What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Yes charge and gravity are things - they are quantum aether particles - charge and gravity are the affect of the interaction between ponderable/brute/bulk matter (that which we are used to referring to as matter: electrons, protons, neutrons and the atoms they form) and aethereal quantum matter.

By the way, regarding your "sticking together" challenge. Particle field gravity works perfectly well - that we are yet unable to fathom all the intricacies is no justification to abandon the only physical and mechanical theory available. I am still confident that it will work at c - there is more to the "process" of gravity (and especially orbital dynamics) than just the maths. As soon as I've re-plumbed the heating and put the dining room ceiling back up and built the kids PCs and if I survive eating and drinking too much at Christmas, then I will solve gravity....and after breakfast....

Michael

[webolife]

That's a fine answer and a fine opinion... but now this is off thread, because you don't know any of that for certain!
And I disagree. What is the shape and size of gravity, or of charge? Eeesh, now I'm starting to sound like Alton... no offense, altonhare.

Been there done that with the house remodel and dealing with family busy-ness; how do any of us find the time?

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

Well I wasn't referring to density I was talking about structures. My point is that at and around the single molecular level, gravity is virtually absent as per the phenomena I listed.

My point, is that the bolded phrase above is utterly utterly utterly WRONG!

Then an explantion of why mercury atoms and liquid water in fog manage to avoid the gravity particles would be appreciated. And also a sensible reason why the atmosphere isn't layered according to atomic weight.

Once these molecules join to create larger structures it is only then that gravity takes precedent.

Once atoms form structures, those atomic/molecular structures are almost entirely empty space, so gravity has relatively little of the overall structure to act upon. Gravity can only act upon physical matter, it cannot act upon the empty space in between.

Density of Earth : 5,515 kg/m^3 (from wiki)
Density of the Sun: 1,408 kg/m^3 (from wiki)
Density of a proton: 584,077,213,866,672,000 kg/m^3 (calculated by me, based on wiki data = 5.92x10^17)

G for atomic matter is 6.67x10^-11 (given by consensus)
G for electrons and protons = 1.22x10^7 (calculated)
G for nucleons is around 10^27 to 10^28 (estimated)

So no measurements, all theoretical. Yet you have an apparant disdain for the consensus of scientific knowledge. Why are you using their guesses?

[Sparky]

mjv,

Density of Earth : 5,515 kg/m^3 (from wiki)
Density of the Sun: 1,408 kg/m^3 (from wiki)
Density of a proton: 584,077,213,866,672,000 kg/m^3 (calculated by me, based on wiki data = 5.92x10^17)

are not all of these based upon assumptions and speculations?
The Earth is probably close enough, but what if it's unknown interior is quite different than speculated?

[webolife]

How are teeny tiny, yet very dense, and chaotically bombarding quantum aether gravity particles able to communicate a net attraction across the distance from Earth to Moon or Earth to Sun, or across interstellar or galactic distances? I really don't get it. Yet these bodies observedly interact at very long range. If no-AAAD is self-evident, I am definitely not a very observant person. How can such a thing be listed with any degree of certainty? Only as a premise, a postulate, an article of faith. That I get.

[webolife]

Webolife said: Eeesh, now I'm starting to sound like Alton... no offense, altonhare.
Looking back at old posts, I realize I may have been thinking of Nereid... either way, no offense intended.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

How are teeny tiny, yet very dense, and chaotically bombarding quantum aether gravity particles able to communicate a net attraction across the distance from Earth to Moon or Earth to Sun, or across interstellar or galactic distances?

There is no "attraction" - gravity is a pushing force - ALL FORCES ARE A PUSH.


Bearing in mind all the bleeding obvious caveats regarding the nature and uncertainty of existence, the nature and uncertainty of observation, the nature and uncertainty of consciousness and thought, only then, if I choose to regard the following premises to be true and accurate: I exist and I can be certain that I do actually exist; The universe exists; Motion is real.
Then, and only then, I am able to say that the following are self-evident:

1) Space and time are infinite.
2) All effects must have a cause.
3) Anything that can affect the physical universe, and thus is capable of motion, must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality, although it may conflict with some people's semantic ).
4) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
5) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
6) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
7) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
8) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
9) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
10) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
11) F = ma, thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity. This could also be stated that force is a transfer of momentum.
12) All Forces are a push.

A aether particle field is not required to prove or justify the above. Particle field gravity does not justify the above.
The above list of laws of mechanical motion must be obeyed by a theory of particle field gravity.

I find it rather strange that you "don't get" that an imbalance of force vectors results in a net force vector.

