk will weigh more.
I predict that where the top and bottom are crossing that the attraction will decrease and the top disk will weigh less.

Relating the Experiment to Gravity

The reason I have proposed using opposite poles pointing towards each other is to simulate the attraction that gravitational objects have towards each other. The north and south poles would attract each other.

I hope to show by this experiment, where a balanced changing orientation increases or decreases attraction, that a spiral model, as I propose, would generate the necessary co-operative and counter forces to convert gravity into electromagnetic opposite attraction and like repel as I propose.

The cross XXXXX example would be like two electrons next to each other. The aligned ///// example would be like an electron and a proton in proximity.

The reason the electron-electron would cross and the electron-proton would align is that the left side of one is looking at the right side of the other. So electrons spin the same way and as such counter to each other whereas the opposites spin the opposite way and so align with each other. Just think of rollers. The top roller turns clockwise and the bottom roller spins anti-clockwise. In this way they co-operate. Same as the electron-proton combination.

Remembering my proposed electron model (kindly created by Zephir):

user posted image

If you study this carefully you would see that two electrons would produce a counter orientation towards each other via the smaller spirals and hence the proposed repel.
MMC
QUOTE

The reason I have proposed using opposite poles pointing towards each other is to simulate the attraction that gravitational objects have towards each other. The north and south poles would attract each other.


Actually, gravity may be the removal of 4th dimensional space. So, rather than a power of attraction, it would be better described a curving or stretching, as a result of loss through dilations of time.

Read this, you will really need to understand relativity, to understand it:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3697&hl=
gonegahgah
Positive Points Around the Nucleus

As I explained maybe there is one of two reasons why the electrons don't crash into the nucleus.

The first was that possibly as the electron gets closer to the nucleus it begins to deform and looses negativity at the end facing the nucleus.

The second, which is the point of this post, is that possibly some shape and motion of the protons in the nucleus generates higher electromagnetic positive points or balance points that aren't actually in contact with the substance of the nucleus. In this way the electrons would be attracted more strongly towards these points than the nucleus itself.

Just as counter-movement could create repel; perhaps the shape and movement of the protons would generate vortexes that collide and move the point of attraction.

Remember that protons contain so much more substance than electrons yet have an equal but opposite charge. To my mind this suggest that they spiral more slowly and redirect less gravity to charge. In this way the protons can be trapped closer to each other by greater gravity while pushing off each other slightly because of the slighter conversion of gravity to the same positve charge for each.

The poor little electron next to these giant protons could easily get caught up somewhere in the vast space controlled by the protons with their generation of spatial force dislocation.

This is just an interesting possibility and nothing more.
gonegahgah
The Question of Polarisation

When I first posted my spiral theory the first problem that was presented to me as to its feasibility was that of polarisation. Polarisation is an interesting phenomena which - aside from providing a fascinating demonstration of what can be done with light - has allowed us such technology as polaroid lenses and LCD screens. Polarisation, it appeared, seemed to fit more with a wave theory than with my spiral theory.

Well now I think differently.

It suddenly occured to me today that the answer may have been in front of me for some time.

As with all these things, I have tried to work them out by imagining the ride from the perspective of these oh so very tiny basic elements of our universe.

The answer I believe has to do with phase.

The Phase of an Approaching Photon

To begin with it had already occured to me that light striking water at an angle may interact at a field level with different arrival rotation phases.

Let me explain that. If you look at a spiral so that you are facing one of the ends then you can see that that end has a top, bottom and two sides. Now turn the spiral slightly and it has a different top, bottom and sides. You can turn the spiral through all the angles. So much so that you can have two spirals that are upside-down to each other looking at them from the front.

In this respect those spirals can have different phases to each other. For the example given of the two spirals upside-down to each other they would be 180 degrees out of phase with each other.

Now what does this mean? Well it means that some rays may hit the water with the right arrival phase to bend towards and into the water and others may hit the water with the right arrival phase to reflect off the water giving us the glare that polaroid sunglasses are so useful in removing for us.

Those that bounce off the water will have a similar phase to each other.

My spiral theory fits in quite nicely with this idea because, as I have stated, my spirals don't spin. This is because, as I have said, my spirals are the effect of the gravitational influences that the light particles find themselves travelling through. The greater the influence the fatter the light spirals and the slower they travel. Ergo my explanation of light travelling slower through denser materials such as air, water, glass. And ergo why the light 'speeds up' as it leaves the denser medium as it gets thinner and stretches forward.

This lack of spin gives the spirals the ability to remain in phase after the reflection; just like the demonstrations shown on the web sites using the 'wave' model.

The arrival phase had already occured to me but I did not figure correctly how this could have anything to do with the polarisation that polaroid filters and certain natural materials display.

My best effort recently was that I tried to imagine the spiral squishing like an oval spiral but I knew that this wouldn't work because as soon as the spiral left the filter influence it would return to a more round shape. I do believe the spirals do experience oval distortions as they travel through interesting fields but I do not believe - then nor now - that this has anything to do with explaining polaroid filters. The springing back demolishes this idea because you have to be able to explain the effects of light passing through two or more filters.

I think I can now.

Polarisation and Light Phase

I think that people first have to develop a grip of how tiny these photons and atoms are. Photons have a very tiny arrival circumferences compared to even tiny electrons let alone the predominently empty atoms. But light has a much higher frequency of fluctuation - in my theory 'relative spiral period' - compared to those mammoths. This generates a lot of relative effect.

The main principle from this is how tiny the photons really are compared to the empty spaces - to them not us - that they find themselves travelling through.

So the skipping rope example used by web sites, although useful for initial explanations of polarisation, really is a poor analogy. So much so that when you study it further you discover that the 'skipping rope' or wave actually passes through the 'gate' or filter against the direction of the gaps; not with it. The reason has to do with free moving electrons 'dampening' the aligned waves and allowing to pass the contrary or perpendicular waves.

Someone tried to explain it to me once as a plane having its wings clipped off by the poles it passes between them but I promise you that that is completely wrong. Light does not have its wings clipped. As I've explained in the last paragraph it would appear, with polarisation of light, that 'the wings pass right through the poles unharmed'.

We have to stop falling into the trap of thinking of light as being big enough to be 'clipped'. Light is too tiny to be clipped.

In my theory it is my belief that light can only be sped up or slowed down and that this has the effect of changing the 'frequency' of the light, ie. red and blue shifting. And so with polarisation the light that enters with the grain is converted to heat and the light against the grain is passed through largely unaffected.

So what does this have to do with polarisation and my light spirals?

Well, they are tiny so instead of this idea of them getting 'clipped' instead they can only be 'affected'. So where their phase interacts with the filter they are filtered and where they phase leans towards ninety degrees out of phase to those they are allowed to pass through with corresponding degrees of being unaffected.

The whole trick has to do with phase. The photon arrives at the filter with a certain arrival phase. If it has the wrong phase it will be changed from the visible light that would normally pass through. As the arrival phase is a turned amount the more it is towards the ninety degrees the more it will be passed through in its original form.

This is my considered answer to how polarisation works with my spirals.
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Nov 29 2005, 01:42 PM)
Well now I think differently.

Nice - but as I've told you, I would consider the cnots (i.e. closed type string dualities) for common particle types, instead of spirals... wink.gif

For example, the chargeless particles doesn't contain the helical part of the inner motion at all.

user posted image

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Nov 29 2005, 01:42 PM)
..Someone tried to explain it to me once as a plane having its wings clipped off by the poles it passes between... 


The quite realistic explanation of the eliptical polarizers effect is the directional antenna effect of opticaly active (i.e. helical) molecules. By the way, if your spiral theory of polarized light transfer works, so then not just only the transparent matter, but the whole vacuum should contain the "spirals", being able to transfer the light polarized by all ways possible at the same time.
gonegahgah
Thank you Zephir for your reading, suggestions and help.

I am a bit confused by your last paragraph. Can you clarify it for me?
MMC
QUOTE

How is it that we have four forces and not just one universal characteristic that a universal force would seem to intellectually suggest?


That would come from your perception of time. The human mind uses a beginning and and ending to reference events. In reality, time is not linear, there are no days, months, years, or beginnings or endings...(energy cannot be created nor destroyed)...

Therefore, there is no single point of "beginning", nor should there be a single universal force...

Perception and the human viewpoint would be where your problem stems from with this...
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Dec 1 2005, 10:47 AM)
I am a bit confused by your last paragraph.  Can you clarify it for me?

Well, your "spiral" model of massive particles is just a more energetic case of insintric vacuum fluctuations, which are being a "spirals" too (or rather a toroidal dualities). The mutual combinations of harmonic motion in different dimension makes spiral shape, like this one..

user posted image
gonegahgah
Zephir, I love your diagrams. Thank you for this one which is along the lines of what I am saying though of course yours has an aether to vibrate in and mine doesn't.

Gravity - Mass Chasing Mass

I've written in another post a little about my different perception of gravitational 'attraction' so I'll add that here to all my theorisations.

