What Do We Know For Certain?

[Plasmatic]

Michael, I just thought you should sample these vids in relation to your atomic premises:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4iFCu4i ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E- ... re=related

However even Gaede's ropes are held to act in a way physical ropes cannot.

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

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.

I think you would have to be quite precise with the launch parameters to get a semi-circle, its more likely to be a parabolic trajectory, but I take your point. Surely though the plane of the trajectory has to be 90 degrees to the surface - how can it possible ever be 45degrees?

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

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.

I think you would have to be quite precise with the launch parameters to get a semi-circle, its more likely to be a parabolic trajectory, but I take your point. Surely though the plane of the trajectory has to be 90 degrees to the surface - how can it possible ever be 45degrees?

Michael

You're quite right. I meant 90 degrees. Doh!

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

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?

One must presume that they originate from the creation process of the universe.

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.

No, the particles that push the Earth towards the Moon arrived from the far reaches of infinite space from behind the Earth from the Moon's perspective and from behind the Moon from the Earth's perspective.

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.

There seems to be a gulf of misunderstanding here. Particles with a vector of travel from behind the Earth (from the Moon's perspective) either pass straight through the Earth of are blocked/deflected. So the Moon is bombarded from all directions, but from the direction of the Earth that bombardment if slightly reduced, so the Moon has a net force from behind and is pushed towards the Earth.

Lets say 10 million per square meter.

I would sat 4.95x10^47 per cubic metre.

The surface area as measured by humans is of no consequence whatsoever. By your calculation then. you would also measure a feather to be "heavier" than a ball of lead. But the lead contains more matter - it contains more electrons, more protons and more neutrons - it is more massive - it has more mass. The "gravity particles" do not "see" your surface area, they are atomic structure agnostic - all they "see" is the surfaces and densities of electrons, protons and neutrons. What's more if they are travelling at c, then every cubic metre of the entire universe, whether occupied by "matter" or not, will have 1.48x10^56 particles pass through it every second.

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?

It appears that Le Sage simply stole Fatio's work, but I am aware of the number you quote. Besides, I think you'll find that c squared is 3x10^8 times 3x10^8.

There are potential issues with this theory: if quantum/aether particles impart momentum to "matter", presumably they must then have a reduced velocity, so how do we include this? how do we reconcile the structure of quantum particles with the structure and structural integrity of electrons and protons?

But there are many pros as well. An aethereal quantum field that creates the effect of gravity, also explains GMM/r^2. It explains inertia and the lack of inertia in gravitational free fall.

but orbiting bodies almost certainly need an attractive and a repulsive force.

Agreed (yes you read that right...agreed!). Orbits are more complicated, because they must include a second force. Possibly Newton's biggest mistake is the falling without hitting the ground nonsense we are fed to explain orbits. If an orbiter is unpowered, then continually changing direction, so as to move in a circle, to avoid the push of gravity is crap. This could only result in a spiral downwards. Since gravity is pushing straight towards the centre of the orbited body the only possible thing that could stop an orbiter from being pushed down is a force that pushes in the opposite direction. Since we know that sub-atomic particles emit charge, it stands to reason that a planet must be emitting a net "charge" force outward. An orbiter at a given distance must encounter sufficient outward force to counteract the downward push of gravity, hence the need to orbit rather than just hover. Obviously, the "gravity" that we experience and measure is inclusive of these two opposing forces, both of which are proportional to the masses of bodies.

Currently I don’t think we can say anything more for certain,

But if we took that attitude we would never progress at all.

I would say that everything, including all matter, are just manifestations of energy. I think it’s a mistake to focus on matter alone.

Oh dear, poo poo time again. Energy, a legacy of pre-science that just will not go away. We have dismissed the gods and the fairy folk, but magic just hangs on in there, still dominating the stone age imaginings of so many thinkers. One of these days I will finish my essay on the illogical farce of an "energy substance" - or substanceless substance. Suffice to say the "energy substance" is intellectual bottom water of the first order and a sad indictment of the still primitive state of the fundamental scientific progress of humans.

