What Do We Know For Certain?

[Aardwolf]

What force pushes objects together?

I'm puzzled. Surely the answer to that would infer action at a distance.

And could you describe the particulate imbalance that caused magnets to attract.

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

I'm puzzled. Surely the answer to that would infer action at a distance.

No, the force of gravity is caused by (mediated by) a "force field" of particles - momentum transfer by collision.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

I'm puzzled. Surely the answer to that would infer action at a distance.

No, the force of gravity is caused by (mediated by) a "force field" of particles - momentum transfer by collision.

Michael

And how does collision drive objects together? What is causing the absence of collision (I assume this is what is happening to create imbalance) between them? How do the force fileld of particles know there are two nearby objects therefore it needs to reduce the force of its field of particles in the space between them to induce apparent attraction?

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

I'm sure you are familiar the the theories of Nicolas Fatio, made famous by Le Sage:

"The force of gravity is the result of tiny particles moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force. With a second object B present, however, a fraction of the particles that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by fewer particles than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by fewer particles from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces."

Interestingly, there is no other physical and mechanical theory of gravity.

Michael

[nick c]

Sorry to divert away from the topic of this thread, but after all, this is a board in the Thunderbolts forum and I think this needs a response....

Curving arcs on the surface of the Sun may well have a significant gravitational component. Throw a ball, point a jet of water from a garden hose - similar? It may also come as as bit of surprise to you that the water is made of particles. I suspect that if the Sun's gravity were not so strong the "plasma jets" would behave differently.

I am assuming that you are referring to prominences which form arcs from the photosphere into the corona. There seems to be very little gravitational component. Prominences have been observed to lie suspended or to retreat down the same path from which they arose, apparently nobody told the prominences about the gravitational effects of the Sun. Your mechanical analogy to a thrown ball or garden hose misses the point entirely, observation of the behavior of prominences simply does not support this analogy.
It should be apparent to most readers here that the puny force of gravity has a miniscule influence on the behavior of prominences, which are obviously an electrical phenomenon.

The reason that this NASA site describes prominences as "a mysterious and striking phenomenon" is because gravity simply does not figure in any explanation; and when confronted with electrical phenomena in the cosmos consensus astronomers are inevitably befuddled, finally resorting to assigning the blame to magnetic fields, seemingly not realizing that they are created by electric currents.

Gravity has an insignificant role in the Electric Universe explanation of prominences, here is a quote from Don Scott's website:

But there are several dynamic phenomena such as flares, prominences, and coronal mass ejections (CME's) that we observe. How are they produced? Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, although not aware of the Juergens Electric Sun model, advanced his own theory (3) of how prominences and solar flares are formed electrically. It is completely consistent with the Juergens model. It too is electrical.
Any electric current, i, creates a magnetic field (the stronger the current - the stronger the magnetic field, and the more energy it contains). Curved magnetic fields cannot exist without either electrical currents or time varying electric fields. Energy, Wm, stored in any magnetic field, is given by the expression
Wm = 1/2 Li ^2. If the current, i, is interrupted, the field collapses and its energy must be delivered somewhere. The magnetic field of the Sun sometimes, and in some places on its surface, forms an "omega" shaped loop. This loop extends out through the double sheath layer (DL) of the chromosphere. One of the primary properties of Birkeland currents is that they generally follow magnetic field lines. A strong looping current will produce a secondary toroidal magnetic field that will surround and try to expand the loop. If the current following the loop becomes too strong, the DL will be destroyed1. This interrupts the current (like opening a switch in an inductive circuit) and the energy stored in the primary magnetic field is explosively released into space.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Analyzing the motion of a thrown ball or garden hose will be of little help to understand most solar phenomena.

[Sparky]

"One of the primary properties of Birkeland currents is that they generally follow magnetic field lines. "

Could it be better said by, Birkelland currents will react to and follow a magnetic field's flux density gradient?

way beyond my pay grade here on this...may have to do a major refund of over payments.


