Action at a Distance = Fiction

[Lloyd]

Not Electrostatic Attraction, but Photon Repulsion

Don't forget the difficulty of explaining electrostatic -attraction- of two objects via an exchange of photons. The photons have to carry a "negative momentum". It might be a formulation which in some way is equivalent to a standard field theory but it's not clear to me where the advantage would lie.

* If photons are the aether, then so-called attraction is really repulsion by photons from the opposite direction. Repulsion is emission of fast photons from matter, where the photons have enough mass to repel other matter. Emission reduces the amount of photons in the matter, which produces lower pressure. Lower pressure in the matter that did the emitting allows surrounding slow photons at normal pressure, which is higher than the low pressure area, to move in to the lower pressure area in the matter, causing the appearance of attraction between particles of matter. (The matter particles are built of photons in the first place.)
* My idea is a bit different from Mathis' in this case.

[webolife]

Michael V,
In rereading your most recent list of objections to my ideas, I felt it might be helpful to revisit and respond to a couple of your arguments:

webolife wrote:
AAAD is the material evidence; all other explanations are imagination.
I entirely disagree with this too. The "material evidence" is that we are incapable of directly accessing the mediating agent by measurement or sensory ability and thus that explanation and proof can only come by logical argument and interpretation of sensorially available physical evidence. The presence of a mediating agent is an absolute certainty.

I very deliberately use the words "absolute" and "certainty", as any contradictory viewpoint immediately renders the entire endeavour as pointless. If we are unable to rely on our ability to function logically as existing entities then we are unable to construct any arguments relating to either ourselves or the wider universe. If on the other hand we are willing to admit that we are capable of attempting a valid analysis, then above all else and before any other considerations we must assume that our intellect is valid. As such we can at least limit the parameters of possibility with absolute certainty.

I find it interesting that in the one breath you admit that your alleged quantum "medium" is undetectable, and in the next breath you insist upon it as an absolute certainty. How is this more logical than my or anyone else's "magic" as you refer to it? By the way I read "magic" as sleight of hand... just because we don't know every "how" and "why" of it doesn't make it illogically to extol the "what" of it. Your insistence upon purely mechanical collisional agencies which are yet immeasurable and invisible persistently ignores the underlying dynamics which are measureable and "visible" in that we have resonant retinal detectors of those dynamics. You feel that you must explain the obvious dynamics in terms of imaginary mechanics, where I find it more logical to originate the mechanics by means of dynamics. It's all in your paradigm, not in your self-confessed superiority of logic.

webolife wrote:
"Everywhere felt" of course limited to wherever a resonant detector is aligned toward that source.
If every single point of the universe is connected to every other point with an instantaneous link, then why is there any need for alignment?

Simply thus, if I'm looking away from the light source things appear dark, if looking toward it...light.
Objects erupting away from a star [eg. our Sol] in the viewer's direction appear darker than the sun's surface [eg. sunspots, plasma filaments, etc.] while objects falling toward the surface appear brighter than the rest of the surface.
I consistently and persistently hold that the vectoral direction of light is toward the source centroid, not away from it. Alignment is everything. As long as you hold that light is emitted material, you will never understand this point.

[Sparky]

webo-,

I consistently and persistently hold that the vectoral direction of light is toward the source centroid, not away from it. Alignment is everything. As long as you hold that light is emitted material, you will never understand this point.

So, when i look at the moon, i'm safe, but if i stare at the sun, my retinas get burned, cause the sun is sucking at my eyes harder than the moon does.? this is confusing...ireallydonno..

[webolife]

I get the"sucking" question... but think of it this way:
First, the Moon's light is a dim reflection of the Sun's, so the centropic ray strength is low.
Also the ray's are directed toward the back of your head from behind [a "push" not a "tug"] as you look at the Sun, because all fundamental forces are centropic, ie. toward the direction of the local centroid. Although it is easily said and understood that our eyes are "drawn" to the light. What is causing you the most trouble? I'm guessing it's the direction of the force, not the intensity of sunlight... so let gravitation be your model. In "my" centropic pressure field theory, gravitation and light are simply two manifestations of the same centropic force mechanism. So light is toward the source, not stuff flung from it.