Pre-Einstein we thought of gravity as gravitational pull. For example the Earth was thought to pull us towards its surface. In otherwords the gravitational body - Earth in this instance - was reeling us in like we were on its gravitational string. Obviously everything seems to fall towards the Earth so it woul be reasonable to think that the Earth is pulling all those objects towards itself like a mother gathering in its children.

Because of Einstein the new theory emerged that gravitational bodies weren't pulling at us at all; instead they were pulling at the very time and space that surrounds like stretch fabric causing it to form a curve. We then simply 'fell' into that curved space and time like a slippery dip.

Well, personally, I don't think that gravitational bodies pull mass nor time and space. Instead I think that mass is attracted to other mass and therefore tries to chase other mass. In so doing the path of the mass is diverted.

How does this look for us then? Instead of the Earth pulling us towards its surface; we - and all objects - are instead chasing the Earth. Our bodies look at the Earth and go, 'Wow! Look at that gobstopper' and try to get close and personal with our planet of birth.

So it is not at all that the Earth is pulling all these objects towards itself. Instead these objects are looking with hunger at how massive the Earth is and rush to meet it.

This is an important distinction in perspective as it eliminates the conception of the Earth doing any pulling and simply being a big monstrous mass. All objects, which have their current trajectory and momentum, then 'feel' how big the Earth is - dependent upon how far they are away - and try to rush towards it. For Jupiter the mass is even greater so objects try to rush towards the extra mass even more so.

I think of it in terms of planets having mass not gravity. And mass is attracted to mass so other mass is then attracted towards that massive local concentration of mass. And the greater the localisation of mass there is the greater amount that is 'felt' by other mass so the more they desire to move towards that local concentration.

I don't think in terms of gravitational force - which again puts the pull in the hands of the massive body; I think instead in terms of the attraction of matter towards other matter. Other matter is therefore responsible for deviating its own path towards the massive body; not vice-versa.
Zephir
Basically, I believe at the Le Sage theory of gravity, which is based on the Casimir force effect of graviton sea. The massive body retards the of energy waves in its neighbourhood, which are forming a "shadows" between the pair of massive bodies.

The energy of the surrounding environment makes a attractive force between such pair. Such force mechanism is very universal, it can be observed for example between boats at the stormy water surface.

user posted image
Mike001
Hi Zephir, I came up with a similar thought of space pushing as the force gravity about 2 years ago (Not knowing of the Le Sage theory). I felt it could be gravitons or particles of space itself causing the effect of gravity. It would seem that most of mainstream science believes that gravity is caused by a force that originates from an object that has mass and spreads outward as an attractive force that "pulls" at other objects that have mass. The Le Sage (Or Similar) Theory, is just reversing the direction or "polarity" of the force. To me you can't discount either theory until more knowledge is gained. Recent astronomical data showing the acceleration of the universe rather than the expected slowing down due to the force of gravity should be a good indication that previous assumptions of gravity were wrong and other theories may be right. Recently I read that Thomas Townsend Brown held a similar view of gravity. I found a book on the Internet "Pushing Gravity" by Matthew R. Edwards, have you read it? Based on some of the reviews I read it seems to be a good book to read on this theory.... Mike001.
Laidback
I glazed over a few Posts in this thread and it suggests, that quite a few individuals are treating Time, Gravity, Mass and Light incorectly...

Let me first address Mass, Mass should never be treated as a solid, but more as two basic forces, most Basic physic students are availed south and north or with respects to An atom Positive proton charge and Electron negative charges.

Space should never be seen as NOthing as the whole universe as a closed system consists of three basic Quantum's.

A quantum of Time; its quantum is increasing with every change.
A positive charge.
A Negative charge.
And finally where Positive and negative enmesh a neutral charge "Neutron"

Space or NO-thing may exist but yet has to be proven.
the above for-mentioned have been defined and exist based on the Laws of Physics.

If our universe is treated as a closed system with a set of Quantum's, the sum of them all must always be stagnant as there is No-thing beyond the closed system to avail to or receive from.

So if times quantum is inflating what is availing to it's Quantum?
The only quantum's are the fields of Positive and negative and the respective enmeshed neutral areas of quantum, so times quantum must come from these quantums or forces...

Now if times quantum is inflating, it must be applying a force to the other quantum's "force", if we do the calculus, we will see that this "force" is applied quite evenly throughout the closed system, but when two masses are close to each other and or their respective Fields the "force" between them is not as great so therefore they increase in velocity to each other until all the forces equalizes "Gravity".

Those who have recognized that if Times quantum is inflating they also should realize that mass should be deflating by availing quantum to Times Quantum, and the question may arise why don't we see this shrinking or what evidence do we have pointing out that this is the case?

There are quite a few things that point to this, One is by measured Redshift, the other our perception that our universe beyond seems to be expanding to us at an ever increasing rate! But whats really happening is our local area of the universe is actually deflating at a different rate due to our local mass and what is availed as changes to Times quantum.

Not as quickly as a Black Hole mind you, but never the less somewhere in between a Black Holes time rate and the greater Universes, how do we know there are different time rates? Since Space flight it has been discovered that the Time is dictated by Local mass.

For those who have not worked out that mass consists of a gradient field, I will address this now...

Every Atom consists of a Gradient field that reaches out beyond to another atoms gradient Field. This field in reality is in a state of constant change of charge to any given area, by the ratios of Negative and Positive and partly the Neutral field.

Let us turn our attention to an Electromagnetic wave "light included" and watch it propagate from a transmission point, the first thing will be noted is that Basic particle theory should now be shed completely and lets focus on an Atom and one of its Electron valence being excited so that in order for it to jump from a closer Valence band to an outer band of Valence, those with good imagination should see that a sphere of negative charge has increased as if it was a balloon inflated and it is this change that is now carried outward into the next valence the next valence increases also by the excited charge entering it, therefore it is passed on through out the field where another atoms field amalgamates to the same excited state of charge.

If there is only one pulse transmitted what would be observed at any point in the fields, is a rise in charge and then a fall where the excited electron charge has deflated back to a resting state to its original Valence, keep in mind that all fields are merely gradient forces of a charge and they extend to the outer point of another Atoms field regardless of what the distance.

First let me make it clear light does NOT consist of particles.
The photon is an excited state of charge being propagated through an electromagnetic field in an increasing spherical manner.

If light or radio waves "Electromagnet Waves" consisted of particles the velocity of these particles would be a straight line from its source to anywhere as far as a light year away and the further away the more particles we would need to cover every single millionth of a millimeter should we be moving.

The speed of light is the rise and fall of the charge passed on through the Fields, and the more mass that any rise and fall of a charge has to interact with the slower the wave travels a given distance.

The best way to describe what happens is lets say you are in the middle of a crowd and the distances between individuals was varied and the only rule was listen to a message "rising charge" then convey message to every one around you that has not heard it "fall of charge" i.e. Atom at Rest.

If we observe from above we would see the message can be conveyed greater distances if there are less individuals involved "less mass", and they are further away from each other, in fact we could plot the wave of the message and it would give an indication of changing rates "Rate of Time/changes"

We now come to where Time is effected in that, the less changes that occur the less Times Quantum is changed, and if one does the calculus we end up with the solution of General relativity and Special Relativity = subFinite Relativity
Zephir
QUOTE (Mike001+Dec 17 2005, 09:53 PM)
Recent astronomical data showing the acceleration of the universe rather than the expected slowing down due to the force of gravity

I believe. the acceleration of the expansion of universe is solely gravitation effect, which is not tightly connected with the understanding of the gravity principle. It simply means, the universe is a heavy collapsing sphere and the vacuum is creating its material, so we are living inside it.
Laidback
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 18 2005, 03:31 AM)
I believe. the acceleration of the expansion of universe is solely gravitation effect, which is not tightly connected with the understanding of the gravity principle. It simply means, the universe is a heavy collapsing sphere and the vacuum is creating its material, so we are living inside it.


Hi there Zephir, first let me suggest you read my post just above yours...

Now... If the universe is all that is, this suggests it is a closed system, should anything exist beyond then that is included as well with a quantum update to facilitate for its inclusion as part of the closed system.

Having now established a quantum representing a closed system so that nothing else can interfere with the closed system, we can move on and define a suitable quantum where if anything changes within the system, a change must be caused elsewhere within the system to facilitate the sum of quantum maintaining status of equilibrium to that of a closed system.

When we are dealing with a closed system it's quantum should behave as how our universe is behaving currently, where if a charge rises anywhere it's rising quantum is caused by some effect of somewhere there is a quantum of decay sufficient enough to keep the closed systems quantum always at equilibrium.

so therefore if we look at your analogy we need to know where do the quantum's come from to facilitate your statements?

BTW when working with Light "electromagnetic waves" Basic particle analogies should not be referenced, electromagnetic fields are better suited to the task of Light, Gravity and Time that leads to both general and special relativity with respects to momentum, velocities and all forces invovled.
Zephir
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 18 2005, 06:36 AM)
Hi there Zephir, first let me suggest you read my post just above yours...

