Action at a Distance = Fiction

[Goldminer]

sjw,

And if gravity is shadowing, then why do bodies not continue to spiral into other bodies? Read your papers before, still doesn't solve the underlying problem of stable orbits and even orbits that expand outwards defying the very shadowing that attracted them in the first place.

Matter has around it a net inward field momentum density. Whilst a body is on its own this of no consequence. However, when two bodies come into proximity the net inward momentum density is reduced at their facing sides, because they are both victim to the other body's reduced outward momentum. As such the term "Shadowing", which may have been appropriate for the Fatio model, is not precisely what is going on.

I insist any object in orbit around another object CAN NOT be in free fall. That there is a force acting upon all objects at all times, that free fall is a fantasy. It is impossible for any object to orbit another and be in what we term free fall. It is generating energy in its orbit which it is using to maintain its orbit.

No, it is not generating energy and the state of "orbit" is not special per se. The object is travelling through space, it is travelling through the aethereal field. It has more "velocity" than the object it is orbiting. Without this extra "velocity" gravity WILL cause to SPIRAL toward the other body. The orbiting object does not need to use its engines to maintain orbit, all that is required is that it have sufficient velocity to attain orbit. Once orbit is attained no further input is required. The only difference between an orbiting object and a spiraling inwards object is velocity.

The point I am trying to emphasise here is that An orbiting object is constantly subject to gravitational acceleration, there can be no doubt about that. Present theory of orbital mechanics gives no opposing action of any kind, just that the orbiter falls freely toward the ground and misses the ground. We are to believe that somehow the orbiter is going fast enough to "escape" from the gravitational effect. Willing suspension of disbelief is useful for enjoying fiction, but is of no use for understanding mechanical physics. The orbiter's velocity through the aethereal field is the only additional factor that maintains its orbit.

We are naturally quite unwilling to accept action at a distance. Near instantaneous action over astronomical distance is next down the list. It is a cop out, it is a way of avoiding further analysis. Quantum mechanics uses a similar ploy with wave-particle duality, aka quantum superposition. Unable to work out the physical process, they went to Copenhagen and the top "physicists" of the day openly declared that nature works by spooky magic - calling it "intrinsic uncertainty" does nothing to hide the fact that "Modern Physics" is the study of spooky magic. The simple motion of spinning particles through the aethereal field has been misinterpreted at magic. Do not fall into the same trap. Near instantaneous action is not a scientific solution. It is the result of "I can't think what else it could be". The orbiter's velocity through the aethereal field is the only additional factor that maintains its orbit.

If you are unhappy with ACTION AT A DISTANCE, the an aethereal field becomes a logical imperative.
If the field exists it must exist everywhere at all times. For an aethereal particle field to exist everywhere at all times, the motion and very existence of matter must be affected by it at all times.
A boat in water is affected by the water: it bobs up and down and moves with the current, but the boat is the boat and the water is the water and they can be defined separately.
Matter in an aethereal field is defined by its existence in that aethereal field, it cannot be defined separately.

Michael

Congratulations, this is the first fairly cogent post you have made for a while.

The main problem with your theory is that "velocity" is not the "only additional factor that maintains its orbit." It is velocity times mass that determines the orbit. An object with different mass will have a different radius orbit with the same velocity.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

The main problem with your theory is that "velocity" is not the "only additional factor that maintains its orbit." It is velocity times mass that determines the orbit. An object with different mass will have a different radius orbit with the same velocity.

I realise that you are trying to work through some issues, but you seem to have posted in haste. There is a relationship between orbital radius and orbital velocity, but it is independent of mass. F=ma. The force and thus acceleration due to gravity varies with radial distance, but force is proportional to mass. At any given radial distance an object will experience a gravitational force that is proportional to its mass, thus the rate of acceleration is independent of mass: think feather and hammer on the moon.

Congratulations, this is the first fairly cogent post you have made for a while.

Thanks.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

The main problem with your theory is that "velocity" is not the "only additional factor that maintains its orbit." It is velocity times mass that determines the orbit. An object with different mass will have a different radius orbit with the same velocity.