Michael

[webolife]

Sigh.
That's not what I don't get. Obviously, SELF-EVIDENTLY [ie. by definition], an imbalance of forces = net force.
But now your list is saying that, as a self-evident truth, only things that move can be physical. Did you really mean to say that? I'm sure you meant move relative to other things, but light, gravity, and other fundamental observations in the universe are only understood by their action upon moving things. You already stated as a PREMISE that motion is real [but behind that are you thinking that only motion is real?]. Isn't this rather like saying that the things we see [eg light and gravity] are only an illusion*, and that what's really happening is little invisibly small particles bumping chaotically into each other? If you presuppose, as per this list, that light and gravity are fundamentally particles moving, then any theory to the contrary is a violation of your presuppositions, granted.
* And how does this fit with your premises?
Let me try to explain another problem I see:
I understand the concept of impulse = momentum, and I'm inclined to agree with the mathematical representation of impulse as Force x time and Momentum as mass x velocity. I can accept with the idealization of their equivalence as measured "quantities", understanding that this expression has as its physical context the general meaning that __ amount of force causes __ matter to move___amount. But you are taking a mathematical expression and leaping to Mass = matter and Force = moving matter. I think this is invalid logic, and results [via Ft=mv] in Force = Force and motion = motion, which [now that I think of it] are indeed SELF-EVIDENT! I also think this kind of thinking [apologies ahead of time if this does not represent your approach] amounts to multiplying matter by speed and multiplying force times time, which are physical absurdities. You can't pull this kind of logic on the real world, then call it a "certainty" upon which to base whatever theory of physics. Plus this idea, and your list, still ignores entropy, ie. the equivalence of impulse and momentum is only an abstraction, and not found in the real world.

Maybe we'll never see eye to eye on this... Maybe just changing your "we" to "I' from the beginning would have brought this discussion to a screeching halt...

[webolife]

Also, you seem to have ignored everything else I said about "attraction" to make this pointless rebuttal.
For purposes of common language, if I say "attraction" I am speaking of vectors pointed toward a common center, and "repulsion" is vectors pointing away from a common center.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Also, you seem to have ignored everything else I said about "attraction" to make this pointless rebuttal.
For purposes of common language, if I say "attraction" I am speaking of vectors pointed toward a common center, and "repulsion" is vectors pointing away from a common center.

Fair enough.

Michael

[mjv1121]

webolife,

No rebuttal intended as such.

But now your list is saying that, as a self-evident truth, only things that move can be physical. Did you really mean to say that?

No, only things that are physical can move.

You already stated as a PREMISE that motion is real [but behind that are you thinking that only motion is real?]

If an entity cannot move, it cannot affect others entities. I am quite happy with the concept of cosmological absolute rest and thus of absolute motion, so ultimately all motion is relative to that absolute rest. However, the difficulties of establishing and maintaining coordinate values for a point of absolute rest are quite likely insurmountable. Which leaves in any practical

MJV's approach to this is to establish a set of "for sures" to ferret out the details of that geometry or model

Yes.

has done so in a simplistic and concrete manner by stating that all interactions are collisional,

Keep It Simple Stupid - the preferred method of mister Occam.

without specifying how high speed contacts of chaotically moving particles can account for any of the actions we actually observe in the universe.

Anything that we observe is a result of a massively complex process and necessarily the hope of certainty declines. Plausible and workable physical mechanical theories can be put forward, such as a completely homogeneously randomly moving particle field - this idea can explain all observations.

The nature of quantum aether particles cannot be known, we cannot even know the physical reality of electrons and protons - certainty falls short in this respect. But since effect must have cause and cause requires motion, then the logical laws of motion are some of the very few certainties available to us.

No doubt we are destined to agree to disagree, but hopefully through discussion we can further some ideas - abandoning some, evolving others. This process may push us further apart or bring into closer agreement, but theorising in solitude provides no feedback.

all of us actually agree that the current physics does not adequately explain fundamental micro and macro phenomena, and often emphasize the same reasons for that disagreement. This to me bodes well for the future of our mutual understanding, and of science.

Michael

[altonhare]

That's a fine answer and a fine opinion... but now this is off thread, because you don't know any of that for certain!
And I disagree. What is the shape and size of gravity, or of charge? Eeesh, now I'm starting to sound like Alton... no offense, altonhare.

Been there done that with the house remodel and dealing with family busy-ness; how do any of us find the time?

None taken. It's a serious issue. You ask someone what binds the earth to the sun, the moon to the earth, or an electron to a proton. They respond with abstract concepts. Gravity, charge, electromagnetic fields? How will I go into the lab to test such a "theory?" How do I test whether it is, indeed, this "gravity" thing that binds me to the earth?

A "theory" that proposes only concepts acting/influencing is untestable, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable.

[mjv1121]

alton,

For at least the last hundred years science has been dominated by either observation or mathematics. I would claim a place for the long abandoned and vastly underused central pillar of science: logic.

A "theory" that proposes only concepts acting/influencing is untestable, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable.

Fundamental physical theory must be dominated by the quantum aether and the nature and behaviour of electrons and protons. Maths can only be applied as a sort of statistical averaging, e.g. F=GMM/r^2. Electrons, protons and quantum particles cannot be resolved for observation. So an absolutely verifiable theory is wishful thinking. As such, we are left only with what tools or clues we can find or deduce: logic (preferably tempered by Occam's Razor) and what we can, with any reasonable degree of confidence, know for certain.

Michael

[webolife]

Verifiable, or falsifiable... that's what makes a scientific hypothesis, ready for new observation and experiment.
Logic merely leads [this is quite certain] from one's premise to one's conclusion, with or without any evidence or observations to back it up. Illogic can of course lead anywhere.