[sjw40364]

Actually it is the EM radiation being emitted that would burn your eyes, not that I agree with Web on light, but gravity as he says is a force towards the centroid. Although I do not believe that to be precisely correct either. It is towards the surface of the object and depending on the angle of connection can be off-center or binary in nature. Gravity decreases by the square of the distance whether "up" or "down" from the surface of any object, bringing into play as Weber, Ampere and Gauss tried to point out the angular relationship or longitudinal force. Not only with other objects, but within itself, causing angular motion or spin.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... cience.pdf
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97 ... _ceres.pdf

Not that I agree with all of this.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

[Goldminer]

Not Electrostatic Attraction, but Photon Repulsion

Don't forget the difficulty of explaining electrostatic -attraction- of two objects via an exchange of photons. The photons have to carry a "negative momentum". It might be a formulation which in some way is equivalent to a standard field theory but it's not clear to me where the advantage would lie.

* If photons are the aether, then so-called attraction is really repulsion by photons from the opposite direction. Repulsion is emission of fast photons from matter, where the photons have enough mass to repel other matter. Emission reduces the amount of photons in the matter, which produces lower pressure. Lower pressure in the matter that did the emitting allows surrounding slow photons at normal pressure, which is higher than the low pressure area, to move in to the lower pressure area in the matter, causing the appearance of attraction between particles of matter. (The matter particles are built of photons in the first place.)
* My idea is a bit different from Mathis' in this case.

"Photons" are supposedly particles of light. If the aether were made up of particles of light, it would appear to be a bunch of diffused light. It does not, therefore the aether is not "made of photons."

[Sparky]

errrrr

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force---

I don't know if light is waves or particles, and now I have to include a star's light as a giant light vacuum as a possibility...

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

"Photons" are supposedly particles of light. If the aether were made up of particles of light, it would appear to be a bunch of diffused light. It does not, therefore the aether is not "made of photons."

Your reasoning is incorrect on several levels. Whether the "light signal" is a particle stream, a waving aethereal medium or ????, it makes little difference, since the light cannot be "seen", inspected, or in any way, examined, while in flight. At a basic definitional level the light does not exist as "light" per se, until it is intercepted, whereupon it ceases to be a "light signal" (whether wave or particle or centroidal pressure thingy or ????) and it becomes a facet of electron motion. It is the electron motion and NOT the "light signal" itself, that we have access to.

The "photon" particles, as traditionally referred to, fail logically as a single discrete particle, since the single discrete particle is only diagnosable via electron motion - this is the case for all detection methods. It is also the case for all "light signal" models; both wave and particle models collapse at the electron interface.

Michael

[Michael V]

Sparky,

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force---

As with all standard model theorising it is based on "truths" that have been "proved beyond any doubt" and established as "facts" that cannot be re-visited or questioned, else the prayer books (i.e. text books) may have to be rewritten and the priesthood shown to purveyors of a false scripture - you can't do science without funding and you can't get funding without unity and tradition.

The wave, the artefactual photon particle and, most importantly, the force, ALL reside with the electron.

"Traditional" theorising will have us believe that matter travels serenely through empty space occasionally interacting with some sort of aethereal or virtual field. So on the one hand we have space that is apparently full of some undetectable field that mediates interaction, i.e changes of motion, but which, on the other hand, is given no credit at all for any involvement in uniform motion. If matter interacts with a universal aethereal/virtual field at all, then it must do so at every instant. That's every single electron and proton in the universe interacting with the field perhaps trillions of times a second. It's no good positing a scenario of occasional interaction with an omnipresent virtual aethereal field without conceding that the interaction must be constant. Therefore all motion, at all times, must be as a result of interaction with the field. You cannot explain the changes of behaviour, that we recognise as "events", as interaction with an aethereal field and then ignore the seemingly "uneventful" interaction that must logically be occurring the other 99.99999999999999999% of the time. I am suggesting that it is the constant and seemingly uneventful interaction that firstly provides the intrinsic and inherent motion that defines the very existence of matter particles, and because of that intrinsic motion, it also provides the prime mover that we recognise as the force of interaction between matter particles.


Michael

[jjohnson]

Webo, I have a question regarding your view that light is centropic. I assume that this means that it moves toward its source from a viewer or receiver, from my reading above. Two questions. Where does it come from and from how far away is that relative to the receiver?

The second one is a thought experiment. Let's use two photodetectors, A and B, some distance apart to simulate the eyes of two observers, and then install a light bulb on the extended imaginary line connecting the two detectors, but at some distance beyond A. There is a switch that simply lights the bulb. The outputs of the two photodetectors are connected to what is essentially a strip chart recorder, or some similar digital recorder, in order to obtain the precise time when each photodetector fires. {the linear arrangement is lightbulb - detector A - timing recorder - detector B}. The timing recorder is located midway between A and B so that the circuit distance from each detector to the timer is equal, thus nulling out any differential caused by different circuit lengths between detectors and timing recorder.