I realise that you are trying to work through some issues, but you seem to have posted in haste. There is a relationship between orbital radius and orbital velocity, but it is independent of mass. F=ma. The force and thus acceleration due to gravity varies with radial distance, but force is proportional to mass. At any given radial distance an object will experience a gravitational force that is proportional to its mass, thus the rate of acceleration is independent of mass: think feather and hammer on the moon.

Congratulations, this is the first fairly cogent post you have made for a while.

Thanks.

Michael

Gravitation is a mutual thing. Everything has it. When one mass is tiny in relation the the other, your statement is true. When the masses are comparable, it is not, since both masses contribute to the acceleration between them. When all the planets line up on one side of the Sun, the Solar System barycenter is supposedly outside the Sun's radius.

Jupiter is one thousandth the mass of the Sun, so it contributes one thousandth the mutual acceleration between the pair.

[sjw40364]

Everyone needs to go study some orbital data some more. Planets slow down AND speed up in thier orbits, it seems to me most of you think they remain constant with nothing affecting them.

A hammer and feather to all observations fall at the same speed regardless that thier masses are different, and therefore also thier gravitational pull. The thing most fail to realize is that once within an objects gravitational influence, for all intents and purposes those objects become nothing more than part of the controling object. In other words, the hammer and feather are already nothing more than part of the moon and thier individual gravitational influences matter not, only the overall net force matters.

And as for random ether, place a conductor in a magnetic field and place one outside its influence, and let me know the results.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Gravitation is a mutual thing. Everything has it. When one mass is tiny in relation the the other, your statement is true. When the masses are comparable, it is not, since both masses contribute to the acceleration between them. When all the planets line up on one side of the Sun, the Solar System barycenter is supposedly outside the Sun's radius.

Not sure where you're trying to go with this. Yes, the relative masses of two objects will affect the relative location of the barycentre that forms one of the loci of the elliptical orbits of both objects. The eccentricity of the ellipse is not a function of either body's mass. The "average" orbital velocity is also not a function of mass, it is a function of the semi-major axis (radial distance in simplified though inaccurate terms) of a body's orbit.

The earlier point remains, that deprived of orbital velocity along a given orbital path, an object will be pushed "inward" by the gravitational force effect.

In launching into space a spacecraft must acquire a sufficient amount of velocity to attain orbit. The magnitude of the velocity required is only a function of orbital distance. Once happy and secure in orbit, the spacecraft does not need to use its engines to maintain orbit. To re-enter it performs a de-orbit burn to slow its forward velocity, so that it "falls" back to Earth.

For comparable masses in a binary orbiting system, the orbital velocity is a function of the size of the orbit, not the masses of the objects. If the objects are more massive, there will experience a greater force effect. But if they are more massive, it will take a greater force to accelerate them.

The point being that for a given mass in a given orbital system, orbital velocity if purely a function of orbital distance.

But the more significant point is not so much the mathematics of orbits, it is the simple fact that orbits exist at all.

Objects with mass experience a mutual force that causes them to accelerate toward each other at a rate proportional to their masses: apples fall out of trees, but objects in orbit do not fall. The only difference between a falling apple and an orbiting apple is velocity relative to a barycentre.

Given that action at a distance is an absurd impossibility, then there appears to be no no unfunded argument against the existence of an aethereal particle field. Therefore, the aethereal field must be in some way involved and even instrumental in the gravitational effect, why then is it such an unacceptable proposition that the aethereal field is involved in all motion and travel of matter? All motion must occur through the aethereal field. To expect the aethereal field to be utterly passive in this respect is illogical. If action at a distance is a fiction, then matter is affected by the aethereal field at all times.

Michael

[Michael V]

sjw,

Everyone needs to go study some orbital data some more. Planets slow down AND speed up in thier orbits, it seems to me most of you think they remain constant with nothing affecting them.[/quote]
Yes, got this. Talk of an orbital velocity as though it is constant is merely brevity - think average orbital velocity. The velocity variation is an function of elliptical eccentricity. There is more than one stable elliptical orbit.

