Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

[rangerover777]

Thanks for the answers and the thoughts.

Michael Gmirkin answer to “1. At what point a body (in space for instance), starts to
poses it’s own gravitational force ?” :
1) Gravity and mass are "somehow" linked. If it's got mass it exerts gravity. So, things "gravitate"
at all levels. An electron and another electron both have mass, so they feel a gravitational
force between them. However, the electrical force between them is umpteen times [orders of
magnitude] stronger and overrules the mutual gravitation between them to keep them apart.

- Isn’t the mass of proton in the atom is approx. 1836 times greater then the electron ?
So if you take any object, it’s total mass of the electrons is approx. 0.0544% (give or take),
And gravity streams from the mass, so how the electrons can play a major roll in gravity ?
- If any object poses gravity just by having a mass, then in zero gravity all objects should acts
as magnets ?
- Why in celestial structures the small bodies orbit the larger ones because of gravity, and in
The atom, the electrons orbit the nuclei for a different reason then gravity ?
- Could it be that a mass needs another property / ies in order to poses gravity ? After all
the only place where we witness gravity is between celestial bodies, and these are still
too hard to explore…

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Michael wrote : “6) Again, gravity is not a separate "entity" from matter. It's a function of
its mass. Still not wholly understood. Again, Thornhill endeavors to explain why gravity
cannot generally be shielded (with the exception of possible antigravity effects of a spinning
superconductive disk [for example]).

- So the inverse square law disregard any medium that gravity pass through ?
- Why gravity is diminishing ?
- What you say is that gravity is somewhat extension of the mass ?
- Sorry to say that again, but any mass do not require any additional conditions beside being
a mass, in order to radiates gravity ?
Because if it does need, then it’s a reflection of both the mass and these conditions, that most
likely have to work together… It’s like boiling a pot with water, and say that the steams are
only because of the water. Something seems missing here, or maybe I’m missing something…
- Also the ability of gravity to pass through matter, pulls it down and continue like it was not
there, may point to a type of behavior unfamiliar to us in any of the mechanic or
electrical laws… And maybe the mass by itself could not achieve such a radiation....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael : “9) The force of electromagnetism is much stronger than the force of gravity
where significantly exerted on charged particles / bodies. So, in those cases, it would seem
to take precedent. Charged particles spiraling in magnetic fields give off synchrotron radiation.
Is it possible that electric forces or magnetic ones could contribute to orbits if bodies are charged?
Or rather, is that how the bodies got their angular momentum and orbits to begin with?
That would probably be something to ask Wal.”

- How can a charged particles can perform orbit motion if they are only negatively charged ?
- Do they suppose to repel each other ? So, where is the attraction in this system ? Or where
is the balance between attraction and repulsion ? Or there should not such a balance ?
- I can understand for instance a magnet bar, where there are two opposing poles and a
circulation of magnets in orbit - and no gravity involved…

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My next question maybe was not asked right :
Is centrifuge, centripetal, inertia, momentum are also some type of gravity ?
From what I understand all known particles, waves and object in the physical universe are
govern by laws of motion which includes angular momentum, direction of propagation, inertia, etc.
In other words, everything is continuous, even if some sections of it’s movement are invisible, or
even if it transform from matter to energy or waves, it’s always continuous. So these laws of
motions is what keeps it continuous, which in some respect acts like gravity which keeps pulling
But only in one direction, while these laws acts as traffic signs in many directions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way why in galaxy formations we cannot observe a massive object in their centers ?


Sorry if my post is too long,

Cheers

[rangerover777]

Another interesting effect of gravity is the pulling of matter towards it’s
point of origin, while “packing” it to denser and denser layers of matters.

My point is to find a cycle that once the conditions are right, a mass starts
to emits gravity which in turn creates a dense core of matter, that feeds gravity
over and over again.

Sort of the cycle of water in nature (on earth), that the oceans plays the core
which water evaporate and comes back as liquid.

Which raises the question - where gravity goes after it diminishing to smaller
and smaller amounts ? Or to be exact, when the inverse square law occurs, gravity
“shells off” it’s elements, so where these elements go to ?

