webolife,
(and hopefully sjw will join in too and all others are welcome - the more the merrier.)
webo wrote:Just to be clear, Michael, do you consider then that gravitation is energy? or that it is force? is it the potential to do work? are potential energy and force equivalent physical phenomena? Or are we using "energy" and "force" interchangeably depending on the convention of a particular situation? Is it possible to physically distinguish the two concepts apart from their separate use in mathematical formulae? For you, is momentum the same as force? or energy? or? Again I'm wondering how you conceptually distinguish these physical phenomena, not how they might be used to express different mathematical terms... or is that possible?
do you consider then that gravitation is energy?
or that it is force?
is it the potential to do work?
are potential energy and force equivalent physical phenomena?
This is the abridged explanation of my theory of the universe:
The absurd fiction of action-at-a-distance makes the existence of an aethereal particle field a logical imperative. By deductive reasoning I conclude that the field must be in continuous random motion. By a study of gyroscopic behaviour I have further concluded that spinning objects will precess about a pivot point and that the pivot point of choice is always the greatest point of force acting on that spinning object at any given instant (and I do mean instant!).
How so ever you choose to describe, construct or populate the aethereal field, there can be no doubt that such a property of space exists. The absurd impossibility of action-at-a-distance demands an aethereal field. If you are a mathematician you may describe such a field as a "quantum vacuum" and populate it with virtual particles that pop into and out of existence as and when the equational need arises. (Although, there is no "quantum" in the field, the quantum belongs to matter.) Regardless of the theoretical description of the "interactional mediation field", it will always retain a rather awkward problem:
How does matter move through the aethereal field?
My assertion is that electrons and protons are spinning objects. Placed in a moving aethereal field, they are effectively always moving relative to the field. In moving through the field an object such as a spinning electron will experience "harder" collisions at its forward most point. This point is therefore the point of greatest force and so becomes a pivot point about which a spinning electron will be compelled to precess. As soon as the electron begins to precess, the pivot point changes and so precession continues about a continually changing point. The electron will therefore move in a circular curve and as the electron travels it will describe a helical trajectory. I refer to this process as Helical Precession. The helix has three descriptors: arc length - the distance along a complete turn of the helix,
pitch length - the distance between complete turns, curvature - the radius of curvature.
The velocity of the electron along its precessional helix is c. The de Broglie formula with a velocity of c for an electron gives the Compton wavelength, which is the pitch length of the helix. de Broglie "waves" are helical; a helix not a sine wave. The radius of curvature is the classical electron "charge" radius. The energy of an electron along one complete arc length is h, Plancks constant - the quantum of energy - the smallest detectable motion of matter. The range of motion of the electron can be described as the circular curvature of the helix and the wavelength of the helix. The ratio of curvature to wavelength is the electromagnetic coupling constant, alpha, also called the fine structure constant.
To maintain its spin, the electron must take/receive momentum (or energy if you prefer) from the constant collisions of the aethereal field. This means that there is more field momentum toward the electron than away from the electron. This reduction in outward momentum is called mass and the excess of inward momentum leads to gravity.
As the electron moves through the field along its precessional helix, some of the momentum gained through spin is returned to the field, by collision, as charge. Since the electron is moving along a helix the charge momentum that is "emanating" away from the electron has a helical geometry : the electron is constantly returning momentum/energy to the field as helical charge photons. From a completely random field the electron is continually helically precessing in different directions, so that it emits/radiates charge photons spherically as an "electrostatic field".
When two objects approach they present to each other a reduction in field momentum density to the other object, so that the field momentum is greatest from the opposite side of each particle, which has the effect of pushing them together: gravity.
But, and this is a truly important point, the accelerative "force" the object experiences is not due to the imbalance of field momentum. The point of force, becomes an additional pivot point about which the object precesses. The electron/proton is still being constantly bombarded by the field, so that it has spin, mass helical precession and charge, but now there is an additional pivot point. The electron must still maintain its inherent helical precession, but now it starts an secondary precessional helix. The motive force comes from the field via spin and helical precession, but now that translates into "linear" travel. However, "linear" travel is not rectilinear it is helical. Matter does not and can not move rectilinearly. Matter can only move helically, matter moves by de Broglie waves.
The only motive force of matter is that of its inherent helical precession. All causal forces: gravity, charge, collision, are merely forces of influence that become pivoting forces leading to secondary precession helices that we recognise as linear travel. Of course, it is not possible to travel with a secondary precessional velocity that is greater than the inherent precessional velocity: nothing can have a "linear" velocity greater than c.
Matter de Broglie waves are claimed to have a wavelength that is too small to see, but that the truth is the complete opposite. The given de Broglie uses h, but h only applies to single electrons and protons. For composite masses, which by definition are moving by a secondary helix, the energy per cycle, in Joules seconds, is much larger.
This post is getting quite long and it may be as well to read my recent paper: On the Motion of Matter:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4286
Michael
My point is, if you dont have an explicit thoery of concept formation your claims must be arbitrary. Surely you can't mean that any words strung together in a proposition constitutes evidence of conceptualization. Likewise you surely cant think that if someone disagrees with your string of words that they are incapable of conceptualizing your proposition as such 
In other words you need to allow for the possibility that one disagrees with your concept in particular and your idea of what a valid concept is/consist of. In such a case youd need to start the debate at the level of the conceptualization process as such......