A hammer and feather to all observations fall at the same speed regardless that thier masses are different, and therefore also thier gravitational pull. The thing most fail to realize is that once within an objects gravitational influence, for all intents and purposes those objects become nothing more than part of the controling object. In other words, the hammer and feather are already nothing more than part of the moon and thier individual gravitational influences matter not, only the overall net force matters.

Sorry mate, I think you may be typing before thinking again.

And as for random ether, place a conductor in a magnetic field and place one outside its influence, and let me know the results.

This needs far more explanation.....what are you getting at?


Michael

[sjw40364]

sjw,

Everyone needs to go study some orbital data some more. Planets slow down AND speed up in thier orbits, it seems to me most of you think they remain constant with nothing affecting them.

Yes, got this. Talk of an orbital velocity as though it is constant is merely brevity - think average orbital velocity. The velocity variation is an function of elliptical eccentricity. There is more than one stable elliptical orbit.

A hammer and feather to all observations fall at the same speed regardless that thier masses are different, and therefore also thier gravitational pull. The thing most fail to realize is that once within an objects gravitational influence, for all intents and purposes those objects become nothing more than part of the controling object. In other words, the hammer and feather are already nothing more than part of the moon and thier individual gravitational influences matter not, only the overall net force matters.

Sorry mate, I think you may be typing before thinking again.

And as for random ether, place a conductor in a magnetic field and place one outside its influence, and let me know the results.

This needs far more explanation.....what are you getting at?


Michael[/quote]

I think you may need to think some more. The hammer has more gravitational mass than the feather, yet it's influence doesn't matter one bit, it falls no more faster than the feather. There is no conclussion available that to the moon both masses appear identicle, because they are already part of the moon's gravitational pull on all other objects. They are not seperate from the moon gravitationally, else each would fall according to its own gravitational influence as well. I.e., the hammer pulls on the moon more than the feather does. This is not observed, so they can not be seperated from the moons mass when within a specific distance.

Simple, if the ether was random motion, then charges in or out of a magnetic influence would generate charge. The fact that magnetic fields cause things to spiral and generate charge apon interaction, shows the ether is affected by electric fields and in their vicinity move in an orbital motion, causing other bodies to follow that motion. Outside of the influence of any electrical field the ether may indeed be random, but near that electrical field they move in lock-step with the source of that field. Unless you believe electric and magnetic fields are made up of lines or nothing? I am saying that electric and magnetic fields ARE the ether and Einsteins's space-time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field
An electromagnetic field (also EMF or EM field) is a physical field produced by moving electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. It is one of the four fundamental forces of nature (the others are gravitation, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction).

The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law.

From a classical perspective, the electromagnetic field can be regarded as a smooth, continuous field, propagated in a wavelike manner; whereas from the perspective of quantum field theory, the field is seen as quantized, being composed of individual particles.

And it can be regarded as both wave and particle, because it is a sea of particles that make up a medium in space as molecules make up water. Create a whirlpool in the ocean, the water moves with the source, but further away can be totally unaffected by that motion and have its own seperate motion.

[Aardwolf]

So you can either deduce that planets are reacting to exponentially faster interactions than C or that planets have the ability to solve immeasurably complex n-body problems. I know which I prefer.

OR, you might consider that c is the speed limit of the universe and that the theory of gravitational orbits is incorrect or incomplete. Effectively, you are assuming that you have attained all possible theoretical knowledge of orbital mechanics and so the only possibility is to insist on superluminal gravitational action.

If you consider c to be the speed limit then you must accept that any information cannot travel at faster than c. The fact that we currently observe planets responding to the virtually instant positions of other planets can only result in 2 explanations. Either they are communicating at these near instant speeds or they are predicting where the planets are going to be in the future based on retarded information. We may not be aware of the specific mechanics and we can theorise those but the fact remains only those 2 options are feasible. You can delude yourself that there are other options but if you can't even imagine what those are then you're in a very weak position in my opinion.

In addition I am absolutely certain that our theory of orbit mechanics is incomplete. For orbits to remain stable it is required that a compensating repulsive force must be operating in tandem with the attracting gravitational force. However, this doesn't change the fact that this communication must be much faster than c.