Since, If a mass is the only cause for gravity, and gravity is some type of
energy / power - does the mass keeps loosing “something” ? And unless
it gains it back somehow, it will perished ?

Breakfast for thoughts.

Sorry if I’m deviating a bit from Mr. Thornhill article, though it gravitate towards
his explanations and may raise some questions, that he might consider a re-visit.

Cheers.

[MGmirkin]

If any object [possesses] gravity just by having a mass,

Yep.

(Wikipedia - Gravitation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.

Gravitation is considered to be a function of mass. Though exactly what mass is, and exactly how "gravity" works are both still more-or-less unknown. Mass is said to be interchangeable with energy, by Einstein's equivalence equation E=MC^2. But it's not currently known how gravity propagates (through what and by what, so to speak).

then in zero gravity all objects should acts as magnets?

I don't follow. Firstly, zero gravity is something of a misnomer... It's not that gravity ceases to exist at any point.

Say you get out to "space" somewhere between the Earth and the moon. At just the right spot there's essentially "zero gravity." It's not that gravity disappears. It doesn't. Both the Earth are the moon are still exerting gravitational attraction. It's just that at that sweet spot, the gravitation of the two bodies cancel each other out, mathematically. The NET result is akin to zero force exerted on you. The gravity of both are still there, as is the gravity between the atoms in your body. Again, any object with mass will gravitate with other objects with mass.

Extrapolating further: Even if you were in deep space (not directly adjacent to the Earth / moon / sun), there still wouldn't be "zero gravity." The atoms of your body would gravitate with each other. They would also feel the gravity of all other gravitating matter in the universe. Mind you, gravity drops off with the inverse square of the distance. So, at 2 units away, it's 1/4 as strong; at 4 units away it's 1/16 as strong, etc. So, while there will still be gravitation, it will be vanishingly small in the reaches of deep space (because you're so far away from everything else that gravitates).

Now, as to the "magnetic" bit: It doesn't necessarily follow that a gravitational null point (where various gravitating bodies' influences cancel out) will be "magnetically dominated." Recall that magnetism is a function of electric currents. A current has to be flowing in order to get a magnetic field (according to current theory / definition of the relationship between electricity & magnetism). Magnetic fields are a force between electric currents.

An electric current is a net flow of like charged particles (generally speaking). Ie, you get a clump of electrons all moving in the same direction, and you've got a current. If, however, you've got half your electrons moving one way and half your electrons moving the other way, it basically sums to zero change.

That said, in electrical engineering, the direction of "conventional current" is defined (by convention, hence the term) as the direction of flow of positive charges. In the same circuit, positive charges will flow one way and negative charges the other (if both are mobile). The "electron current" (following the direction of the negatively charges particles, the electrons) is considered to be the opposite direction of the "conventional current." However, mathematically, if you've got positively charged stuff flowing one way and negatively charged stuff flowing the other way, it's an additive function. It's essentially treated like flipping the sign and flipping the direction of the negatively charged portion and adding it to the positive portion. Kind of a double-negative, if you will.

(Which Way Does the "Electricity" Really Flow?)
http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html

Anyway, I digress... Where was I going with this? Hmm... Ohh yes...

Just because material might be at a gravitational null point where forces effectively cancel (they're still there, they just sum to zero in the middle), it doesn't mean that anything particularly "magnetic" will be happening. IE, if particles are in random motion, then equal numbers of positive charges will cancel each other out, netting no current. Similarly, equal negative charges moving in all directions will cancel out and net zero current.

Only *if* somehow one or both charge carrier types (positives or negatives) are in collective, net like motion, will you get a current and a magnetic field.

So, if electrons are all zipping about randomly, but protons and ions are all moving in the same direction at the same time, then there's a "convention current" in the direction of the protons and ions, and a subsidiary magnetic field will be generated around the flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_c ... omagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electromagnetism.svg

Likewise, if the protons and ions are in random motion, but electrons are all moving together in the same direction, then you've got an electron current going on. the "conventional current" direction will point the opposite direction from the way the electrons are flowing, and a magnetic field will be created just as if positive charges were flowing in the direction of the "conventional current."