There are broadly two possibilities:
1) matter doesn't really exist and everything is wisps and waves of "energy substance" that organises itself with conscious precision and sometimes manifests as matter, such that our perception of the universe is so far removed from the true reality that to make sense of any fundamental process is pointless beyond imagination.
2) the universe that we perceive is real and our perception is a reasonably accurate interpretation of that reality.

Advocates of option 1 face the inevitable wrath of Occam's Razor - although with a suitable and unavoidable degree of uncertainty - with our limited perception and limited data, even the most rigorous logic may be wrong. However, it does seem strange to wander off in the direction of reducing plausibility.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

You're quite right. I meant 90 degrees. Doh!

The huge difference between a jet of water or a thrown ball and an ejected plasma jet, is that the terrestrial analogies are propulsively passive. The plasma jet is not just explosively ejected, it is also, if not only, self-propelled. Gravity is at best only able to affect its trajectory. It is certainly not "launched" up by some explosive process and then "pushed" back down by gravity. They are not a ball with a long ribbon tail - these are stable structures, albeit fragile and temporary.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

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?

One must presume that they originate from the creation process of the universe.

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.

No, the particles that push the Earth towards the Moon arrived from the far reaches of infinite space from behind the Earth from the Moon's perspective and from behind the Moon from the Earth's perspective.

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.

There seems to be a gulf of misunderstanding here. Particles with a vector of travel from behind the Earth (from the Moon's perspective) either pass straight through the Earth of are blocked/deflected. So the Moon is bombarded from all directions, but from the direction of the Earth that bombardment if slightly reduced, so the Moon has a net force from behind and is pushed towards the Earth.

So being particles originated from the creation process why are they isotropic? Are we to believe that where we are positioned is precisely central from all directions? If not, why is gravity measured to be the same irrespective of the direction the face of the earth is pointing? Surely there would be some kind of imbalance. Even just in our galaxy why doesn’t gravity reduce from the direction of the centre of the galaxy? Shielding must surely be greater from that direction. And does gravity on the surface of the moon decrease during a lunar eclipse? Surely the double shielding of the sun and the Earth in that direction should be evident. What about the moons orbit during a lunar eclipse? Does it start to spiral inwards? I am certain if gravity shielding operated this way we would have some evidence of it by now.

Lets say 10 million per square meter.

I would sat 4.95x10^47 per cubic metre.

The surface area as measured by humans is of no consequence whatsoever. By your calculation then. you would also measure a feather to be "heavier" than a ball of lead. But the lead contains more matter - it contains more electrons, more protons and more neutrons - it is more massive - it has more mass. The "gravity particles" do not "see" your surface area, they are atomic structure agnostic - all they "see" is the surfaces and densities of electrons, protons and neutrons. What's more if they are travelling at c, then every cubic metre of the entire universe, whether occupied by "matter" or not, will have 1.48x10^56 particles pass through it every second.

Firstly, I specifically picked two identically massed objects in volume, density and weight. They should operate exactly the way a sail on a ship would. If you were to hang it folded up it will get you nowhere compared to it unfolded. There is no reason to believe that these gravity particles operate any differently. I agree that the particles don’t care about the depth of the material but the fact remains once a certain percentage have interacted over a certain depth (1mm in this case) over a period of time, there is a reduced number available to interact at the next depth, and so on. Once the 1% has interacted only 99% are available for the next mm and 98.01% for the next mm and so on. You can’t argue against this because this is the very principle of the theory that creates surface gravity. It must expect a certain percentage to be interacted with by the Earth, thereby reducing the percentage available for interaction when leaving the surface the other side.

Secondly, how can it be possible that “every cubic metre of the entire universe, whether occupied by "matter" or not, will have 1.48x10^56 particles pass through it every second”? If that’s the case why isn’t there 1.48x10^56 particles every second upwards from the surface of the Earth into my feet as well as 1.48x10^56 particles every second down on my head thereby effectively making me weightless? You can’t have it both ways. Either the Earth is “shielding” and therefore, by default, reducing the number of particles or it isn’t. Which is it? And if the Earth shields so does everything else including my two discs in exactly the way I described.