Have you ever considered that action at a distance is not a problem if information can travel much faster than c? Our only evidence that c travels at roughly 300,000 km/s is based on measurements taken at only at 1 AU from a star. We already know the sun affects decay rates. We know that gravity affects cesium clocks. My personal suspicion is that electromagnetic waves are slowed by their proximity to gravity which would also explain the Pioneer anomaly. Whatever your suspicion about gravitaional theories and their completeness, c at 300,000 km/s should attract similar scepticism.

[Michael V]

Aardwolf,

If you consider c to be the speed limit then you must accept that any information cannot travel at faster than c. The fact that we currently observe planets responding to the virtually instant positions of other planets can only result in 2 explanations. Either they are communicating at these near instant speeds or they are predicting where the planets are going to be in the future based on retarded information. We may not be aware of the specific mechanics and we can theorise those but the fact remains only those 2 options are feasible. You can delude yourself that there are other options but if you can't even imagine what those are then you're in a very weak position in my opinion.

"The fact that we currently observe planets responding to the virtually instant positions of other planets". Who has been making these observations and how? I am guessing that the observations were probably made at c or thereabouts.

In addition I am absolutely certain that our theory of orbit mechanics is incomplete. For orbits to remain stable it is required that a compensating repulsive force must be operating in tandem with the attracting gravitational force.

I am very much in agreement with your statement (although, I would say a compensating pushing force effect in opposition to the gravitational pushing force effect.)

Have you ever considered that action at a distance is not a problem if information can travel much faster than c? Our only evidence that c travels at roughly 300,000 km/s is based on measurements taken at only at 1 AU from a star. We already know the sun affects decay rates. We know that gravity affects cesium clocks. My personal suspicion is that electromagnetic waves are slowed by their proximity to gravity which would also explain the Pioneer anomaly. Whatever your suspicion about gravitational theories and their completeness, c at 300,000 km/s should attract similar scepticism.

"We already know the sun affects decay rates. We know that gravity affects cesium clocks." = Unproven speculation and conjecture rather than fact, but I am by no means denying the possibility.

I do hold the notion of electromagnetic waves as the most contemptuous and ridiculous theory in the modern physics spell book, so it is unlikely that we will agree in that regard - the thread title applies in all cases.

I am presently swayed more towards a constant speed of light and have developed a complete and consistent theory (including magnetism) based around the mechanical operation of sub-atomic particles with and within a mechanical aethereal field. (here:http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4286, and here:http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... ay&id=6814). The concept of any kind of aether was tainted for many by the apparent failure of the MM experiment and the constant speed of light has been tainted for many others by association with SR. We are not entirely at odds and I quite openly concede that the possibility exists that the speed of gravity is superluminal. Although, in my opinion the logic and evidence favours a universal speed limit of c. You see though, I really do not mind what the answer is, c or superluminal, I am fine with both. If a rigorous proof is demonstrated and I am shown to be wrong, then that's OK. As for the speed of light, if there were any evidence contradicting a constant speed of light, then surely somebody hereabouts would have come across it. Anyhow, I am happy to remain sceptical regarding the constant speed of light signals, though I presently favour that logic.

Since the establishment has taken the stance that physical theories and understanding are no longer a desirable or attainable goal, then for those with who care sufficiently for some kind of sensible answer, there is no choice than to do the analysis ourselves. I would further argue, and few if any will take my advice, that objective analysis without preconception, is more useful than what you think you already know to be a scientific fact. Obviously, depending on ones analytical methods and depth of knowledge and how you bring that to bear through the analysis process, you will at different stages come to different conclusions.


For those that deny any possibility of action-at-a-distance, an aethereal particle field of some description (and speed) becomes an unavoidable logical certainty. As such the idea that matter interacts with that field at ALL times becomes inescapable. If matter interacts with the field at all times, then it must interact with the field as it travels through space. There cannot be interaction on a sub yocto-second basis and at the same time somehow avoid interaction in the course of motion and travel. Matter must interact with the aethereal field to move, travel and even to exist. The motion of matter must be a function of its existence and interaction with the aethereal field.

The manifestation of gravity and magnetism/electromagnetism is only indicative of a change of behavioural state of matter caused by the relative proximity of other matter. Motion on the other hand is a permanent state. It is intrinsic and continuous with the presence of other matter only serving to affect the direction and rate of travel.