Sorry, Laidback - but your sentences aren't understandable for me... sad.gif

Can You express the basic idea of the last submission as simple, as possible?

QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 18 2005, 06:36 AM)
..where do the quantum's come from to facilitate your statements...

The density of Universe arises spontaneously from virtually nothing. But it shouldn't' considered to be the violation of energy conservation law, because the internal energy of Aether vibrations is compensating locally the potential energy of gravity field from such space deformations in each moment.
gonegahgah
Sorry to jump passed people's replies here. Just for the moment am adding a note of interest to myself.

How Does Mass Sense Other Mass?

In my current conception of mass 'sensing' and deviating towards other greater and/or closer concentrations of mass it is interesting to me to try to think how mass realises that there is other mass around it when they are not 'touching' each other.

Obviously in my conception of a 3D + no time there are no 'winches' holding mass to each other. Also there is no aether for mass to drag through or for light to vibrate through. So how does mass know where the other mass is?

It is an interesting question. How can the chaser masses chase after other masses (which also act as chasers) when they have no eyes, ears or other sensors to know where that pursued mass is? What is the link between chaser and chased?

As a parallel we can obviously think of magnetics and their magnetic lines of force that surround those magnets. Again their is no winch between magnet and paperclip yet they paperclip will move towards the magnet.

Interestingly enough if you hold the paperclip steadily in one place and give the magnet low friction movement (ie dangle it from string) it will move towards the paperclip to compensate for the paperclip not being able to move.

Well not quite. Given the opportunity both the magnet and paperclip will accelerate towards each other. If either is held firmly in place the other will still move towards the anchored other but the time will be longer before they meet.

So in this case you have a situation where two bits of metal won't budge each other but if you have a magnet and bit of metal both will chase each other. Of course if you have two magnets of opposite force they will chase each other even harder.

Very interesting. Will have to think more about this.
gonegahgah
The Gravity Winch

My current theory says that gravity forms the basis of all interactions of any sort in our Universe. But how does gravity work?

Unfortunately I don't have an answer to that question. Just more speculative thought.

Normally if you wish a horse to go around in a circle you have no chance unless you tie a rope to the harness of the horse. Here there is an apparent direct physical connection between the two bodies forcing them to follow a relationship to each other.

In reality of course the rope is pretty much not there at all either and is 99.9% substanceless and held together only by the forces which I am stating derive from gravitational effects of spinning spirals.

So even though we can see a physical link between the horse and ourselves again it descends down to the level of forces at a distance - albeit smaller - holding everything together.

So how is this 'force' generated?

A Universe With No Gravity

It is pretty dam lucky that we have gravity especially if as I am theorising all forces derive from gravity and momentum.

Without gravity there would be no glue. Nothing would hold together. The substance of the Universe might fly about and bounce off other substance but nothing would ever form.

Kind of like the way that water has been so vital to the existance of our kind. If water didn't have the perculiar property of getting lighter when it becomes solid then all our oceans would be frozen solid and fish would have had nowhere to emerge or swim.

Metal Attracts Magnets

Water shows an interesting thing about molecules. They can be in a state of balance but still have a negative and positive end. Water obviously isn't the most corrosive molecule about but it does still have an effect on other materials. Water is quite attracted to things. Hence how we can get capillary action against gravity.

But this doesn't make water magnetic as we know it.

Metals on the other hand are quite attracted to magnets. Metals also display the property of having free floating electrons that will happily pass from one atom to another.

Science refers to the negative and positive charge aspects of molecules attributing to the magnetic effect. If you align the atoms in the metal in such a way the electrons are in balance more toward one end on an atom by atom basis than the positive nuclues then you end up with a magnet. So there is a relationship - that is also shaped by other factors - between negative/positive charge and magnetism.

I would suggest that magnets are attracted to metal as much as metal is attracted to magnets because the magnets temporarily cause the metal atoms to realign and thus generate a temporary magnet in reverse.

Is this true? The only way to test it is to have a shielded piece of metal and somehow direct a stationery magnetic field towards a second piece of metal and see if the first non-magnetic metal piece is attracted to the second non-magnetic metal piece.
gonegahgah
Extending my idea of gravity being the only attraction method that underlies all other attracts and repels...

As far as gravity itself goes, it would appear to me that gravity is the desire of all the substance of the universe to occupy the same space as all the other substance out there.

There are only three things that stop it:
- The substance is all over the place so it is going to take a long time to converge.
- The substance is travelling at different shaped velocities which hampers contact.
- The substance can not occupy the same space - otherwise we would have singularities and not planets to try to stand upon.

The desire to occupy the same space as all other substance - especially greater so for closer substance - is what gives us pressure due to gravity.

That still leaves out the most important question: "Why and how does all substance want to occupy the same space as all other substance?"
gonegahgah
Singularities

If singularities were possible then all mass would exist as singularities.

It doesn't take the force of a black hole to keep the substance of mass together. Electrons are not made up of too-many-to-count separated 0x0x0 points of substance. The substance of an electron is a continuous string (with much debate about the shape of the string where I favour a spiralled spiral).

Even with the small gravitational pull of a 0x0x0 point of mass if different points could exist in the same point of space they would.

I know physics says that light can do this but I believe that the experiments that demonstrate light ocassionally scattering light when in large concentrates and counter directions show this to be not the case.

I don't believe that the single substance of the universe is compressable or co-existable.
gonegahgah
The Formation of Light

One of the things that has been bugging me with my theory is why a spiral of light remains as a spiral and doesn't collapse to a ball under its own - albeit minimal but none-the-less present - gravity. (We have had endless discussions as to whether light has its own gravity; or not as today's science says and I will dispute to the end that anything that has momentum can do so without having the same principle as mass (or weight under gravity).

As to why enery will remain in a spiral I think that I finally have the answer.

But firstly, it is my opinion that the single substance that forms the basis of all things (that is energy, matter, etc) is not bipolar - nor of course do any such things exist as monopoles but that's another issue. If it were bipolar - like a magnet - this would easily explain the alignment of the substance into a string to form the spiral. But alas as tempting as it could be I believe the idea is wrong and do not believe bipolarity to be the answer.

As an aside, I use the word string above. I do not in anyway mean to convey the current string theory with its multitudes of dimensions. Instead I am looking at the process of light and matter formation and existance.

Under abnormal circumstances, in a universe where everything suddenly ceased to exist except a single light particle, the light particle would most probably collapse down to a ball - although the ball would be spinning after the collapse due to momentum imparted by the collapse.

In our normal universe the light particle is surrounded by em forces. The so called permitivity and permeability of space. It is these forces that give the light its spiral shape (and affect its speed).

If you push water through a small hole you will get a faster and narrower stream. Now this is a quick anology and does not fully accurately reflect the process I believe. However it may have some part to play. The other effect however is that in moving through an em field light suddenly gains polarity. This field induced polarity plays a significant part in aligning the light particle into a string. And its - if non-bound - spin gives it the form of string spiral. The light particle may or may not spin around its central axis as it travels through space. I would tend to think that it doesn't spin as the em fields would tend to force it to remain unspinning.

However, depending upon the speed you travel through the light particle it may be spinning relative to you.

The spin makes little difference as it is the moments of interaction and the period of the spiral that give us the lights frequency and its ability to be polarised.

As I have said previously however it is also the density, movement and formation of the single substance of the universe that speeds up and slows down energy. So for example light passing through glass has the effect of fattening the light spiral and conversly shortening it at the interface so that the light slows at the interface and travels at the slower speed through the light. Upon leaving the glass the light particle once again stretches out and continues on at its original speed.

So here we have the em fields both causing light to stretch into a string - which is a spiral due to the lights relative spin to the fields it travels through - and also causing it to shorten with a bigger circumference in the proximity of higher densities. So the em fields both cause it to stretch into a string and to shorten into a fatter spiral.

The Formation of Particles

In the same respect the same subtance is simply (well to hard for us to make) bound into our particles which appear relatively stationary - compared to light - but are in fact spinning at commenserate speeds to visible light and similating the same effects that light experiences and delivers as it travels through space but in a much smaller bound region.

As I have said I believe particles are simply light bound into a spiral (so a spiral through the path of a spiral) and spinning in place. I believe it is the channel effect of this and the distinct size difference that gives the atoms their ability to keep electons distinct from the nucleus and that the opposing channels (one spinning clockwise and the other anti-clockwise) that gives them their opposite charge.

Energy and Chemical Reactions

I believe that our electrons are very similar to the visible spectrum and around this region of the spectrum. It is this that gives them their simpatico with light.

I also believe that chemical reactions are the process of energy being taken up by or released by these particles. When heat energy is applied to molecules this heat can suddenly find its straight path being influenced by the channels of the particles. Suddenly the heat energy can find itself trapped in the channels or gaining enough ability to escape the channels. Hence your endo-thermic and exo-thermic reactions.