But, again, if everything's in chaotic motion, then no current flows and no magnetic field gets generated. So far as I understand it anyway...

So, where there's not collective net motion, there's no current and no magnetic field, generally speaking. Likewise, if there's no charge separation or other process creating an impetus for charges to flow in net, like motion, there probably won't ever be a current and likewise won't ever be a magnetic field.

That's part of the argument against currents in space, etc. etc. Astronomers assume that charges will instantly balance out and that charges CAN'T be separated. However, that's probably not accurate. Tracking back from the magnetic fields seen ubiquitously in space, there is a clear implication that currents must be flowing. IF currents must be flowing then something must be CAUSING them to flow. That may then also imply that charge separation DOES occur in space. Acceptance of which should inevitably cause a rethink of exactly what all is going on in space, if charge separation and currents MUST be considered. I think the latter statement is what the Thunderbolts group is getting at. We see electrical things going on, but it seems like astronomers ignore them in favor of the dogmatic belief in charge neutrality and electrical more-or-less sterility in space.

Anywho, I hope that made some sense? I also hope I've got a better understanding of the issue than I did a year ago. It's amazing the difference a year of on-and-off reading makes.

~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

-What you say is that gravity is somewhat extension of the mass?
-Sorry to say that again, but any mass do not require any additional conditions beside being a mass, in order to radiates gravity?

According to current theory, the relationship between gravity and mass is that gravity is the attraction felt between two masses, as noted previously from the Wikipedia article on gravitation:

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.

As I've also said, the relationship is understood to be that objects with "mass" attract each other and that attraction is what we call gravity. However, current throy does not have any kind of consensus on how gravity functions. IE, how the "force" is transmitted from one object to the other, by what and through what...

But, from my extremely basic understanding of current theory, mass is all that's required in order to gravitate with another object with mass.

It's interesting to note the parallel between that definition and the definition of magnetic fields as a force between electric currents.

It seems:
Gravity is to mass
as
A magnetic field is to an electric current

IE, there is a force between electric fields called the magnetic field and there is a force between masses that is the gravitational field. Whereas magnetic fields can be either attractive or repellent based upon the alignment of the fields, the gravitational field appears to be always attractive...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

-How can a charged particles can perform orbit motion if they are only negatively charged?

Not quite sure what you mean here. There are both positively charged (proton) and negatively charged (electron) species of charged particles.

Are your referring to the orbits of planets, or of electrons around an atomic nucleus? If planets, why are we assuming they're only negatively charged? If we're talking about in an atom, the protons in the nucleus are positively charged. The electrons in the shells around the nucleus are negatively charged. Opposite charges attract. That seems to be the theory anyway... Negatively charged particles circle the positively charged nucleus due to electrical attraction between the charges and the electric field set up between the separated charges (positives on the inside and negatives on the outside).

-Do they suppose to repel each other? So, where is the attraction in this system? Or where is the balance between attraction and repulsion ? Or there should not such a balance?

Electric currents have a long range attractive and a short range repulsive behavior. Hence why filamentation happens, and you get braided "ropes" of current. At a distance, the currents attract one another. Close-up, they repel each other enough to remain separate but equal, and often develop a spiraling pattern around each other. Hence the "braid."

Again, just my understanding of the issue...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StevenO]

-What you say is that gravity is somewhat extension of the mass?
-Sorry to say that again, but any mass do not require any additional conditions beside being a mass, in order to radiates gravity?

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.

But, from my extremely basic understanding of current theory, mass is all that's required in order to gravitate with another object with mass.

The natural state of the universe is to be in motion at lightspeed. To "visualize" this, imagine the motion you get if you strip light of it's vibration, you're left with pure momentum. Now, if you have an object in this natural state of motion (e.g. a photon) that get's rotated against this background universal motion, you get the effect that all these objects move towards eachother. Compare it with a wheel running counter to the universal motion. This is what is called 'gravity' and it is thus an intrinsic property of objects with mass.

[MGmirkin]

My point is to find a cycle that once the conditions are right, a mass starts to emits gravity which in turn creates a dense core of matter, that feeds gravity over and over again.