Michael

[Sparky]

"Everything within space is restricted by the speed of light," explained Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, a non-profit group of scientists and engineers devoted to pursuing interstellar spaceflight. "But the really cool thing is space-time, the fabric of space, is not limited by the speed of light."------A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. ----An Alcubierre warp drive would involve a football-shape spacecraft attached to a large ring encircling it. This ring, potentially made of exotic matter, would cause space-time to warp around the starship, creating a region of contracted space in front of it and expanded space behind. ------"If we're ever going to become a true spacefaring civilization, we're going to have to think outside the box a little bit, were going to have to be a little bit audacious," Obousy said.

http://news.yahoo.com/warp-drive-may-mo ... 01109.html

[webolife]

Michael V,
Call it a mental block if you are so inclined, I'm still interested in and questioning your assertion that the aether field exists everywhere, etc. If "everywhere" is true then there can be no distance, er space, between aethereal objects. The universe in your conception is infinitely dense with aether, in effect a perfect solid. Or if not, then the random motions of all aether particles in space would result in no net coalescence of material, and no net gravitational force anywhere. There must be net force tending toward the coalescence of objects, even in your all pervasive field of independently moving quantums. Nothing in the "motion and collision only" view of physical interaction reveals this tendency toward gravitation. If all interactions involve the absorption and emission of quantums, what and why would any net interaction, especially centropic effects such as gravitation, voltage, etc., arise, persist or increase [as in the coalescing of an atom or star] in your theory...?
By the way, you may still be surprised to know that I am closer in my thinking to your fundamental field views than to pretty much anyone else's theory on this forum. I simply have been able to switch OFF a paradigm that you are married to... the finite c-rate of light.

[sjw40364]

In addition I am absolutely certain that our theory of orbit mechanics is incomplete. For orbits to remain stable it is required that a compensating repulsive force must be operating in tandem with the attracting gravitational force. However, this doesn't change the fact that this communication must be much faster than c.

Have you ever considered that action at a distance is not a problem if information can travel much faster than c? Our only evidence that c travels at roughly 300,000 km/s is based on measurements taken at only at 1 AU from a star. We already know the sun affects decay rates. We know that gravity affects cesium clocks. My personal suspicion is that electromagnetic waves are slowed by their proximity to gravity which would also explain the Pioneer anomaly. Whatever your suspicion about gravitaional theories and their completeness, c at 300,000 km/s should attract similar scepticism.

I agree, more is needed. And it is of my opinion that the compensating repulsive force is charge generation. The only math we know to explain orbits is an acceleration along a vector. No free-fall, no drift. no stationary, but an acceleration. Without energy expenditure you have no acceleration and no orbit. I believe that what we term as charge or electric fields polorizes the ether and it is what we term magnetic fields. I think gravity is nothing more than charges polarizing the ether and reacting to it.

I do not agree that ether rarely interacts with matter. Equal and opposite reactions is the observation. And I have never had one question answered, that has always bugged me. Just how does a photon reflect off of an object and relay the exact surface detail down to minute scales?

[webolife]