I do not believe that heat pushes the particles into different arrangements and then simply disappears or that new heat is created when particles loosen up. Instead I believe that particles become denser of less dense by adding the energy to their total form.

I don't think that we need an atomic explosion to release and add substance to atoms. I believe this process is occuring around us all the time.

Neutrinos

I will get the references for what I am writing about Neutrinos here soon. It is all very quick off the head but comments are always welcome.

Neutrinos are supposed to be very small mass moving at light speed.
Even if they were travelling at near light speed, this would - under the principles of Einstein - give even that tiny mass the reality of infinite or near infinite mass. Trillions of Neutrinos pass through us every second. I think that we would feel the effect of trillions of infinite mass passing through us every second.

So again science calmly ignores its inconsistances.

The other thing they said was that although neutrinos have a slight mass they don't figure in the gravity of the galaxy as they are moving so fast. What a load of rubbish.

If you send a planet passed another planet at super fast speeds of course it will have a minimal effect (depending on how close you send it of course). But if you were to send a continuous train of such planets past the one poor planet then it would feel the same effect as if their were just one stationary planet - removing a small co-efficient for the drag imparted of course.

So the fact that there is an endless train of neutrinos means that their gravity does need to be included as a factor.

The minds of scientists bewilder me at times with such inaccuracies.

As I said I will have to re-read this bit about Neutrinos when I find more time but that was the gist I got. Please feel happy to correct.

I welcome comments about my Sprial Theory of Energy & Matter also.
cefarix
I didn't bother to read all of the previous posts in this thread, so this may already have been mentioned, but anyways...

Why don't you model electromagnetic waves as they are currently modeled in physics? Even according to the current physics interpretation, it is valid to interpret them as spirals. The 4-momentum of a particle defines it's direction of travel in spacetime. The "spiral" then exists in the volume that is perpendicular to the 4-momentum. The electromagnetic tensor shows this very nicely.

The way I have modeled particles in my theory is in the same way. The "stuff" that is flowing around is the spacetime medium/fluid. I have added the concept of variable density in the spacetime medium, and through this mechanism, my model accounts for both electromagnetism and gravity together.
gonegahgah
Cefarix,

I can't model it that way because I don't believe in a space-time medium. I think light travels in a void in the same fashion that a space ship can travel through a void. I don't think they need an ocean of space-time medium.

The problem I have with space-time is that it is supposed to be an ocean that somehow does not jostle with the objects travelling through it except when there is another object nearby. All other types of oceans do not behave this way. If you travel through air you experience air resistance. If you travel through water you experience water resistance. But somehow when you travel through space-time you do not experience space-time resistance.
cefarix
QUOTE (gonegahgah+May 23 2006, 06:30 PM)
Cefarix,

I can't model it that way because I don't believe in a space-time medium. I think light travels in a void in the same fashion that a space ship can travel through a void. I don't think they need an ocean of space-time medium.

The problem I have with space-time is that it is supposed to be an ocean that somehow does not jostle with the objects travelling through it except when there is another object nearby. All other types of oceans do not behave this way. If you travel through air you experience air resistance. If you travel through water you experience water resistance. But somehow when you travel through space-time you do not experience space-time resistance.

If you don't want to model as a medium, then you will end up with curved geometry as in general relativity. You say that spacetime is supposed to be an ocean, which contradicts your statement that spacetime is supposed to be a void. The reason that things don't experience resistance due to speed is because in spacetime, speed is always relative. This is not a good explanation though. The medium interpretation of spacetime makes much more sense, because it models objects in spacetime as waves of the spacetime medium itself. It combines gravity and quantum electrodynamics without any problems. The resistance in the spacetime medium happens when you accelerate. This might not be clear, until you realize that you accelerating is equivalent to the rest of the universe accelerating the other way. From that point of view, it's the gravitational field of the universe producing the inertial force on you.
gonegahgah
Link for own reference: Heat - Is this where we first went wrong

Light and Particles Produce Work

I realised that I have to slightly modify what I have said about atoms not being able to do work via their movement.

As I have stated I believe electrons to simply be a spiral of light that is travelling in place through a bound spiral path. In this same fashion light is simply a spiral particle unbound and forming a single straight spiral that is travelling with speed through space. See following picture courtesy of Zephir (with my thanks) for example of light travelling through a spiral path.

User posted image

I have said that atoms need to be jostling with radiation in the infrared region to exhibit the feel of having heat. I believe this. I don't think that the infrared radiation or light simply imparts extra vibration to the molecules and then disappears like current science tells us. I believe there is momentum exchange but without the infrared rays continuing to jostle with them the molecules would simply co-elesce again.

But, as I have stated, the electrons are simply light spirals too but just bound into a spinning spiral path. As such they behave like light and have an em effect. In this way molecules will interact with each other and with light - just as light interacts with other light but it is so very tiny - so that they will cause work to be done. Whether light is bound in particles or is free it will do work.

E = m x c^2

You can also see from the above the easy visuallisation of the transition from matter to energy that Einstein gave us with his equation E = m x c^2. The particle simply uncoils and in the process shoots forth in a straight path at the speed it was originally going around in circles at. I haven't heard a more direct explanation of the process with any other theory.

Collider Collisions and Resultant Spiral Routes

And it is hence why I believe that the reason the collider particles seem to spring out in a spiral path before they go on as energy is because of this conversion of the light from its spiral path to a straight path. The uncoiling process creates the ever widening spiral path of the particles - as is measured by their instrumentation - until it is fully straigtened and continues on as energy in a straight path.

How Tiny Is Light?

As I mentioned trillions of Neutrinos pass through every square centremetre of us every second. So they are very tiny. Light particles are even tinier. They are more than a billion billionth smaller than even Neutrinos. How many of them do you think interact with molecules every second?

I don't necessarily agree with this idea of one light particle shifts one electron. I think they as a collection do work of this sort and that electrons can actually gain or lose mass or at least share their regional space with the mass of the light particles.

Up Down Electrons

Another good thing about my theory is that it possibly offers an explaination of the up and down electrons found by quantum physics. Up electrons would be anticlockwise light travelling through a clockwise spiral path and down electrons would be clockwise light travelling through an anti-clockwise spiral path.
gonegahgah
Cerafix,

Sorry for the confusion. I think space is a void inhabited by radiation, particles, atoms, molecules and the further higher forms of the molecules. I don't even think time exists let alone a space-time medium. To me time is simply our observation that things seem to move at a constant rate in relation to each other when compared to a third object that is also moving. eg. the sun seems to move from above us to above us again at the same rate that the clock hour hands travel to the top twice.

Time is only observed by the use of something against something measured against something or as the changing of appearances of things. Time does not exist of itself.

I don't believe that a medium is necessary for the planets to 'float' in or for light to 'process' through.

Although I don't agree with there being a medium or a 'space-time' I do agree with you that calling 'space-time' a medium - like Zephir says - makes more sense then trying to fob it off as just being there while at the same time being immaterialistic like some others want to say.

The problem I say with the whole space-time theory is that ordinarily all mediums produce resistance even when objects are trying to travel at a set speed through them. Boats experience water resistance and I bet even ocean waves experience water resistance. You have said that the resistance is only experienced when attempting to accelerate but I'm saying that the resistance would be there all the time. So much so that with the rate of deflection this 'space-time' produces on masses that are passing other masses, this should also mean that an equivalent rate of resistance to direct travel should relatively quickly stop planets from orbiting and they would take little time to begin a quick fall into the sun.

I believe that the evidence that the planets are still orbiting is all that is needed to show that a space-time medium can not exist.
cefarix
Masses attract each other because gravity and acceleration both cause the spacetime medium to become dense, and the "friction" as you put it, then bends the paths of the masses towards each other. Your picture of the bound electron is interpreted in the spacetime medium model as spinning stuff being the spacetime medium, and if the electron is at rest, then the orientation of the spin being parallel to the time axis. How can two masses at rest attract each other? Because the complete speed (space + time) of every energy is equal to the local speed of light. The speed of light is slower in denser places. Light itself is bent because it refracted towards the denser parts of spacetime. The velocity of a mass at rest, initially oriented along time, is bent into the space dimensions bit-by-bit as a refraction into the denser parts of the medium. If you put together the facts that the spacetime medium has a Minkowksi metric and that energy is just 3-dimesional spiral waves travelling in this 4-dimensional Minkowskian medium, then it becomes quite clear why acceleration and gravity offer "friction/resistance" while speed does not.
gonegahgah
I also don't believe that gravity and acceleration are identical twins like Einstein proposed. You should throw in centrifugal force at the same time as all three produce similar results - though this does not seem to have been noted by any high profile scientists so is considered general heresy on this board.

Einstein actually saw the space-time as a path way rather than as a medium. In his theory the path was changed not the direction of masses travelling through space passed other masses. So the masses simply travelled in a straight line; however the straight line appears curved to us. Einstein didn't believe in a medium.