**********************

mjv, Interestingly, there is no other physical and mechanical theory of gravity.

would this qualify? Quantum foam inflow...
though these people do not think it does..

We reveal an underlying flawin Reginald T. Cahill’s recently promoted quantum
foam inflow theory of gravity. It appears to arise from a confusion of the idea of the
Galilean invariance of the acceleration of an individual flow with what is obtained as an
acceleration when a homogeneous flow is superposed with an inhomogeneous flow. We
also point out that the General Relativistic covering theory he creates by substituting a
generalized Painlevé-Gullstrand metric into Einstein’s field equations leads to absurd re-sults.

[webolife]

MJV asks: Do I [webolife] believe in action at a distance? Not by your contrivedly narrow, oxymoronic definition, no.
Do I believe that two particles interact without touching? Yes. You have now defined touching as direct collisions between solid particles at miniscule scales, so no, I would not agree with that idea of action as it relates to gravity, light, the "strong" force, and/or electrical potential, but, hey, maybe there is some other underlying and fundamental principle of physics that this does work for.......... an imaginary quantum aether, perhaps?

MJV asks: What force pushes objects together? "Gravity" names it but does not in any way answer the question... you have simply asked the question, "What is gravity [ie the force that pushes objects together]?" and answered it with "Gravity". You have particles bombarding each other chaotically but nothing to "hold" anything together. More little particles bombarding should "logically" prevent any kind of "gravity" from happening. What is the force [or moving particle operation] that "centralizes" mass? You said in an earlier post that "motion" is the pervasive observation in the universe... I'd counter that by a long shot stuff sticking together is the pervasive observation, supported by the non-Newtonian observation that ALL OBSERVED MOTION IS CURVED, due to what you correctly noted as a balance of forces... one centropic, and the other [ideally tangential, but actually] angular momentum. And in this balance, "centropic" wins out in every observed case... ie stuff sticks together. And you are still avoiding the question of how bombarding particles [no "attraction"... by the way, my model agrees with you that gravity is a "push"] can do this. Having more of them associated in a small area, and moving at very high rates, chaotically, simply does not "logically" account for this. Yet this type of colliding activity remains the central and crucial point of all that YOU [not we] think that you "know for certain."

You may, or may not [IMHO], be right... but you are not certainly right. Nor is your list.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Do I believe that two particles interact without touching? Yes

Since the definition of action at a distance does not suit you, would you provide a definition that does?

You said in an earlier post that "motion" is the pervasive observation in the universe... I'd counter that by a long shot stuff sticking together is the pervasive observation,

This "stuff" that sticks together, is it in motion? is it made of atoms? if so, the constituent particles that comprise the atoms, are they in motion? or is all the stuck together stuff at absolute rest?

supported by the non-Newtonian observation that ALL OBSERVED MOTION IS CURVED,

I don't see how this supports the above, but then this sounds peculiar to say the least. Are you able and willing to give any meaningful explanation?

Try not to get confused between the list that I am putting forward as certainties and everything else I may have written in this thread or others that is not in said list. The difference is that some things are in the list and some things are not in the list. I have tried to make this point before, I hope it is clear now.

Michael

[webolife]

Your definiton does not suit me. But I stand by observations, recognizing that there are different theories [such as yours that require all actions to be collisional, and others like mine that recognize the possibility that the pervasive "holding" force may be "immaterial" , ie. not particulate] that try to explain our observations of AAAD. I attribute the effect we call "mass" to this force, and it becomes a property of particulate matter [as density, because of the exigent association of mass with an object located in 3-D space] due to that centropic force.
I have said numerous times [against your objection] that "force" might not be mediated by particles, and asked you to carry this [chaotically colliding particulate mediation] logically to it's fundamental level. That you refuse to consider that [and how] your "certainties" are founded upon your "uncertainties" would be peculiar to me if I didn't hold the philosophy that every scientist [honest and aware scientists recognize and state their underlying premises/assumptions, then proceed to] conduct scientific study upon those premises. But you seem to be unable to distinguish between the premises of which you are aware, and those you claim to be immutable certainties.