SJW,
The imaging process you are questioning is most simply described using optical ray diagrams. These diagrams never refer to the action of photons, wavefronts, or the alleged c-rate. They are simple geometry descriptions of what we actually experience when light acts. A pressure is applied in a direction. It's a vector, a ray. All other descriptions of photons or wavefronts are purely imaginative. Hence from my view, light is neither particles nor waves, it is rays. Not rays of infinitesmal diameter, of course, else they would be non-phenomenal. So when I read "photon" I translate that to mean a light pressure of minimal diameter and magnitude. Taken as a vector, there is no surprise when a photon is alleged to "split" at a beamsplitter in the action known as entanglement. It must be understood then that all light action is imaging of some kind. When a light beam [ie. a ray of finite diameter] reflects off a surface the atoms of that surface react to the pressure in a variety of ways, some of which alter the pressure of the incident beam [as in dyes or filters], hence "absorbing" some of the signal and reflecting the rest. A mirror-like surface responds in an approximately "equal action" that leaves the reflecting beam mostly similar to the incident beam. The relay of the beam requires electrons to shift, bounce or otherwise take a wee bit of time or delay, but in this view the light action itself is otherwise instantaneous in its effect from source to observer, as a vector consists of no moving elements. As the proverbial tree falling in the forest, if there is no observer the light will simply be... well, "dark". Does this mean no light exists? No, the pressure is constant and universal, but is only manifest when the rays [beams] intersect a resonant observer/detector. And in this view the pressure is centropic, unifying light action with gravitation and electromotive force. Which is to say that the pressure applied to my retina is toward the direction of the source, not from it as if it were emitted things. Imaging apparati such as pinholes and slits manifest the origin of colors as elements of a spectral gradient surrounding the central line of sight, ie. incident light ray [beam] seen by the detector. This spectral gradient shows the original electromagnetic configuration of the source field in precise detail at any distance, and any element [color] in the spectrum is a true image profile of the source light. What I am describing is a mathematically sound and physically measurable light action at a distance. Other imaginative ideas about spinning photons or information laden wavefronts may I suppose have some value, or ... maybe they are merely "fiction."

[Michael V]

webolife,

Call it a mental block if you are so inclined, I'm still interested in and questioning your assertion that the aether field exists everywhere, etc. If "everywhere" is true then there can be no distance, er space, between aethereal objects. The universe in your conception is infinitely dense with aether, in effect a perfect solid. Or if not, then the random motions of all aether particles in space would result in no net coalescence of material, and no net gravitational force anywhere. There must be net force tending toward the coalescence of objects, even in your all pervasive field of independently moving quantums. Nothing in the "motion and collision only" view of physical interaction reveals this tendency toward gravitation. If all interactions involve the absorption and emission of quantums, what and why would any net interaction, especially centropic effects such as gravitation, voltage, etc., arise, persist or increase [as in the coalescing of an atom or star] in your theory...?
By the way, you may still be surprised to know that I am closer in my thinking to your fundamental field views than to pretty much anyone else's theory on this forum. I simply have been able to switch OFF a paradigm that you are married to... the finite c-rate of light.

OK, the word "Everywhere" is imprecise and open to semantic interpretation. I mean everywhere on the scale of matter particles. Everywhere there is a matter particle, it must be surrounded by aethereal field. However, on the scale of the aethereal field the vast vast vast majority of the universe is empty space.

"To have motion we must have substance that moves, and to allow freedom of movement, we must also embrace the concept of separation. Spatial separation can more usefully be defined as empty space and substance as discrete material particles. In short we have two classes of volume occupying entity. One is inert, that is empty space, the other is interactive, that is particles of material substance. Since we have sensory access to matter, and action at a distance is absurd, then the interactive material substance may be further split into two categories: one is the ponderable brute matter that are electrons and protons and that which their combination forms, the other is an aethereal field of particles that is responsible for producing and mediating the actions and interactions of matter."

My thinking regarding the size and particle density of the aethereal field leads to a conjectural starting point, somewhere in the ballpark of 10-30-10-40m in size and 1050-1060 particles per cubic metre. This would put the aethereal collisions for an electron or proton way into the trillions+ range per second. The combination of aethereal particle size and field density needs to allow for the travel and steady statistical erosion of photons over a distance of at least 15-20 billion light-years. I see this as the most easily definable constraint, since it must accommodate both Hubble's distance proportional redshift and Olber's redshift out of existence.

Nothing in the "motion and collision only" view of physical interaction reveals this tendency toward gravitation.

To some degree I am slightly embarrassed by my earlier naivety, although Fatio's basic model comes very close to working, certainly as close if not closer than rival models. However, my latest theorising as described in my recent paper "On the Motion of Matter", is somewhat of a departure from the model you refer to.
see here:http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4286
and here:http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... ay&id=6814

Our mindset is quite naturally affected by what we see, although the vast majority of the operational complexity of the universe, is either much larger or much smaller than our visual perspective can accommodate, and, more importantly, much larger or much smaller than our motional perspective can accommodate. The currently held notion is that moving object/force A bumps into B, and momentum is transferred causing B an acceleration and travel vector. Laugh-a-minute quantum mechanics continues this thinking by using comedy force-carrying particles. One of the most obvious examples of a failure of this dynamic is magnetism. There is no significant force transferred between two magnets; a sheet of paper or other barrier is not affected by a projected force. Someone might say that that is because the paper is not "magnetic", which unwittingly hints toward the answer. Both materials contain molecules/atoms/electrons/protons, but the magnetic material behaves differently and it does not do so at the behest of a projected force. The force resides with each and every particle of matter. Matter is in constant motion due to interaction with the aethereal field.