I have a deep problem with that and give more of my support to those who want their space-time to be a medium. However as I have stated any medium should produce resistance and even set up the aether winds that the aether theorists failed to find. I don't believe the properties we are trying to give this space-time - whether as a medium or as a nothing that does something - are possible; not unless magic exists.

Yes light is slower in denser places where permeability and permitivity are lower (as a measure and not as a cause). Yes light refracts towards denser parts of 'space-time' or in the same breath 'masses'. I assume the next line is about 'pressure'. Sorry I can't get the final conclusion from these points.

It is not speed that causes the resistance but the medium. This is because, in line with what you have stated, even molecules moving passed each other will experience 'pull' due to mass attraction. This has the effect of making them want to co-elesce. This is what causes the drag. And so it must be for any medium. Send a particle between two other particles and they will both try to prevent it travelling on. And surely your medium must be a something.
cefarix
My medium is energy itself. Yes, the "drag" offered to speed, as you put it, can be thought of as gravity. However, this drag is such that it is independent of speed. No matter what speed you travel at, the attraction is dependant on your mass-energy, not the speed. That's why I refrain from calling it a drag or friction of any sort. Also, the spacetime medium can never flow past you. It's always still. The only type of flow is intrinsic rotational flow, which gives rise to electromagnetism. The property of a linear flow generated by speed simply doesn't exist in the spacetime medium. Again, I must stress two points: that this invariance with respect to speed is because of the Minkowskian metric of the medium and because objects are wave disturbances in the medium, and hence, made up of the medium itself. If you draw out the model on paper you will see that it becomes very silly to have any wind in this medium.
Robert W. Hawkins
gonegahgah, IMHO you make a whole lot of sense here. Your understanding of what "space" consists of seems completely independant of irrational ,illogical and whimsical theories, something I find refreshing on this forum. Space is simple the void between objects withen it, exactly what it appears to be, and energy moves through it as mass in motion, the same exact way ALL energy is transfered from one point to another.

Also, your ideas concerning the nature of light and electrons and how they move through the void of space seems logical, and parts of it seem borrowed from my own ' electromechanical theory of electromagnetic radiation' .(light) If you havent read it, look for it under this section under the title ab0ove and tell me what you think. You will see how my theory accurately predicts and quantifies energy levels of light based upon thier origin in the electron shell of an atom , ie "energy levels".
gonegahgah
Hi Robert,

Thanks for your consideration of my writings. I will try to read your topic soon. I have a few other things to attend to over the next few days and then hopefully I can explore more.

Hi Cefarix,

It is my contention that anything that has materiality is never still. No medium can remain motionless in the face of objects or forces invading its space. Our speed is purely relative so the medium's speed would have to be zero relative to our speed - when as I said our speed is purely relative anyway. There is no possible way to ever determine an absolute zero vector movement.

You are also saying that we are but waves in an ocean of space-time. I on the other hand think that void surrounds us and even invades our very atoms but has no substance of its own. I do believe in empty areas whereas you believe in a universe of uninterrupted material called space-time that exhibits no void anywhere. You also say that it is densest where mass is (in fact you say that mass is just dense regions of time-space).

Sorry I have to go. Would love to write more. Later...
pamelasees
I can literally see these spirals of energy, they actually evolve into a more detailed like form....much like frayed rope..they begin as fluid like waves....then spirals....then rope like .... it's really rather amazing..i see all forms of energy...sparks ..dashes...quick streams...darts..etc
Zephir
QUOTE (pamelasees+May 27 2006, 02:08 PM)
...it's really rather amazing..i see all forms of energy...sparks ..dashes...

..some pill helps is such situations often...
x9one9x
I believe you are on the correct path. Everything in nature seems in some way to relate back to either the Fibonacci sequence, Pi or the Golden Ratio. I think its a great debacle that the "answer" to galaxy formation, star explosions, particle physics, etc has been staring us in the face with an elegant sort-of equation that these represent. I imagine we have a sound theory, just need the proofs.
tikay
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Sep 25 2005, 04:23 AM)
STEM theory

Basically my current theory is that gravitational forces of all the stuff of the universe and their constraining gravitational force upon themselves cause light and particles to form spirals as they move through the universe. This is supposed to give light its property of frequency will being able to remain a particle.

The Problem of the Electron

Anyone who has read my previous thread Theory of Spiral Energy will remember that I left off with the dilemma of the Electron and the problems with it being able to have a workable physical shape or form.

I may have an answer to this now and offer it to the scientific community.

Originally I considered a vertical spiral out from the centre of the atom that was standing but spinning like one of those spinning tops. The problem this creates is that the top has a spin in one direction and the inner end has a spin in the opposite direction. In other words it created a negative force at one end and a positive force at the other end. Grab a slinky and see for yourself. Just doesn't sound right to me.

Then I considered a torus spiral spinning around the centre of the torus but the problem with this is that the top of the torus creates a left to right period and the bottom creates a right to left period which again creates opposite forces. Again the electron would be positive at the top or bottom and the opposite side vice-versa. As I said that doesn't sound right to me.

It occurred to me, just before writing this, to think about the gravitational effects and how this would shape an electron. If you recall from my previous thread I said that for light travelling through any medium - including space - that the greater the gravitational pull upon the light the more shorter and fatter the light spiral will get. Hence why light travels slower through glass but faster through air and fastest in space where there is the least pull on it as it travels by.

Well, if we apply this idea to electrons we can come up with something similar in a more confined space and still retain an electron that has only one force (as in negative).

First we take the spinning spiral idea where the spiral starts from the outside and spirals down in the direction of the nucleus. Next we consider the thread of the spiral. That thread being in a confined space is being acted upon by gravity so again it will fatten and shorten and form a spiral of its own.

If you were able to look at it with a microscope (which we can't) you would see the electron as a spiral. If you zoomed into closer to part of the thread of that spiral once you got close enough you would begin to see that that thread was itself actually a spiral.

Let's consider just two iterations of this spiral of a spiral (kind of like a fractal). I say two because it may be that each spiral thread in this constrained space may itself be a spiral and the thread of that spiral may also be a spiral and so on and so on. It may be an infinite number of spirals of spirals just like a fractal.

But as I said let's just consider two iterations. (I could be visualising this wrong but I've considered it and I think I am visualising it right).

Now the main spiral as I originally thought spins on its axis. This makes it a standing spiral as it is considered for the exercise to be in one place. Just like current theory talks about electrons being standing waves except with I replace these with spirals. What this generates is that the second iteration spiral is now not a standing spiral but is actually moving through space like the light spiral.

Now does this fix the problem of generating only a negative force? I think it does. If you look at the beginning of the spiralled spiral from the top you will see a left to right period moving in relation to you. If you look at the end of the spiralled spiral from the bottom you will see a left to fight period moving in relation to you. If you look at it from the side you will also see a left to right period moving in relation to you.

In this way you get a negative force all around the electron.

If you think about it it is kind of like a marriage of my first two ideas.

Phew! I think I've given myself a solution now to the problem I was having with my idea. I hope this helps someone out there to further science and maybe get it on the right track if I turn out to be right. At the moment fundamental science theory seems to be based upon and hinge a little bit on plain old simple magic.

I was reading your hypothesis and thinking it sounded rational and then that you should talk to Zephir! then looking below...ah ha! ~they(she/he) has found You!

I like it myself so good luck with your research! wink.gif
tikay
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 2 2005, 08:13 AM)
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Oct 2 2005, 11:16 AM)
Try this msn group: Spiral Theory of Energy & Matter and click on "Pictures" at left.

OK, I have it at least - but electron doesn't look like this, really... wink.gif

User posted image

Nevertheless, If you wanna this....

User posted image

wow you guys are so talented1 i am soooo impressed by all of it! wink.gif keep up the good work. (scientifically and artistically!)
gonegahgah
Thanks tikay for your vote in my poll.

Thanks for your input x9one9x.

I was delighted when Zephir did this animation for me. It was so frustrating not to be able to show what I meant.

Zephir did really well in showing what I wanted to show. The only little thing that I notice is that it has a wobble. I wish I could see it without the wobble because basically you would just see consecutive waves moving from the top to the bottom growing towards the widest part and shrinking again down to the bottom. This can't be seen so easily with the slight wobble. Ah well.
gonegahgah
The Effect of Light on Light

Light is an electromagnetic force and electromagnetic forces affect each other don't they? Does the Michelson Interferometer show this interaction? Something causes the light to warp away from its laser path?

The reason I ask is because I wonder if a photon of light that travels through a heavy shower of light particles perpendicular to it will deviate from its path - more noticeably through a very long shower.

The sun is an example of intense light showers spewing out from it in all directions. Of course the intensity decreases with distance.

I wonder if the closer you get to the sun the more the path of star light is deflected away from the sun due to the increasing shower of light. This would of course be overcome by the gravity of the sun.