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?

It appears that Le Sage simply stole Fatio's work, but I am aware of the number you quote. Besides, I think you'll find that c squared is 3x10^8 times 3x10^8.

There are potential issues with this theory: if quantum/aether particles impart momentum to "matter", presumably they must then have a reduced velocity, so how do we include this? how do we reconcile the structure of quantum particles with the structure and structural integrity of electrons and protons?

But there are many pros as well. An aethereal quantum field that creates the effect of gravity, also explains GMM/r^2. It explains inertia and the lack of inertia in gravitational free fall.

Sorry yes c squared is greater (I was thinking 2c for some reason) but I find it odd that this is acceptable to your theory considering our previous discussions about c. During those we were just contemplating a potentially small increase in c as I believe our measurements are restricted by atmosphere. Now I am aware your theory would allow c squared it makes it odd that you were objecting to the small measurement increase.

Currently I don’t think we can say anything more for certain,

But if we took that attitude we would never progress at all.

We can discuss, theorise, argue as much as we like. It’s making statements “for certain” that I would object to without significant knowledge of the phenomena we’re supposedly so certain of. That attitude causes more problems than it solves. Are GR & SR for certain? The scientific establishment likes to think so. Where has that got us? How much has been spent on CERN? Compare that to where we would be if Tesla was held in as high esteem as Einstein. What if billions were spent on his theories/experiments.

I would say that everything, including all matter, are just manifestations of energy. I think it’s a mistake to focus on matter alone.

Oh dear, poo poo time again. Energy, a legacy of pre-science that just will not go away. We have dismissed the gods and the fairy folk, but magic just hangs on in there, still dominating the stone age imaginings of so many thinkers. One of these days I will finish my essay on the illogical farce of an "energy substance" - or substanceless substance. Suffice to say the "energy substance" is intellectual bottom water of the first order and a sad indictment of the still primitive state of the fundamental scientific progress of humans.

There are broadly two possibilities:
1) matter doesn't really exist and everything is wisps and waves of "energy substance" that organises itself with conscious precision and sometimes manifests as matter, such that our perception of the universe is so far removed from the true reality that to make sense of any fundamental process is pointless beyond imagination.
2) the universe that we perceive is real and our perception is a reasonably accurate interpretation of that reality.

Advocates of option 1 face the inevitable wrath of Occam's Razor - although with a suitable and unavoidable degree of uncertainty - with our limited perception and limited data, even the most rigorous logic may be wrong. However, it does seem strange to wander off in the direction of reducing plausibility.

Michael

The problem you have with particle based reality is what is that fundamental particle made of. Can you cut it in half? If it exists in 3 dimensions why not? How does the end, side or part of this particle communicate with the another end, side or part? Is it discrete communication? If so, the particle itself is violating action at a distance. Does it have constituent parts that collide to pass this information on? If so then it’s not the fundamental particle so what are its constituent parts made of. And so on. Do you see the problem you have?

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

You're quite right. I meant 90 degrees. Doh!

The huge difference between a jet of water or a thrown ball and an ejected plasma jet, is that the terrestrial analogies are propulsively passive. The plasma jet is not just explosively ejected, it is also, if not only, self-propelled. Gravity is at best only able to affect its trajectory. It is certainly not "launched" up by some explosive process and then "pushed" back down by gravity. They are not a ball with a long ribbon tail - these are stable structures, albeit fragile and temporary.

Michael

However, I assume you now accept that the plasma jets are clearly not creating 90 degree trajectories so therefore cannot be influenced by gravitation alone.

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

My assumption right from the start was that these are self-propelled "structures". One might presume that what are traditionally defined as electromagnetic effects, form and propel these structures. I am suggesting that the fact that these structures "steer" back to the surface, shows a compelling plausibility for a gravitational affect on their trajectory.