Which detector's timing signal, A, closer to the light bulb,or B, farthest from the light bulb, reaches the timing recorder first?

Jim

[Sparky]

The wave, the artefactual photon particle and, most importantly, the force, ALL reside with the electron.---------the constant and seemingly uneventful interaction that firstly provides the intrinsic and inherent motion that defines the very existence of matter particles, and because of that intrinsic motion, it also provides the prime mover that we recognise as the force of interaction between matter particles.

The use of "reside" threw me for a bit....I see it as the electron being a key instrument in the EM and aether quantum/photon force cycles. Would I be wrong?

Wiki says EM. Who am I to argue for or against? If EM is some particle or wave that propagates and disturbs electrons, then maybe that is close enough. ireallydonno

[sjw40364]

errrrr

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force---

I don't know if light is waves or particles, and now I have to include a star's light as a giant light vacuum as a possibility...

A photon is NOT an elementary particle. It is residue, a by-product of energy generation. EM radiation is emitted FROM particles, they are an effect, not a cause. The effect is EM radiation, the cause is energy generation. Only conductors moved in orbits generate enough current to offset energy loss. Since photons strike objects traveling in closed loops as well as objects traveling in straight lines, they can not be the force carrier for the EM force, else they would generate current whether an object travels in a striaght or closed path.

[Michael V]

Sparky,

Yeah ok, "reside" is perhaps the wrong word, "belong to" is probably more accurate. My suggestion is that a virtual/aethereal field constantly interacts with each and every matter particle. This occurs at all times, regardless of the proximity of other matter particles. So a lone electron or proton in deepest intergalactic space, isolated from other matter particles by light-years, interacts with the aethereal field to the same effect as an electron or proton in the centre of a star or planet. This interaction, which is the cause of mass and charge, does not result in a matter particle sitting still and waiting for another matter particle to induce some activity. This interaction causes all matter particles, at all times, to move; it produces mass, charge and, when another matter particle generates a (mediative and influential) fluctuation in the field, it provides the motive force with which the matter particle reacts.

The concept of a "transmission of force" by "force carrying" mediating particles fails rigorous analysis, especially with respect to having to invent +ve and -ve momentum to explain both repulsion and attraction. There are many cases where a transmission of force should be either blocked or should affect the blocking material, but it does not. This points to a "signal" of "influence", rather than an out and out transmission of brute force. To account for all instances of action at a distance, only an intrinsic and inherent field applied/supplied motive force, triggered by a "steering" signal or influence from other matter, provides a consistently logical explanation.

With the field induced intrinsic motion of every matter particle as a three dimensional wave motion, a fully consistent and unified explanation of all "forces" and phenomena becomes available. A travelling wave 3 dimensional wave motion produces a helix. A helix is handed, or chiral, so positive and negative, north and south, become easily explained. An object travelling along a helical path is effectively moving at right angles to its direction of travel: magnetic curl, magnetic "spiraling", right/left-hand rules, orbits, reflection, wave-particle duality, refraction, diffraction, light "waves", matter waves, quantum energy are all easily, simple and consistently explained by matter particles moving by a field induced helical path. To account for action at a distance, there must be a virtual/aethereal/invisible/undetectable field - all theoretical comply to this paradigm. Matter interactions are fleeting and sporadic, but with an aethereal field as logically unavoidable, interaction with that field must be constant and persistent. Why then, do we try to assign interactions between matter as the cause of force and motion?.

Michael

[Sparky]

Why then, do we try to assign interactions between matter as the cause of force and motion?.

I thought that you had assigned mass and size to the aether quantum?
To me that is matter. Or is matter delineated at the level of electrons and protons and above?

[Michael V]

Sparky,

To me that is matter. Or is matter delineated at the level of electrons and protons and above?

A fair point. It could be said, and indeed I have at times myself said, that any interactive substance could legitimately be referred to as matter: "ponderable" matter (i.e. electrons and protons) and aethereal matter.
To clarify, in all recent posts, I refer to matter as only electrons and protons. Aethereal substance I refer to as the aethereal field or aethereal field particles or simply, the field.

I thought that you had assigned mass and size to the aether quantum?

This is some several months out of date. My more recent considered opinion is that, the "quantum", as the smallest measurable amount of energy, is a single wavelength worth of motion of electron and protons. All supposed "quanta" are a measurement of the motion of electrons and protons (i.e. matter particles). Planck's constant, h, is the amount of energy per cycle of electron and proton inherent helical "wave" motion.

The mass of individual aethereal field particles cannot be determined.

Michael