As both of these things (gravity of sun & the intensity of the emitted light) drop off at an exponential rate then perhaps they would create the same combined degree of deflection no matter what distance you are from the sun.

Pockets of extra light - like solar flares - would cause greater deflection then less dense areas of the sun's radiation in space.

The Gravity of Light Trains

I was talking recently of gravity of neutrino trains. A single neutrino travels so fast that it won't by itself impart much gravity to objects in space but as they travel in a continuous train of outflow from the sun then the mass of a neutrino really needs to be considered when looking at the total mass in a galaxy.

Because we are in the middle of all these neutrinos they impart no differential gravitational effect upon us but they do impart some push/rotational effect due to their movement. They are however very tiny.

Seeing I attribute mass to light and matter then following this the light would also impart some gravity.

To look at it in another way the sun is converting matter to light at a phenomenal rate. I don't believe that means that the total gravity of our galaxy is going through a process of reduction. If light has no mass then the gravity of our universe would be constantly decreasing. According to science you need a big bang to create matter otherwise all matter is going through a process of decay into radiation. If that were so then it would mean that the total gravity of our universe is decreasing - which I don't agree with.

Ratio of Substance to Void

Let's say for this passage that current science is wrong and the universe is actually infinite in size. Let's also say that current science is wrong and that light, matter and everything of material is made of a single substance and that void is just empty. Let's also say that current science is wrong and singularities - ie blackholes existing in a 0x0x0 point - are impossible and that blackholes actually occupy a measure of real space.

I've already mentioned how there could be no beginning point and no end point in the overall scheme of things for such a universe.

The other thing the above assumptions give us however - though it would be impossible to measure of course - is that in the infinite universe there would be a constant ratio between the substance and the void. All the substance that exists would be all that exists and no more could be created and none destroyed.

Its scary to think that there could be such a fixed ratio. Why did we get stuck with that particular ratio.

It is another one of those things that makes the universe a quandary for our existance and non-existance. Let's hope the multi-universers are right and that energy comes into existance briefly and dissappears out of existance.

I personally hate things being fixed in concrete so to have a fixed universe is ugly and unable to be aesthetically pleasing or allowable.

I do hope I am wrong but I am still playing the possibility over.
jal
Good day gonegahgah! smile.gif
I know that you have probably stumbled on some of my presentations. I hope that they have been of help in your inspirations.
Just wanted to let you know that I've been reading what you are saying. smile.gif
jal
ps My "stuff" changes as I get more info.
gonegahgah
Hi Jal

I must admit that I can't recall your posts before. Shows how singular I've been on this site. I've had a quick glance at your writings via a search of your posts. I must say your posts appear quite inspiring. You are referring to things I've never even heard of before. From your style of writing I can tell that you wouldn't intend it but I feel like a minnow next to what you seem to have uncovered and what you seem to understand.

It does me honour that you have examined my posts. I may end up being completely off track - though I'm yet to be dissuaded - but it is hopeful to me if the idea of spirals has been able to achieve any passing interest or credibility. I'm not meaning to be a suck but I do get a good impression from your posts.

There is always so little time to read everything with everything else that is going on. I do want to know it all which is obviously impossible. I must admit that I use the forum to explore my ideas further and to garner new insights from my discussions with others. I wish I had more time to do things properly and become an expert in all areas. Slowly I will read some of the things that are sent to me.

I have a current high school chemistry book that I intend to read fully - it is so long ago since I did senior physics and chemistry - and I have a 'heat' book sent to me by Il Sagiatore that I intent to read fully too. And Einstein's paper sent to me by Good Elf.

As you say the spirals were a sudden 'inspiration' to me. I hope that they are heading in the right direction towards filling the gaps in our understanding of the underlying mechanics that shape our universe.
jal
HeH! gonegahgah!
I just a baby who has been able to discover the knowledge on the WEB.
You are being too modest.... you know that there are a lot of things here concerning spiral. biggrin.gif
Spinning with a forward or occilating motion could be what it's all about.
After all.... everything seems to have a spin.
jal
ya
can you explain then the observed dilation of time without introducing a bending of spacetime?
Zephir
QUOTE (ya+Jun 17 2006, 06:34 AM)
can you explain then the observed dilation of time without introducing a bending of space-time?

Of course, for example by the change of Aether density. The Aether is common denomination of elastic massive environment, forming both the vacuum, both the particles of observable matter, formed by vibrations of it.

When the Aether becomes more dense, all waves will start to resonate at the higher pitch, i.e. at shorter wavelength and all the distances increases in size, which leads to the time dilatation for observer, formed by such matter. It means, just the aether density is the objective measure of physical units size.

The relative changes of Aether density can be even easily revealed as so called gravitational lens effects and/or relativistic aberration (see the animation bellow). It's evident, the relativistic effects are just sort of optical (wave mechanic) effects, in fact. The gravity field of stars is caused by the increasing of vacuum density in its neighborhood by energy of particles, which is leaking from inside it (compare to the particle model on the animation on the right). The more dense vacuum makes the light spreading more slowly, exactly like at higher refraction index of material.

User posted image user posted image

The only difference in observation of such optical effect with compare of every day's observation is the fact, we are formed by the same material, which serves for the light spreading, i.e. by the Aether, too. It leads to well known relativistic phenomenas. as the result, the relative light speed doesn't change, because the change of Aether density influences the perceiving of both the space, both the time at the same time. Instead of it we can observe the relativistic increasing of it's wavelength (so called relativistic red shift) in presence of large massive objects.
Guest
I thought light traveled more 'slowly' through glass due to taking a longer path....

Optics - Newton

anyway English would help too

'makes the light spreading more slowly'

Zephir
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 17 2006, 10:24 PM)
I thought light traveled more 'slowly' through glass due to taking a longer path....

Neverthelles - it's true. Although to be completelly right, just the energy is passing a longer path, in form of elementary particles (i.e. more dense Aether foam of electron orbital), not in the form of photons directly, the light is changing Aether condensed phase. I've explained it here in more details just before week.

But the whole principle remains the wery same - longer path for energy spreading due the dispersion of energy in the more dense and detailed quantum foam.

The Aether Wave theory is pretty consistent in understanding of space and time - because everything is formed by waves, everything can be described in terms of classical (just recursive) wave mechanic.
gonegahgah
Hi Zephir

Thank you for the sun animation. It puts the effect into better perspective.

At first I thought, 'shouldn't the star get closer to the sun?' Then I gained a better understanding of the effect.

With the sun getting closer to the line between the star and our eye, the star light that would normally reach us instead gets pulled further sunward and misses us. Instead we get the light from the star that would normally have bypassed us in the other direction as it gets dragged towards us.

Because the angle of the dragged light is at a lower angle than a direct angle to the star it makes it look like the light is coming from somewhere further from the sun.

The light that was originally going to pass us and now passes through us takes a longer path than light coming directly to us in a similar manner to a triangle. The light that normally travels directly to us takes the shortest path from A to B. But light that travelled from A out to C and then was brought to us by the sun's gravity to B will take the longer path. This will explain some of the increased time taken for the light but we need to explore how much so.

I also have another clarification I am hoping you can help me with regarding GR.

It is the trampoline model used by GR.

When they use this what do they mean exactly? I always took it to mean that the light would red shift (well actually I took it to mean that the light would accelerate towards and decelerate away but current science doesn't like that). My confusion arise because they always draw the line as though it is dipping. Light doesn't dip does it?
gonegahgah
Hi Ya

If you fly round the world in two different directions won't the atomic clock experience different changes in movement?

For example say you had a ball that was bouncing up and down in a box continuously.

When the plane takes off the ball's downward path is suddenly shortened and its upward path is lengthened. The plane levels off and then it finds a relative balance again. When the plane lands the upward path is suddenly shortened and its downward path lengthened.

Atomic clocks would have to be affected by this wouldn't they? It would surprise me if they did two trips in the same direction and got the same results.
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jun 18 2006, 05:48 PM)
My confusion arise because they always draw the line as though it is dipping. Light doesn't dip does it?

The schematic drawing of spacetime deformation has nothing to do with 3D reality. It's just the 2D scheme (profile curve) of Aether density near such massive object.

User posted image User posted image

The light bending near the massive object is the effect very similar to refraction of the light by the water, surrounding some massive sphere. The sphere attracts the water, increasing it's density and refraction index by such way. As the result, the light will be bended around such sphere by the similar way, as at the case of optical lens.

The only one difference is, we are formed by the same environment, as it serves for light bending. Our measure of space is therefore bended too, and we cannot observe the light bending directly at this case, as we are bended together with it.

The rest is just a Newtonian optic.
gonegahgah
Slowing Light Speed Through Materials

This animation below from Slow Light Page 2 is interesting in that it depicts the light shortening as I have offered. However it does not show the process of fattening that I have offered. If you look at the animation carefully then you could infer that if it were a spiral that it were gaining spin instead of fattening.

User posted image

Interesting to consider... Will look more into later.