According to my understanding gravity just doesn't work that way. Everything with mass gravitates with other stuff with mass. It's not like things do nothing and do nothing and do nothing and then at some magical point gravitation starts. Gravity is simply an additive effect. Get 4 electrons with the same mass together, they'll exert twice as much "gravitation" on a single electron placed 10 feet away as two electrons would exert on a single electron at the same distance.

Granted, with the number of electrons and the distance, the gravitation would be vanishingly small. It's just a simple example.

The point is that gravitation happens regardless of scale or of the number of particles involved (well, unless there's 0 particles, in which case there's no mass and nothing to "gravitate"; I guess one could say you'd really need 2 particles for "gravitation" to occur, since it's an "attraction" between masses, meaning you'd have to have 2 entities for it to be meaningful).

The above isn't to say that accretion couldn't somehow happen, or that accretion wouldn't lead to more accretion as you get a larger pile of mass built up. It's just to say that it's not really a stepwise function where you get "quantum leaps" in effect. It's just dependent on the number of particles. It's not like at 9 particles you get the same gravitational effect as 1 particle, and then at 10 particles you magically hop up to the next higher level and it starts gravitating like 10 particles. In some ways electric discharges *DO* operate that way (no current, "dark mode," "glow mode" and "arc mode" discharges being examples of such "stepwise" jumps in behavior). Gravity doesn't, so far as I know.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

The natural state of the universe is to be in motion at lightspeed. To "visualize" this, imagine the motion you get if you strip light of it's vibration, you're left with pure momentum. Now, if you have an object in this natural state of motion (e.g. a photon) that get's rotated against this background universal motion, you get the effect that all these objects move towards each other. Compare it with a wheel running counter to the universal motion. This is what is called 'gravity' and it is thus an intrinsic property of objects with mass.

Not quite sure I follow. How do we know that the natural state is to be in motion at light speed? In motion how? In what direction? All in the same direction (relativity would seem to say we wouldn't know the difference between that and standing still; assuming everything was moving at the same speed [lightspeed] in the same direction)? All in different directions?

I guess I'm not sure on the relationship between rotating something against the "background motion" and the notion of gravitation. How does rotating something with respect to background motion cause "attraction?" Somehow, that doesn't compute for me. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I don't understand the mechanism, process or relationship that tells us that?

A wheel running counter to universal motion? How would that work? Again, are we saying the universe is all moving in one vector? Does relativism mean that it's more-or-less standing still in that case? If not, why not (assuming everything is moving at the same speed in a direction; IE, an observer wouldn't see any apparent change in distance to other objects, so how would we know we're moving, to begin with)?

If everything is moving in one direction, how would a wheel be running "counter" to that direction? Consider that a wheel is round, essentially forming a circuit. At two diametrically opposed points on the wheel, the vectors would point in opposite directions, if the wheel is rotating. IE, take a circle, rotate it clockwise. At the left, the vector denoting direction tangent to the turning circle / wheel would point upward. At the right, it would point downward. So, which one is moving counter to the universal direction? The other would seem to be moving in the SAME direction... So, I guess I'm not quite getting the running "counter" reference. I guess if we were saying that the universe was rotating, and the axis of the wheel was aligned with the axis of the universe, the wheel could counter-rotate. But if it's not on the same axis, or if the universe isn't rotating , then it would seem that the multi-directional movement of the wheel would at some points move the same direction as the universe and at other points, not... Or have I missed something?

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[rangerover777]

Thanks Michael, as usually you prefer automatic fire over single shots…LOL
Your efforts and understanding are greatly appreciated.

Is it possible that we are dealing here with two types of gravities :
1. One, as you said comes “automatically” between two atoms and the force that
connect them to become an object. Assuming that force is not satisfied by
attracting the object’s atoms, but also extended out of the object.
2. The other one happen when great heat and pressure occurs at a center of an
object, which radiate out gravity while “packing in”, and responsible for the
“layered ball” (core, mantle, crust, troposhpere, atmosphere, magnetosphere, etc.)
structures that we see in the sky.