Although this is a suggestion, and by no means certain, it would be rather foolish to ignore the affect of gravity with regard to an body as massive as a star. However convinced we may be of Marklund/pinch star formation, there can be little doubt that it is the effect of gravity that confines such a raging torrent of electromagnetic activity into a spherical body.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

I'm not convinced they are effected by gravity. I'm not convinced any structures at the atomic/molecular level are effected by gravity until they coalesce into much larger structures. For example why is the lower atmosphere of the Earth so well mixed? Why are there layers of denser molecules above the lower less dense atmosphere? Why isn't the atmosphere layered (at least roughly as I appreciate there will be mixing) according to atomic weight? Why does water in dense liquid form (fog) hang in defiance of gravity just above the surface of the Earth? Why in a sealed room will very heavy mercury (at the rooms temperature) evaporate its atoms to fill the all the space in the room until saturated, and not re-congeal on the floor?

I would argue the reason behind these phenomena is because at the atomic level electromagnetism takes precedent not gravity.

Also, take a look at the gif below.



This is a laboratory formed snowflake. Notice that the forming of the six points of its star are incredibly symetrical and arguably simultaneous. What possible mechanical explanation is there for the communication between these six arms to create a uniform and symetrical structure simultaneously?

[altonhare]

(First of all, I would like to avoid any philosophical skulduggery that leverages the doubt of our fundamental existence. For sure we do not know the precise nature of our "consciousness". Also, perhaps we are living a matrix-like existence inside an alien supercomputer, maybe we are a dream within a dream within a dream. All quite possible, but all unprovable and all irrelevant to this discussion. We must assume that we exist as individual humans, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a galaxy cluster, in the universe.)

I wish to compile a list of concepts/facts that could be considered as reliable starting points for the building of fundamental theories. That is to say a list of what we know, and not including what we think we know. I would suggest that the most important items on such a list, would be concepts that are self-evident.

What We Know To Be True:

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be created (or conveyed) by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision, or as, action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.


That should do for starters. Any disagreements about 1)-5) ? Any additional suggestions for inclusion?

Michael

1) There is no "rest" or "uniform motion." However, the idea of causality is certainly beyond reproach. Nothing can self-contradict, therefore there are restrictions on what it does, therefore it acts particularly.

2) Wording is a bit too vague. Changes of one orientation (designated positive, or rightward, or w/e) must be accompanied by changes of the opposite orientation (designated negativfe, leftward) because motion must be conserved. So the best interpretation I can come up with is "conservation of motion" which is also often termed "conservation of energy." i.e. if something starts moving faster, something(s) must then move more slowly.

3) Agree. Motion is conserved.

4) I think what you mean is that objects only interact by contact, i.e. no "action-at-a-distance." Agreed.

5) All you're saying is that physical is a synonym of object/matter.

[altonhare]

(First of all, I would like to avoid any philosophical skulduggery that leverages the doubt of our fundamental existence. For sure we do not know the precise nature of our "consciousness". Also, perhaps we are living a matrix-like existence inside an alien supercomputer, maybe we are a dream within a dream within a dream. All quite possible, but all unprovable and all irrelevant to this discussion. We must assume that we exist as individual humans, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a galaxy cluster, in the universe.)

I wish to compile a list of concepts/facts that could be considered as reliable starting points for the building of fundamental theories. That is to say a list of what we know, and not including what we think we know. I would suggest that the most important items on such a list, would be concepts that are self-evident.

What We Know To Be True:

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be created (or conveyed) by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision, or as, action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.


That should do for starters. Any disagreements about 1)-5) ? Any additional suggestions for inclusion?

Michael

1) There is no "rest" or "uniform motion." However, I agree with the idea of causality. Objects cannot behave in all conceivable ways because they cannot self-contradict. Therefore, their behavior is restricted and they must behave particularly.

2) Yes, because motion is conserved, when one object moves faster then other object(s) must move more slowly. When A moves to the right, B moves to the left. When A moves faster to the right, B moves faster to the left.

3) Agreed, a restatement of conservation of motion, which is often also called conservation of energy/momentum.

4) Agreed, objects may only interact by contact. No "action-at-a-distance."

5) Here you're only stating that "matter" and "physical" are synonyms.

[Sparky]

Also, take a look at the gif below.