Oops. I'm afraid you will have to go to the site to see the animation.
gonegahgah
Hi Zephir

1. Your Example

I'm using a round glass and sticking an object in it but I can't tell if I'm causing the deflection of the light to increase or not. Are their some guiding parameters to make the effect more noticeable?

2. Gravitation Lensing

I have theorised that gravitational lensing is like optical lensing. As with optical lensing - where different frequencies 'bend' different amounts (which is mostly noticeable at the edges where you get greater aberration at the more obtuse edges - I also have theorised that gravitational lensing will 'bend' different frequencies by different amounts. What do you think?

3. Constant Speed but Changing Distance

As I understand science and your writings it is not the speed of light that changes but the distance it travels through. I always took the trampoline model to mean that the light got from A on the approach side to B beside the the body faster - like you see a marble accelerating in a funnel. Under current science that would suggest alternatively that the light was travelling through a increasingly shorter distance rather than accelerating.

But some things I've read recently seem to suggest that the distance is actually longer and the light arrives later? Can you help to clarify this for me?

4. Constant Speeds through Mediums

I've read that sound moves at a constant speed through air independent of the sound's frequency (Reference if needed: Speed of Sound).

Does your aether theory support this as the reason for a constant speed of light?

I'm theorising that a moving pocket of air (a calm wind) will transport sound faster than a stationary pocket of air. What do you think?
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 5 2006, 04:45 AM)
I'm using a round glass and sticking an object in it but I can't tell if I'm causing the deflection of the light to increase or not.

Can you sketch the experimental arrangement and post it into this topic? I've no idea, what you're talkin' about, exactly, sorry...

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 5 2006, 04:45 AM)
..I have theorized that gravitational lensing is like optical lensing..


Well, just at the first glance (low gravitational pressure, etc.). Don't forget, the light isn't using all the dimensions of space for it's spreading, for example, the weak nuclear bosons are using the different dimensions and such of this it doesn't interact with the bosons of electromagnetic charge at all... And the gravitational field can change the distribution of both these bosons in the space volume.

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 5 2006, 04:45 AM)
..I also have theorized that gravitational lensing will 'bend' different frequencies by different amounts. What do you think?..


It's not theorizing, but experimental fact. The normal light isn't focused by the vacuum too much. But the x-ray and gamma/cosmic ray in particular are auto-focused by the Aether under formation of virtual particle pairs, which are spreading a slightly differently, then photons, having non zero rest mass.


QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 5 2006, 04:45 AM)
..I've read that sound moves at a constant speed through air independent of the sound's frequency ..

But sound waves are longitudinal waves, not transversal ones, like the light. It is expected, they will behave differently. Although with respect of energy transfer, here's a lot of similarities, especially in connection with sound spreading in superfluids, where the transversal wave spreading dominates.

User posted image user posted image

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 5 2006, 04:45 AM)
..But some things I've read recently seem to suggest that the distance is actually longer and the light arrives later?..

It seems such observation were refuted more lately. I suppose, the gamma ray should move through space more slowly because of more energy and because of shift in equilibrium in aid of virtual particle pairs formation. Such particles should move by the subluminal speed, of course. We'll see later... wink.gif

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 5 2006, 04:45 AM)
..I'm theorizing that a moving pocket of air (a calm wind) will transport sound faster than a stationary pocket of air..

Once again, the sound in air spreads via longitudinal waves, so it can violate the Lorentz invariance easily. The Lorentz invariance was derived using a transversal wave spreading model from Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light.

The transversal wave spreading is somewhat different business and it can lead to the light speed invariance directly. The speed of (transversal) capillary waves onto water surface doesn't depend on the underwater motion speed, whereas the spead of (longitudal) sound waves does, of course.
gonegahgah
Hi Zephir

1. This one:

User posted image

2. Thx. We agree but I don't know if science does?

3. Sorry. What I meant to ask was: for light passing through the region of space represented by the dip in the trampoline model does this dip also calculate the length of the path of the light (seeing that light is not supposed to accelerate)?

4. Are both light waves and water waves transversal waves? How do they differ?

Longitudinal and transversal waves user posted image (water wave)
Zephir
ad 1) I see... The collapse of vacuum due the gradient of gravitational field would be observable for the bodies with large surface/diameter ratio. The Pioneer anomaly would be matter of small bodies, like spacecrafts and tiny asteroids. The dark matter is the mixture of cold components (gravitophotons in particular) and hot components, probably the highly ionized atom nuclei and some exotic particles, maybe. The gravitophoton component is spherically symmetric, whereas the particle part is less or more irregular and it has nothing with compression of vacuum. The origin of it is cosmological.

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 6 2006, 05:03 PM)
for light passing through the region of space represented by the dip in the trampoline model does this dip also calculate the length of the path of the light (seeing that light is not supposed to accelerate)?


The increasing of the light path lenght due the compression of Aether can be observed by the same way, as relativistic aberration: i.e. by the lensing effect. But the dark matter curvature is more pronounced at higher mass of object, whereas the relativistic is more weak , linear and it's less spreaded at the distance.

User posted image

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 6 2006, 05:03 PM)
Are both light waves and water waves transversal waves? How do they differ?

The capillary waves at water surface are solely driven by surface pressure, and they're solely transversal by the same way, like acoustic waves (solitons, fonons) in Bose-Einstein condensates.

The normal waves at water surface are so called Love's wave, it's a mixture of transversal and longitudinal waves. The longitudinal components is the more pronounced at higher energy density and intensity. In the solids a similar kind of waves is spreading, so called Rayleigh waves with the opposite phase.
gonegahgah
Sorry Zephir I just want to diverge for a little. I'll get back to my questions for you soon.

Do Hot Objects Weigh More?

I've been thinking how to explore the question of whether energy hass mass. It occured to me to wonder if a heated object would weigh more than a non-heated object.

Of course the hot air balloon analogy would tell us that the answer is the opposite as hot air is lighter than cold air. However taking into account that the air molecules are further apart in the heated air inside the balloon then this could account for the hot air being lighter than the surrounding colder air outside.

I thought to myself that the only way to truly know would be to perform the experiment on the Moon. However reading Wikipedia I find that you can also use a vacuum column right here on Earth.

I found the following also on Wikipedia in relation to conservation of mass:
QUOTE
Approximate conservation vs. serious violation
Even when energy such as heat or light is allowed to enter a system, or escape it, the law of conservation of mass holds to high approximation in cases where energies are small, and special relativity effects can be neglected. In particular, mass is conserved to a high precision in mechanical processes involving macroscopic objects, even if heat is allowed to enter or escape, because the energy and mass associated with this amount of heat, is small.

Similarly, deviations from the conservation of mass are still negligible in chemical reactions, even if heat conservation is neglected. Even in higher energy chemical reactions, the mass-energy of the reactants is huge in comparison to the energy absorbed, retained, or released when they react. By way of example, a gram of TNT releases 4.16 kJ of energy when exploded. However, the rest-energy of a gram of TNT is 90 TJ, or about 20 billion times as much. This means that even if the products of a TNT explosion were stopped and allowed to cool to the original temperature, they would only lose 1 part in 20 billion in weight. This amount would be very difficult to measure.


In otherwords the answer to my question was yes heating an object will make it increase in mass - but the interesting thing was the degree: by a very difficult amount to measure.

The Insignificant Mass of Light

The other thing this shows is that atoms contain an incredible amount of energy and that light energy only gains significance by dint of how fast it is moving in relation to atoms which are moving slower through smaller distances. Of course we should already know this with the e = mc^2 equation but the above brings it more into focus. ie a TNT explosion will only give off 1/20 000 000 000th of its mass to light.

The Wikipedia article also goes on to explain that you only get serious violation of conservation of mass with things like a nuclear explosion. Makes sense now.

So the amount of energy supplied by the sun to our Earth is tiny compared to how much energy is locked up in the atoms of our Earth.

What this does show is that light is added to the weight of matter when matter 'absorbs' it and it is only by dint of the light being very small that it doesn't add significant weight.

What I can say with some confidence here is that anyone who suggests that a photon equals one electron is very wrong. A photon adds way less mass to an atom than an electron when the atom 'absorbs' the photon.

Extremes of Temperature

What this also shows us is that what we think of as extremes of temperature are piddling when put beside the actual energy locked up in the 'particles' of an atom. And when the particles unravel to become light then boy do you get to know what heat is.

Spiral Light and Spiral Particles

I've been aware that the 'heat mass' issue would possibly be a thorn in my Spiral Theory. I was going to introduce it as such tonight to say hey I have the problem with my Theory. As I started this I thought I would just see if I could find anything on Wikipedia.

Well I did. And it has instead served to give me more hope for my Spirals.

In my model a photon is a spiral. In my model an electron is a very fat long photon wrapped around and around in another spiral to form a big ball. The ball spins to give the electron its charge which is 90 degrees to the direction of the spirals like all good rotating things transfer their force ninety degrees. Being a spiral spiral this translates to all diretions from the electron. The actual spin of the electron ball produces similar frequencies to that of light in the visible spectrum which is why electrons have such affinity for visible light. Different electrons in different atoms will have different frequencies which is why spectrum analysis works to identify the atoms present.