I forgot in my previous post to address a singular flaw in the reasoning of the quote from Fatio/Le Sage:
From the quote -- "The force of gravity is the result of tiny particles moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force." {my highlight}

The word ISOLATED defies the entire sentence that comes before it, and leads back to the same question I've been asking MJV since the beginning of this thread.

ALL OBSERVED MOTION IS CURVED. Nothing in the universe is unaffected by an outside force; therefore, as an abstract and ideal assertion, Newton's first law simply isn't observed anywhere. Clearly based on Fatio/Le Sage, you see all motion in the universe as fundamentally random and undirected, despite that we rarely see motions in the universe that are random or undirected. This stems from a deeply rooted philosophy in you Michael, from which you seem unable to extricate yourself. That's OK with me, actually... I just wish you could recognize this and restate your list as "My Premises" and move on to further your scientific research from there. It would be honest, and you would be surprised to find how much the things we AGREE on could further our mutual understanding of physics!

[Aardwolf]

Analyzing the motion of a thrown ball or garden hose will be of little help to understand most solar phenomena.

Just to add to Nicks reply, the plane of the arc created by a thrown ball or water from the hose is always at a 45 degree angle to the surface of the planet. These arcs are clearly not at 45 degrees in some cases so it makes no sense to attribute a gravitational effect.

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

I'm sure you are familiar the the theories of Nicolas Fatio, made famous by Le Sage:

"The force of gravity is the result of tiny particles moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force. With a second object B present, however, a fraction of the particles that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by fewer particles than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by fewer particles from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces."

Interestingly, there is no other physical and mechanical theory of gravity.

Michael

Yet this theory is an inherent contradiction and has many problems.

If these particles are everywhere throughout the universe, then they must be sourced from everywhere. They do not have an origin apart from space itself. Therefore it cannot be possible to shield from it as any space between 2 objects should be re-filled with the particles.

In addition the shape of an object should effect its weight. If I were to fashion a iron rod and stand on its end, it should weigh less than if I were to flatten it to a sphere. The only way it could weigh the same is if these gravity particles were either recreating themselves throughout the length of the rod, or if they were passing through it and having an equal effect on all its matter. Neither of which would therefore be a shield.

Finally there cannot be any delay in the shielding process itself. For example, there are 4 light-hours between The Sun and Pluto but the solar system is moving approximately 500,000 mph so in 4 hours could have travelled up to twice the width of The Sun which means Pluto at times would miss the light-speed delayed shield and be pushed out of the system. Similarly the gas giants should not be able to perturb other bodies as the shielding would be off target due to their orbit & solar system speed if the particles are restricted by light-speed limit.

Maybe the reason that there is no other physical or mechanical theory is because that's not how gravity (and possibly electromagnetism) works.

[Goldminer]

Maybe the reason that there is no other physical or mechanical theory is because that's not how gravity (and possibly electromagnetism) works.

There is no "maybe" about it!

.

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

the plane of the arc created by a thrown ball or water from the hose is always at a 45 degree angle to the surface of the planet.

I suppose you are trying to make a point here, but I am at a loss to understand what it may be. The arc of a non-powered projectile, depends on g, the mass of the projectile, the angle it is "launched" at, atmospheric pressure, the initial acceleration and velocity at "launch".

Why do suppose that it can only be 45 degrees?

If that were not enough, your analysis of particle field gravity is rather poor or deliberately obtuse.

If these particles are everywhere throughout the universe, then they must be sourced from everywhere. They do not have an origin apart from space itself.

Could be that you are entirely unaware of any aether theory whatsoever? The concept is that space is not empty but is "filled" with particles; not compressed together, but spaced apart, moving in random directions. The vacuum is the aether - "quantum aether vacuum field" if you will.

Therefore it cannot be possible to shield from it as any space between 2 objects should be re-filled with the particles.