As discussed, to deny action at a distance is to accept and embrace an aethereal particle field. An aethereal field that constantly interacts with each and every matter particle and that constant interaction is a definitional part of the existence of the matter particle. Since we have no information regarding the physical nature of the field, then rather than thinking of the aethereal field as a field of particles, instead consider it in terms of momentum density. If any given volume of space at any given time there is a greater or lesser than average number of particles, or those particles have more or less than average momentum, then the momentum density of the field at that point can vary.

I suggest that electrons and protons are spinning objects. I also suggest that the aethereal particle field is in completely random motion. You may regard these two suggestions as postulates if you so desire. From a study of gyroscopic behaviour, I have deduced that spinning objects will attempt to precess about a pivot point. The pivot point is always the greatest point of force at any given time. Also, an object travelling through a particle field will experience "harder" impacts at its leading edge - this then becomes the point of greatest force. A spinning electron (or proton) travelling through the field will experience a point of force at its leading edge and will attempt to precess about that point. Because it is spinning and precessing the leading edge is constantly changing and so the precessional motion results in the spinning electron moving through a constant curve - a circle. If the electron is travelling and moving through a curve it will describe a helix or helical trajectory. I refer to this process as helical precession. Since the field is in constant random motion, even a stationary electron is effectively travelling relative to the field, so the electron is constantly spinning and moving along a helical path. The actual object itself, its inherent and constant spin and its inherent and constant helical precession all combine to be what would define as the being the electron or proton.

The speed of the particle along its helical path is c. Electrons and protons are constantly in motion at c. The energy per complete turn along the helix is h, Plancks constant. The "quantum" is the cyclic motion of matter particles - it does not belong to the "vacuum", it belongs squarely with the matter particles that comprise the substance in the universe that we have sensory access to, not to the aethereal substance that we only have logical access to by denying magic and action at a distance. The radius of curvature is the radius of the particle, also referred to as the charge radius. The distance between turns, which is the pitch length of the helix, is also called its wavelength and at c, this is the Compton wavelength. The helical motion of electrons and protons is called a de Broglie wave. The spatial range of motion of an electron is defined by the circumference of its "charge radius" and its wavelength. the ratio of these two is called the electromagnetic coupling constant or the fine structure constant.

In order to maintain spin electrons and protons take/receive momentum from the field, which results in less momentum density away from matter and a net field momentum density toward matter. This reduction of outward field momentum density gives a particle "mass" and the net inward field momentum density leads to the effect of gravity.
As they precess helically through the field they push field particles away, the effect being that they "emit" fluctuations of field momentum density that have a helical geometry. This emitted field momentum density is called charge or charge "photons". Momentum (or energy if you prefer to think in those terms) is taken from the field as spin and then immediately returned by another motion: helical precession, as charge - energy received from the field, then "radiated" away as charge. The net difference between the momentum received as spin and the momentum radiated as charge photons is called mass.

Because the field is moving randomly from, and in, all directions, the inherent helical precession of electrons and protons results in a spherical distribution of charge photons as an "electrostatic field". (Note to electrophiles: there is nothing "electric" about this, it is simply an interactional process between the field and the particle : substance in motion.) The other interesting property of helix geometry is that it is "handed" or "chiral", and this is the cause of the arbitrarily named positive and negative charge.