Spiral Heat

What my model says is that when light energy is absorbed by objects it doesn't dissappear. Instead it becomes part of the object. And as it is simply the interaction of spirals with spirals then conservation of momentum is preserved. The only difference is that atoms sit relatively stationary in relation to each other and have a greater attract or repel force on each other whereas light is moving through so has a greater drag force.

Heat Transfer

We all know that heat travels from hot to cold. But where I differ is on the why. In my model heat can travel all ways but the gravitational attraction of the molecules squeezes out heat energy and you get an averaging out so that heat energy settles throughout the object until it radiates out into less dense regions (the air then outer space). Denser objects absorb more sunlight because they are able to capture the light due to their greater density but they then give the heat off to less dense regions gradually as the averaging process progresses.

Conduction is similar except that the electrons will more happily be dragged along to the next atom then in a non-conductor which holds onto them more tightly. By the electrons moving from atom to atom they do some of the same process of dragging that light normally does whereas electrons that stay in place can only bounce about in place and therefore produce less drag and the process of heat transfer is slower relying on the averaging process.

I've had to correct myself on my original statement of the inability of atoms to behave like heat or to do work like light because they do; which they should as they are made of spirals too in my model. It is just that most of their force is translated as in/out and most of light's energy translates to drag.
gonegahgah
Gravito Magnetism and Anti-Gravity

One of the curious things to me is that in my opinion we already have anti-gravity. MagLev trains float despite gravity wishing to pull them down. In my opinion that is a process of anti-gravity.

But as I've stated previously in my model this is just an example of using gravity against itself rather then an example of different or opposite 'forces' at work. In my model magnetism is a redirection of the gravitational force into a different direction.

The principle of transfering the direction of a force under rotation is a well know fact of science - just look at those circular floor waxers which you have to push sideways to go forward - and I believe this occurs at the level of the particles.

So what happens if you redirect the direction of gravitational pull. Then the pull occurs in a different direction. And if it occurs in a different direction then the full pull is not being exerted down.

This helps to explain why magnetism appears to be much stronger then gravity. The reason is that it isn't. Instead magnetism is the greater amount of the gravitational force being directed away from the downward or towards each other direction.

So the sum total gravitational 'force' is not 'weighable' for any system because that system generates its own anti-gravity to offset this. Electrons which repel each other are just the ball spirals pushing each other away via the process of redirecting most of the gravitational pull into the two counter-spiral induced conflicting push.

As I've said the only way I could see this occuring is via the spiral models that Zephir was able to 'draw' for me.

So my answer is that gravity is it's own anti-gravity and only via the aspect of rotational redirection. I don't believe there will ever be an anti-gravity 'particle' that will repel gravity 'particles' but that attract themselves. To me the only thing that could come close would be anti-matter but anti-matter does not repel matter.
gonegahgah
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity

Even GR gives some concession to the effect of rotation. The frame dragging effect of rotating masses is one of the tenents of GR.

We have many people here that will say that the math adds up when it comes to both GR and QM. Yet here is an example where both give the 'right' answers but are seperate from each other. Both work with the same system - Physics - just at different scales - yet neither can be scaled across to the other.

Maybe like the magic of 'massless' light, with the magical duality of being a 'particle and wave' at the same time, maybe both systems can exist in numerical conflict with each other whilst both being simultaneously and magically correct. Why not?

Gravity and rotational displacement are something that are largely ignored by QM. We all agree that it is difficult to examine things at the sub-atomic level and that science has used a process of measurement and then speculation on those measures to theorise the mechanics of the system. Unfortunately time and again in history we have seen that measurements are open to interpretation - which is of course why the process of review is supposed to help us towards good science.

It certainly helps to know past work, which Einstein would have in many areas, but even Einstein stepped out into new waters and without the benefit of 'measurements' deduced a whole new system of cosmology which at the time was not measured and was in many aspects of the theory unmeasurable at the time.

Rotation and Quantum Mechanics

Science holds out the hope that it will one day reconcile QM and GR. Certainly I believe the effects of rotation at the sub-atomic level need to be looked at more closely to begin on this path.
gonegahgah
I'm still trying to puzzle out the way light behaves around itself and around us so these are just some more thoughts.

Light Streams

It occurs to me that when light travels through space it does not do so alone. It is surrounded by its brethren.

To me this forms a kind of ever widening river of photons.

As I've mentioned, in my theory mass doesn't like to change orientation without a reason or a relative velocity and when it does this will generally induce rotation and decrease direct pull.

So as light travels through space with its brethren it would try to maintain its orientation to its fellow photons. Of course the EM effect decreases as the photons spread further from each other.

But this however could be something that contributes to a common speed for photons perhaps especially at the propogation.

However we have seen that light from distant galaxies is usually red shifted. Current science theory tells us that although the light appears as a different frequency to us - then if we were both travelling at the same speed - that it still covered the distance - between where the originating galaxy was when it propogated and us now - at the speed of light.

I don't personally agree with this. I personally feel that red shifted light from a galaxy travelling away from us will take longer to reach us.

This is where I come back to the idea of light streams. Maybe light does influence itself to move at a common speed with its brethren. Then the light travelling towards us from a galaxy would move in its own stream. So its overall speed would not be dictated by our speed but the speed of its brethren.

I'm not happy with this notion that red shifted light from a position in space would get to us at the same time as light that wasn't red shifted. The former because the galaxy was moving away from us and the later because it was remaining at a constant distant.

Just as sound can travel faster in moving air perhaps light can move faster (or slower) if the stream it is in is moving faster.

So that when light is flung round a large gravitational body in space on its travels then perhaps this speeds or slows down the stream it is in so giving the same characteristic of frequency shift.
Nick
Light slows down in gravity. Where time slows down light goes slower. It is actually moving at the same speed but in a slower time.

So light approaching a black hole would begin to slow down and come to a halt on the horizon. Just as light's propagation would slow down so would that of a black hole's gravity.
gonegahgah
Hi Nick

This is the first time we've talked I think. I personally agree with you that there are a lot of interpretations of things that I feel are being taken for granted in science that need some closer examination.

The angle I am exploring on black holes and time is whether time is only here and now and that all things accelerate towards black holes.

I'm gathering that you are examining time as a dimension - which agrees with what science says - but in what I am exploring I'm not giving time the credit of being a dimension.

Sometimes when you post I'm not sure if you are saying "how can this be so?" or "this is how it is". What do you believe? Time slows down? Light comes to a halt at the event horizon? Gravity propogates?

To me the event horizon isn't at a particular distance from the centre of the black hole. Instead the outflow of light from 'destruction' as things fall into the black hole would occur at different altitudes. Depending upon their altitude and energy they may escape directly or more often undergo gravitational deflection.

Things escaping from the periphery of the black hole would have their frequency changed as a result of deceleration but still have enough speed to continue on their way although taking longer to get to us.

So in my model light falling into a black hole accelerates and light escaping from the periphery of a black hole - due to transformations occuring there - decelerates outwards.

What this should give us is an unclear picture of where the black hole is because the light from a companion sun should reach us sooner and less shifted then light that is emitted from the periphery of the black hole itself. We should then see the companion sun - if there is one - where it was and the black hole where it was even ealier as the earlier light will only just have reach us. In this respect the black hole should appear to be moving slower from the red shifted light that we receive from it than its companion star is moving from the light we receive from it.

But I do think that the interpretations of science do need to be examined. So what are your ideas on time, light and gravity?
gonegahgah
Positive, Negative & Neutral

As I've mentioned previously my spirals can have a left handedness or a right handedness. This follows on closely from science's attributing a magnetic effect to light that is 90 degrees to the electrical element. 90 degrees can be left or right so this fits in with my spirals which can have a left orientation or a right orientation.

If you grab a slinky you will be able to see that one end winds toward the other end clock-wise and the other end winds to the first end anti-clockwise. Depending upon which end travels towards you will give you your left or right orientation of the spiral.

In this respect, my model sees an electron as spiral wrapped as a spiral in the shape similar to a ball.
User posted image
Via the spiral moving through space - albiet going around in circles - it generates its negative effect.

Protons would have the opposite orientation to an electron.

Neutrons could possibly be a double helix with one alternating spiral orientated clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. This would have the effect of cancelling out the negative and positive effect that might otherwise be felt.
Zephir
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jul 15 2006, 02:29 AM)
As I've mentioned previously my spirals can have a left handedness or a right handedness.

I suppose, the particles are formed rather by pulsating foamy bubbles, the spiral motion inside it results from composition of waves across mutually perpendicular dimensions in it. So the particles haven't a spiral-like shape definitely, they're just a full of spiral-like wave motion in foamy arrangement, instead.

User posted image user posted image User posted image
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.