This is a laboratory formed snowflake. Notice that the forming of the six points of its star are incredibly symetrical and arguably simultaneous. What possible mechanical explanation is there for the communication between these six arms to create a uniform and symetrical structure simultaneously?

This is good ! ..Indeed, why would such a thing occur ?

the only thing i can think of is that the point where all arms grew from must have contained the information to produce a certain crystal growth pattern. But how?! These seeds would be like genetic material?...or would they be more like fractals?

[mjv1121]

altonhare,

5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.

Yes, but my purpose was to point out that objects/particles/phenomena that are considered by some people to be immaterial (i.e. light, gravity, electromagnetism), should also be considered as physical matter.

1) There is no "rest" or "uniform motion." However, I agree with the idea of causality. Objects cannot behave in all conceivable ways because they cannot self-contradict. Therefore, their behaviour is restricted and they must behave particularly.

Whether or not physical (see above) particles/bodies/objects are "allowed" to behave such that they may be at absolute rest or in continuous unaffected uniform motion, both concepts are still legitimate and logically definable.

2) Wording is a bit too vague. Changes of one orientation (designated positive, or rightward, or w/e) must be accompanied by changes of the opposite orientation (designated negative, leftward) because motion must be conserved. So the best interpretation I can come up with is "conservation of motion" which is also often termed "conservation of energy." i.e. if something starts moving faster, something(s) must then move more slowly.

3) Agree. Motion is conserved.

2) All actions have an equal and opposite vectorial reaction.


I am not an fan of "energy" and I think the term "motion" to be a bit vague. This is to do with the concept of mass that I have adopted. After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that mass is exactly equivalent to matter. Many do not agree with this view as they see mass as an emergent property associated with resistance to motion in various ways. Granted there is an inherent problem with all measurements and mass is no exception. However, I have taken as a personal premise (hello webolife) that the universe is entirely mechanical and logical and that every phenomena, both visible and invisible, is caused by mechanical interactions. A crucial element of this conceptual picture is the notion that force is the process of the transfer of momentum. in order to reduce the problem to its simplest components I have selected (through careful consideration, not arbitrarily) mass (which is the amount of matter) and motion (which is velocity and is fundamentally distance) as the building blocks of understanding, that is, mass in motion. Mass in motion is momentum. It is possible that during collision (i.e. contact) either mass or velocity are transferred. In either case momentum is always conserved - velocity is not always conserved and the term "motion" hints too much at velocity. Momentum is always conserved and the term is unambiguous. Energy is simply a mathematical extension of momentum, as it refers to mass, velocity and a potential for force, E=1/2mv^2 (E=mc^2 is an invention derived from poor logic and misunderstanding).

Michael

[Sparky]

mjv,

I am not an fan of "energy" --

It seems that energy is not a fan of me anymore....not that i know what it is, but like pornography, i know it when i see it.
I have limbs to rake up and an A/C to cover. will go out and borrow some energy to do those things. If i have any left over, I may borrow some porno....

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

I'm not convinced any structures at the atomic/molecular level are effected by gravity until they coalesce into much larger structures.

I take exactly the opposite stance.

The densest bodies in the universe are protons and neutrons. They are orders of magnitude more dense that the most massive stars. Atomic structures, by contrast are nearly all empty space:
Density of Earth : 5,515 kg/m^3
Density of the Sun: 1,408 kg/m^3
Density of a proton: 584,077,213,866,672,000 kg/m^3

Why is G-naught 6.67x10^-11? Because for atomic structures of our macro world gravity has so little to act upon. Coulomb's constant will tell you something about the charge force between protons in an atomic nucleus separated by 10^-15 or so. If you choose to believe that the strong force is caused by gluons and maths you are free to do so. I choose to believe that gravity acts according to density and size. The most gravitationally intense place in the universe is not the core of collapsing super massive stars, it is around every proton and neutron in the universe. Furthermore, even under these extreme gravitational conditions, charge is still able to overcome the gravitational effect and separate nucleons. In a nucleus, gravity is balanced by charge and is 100 times stronger than Coulomb's force.

Michael