A matter particle is defined not only by its innate substance, but also by its spin (which equates to mass) and its inherent helical precession (which is spatial motion and leads to charge). The method of interaction between matter particles is then completely mediated by the field. As particles approach each other, they present each other with a reduced field momentum density from their direction, which means that the field momentum density between them is lower than from "behind" each of them, so there is a net force seemingly pushing them toward each other. However, all force interactions between matter is by a specific method. In the case of gravity it is a greatest point of force from "behind" and in the case of charge it is charge photons that produce that point of force. The influencing force itself is insignificant, but it produces a point of force about which spinning particles must precess. Remember they are already in motion at c along their inherent precessional helix. The additional pivot point causes them to follow a secondary and larger precessional path. The "force" comes directly from each particles inherent precessional motion and the additional pivot causes this inherent motion to translate into travel, or linear motion. The linear travel is not and cannot be rectilinear, it is helical. All motion of matter is by precessional helices or de Broglie waves. Picture a long flexible spring, which is already a helix, shaped into a larger helix: a helix within a helix. You might also imagine a free floating propeller moving by a helical path - the helical precessing particle itself provides the motive force. Interactions with other particles merely affect the direction and travel of a particle, that is, interactions with other matter particles simply results in a change of behavioural state

Louis de Broglie's error was that wavelength was h over momentum, but this is only true for inherent precessional motion. A larger secondary helix is a requires more energy per cycle. Instead of large object de Broglie waves being so small that they cannot be seen, they are far too large to be encompassed from our terrestrial perspective. The Earth spins and orbits the Sun, as it travels with the Sun it describes a helical path. The Sun "oscillates" above and below the galactic plane. The galaxy spins as it travels through space - as it travels through the aethereal field that is the "fabric" of space.

An electron "accelerated" toward a slit grating will move by a secondary helix with a wavelength that corresponds to its "linear" velocity. It approaches the grating not along a line to a point, but along a helix that describes a circle relative to the grating. The electron does not go through "all possible trajectories" or "all possible quantum states". It does not pass through both slits, then "interfere" with itself by some weird spooky quantum magical utterly unscientific way. It approaches both slits and has an equal chance of going through one or other. If it collides (in a mediated sense) with the slit edges, it will be reflected (yes, that's reflected, not deflected) at an angle determined by the separation of the slits and its trajectory of approach - the trajectory defines and is defined by its wavelength. There is no wave-particle duality or quantum spookiness, simply matter travelling by an instantaneously indeterminable path - the intrinsic uncertainty belongs entirely to the experimenter.

I simply have been able to switch OFF a paradigm that you are married to... the finite c-rate of light.

Despite having hitched my theoretical wagon to a constant c-rate, I am by no means wed by to it by preconception or emotional or intellectual inflexibility. I simply find it to be the most convincing likelihood at present. What evidence we have points strongly in favour, albeit perverted and tainted by the pixie magic reasoning of special relativity. Superluminal velocities certainly provide for a great deal of theoretical freedom, but might also be viewed by the generally sceptical such as myself, to be a trap for the unwary theorist looking for an easy escape route. However, I am by no means immune; I have considered a superluminal field as a plausible solution on many occasions, although you then get into the tricky business of explaining why all the artefacts of superluminal action are at c or below. My original line of thinking was based on an underlying superluminal field, but I have since rejected that in favour of a more logical and consistent solution. Since the solution I have uncovered is sufficient to explain all observed phenomena and all other theoretical models fall woefully short, I see no requirement of superluminal action.
Aardwolf has asserted that "The fact that we currently observe planets responding to the virtually instant positions of other planets", but neglecting to mention that these "virtually instant" responses are observed to occur using light that travels at c - somewhat of a contradiction. I see no evidence and little if any logic to support superluminal action.


Michael

PS Voltage is not a "centropic" effect by any definition. Voltage is simply one of two components of magnetism.

[sjw40364]

Michael V,
Magnetism is caused by charge. There exists electric monopoles, but no magnetic monopoles. Magnetism is nothing more than the effect of two or more charges interacting. And since atoms are always composed of several charges, no matter how small you divide a magnet, two or more charges always remain.

And webolife, a vector as you describe sounds suspiciously like a contact vector between source and emitter, which since I think ether is polarized by electric fields, and thereby transfers force along axis, I can relate. Pressure requires a presser, so this force must have a source other than our magical electric and magnetic fields. For that is what they are, magical as we now describe them.