Really, come on now, surely you have a basic understanding of vectors. The moving aether particles collide with electrons, protons and neutrons, imparting momentum in a certain direction. Large atomic bodies, although largely transparent to the aether particles do present a barrier to some degree. If two bodies approach each other they will present a barrier, or shield, which results in a net force vector between them - they will be pushed towards each other: gravity.

In addition the shape of an object should effect its weight. If I were to fashion a iron rod and stand on its end, it should weigh less than if I were to flatten it to a sphere. The only way it could weigh the same is if these gravity particles were either recreating themselves throughout the length of the rod, or if they were passing through it and having an equal effect on all its matter. Neither of which would therefore be a shield.

The shape is irrelevant, only the amount of electrons, protons and neutrons - the gravitational effect is a function of density and size: kg/radius^3 x radius = kg/r^2 : mass / radius^2.
Of course the particles are passing through everything, everywhere - through planets and stars and even you - only a small proportion need collide to create the effect. Did you imagine that a quantum aether field would not reach you if you closed the windows and doors?

there cannot be any delay in the shielding process itself.

At last, a reasonable area of doubt. It would be quite convenient if the gravitational aether field were moving at superluminous speeds, c^2 perhaps, that would be nice - it was my original theory that this might be the case. However, photons and electromagnetism do appear to travel at c (and yes I know there is doubt in the actual value and possibly its constancy and no we have not made measurements everywhere is the universe, just on and around Earth - your reservations regarding c are known to me and are quite reasonable). So if the gravitational aether were moving at vastly greater than c, your list of criticisms would be eliminated. However, I suspect that the process is still viable at c, although I am not yet in a position to prove this conclusively and I may in fact be in error, in which case I will have reconsider. I had thought that it would be useful to compile a list of "certainties", with which to proceed (obviously, you can't please all the people all of the time, and some are unwilling to attach the word "certain" to any knowledge).

Maybe the reason that there is no other physical or mechanical theory is because that's not how gravity (and possibly electromagnetism) works.

So gravity, and possibly electromagnetism, are not physical and not mechanical? Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to other possibilities, perhaps your favoured explanation.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

Aardwolf wrote: Maybe the reason that there is no other physical or mechanical theory is because that's not how gravity (and possibly electromagnetism) works.

Goldminer wrote: There is no "maybe" about it!

I'm sure I would be delighted to be informed as to your thoughts on the non-physical and non-mechanical operation of the universe - if you would be so kind.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

the plane of the arc created by a thrown ball or water from the hose is always at a 45 degree angle to the surface of the planet.

I suppose you are trying to make a point here, but I am at a loss to understand what it may be. The arc of a non-powered projectile, depends on g, the mass of the projectile, the angle it is "launched" at, atmospheric pressure, the initial acceleration and velocity at "launch".

Why do suppose that it can only be 45 degrees?

OK bad description. If you throw a ball it will produce an arc. The trajectory of this arc together and a straight line between the launch and landing points forms a semi-circle. The plane of this semi-circle will always be at a 45 degree angle to the surface of the planet. Clearly the plasma jet semi-circles are not 45 degree angles. They are therefore not formed by gravity.

If that were not enough, your analysis of particle field gravity is rather poor or deliberately obtuse.

If these particles are everywhere throughout the universe, then they must be sourced from everywhere. They do not have an origin apart from space itself.

Could be that you are entirely unaware of any aether theory whatsoever? The concept is that space is not empty but is "filled" with particles; not compressed together, but spaced apart, moving in random directions. The vacuum is the aether - "quantum aether vacuum field" if you will.

I’m only interested in the gravity creating particles. Where do these particles originate, constantly in space all around us or from a particular distant source?

Therefore it cannot be possible to shield from it as any space between 2 objects should be re-filled with the particles.

Really, come on now, surely you have a basic understanding of vectors. The moving aether particles collide with electrons, protons and neutrons, imparting momentum in a certain direction. Large atomic bodies, although largely transparent to the aether particles do present a barrier to some degree. If two bodies approach each other they will present a barrier, or shield, which results in a net force vector between them - they will be pushed towards each other: gravity.

