Gravity & Strong Force

[webolife]

Will chime in with my [very non-consensus] view that the vectors of light are directed [gravity-like] toward the light source as a sink, so one would expect [and find] that objects exposed to light become "lighter", warmer, less dense, and generally motivated in the direction of the light source. This is in total contradiction to light parrticles or waves being emitted by the source or bombarding objects facing and from the direction of the source... now if one considers that the vectors are intersecting with the "object" from the direction of its "shadow"... so "darkness" is light vectors directed toward the eye, while "lightness" is light vectors directed toward the source. Ever wonder why the blackest hole in the universe is the pupil of your own eye looking at itself in a mirror? My view of the universe.

[webolife]

Nice. But no, the sun doesn't suck anything. Gravitation is a "push" directed toward the "ground", and voltage is a "push" directed toward "ground", and light is a "push" directed toward "ground", in this case the solar surface or light bulb filament, or leaping electrons in an atom. The hydroelectric dam setup can be used to illustrate the "equivalence" or relationship of all the phenomena. Matter is incapable of "sucking", in the sense of initiating an action that pulls other matter to it... however when it comes to vectors all we have is direction and magnitude, without the benefit of knowing which element initiates the action to cause the effect.

Is that F supposed to be a voltage?

[Bengt Nyman]

Hey Sparky,
Your anger makes it difficult to carry on a meaningful conversation with you.
Why don't we take a break.
Bengt

[webolife]

What is the w? Watts? Work? Wildebeests?

[Sparky]

Hey Sparky,
Your anger makes it difficult to carry on a meaningful conversation with you.
Why don't we take a break.
Bengt

Do whatever you want for whatever delusional reasoning you have, as my initial question was an open one, not necessarily addressed toward you....and my response to your condescending "experiment" was not in anger, but proportional to the nonsensical nature of the experiment's construct....but, if you need a break, by all means , take one....


&&&&&&***************************


webo-, i usually can't understand most of your theories, and must have misunderstood what you were saying with the vectors..

i think F equals force...it was expressed in lbs and a reference was made to newtons.....i don't know if the equation that i found was for newtons or lbs....

I just was wondering if photon bombardment, in the standard model, would be a factor in gravity change from night to day...

EDIT; w= watts/sq ft.////... i was assuming a body would be 1 sq ft of surface area...

[webolife]

And to summarize, my response would be that "bombardment" by photon-corpuscles is in the opposite direction from my light vectors, so therefore my model predicts lightness during the daylight, where the corpuscular theory predicts heaviness.

[seasmith]

Matter is incapable of "sucking", in the sense of initiating an 1 action that pulls other matter to it... however when it comes 2 to vectors all we have is direction and magnitude, without the benefit of knowing which element initiates the action to cause the effect.

Webo,

1 Attraction is probably a better verb? Certain orbits attract certain speeding spindles of matter (the ponderable kind). One tone will merge its charge of energy to another, when accelerated to same frequency <^
2 Dont we also have implicit trajectory over a duration ? Hence the recycling to earth?
I like the 'vector straw

[webolife]

Keep your straw man, it looks like I have to feed this one to you with a vector spoon
The same force that pushes orbiting bodies toward their local center of polity will tend to accumulate other bodies in that same region, so it may look like it's "attraction" but it's centropy.

[sjw40364]

Personally I find the bombardment theory of gravity totally untenable and without any merit whatsoever.

[Bengt Nyman]

Personally I find the bombardment theory of gravity totally untenable and without any merit whatsoever.

Agreed !
If there is a measurable effect at all it is many orders of magnitude below the real cause; electric dipole attraction.

[webolife]

It's a different terminology than what I use, but I agree, with the proviso that "attraction" be understood as vectors directed toward a common center.

[seasmith]

I'm not a proponent of carpet bombardment, it too often misses the target.
But seriously, this vague vector thing needs to be brought back to the realm of reality.

Start with L, W & H; the three scalar vectors of common 3D-extension space. They can even be integrated into E & M flux vectors.
Now to incorporate Motion, a prime feature of reality, one needs yet another "vector" with T as a common denominator.
In electrodynamics terms it is a (straw) Poynting vector.

So back to orbits: even with L, W, H & T as computational 'vectors', we still don't have real orbital mechanics; just a plane triangle in motion. Where's the Volume of the orbiting body ??
Ok, so we need one more extension to give a plane triangle volume (tetrahedron), or the sphere a surface and center.

Point is, centropicity needs completion, or at least connection with space, light, gravity and mass,
at least. imo

[webolife]

Good. Referring for more detail to the "Webo-Centric" thread and other numerous threads where I have spoken of "vectors", when I look at a source of light, pressure is applied to my photoreceptor cells, and an electrochemical reaction ensues, cascading through my neurons to some region in my brain which in connection to other regions interprets and understands the light [as blue, green, red or combination]. This pressure I refer to as a vector, however, as an abstraction a vector or ray [of force] is dimensionless, as you point out, and in real life the image is always received in a [2-dimensional] areal region, hence pressure is the best word. If I am using an additional focusing apparatus such as a lens or pinhole [or slit], around the central line of sight are found an array of colors, always in the same order, and always an exact image of the source "point" of light -- ie. any particular color "band" in isolation would image the source point exactly; the only reason for any sense of "spectral" fuzziness is due to the fact that there are numerous "vectors" of pressure with varying degrees of magnitude due to their [angular] relationship to the central line of sight. I refer to this as a pressure gradient, and generally refer to the light action as a "beam" of light, to avoid confusion over the dimensionlessness of "vectors". Gravitation and voltage likewise are forces applied over areas, hence pressures. The strong force must also be understood as a radially applied pressure toward a centroid, and when it is released, as in radioactivity or a nuclear blast, the result is an outward pressure comensurate with the "holding" pressure aptly named the strong force. Therefore, mass is the result of [or measurement of] centropic action at or toward a centroid, which as we all understand doesn't need to contain any actual material.

[sjw40364]

The question then becomes why do all pressure vectors point to the center? Why is there a pressure vector? Light I comprehend, it has a force as it strikes an object. Is gravity then a lack of pressure, a true vacuum at the center of all particles of mass?

[webolife]

Ah, the reverse vector direction is playing tricks with your mind. All centropic vectors are pointing toward the centroid[s] of systems, whether gravity, ES/EMF, or light. Light "pushes" toward the source/centroid, as gravitation is also a push toward the "center-of-mass", which to repeat emphasis, need not have any significant accumulation of matter at its location. Neither matter particles nor a vacuum have inate or intrinsic ability to motivate anything, it cannot suck... and what does it mean for light to STRIKE an object, especially in light of the observation that objects thus motivated often "float" or are "drawn" toward the light... So your question comes to WHY is there a universal centropic force field? And THAT $1,000,000,000,000 question appears to possibly be beyond the grasp of natural science methodology, though not beyond comprehension.