You claimed many times the magnetic field is the result of electric current.
- So why there is no electric current running though a lodestone or a bar magnet,
which surrounded by magnetic field ?
- And how electric currents is a stream of electrons runs in one direction and during
that run it splits to magnetic field that made of North and South pole magnets ?
- How one negatively charged particles can split to two different types of particles
that suddenly have orientation, poles, attraction and repulsion, own orbit ?
- Maybe I missed something about the positively charged protons, did you mean they
also run in a wire as positively charged electricity against the electrons ?
- Why electricity is made by two N & S rotating magnets, if magnetism is a “by product”
of electricity ?

Michael wrote : “Electric currents have a long range attractive and a short range
repulsive behavior. Hence why filamentation happens, and you get braided "ropes"
of current. At a distance, the currents attract one another. Close-up, they repel each
other enough to remain separate but equal, and often develop a spiraling pattern
around each other. Hence the "braid."

- Sorry to ask but if that’s how electric current work (too similar to magnetism),
then why not calling them in their name ?

Michael wrote : “That's part of the argument against currents in space, etc. etc. Astronomers
assume that charges will instantly balance out and that charges CAN'T be separated.
However, that's probably not accurate. Tracking back from the magnetic fields seen
ubiquitously in space, there is a clear implication that currents must be flowing. IF currents
must be flowing then something must be CAUSING them to flow. That may then also imply
that charge separation DOES occur in space. Acceptance of which should inevitably cause
a rethink of exactly what all is going on in space, if charge separation and currents MUST
be considered. I think the latter statement is what the Thunderbolts group is getting at.
We see electrical things going on, but it seems like astronomers ignore them in favor of
the dogmatic belief in charge neutrality and electrical more-or-less sterility in space“.

- I definitely agree with you that space is ubiquitously with currents. But if charge separation
occurs in space, why not considering identify them as N & S magnetic streams in the
first place, and here you just saved the need for separation ?


Cheers.

[StevenO]

The natural state of the universe is to be in motion at lightspeed. To "visualize" this, imagine the motion you get if you strip light of it's vibration, you're left with pure momentum. Now, if you have an object in this natural state of motion (e.g. a photon) that get's rotated against this background universal motion, you get the effect that all these objects move towards each other. Compare it with a wheel running counter to the universal motion. This is what is called 'gravity' and it is thus an intrinsic property of objects with mass.

Not quite sure I follow. How do we know that the natural state is to be in motion at light speed? In motion how? In what direction? All in the same direction (relativity would seem to say we wouldn't know the difference between that and standing still; assuming everything was moving at the same speed [lightspeed] in the same direction)? All in different directions?

I understand you cannot follow since this theory requires a recalibration of your reference system. The universe is constituted out of motion. Period (I mean think for a moment ). Before light and matter we first have motion. Comes in discrete scalar quantities which in itself have no direction since direction is vectorial. or you should think 'any direction'. The motion of photons or gravity are examples of scalar motions. (Anything that can be thought of as a bi-vector).

All physics phenomena then follow from compound motions. The natural unit is lightspeed, which means lightspeed is the reference speed, not zero speed or a 'state of rest'. You could also view the 'state of rest' as lightspeed.

Off course motion means covering a certain amount of space in a certain amount of time, so space and time are two reciprocal aspects of motion (in the sense of S/T) that always come together. Our current stationary Space-Time reference system is not the natural one. That is units of lightspeed in any direction. Are you thoroughly confused now ?

I guess I'm not sure on the relationship between rotating something against the "background motion" and the notion of gravitation. How does rotating something with respect to background motion cause "attraction?" Somehow, that doesn't compute for me. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I don't understand the mechanism, process or relationship that tells us that?

As said the reference unit is lightspeed. That is where all the confusion about the big bang comes from. Outside gravitional influence the galaxies will increasingly start to move from eachother at lightspeed since that is the natural reference.

A wheel running counter to universal motion? How would that work? Again, are we saying the universe is all moving in one vector? Does relativism mean that it's more-or-less standing still in that case? If not, why not (assuming everything is moving at the same speed in a direction; IE, an observer wouldn't see any apparent change in distance to other objects, so how would we know we're moving, to begin with)?

