A different take on gravity

So what is the frequency of the speed of light?
Its traveling at 3.e8 per second , how many cycles does it have per second - it depends on its wave length

do you think that the photons flipping polarity and its partical echo "namely its wave" are clues that light is moving into the future not space.

E = photon = electron = positron = proton = matter
that matter is jumping into the future with each photon polarity flip, so if there's no light or gravity moving in any given space is there any time flow ??? how could you test if time is independent of gravity and light or ... what is left (1/R^2 @ c) or how could you derive the independent property's of space in equations, cause you cant test something with nothing... can you ???


So gravity is just a space distortion of matter moving into the future and all of matter is moving into the future at the speed of light... can you say that is correct according to Quantum Mechanics


and that may give to a path of polarity changes that take place from the photon to the, earth or Sun might be a integral of some sort? in that you can predict the polarity change according to its mass, what about the polarity change in galaxy's could that be predicted according to its mass...

MARX

Phil,

I am glad that you are still following this, basically Le Sage, thread. However, I fear that you have taken umbrage with a different distinction than what I was making about Larry's comment that gravity has to be:

". . . caused by something, such as a particle, that moves from one mass to another..."

It is the second part of the phrase that I was contrasting, only. I absolutely agree with the abolition of action at a distance in any viable theory. My model of gravity is strictly and completely particle to particle transfer of momentum based. My distinction is that, the particular action that results in the "Gravity" effect is specifically due, primarily, to the long distance fields of particles (at Galactic separation distances) coming out from galaxies in approximately spherical waves that are massively wide and relatively continuous over a long time (billions of years) as a "constant" and relatively or nearly uni-directional force field (of particles) where they encounter other such galactic force fields of particles in any situation of equally balanced opposition.

There are other times when the exact same Graviton-acting particles, having finally encountered and collided with some opposing particle/s, start to be scattered from their original long distance journey into ever shorter journeys--re-colliding and changing direction again and again. These shorter actions of the very same particles might be responsible for the secondary action of coalescing particles into denser configurations (as in: more and more collisions per comparable time unit)--eventually nucleating into plasma clouds, then protons, then neutrons, then heavier elements right up the Atomic chart.

It is a process of particle compression over a long period of time by (relatively) long lived galactic energetic particle force field sources.

However--Here, is my distinction--not all movement between all particles contributes specifically to the "Gravity effect" which is strictly the long distance, cosmically directional and geometrically oriented toward massive areas or regions of equally opposing numbers (hugh numbers) of similarly opposing particles fields. It is as simple as huge numbers of particles colliding over a long enough period of time with relatively constant directional orientations.

Now, try re-reading my last post and see if it makes any more sense to you in this context.

Gravity doesn't just occur anywhere; it only happens at natural points of cosmic nucleation or at "line of sight" crossings between stars and Galaxies. This is just inevitable geometry. And I can't see how this is anything other than an unavoidable result and conclusion! I also, believe that the Gravity dynamic is modeled congruently for nucleation at the atomic level and even at the photonic level.

Gravity can only happen at specific locations where constantly opposing forces meet in a massive opposition or in more complex <i>balances</i> of opposition.


Warm Regards, Aaron

Aaron,

What you are calling a "field of particles" is fundamentally different from the popular concept of "field", which has no real substance. Confusion over your use of the word "field" prompted my last post.

Having reread your post (08 Jul 2009 : 05:31:59), I am now confused as to whether your graviton particles are coming or going. In one place, you seem to be saying that mass occurs at a point of convergence (where there is a net influx) of gravitons; whether the mass causes that influx or vice versa is irrelevant. In another place you refer to the long distance fields of particles (at Galactic separation distances) coming out from galaxies. Are the particles coming out, or is there a net influx?

Perhaps they are coming out, but in reverse time. So incoming particles from one particle field collide with outgoing particles from another particle field; the fields push one another aside, but this is taking place in reverse time. So from our time perspective, push and pull are reversed, and the particle fields appear to be sucked toward one another.