Yes but you are missing the point. The apparent attraction of the Earth from the Moon is created by an imbalance of particles from the direction of the Earth. So these were particles travelling towards the Moon in a straight line from the direction of the Earth. So clearly there must be a source of these particles from at least the distance between the Earth and the Moon. So where/what is this source? It cannot be space itself because there is plenty of space between the Earth and Moon.

In addition the shape of an object should effect its weight. If I were to fashion a iron rod and stand on its end, it should weigh less than if I were to flatten it to a sphere. The only way it could weigh the same is if these gravity particles were either recreating themselves throughout the length of the rod, or if they were passing through it and having an equal effect on all its matter. Neither of which would therefore be a shield.

The shape is irrelevant, only the amount of electrons, protons and neutrons - the gravitational effect is a function of density and size: kg/radius^3 x radius = kg/r^2 : mass / radius^2.
Of course the particles are passing through everything, everywhere - through planets and stars and even you - only a small proportion need collide to create the effect. Did you imagine that a quantum aether field would not reach you if you closed the windows and doors?

Yes but the fact that some interact means that there are less to interact for the remainder of the object in that same direction.

For example first we must assume that in free space these gravity particles have uniform density. Lets say 10 million per square meter. I fashion 2 iron discs of the same mass/density/weight . The first is 10mm thick and 1 square meter. The second is 1mm thick and 10 square meters. We assume that in any given square meter of iron 1% of the particles every 1mm in depth will impact. For the first disc there will be a diminishing number of interactions as it passes through each mm. The total result will be 956,000 interactions. For the second disc the interactions will be 100m x 1% over 1 mm. Total interactions will be 1,000,000. These downward impacts will be offset by the gravity particles that make it through the Earth and obviously must obey the same density/absorption physics. Say 75% make it through Earth which means the first disc will receive upward impacts of 7.5 m diminishing at 1% per each mm which calculates to 717,000 interactions. The second will receive 750,000. The net effect of these 2 discs are therefore 956-717=239 versus 1000-750=250. The second flatter wider disc therefore receives more net downward pressure than the second disc and must be measured to be heavier if this theory is correct.

there cannot be any delay in the shielding process itself.

At last, a reasonable area of doubt. It would be quite convenient if the gravitational aether field were moving at superluminous speeds, c^2 perhaps, that would be nice - it was my original theory that this might be the case. However, photons and electromagnetism do appear to travel at c (and yes I know there is doubt in the actual value and possibly its constancy and no we have not made measurements everywhere is the universe, just on and around Earth - your reservations regarding c are known to me and are quite reasonable). So if the gravitational aether were moving at vastly greater than c, your list of criticisms would be eliminated. However, I suspect that the process is still viable at c, although I am not yet in a position to prove this conclusively and I may in fact be in error, in which case I will have reconsider. I had thought that it would be useful to compile a list of "certainties", with which to proceed (obviously, you can't please all the people all of the time, and some are unwilling to attach the word "certain" to any knowledge).

c^2 just doesn’t cut it. La Sage realised he needed the speed of his particles to be at least 10^5 times the speed of light. Is that acceptable to your theory?

Maybe the reason that there is no other physical or mechanical theory is because that's not how gravity (and possibly electromagnetism) works.

So gravity, and possibly electromagnetism, are not physical and not mechanical? Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to other possibilities, perhaps your favoured explanation.

Trying to understand exactly what is happening when we don’t really know for certain how gravity, magnetism, electricity, light etc works, is difficult. My suspicion is that the surface attraction we experience on a planet is a different phenomena to the attraction of 2 orbiting bodies. I would suspect that surface gravity is an electrostatic attraction only phenomena, but orbiting bodies almost certainly need an attractive and a repulsive force. Currently I don’t think we can say anything more for certain, although I would say that everything, including all matter, are just manifestations of energy. I think it’s a mistake to focus on matter alone.