Wipe vectors and direction from your mind first. First imagine scalar motions (motion as a quantity only). Then compound scalar motions. The rest is a matter of deduction. Luckily for us that dedective part was already worked on for 50 years.

I am working on an article about this theory of the universe consisting of motion only. It is not easy because of this recalibration, so it could take some time. The theory wipes all paradoxes from Physics though, so it is really interesting.

[rangerover777]

Steven0,

I tend to agree with Michael’s questions, and not sure if re-calibration of our references would
help here, since your “essentials” are difficult to understand :

1. The natural state of the universe is to be in motion at lightspeed
2. To "visualize" this, imagine the motion you get if you strip light of it's vibration, you're
left with pure momentum
3. Now, if you have an object in this natural state of motion (e.g. a photon) that get's rotated
against this background universal motion, you get the effect that all these objects move
towards each other
4. Compare it with a wheel running counter to the universal motion. This is what is called
'gravity' and it is thus an intrinsic property of objects with mass.
5. As said the reference unit is lightspeed. That is where all the confusion about the big bang
comes from. Outside gravitional influence the galaxies will increasingly start to move from
eachother at lightspeed since that is the natural reference.
6. Imagine the motion you get if you strip light of it's vibration, you're left with pure momentum.
7. The universe is constitute out of motion.
8. Before light and matter we first have motion
9. motion of photons or gravity are examples of scalar motions

If I understood it right what you are trying to build is a framework in which all the rest natural
phenomenas in the universe - will fit in. And that based on motion, which is your key.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

Since I believe in finding the “building blocks” prior to anything else - is the most essential
thing to do, I’m trying to go there first when observing your model.

So here are some questions :
1. How do you know if the universe is infinite or not ? Because if it’s infinite - it cannot
move anywhere - it’s already there….
2. If you are using motion only without any objectives (waves, photons, light, etc.) you are
heading to even more theoretical vector, which getting you further from possible observation.
Since the characteristics of the players are our only way to observe and validate our models.

Though I agree with you that everything in the universe is in motion, it would be hard to extract
your building blocks from a general view as such.

Good luck anyway.

Cheers.

[StevenO]

Steven0,

If I understood it right what you are trying to build is a framework in which all the rest natural
phenomenas in the universe - will fit in. And that based on motion, which is your key.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

It's not my invention. It was developed by Dewey Larson over 50 years ago. I just think the theory deserves some serious attention.

Since I believe in finding the “building blocks” prior to anything else - is the most essential
thing to do, I’m trying to go there first when observing your model.

See, everybody assumes some basic constituent of the universe, either explicit or implicitly:
- the Relativists need a vacuum that propagates EM waves and gravity
- the Quantum religion needs an active vacuum teeming with virtual particles
- the Cosmologists need a Big Bang, Dark Matter, etc...
- the Aether proponents need an active aether
- EU sees invisible currents everywhere
- you e.g. always refer to centrifugal and centripetal forces

We have concluded in several discussions on the forum that space and time cannot be seperated. Indeed if they come together as motion that can't be done. If you imagine it as the motion that propagates the vibration of light you can see that it serves most of the above purposes.

So here are some questions :
1. How do you know if the universe is infinite or not ? Because if it’s infinite - it cannot
move anywhere - it’s already there….

I think you should use the word symmetry here. Motion at lightspeed is the state of symmetry, everything else is a disturbed symmetry. Because of the symmetry it does not make much difference whether the universe is infinite or not.

2. If you are using motion only without any objectives (waves, photons, light, etc.) you are
heading to even more theoretical vector, which getting you further from possible observation.
Since the characteristics of the players are our only way to observe and validate our models.

Vector is not the right word here. Our Space-Time reference system is only able to describe a one-dimensional vectorial motion. We are discussing multi-dimensional scalar motions here.

Though I agree with you that everything in the universe is in motion, it would be hard to extract
your building blocks from a general view as such.

Good luck anyway.

Cheers.

Thanks for considering it. Explaining how everything can be deduced from it takes more than a few lines, so I will not try it. Here is an introduction:

What is the Reciprocal System of physical theory?