[gamma ray]

I'm new here. I have always been very interested in science and I used to read many books trying to keep up with the latest discoveries... but not anymore, I can't watch TV or read a magazine or book about physics anymore because it has gotten crazy and continues to diverge from anything rational. That house of cards fell for me over a year ago when I discovered this forum. I really appreciate the illuminating discussions that I have read here.

In choosing what we know, there are many ways to slice reality. So attempting to make a short list of certainties that everyone can agree on is unlikely. Anyhow below is a another list of what I consider to be some important qualitative observations about what we know of the nature of the universe. Apologies for the long posting. I have been trying for some time to establish a basis of certainty for what we know, so this topic triggered a significant reaction based on my own extensive pondering.

1) everything is in continuous somehow structured motion, "there is a whole lotta shakin goin on"
2) it requires a highly specific frame of reference to form the appearance of stillness or repetition
3) all forms of sensing and measurement are effects, therefore the original cause of all energy, motion, and matter in the universe cannot be known from observation
4) the sum quantity of all energy, motion, and matter in the universe is unknown, and cannot be known
5) energy exchanges between any physical entities result in a change of sustained energy, motion, or matter of all entities involved. And since all is interconnected, there is some effect however small on all things.
6) geometry and scale determine the nature of the effects observed in sustained motion and energy exchanges
7) all living beings, terrestrial patterns, and electric discharges form Lichtenberg patterns.
8) consciousness is somehow related to matter and energy

For #1, the motion seems to be infinitely sustaining in inherent to everything.

For #2, I'm not using frame of reference in the classical science way, as a time reference. Rather, a frame of reference defined by how you filter your observation, meaning how you separate out the entities under consideration and within a limited range of scale, size, frequency, time, etc. You could also consider #3, #4, #5, and #6 all as further aspects of limitations based on our frame of reference. Why is the frame of reference so important? Well if you view the universe as a whole that is vibrating, and all matter and energy as interrelated aetheric 3-d sub-harmonic standing wave manifestations, which is how I see it, then it would be impossible for a subset of entities to ever possibly give you more than a glimpse of the activity of the whole.

For modeling purposes of #6 in specific frames of reference, we can assume several types of sustained motion: linear, orbital, and vibrational. I prefer the term orbital rather than curved to more accurately represents how objects actually interact in space. The geometric angles of the matter and collisions and magnitude of energy determine the nature of the observed effects. The vortex seems a funny creature and I cannot explain that completely so I will leave it for now. Linear is more often than not (if not always) a subset of orbital over a relatively short distance of the circumference. In reality I agree that there is no such thing as a straight line nor even of repetition when the whole is considered. Regarding straight lines, I am talking about matter and motion, not light. Light I consider only as energy transfer, and therefore an artifact of energy transfer relative to a structure, not of movement of matter. Vibration is a primary form of motion, and at it's finest levels appears to have no cause and cannot be further subdivided.

For #7, the Lichtenberg patterns everywhere I would say this is very important, and in general very underrated. It is in some way at the foundation of the structure of all life. We are led to believe that this is merely a curious mathematical coincidence. Instead I think the EU theory observes several instances as a clear signature of past electrical activity, and that electric forces shape the patterns of life.

I think that it would be great to have an mechanical model of electro-magnetic force behavior. Like something that can explain the interesting perpendicular relationship between magnetism and electric flow. Unsuprisingly, based on my earlier statement above, my favorite theory at the moment by far is LaFreniere's Aether Wave Theory which is the first convincing model I have seen that shows the nature of matter and describes how energy transfer may cause both attractive and repulsive motion effects. Very interesting. Just an idealized simulation at this point though. Needs some experiments on standing waves to demonstrate the effects.

Regarding the ongoing discussion of action at a distance, it seems the observation is agreed upon but only details of the nature of medium is in question. The other point of contention seems to be whether at the very bottom of things is there actually some particle wiggling and spinning, or is the onion really empty with only standing waves present? If you could prove that one standing wave can exert a force on another, and given a standing wave orbiting around a point with radius r, then it may be that there is no way to tell for certain whether the effect was an orbiting standing wave or a similarly sized spinning and solid particle. On the other hand there could very well be a solid particle at the bottom of things, but it may be that it's apparent properties like charge are due to vibrational resonance pattern in response to the energies from the surrounding space, rather than an an inherent property such as electrical charge, for which we have no explanation currently. My point is that there is little difference between a sphere of influence based on a range of motion, versus actual solidness where something physically bumps into another. The bounce or other collision energies are all that we can measure, and the inferred or assumed internal structure remains unproven.

For #8, Consciousness is somehow related to matter and energy. Yes this may be an unusual thing to state with scientific certainty, but I feel this is an elephant in the room that is important and obvious, yet few are able to talk about rationally and/or calmly. How are we having this discussion and where does all of this sustained energy and all of this structure come from? The future of science needs to rationally bridge the effects of consciousness and how that affects and/or causes matter and energy. Some research has been done in this area but evidence and results are generally ignored because it falls outside what is considered as serious science. This is very similar to the conundrum that the EU proponents are in though the details differ.