Conventional science considers space and time to be a framework in which the drama of the universe is played out, in manifest form. The thesis of the Reciprocal System, however, is that the universe is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which the basic reality is motion, and all entities—photons, particles, atoms, fields, forces, and all forms of energy—are merely manifestations of motion.

Space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of this motion, and cannot exist independently. They have no significance except to establish a common reference in describing phenomena. Velocity is a relation of space per unit time; with energy being the inverse relation of time per unit space. We observe space as being 3-dimensional, but space does not exist without time—therefore time must be 3-dimensional, as well. It is this discovery that opened the door to the quantum world, and the configuration space inside the atom, as a direct result of the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System of theory:

• The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
• The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.

By developing the natural consequences of these postulates, Larson creates a theoretical universe that bears an uncanny resemblance to the universe we observe around us.

The Reciprocal System is not just a "physics" theory.

Atoms, like all physical entities, are subject to gravitation, and eventually aggregate, forming dust, rocks, and stars. Extrapolating from his basic postulates, Larson continues the development of the theoretical universe with astronomy, starting with the formation of stars, and deducing the existence of multiple star systems, planetary systems, globular clusters, galaxies, nebula, supernovas, and quasi-stellar objects.

The evolution of stars, as posited from the Reciprocal System, appears backwards from popular astronomic theories. Larson concludes that the youngest stars are the red giants, which continue to aggregate material and heat up, moving down to the main sequence as G-class yellow stars, then upwards through F-class white, A-class blue-white stars, and reach the blue giants during their old age, where, due to thermal factors, become a supernova. The by-products of the supernova form the common red giant/white dwarf binaries, multiple stars, and attendant planetary systems.

The evolution of galaxies is also backwards from popular thought, defining globular clusters as the youngest, and most common stellar aggregate. Globular clusters merge to form elliptical galaxies, ellipticals merge to form spirals, spirals merge to form large spherical galaxies, which also have a “thermal limit”, and explode like a supernova, but instead of producing a red giant/white dwarf pair, the galactic supernova produces a radio galaxy/quasar pair.

The Reciprocal System has the distinction of predicting the existence of quasars in 1959, some four years before their official discovery by Maarten Schmidt in 1963, published in Larson’s first book, The Structure of the Physical Universe.

[rangerover777]

Thanks Steven0,

Motion is a very interesting character of our “continuous universe”, and it worth further discussion.
However, since this thread deals with Mr. Thornhill articles and it‘s neighborhood topics,
I would suggest to open a new topic that will deal with Dewey Larson model.

Cheers

[earls]

haha, so you ask him a bunch of questions and go "never mind, lets not talk about it."

As with most theories new to me, I investigate and read up on them, Steven0's recommendation of Dewey was no exception. Considering that this discussion is about gravity, I think his posts are pretty relevant. Motion is inherent in both gravitation and electromagnetism. Is it the forces producing the motion, or the motion producing the forces?

Dewey attempts to define the "building blocks" as motion. You can name the physical manifestation of the median motion occurs in whatever you want. Regardless, it exists. As mentioned multiple times in the EU books, there is no disconnect, everything is one large, continuous electrical canvas. How the canvas appears at a particular place and time is determined by the motion at that locale.

Now whether it's:

A. Spacetime > Motion > Electrical Charge > Gravitation or,
B. Spacetime > Motion > Gravitation + Electrical Charge (the current mainstream belief)

is up for debate...

However, I think we can all agree that Gravity does not create Electrical Charge. But motion plays an intricate role.

Now, Dewey's stuff is very long and wordy and he has page after page after page... But I certainly do recommend taking in what you can and adding it to your understanding of EU for a much brighter picture.

If nothing else, the "backwards" evolution of stars and galaxy explained above should tweak your mind. More concepts trumpeted by EU.

[junglelord]

I have not read the Larson work, but I would have to agree that this primary angular momentum is a key componet to understanding gravity. In APM the motion is the geometry of the circulating mass of the angular momentum as it moves both in forward time then reverse time around the electrostatic sphere of the two spin rotating magnetic field of the aether creates EM and gravity.