This is not entirely alien to me, because the pressure waves (gravitons) of my model also converge upon their source in our time, whereas they radiate from their source in sub-universe time. But in my model, the source of the pressure waves is not a concentration of mass; my source is the uniformly distributed expansion of space. My graviton waves come (or go) from everywhere equally; your graviton particles come (or go) only from concentrations of mass.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

I'll try again, because I think this is important. As I've said somewhere in this thread, the cgs system and the SI system can e fraught. Most people think that it's simply a matter of converting centimeters to metres and grammes to kilgrammes but not so, the usual error is going to be the speed of light. Though, ya pays your money and ya takes ya choice. Sometimes things are clearer in one system than the other.

In the cgs system e, the charge on a proton, is 4.8E-10 erg^0.5 cm^0.5 In the SI system we have 1.602E-19 Coulombs, which is Ampere sec, which is Force times seconds, which is work, measured in Joules.

The upshot is that we get a few dimensionless numbers which are looked at in the cosmological argument. The ratio of gravitational to electrical force about 2.3E 39 is called C subscript 1
The ratio me c^3 / e^2H 10.6E 39 is called C subscript 2
The ratio 8pi rho c^3 / 3mp H^3 about 1.2E 78 is called C subscript 3

The question is this, C1 is about C2 is about C3^0.5 We just happen to be alive when this coincidental state of affairs exists. If C1 were much smaller we couldn't be alive, and likewise for C2 being much smaller.

Something to stress, C2 is a pure number, it is not measured in seconds. I think the confusion here lies in thinking of time as an extra spatial dimension. Time is a concept, I'm not even sure if we should even bother trying to work out a metric for it.

Okay, I think that Dirac, Eddington,Hoyle and others, went wrong in looking at another dimensionless number C5, which is the curvature of space at a given time. The upshot of that work is to have G changing with time, G is proportionate to 1/t The models are of expanding universes of pure radiation or pure matter but there's no thought that gravity can have a speed greater than light. Gravity and geometry, I would argue, cannot be unified, whereas I have no problem with Maxwell unifying electricity and magnetism.

Righto, my argument is essentially that gravity is not a very weak force but equal to e.m. force. It only appears to be weak because gravitational space is so huge. Now iI say that we multiply, for the grav e.m couple, not by the fine structure constant but by its reciprocal. this gives us barh. If I'm wrong and they're right, then I would have to up the speed of gravity by about 137. Well, I happily admit that the fine structure constant is a bit of a pain in the neck but then I'm in good company as Feynman would throw up his hands at the mention of it. I'm sticking to h = c^2 / b^2 for now (it looks more pretty for one thing).

A start on geting to grips with it 1 - c^2 /b^2 = 2Gm /r c^2 and the agreed equation for the fine structure constant (which I put on the board someplace but can't remember where)I transposed that for h, then put tha into the 1 - c^2 /b^2 = 2Gm /r c^2 equation to get
e^2 mu / 2a^-1 epsilon. Now when I said that it has to equal h something has got to give. As I'm talking about the refractive index of space changing at c, and wanting to keep frequency the same in any r.i. change of medium then the constant mu is the one to change. Mu changes to the reciprocal of the speed of light.

Well, we can sling that equation into the Lorentzian and work out a velocity when something is moving at the speed of gravity. That comes out faster than the speed of electricity. What I'm after is a material packed with spatial particles that give us a very slow speed of light, looking at light as akin to sound in this material. i then want to compare this material to real materials; metals; at absolute zero, where electrons still move at Fermi velocities. I think there's scope here for narrowing down the speed of gravity. Outer shell electrons are being knocked about by something.

Stoat, please don't be offended. I sincerely believe that you need to take a high school level course in understanding the metric system and how to cancel units. There are plenty of them available online, either for download or on DVD by mail. Check with your public library to see if you can get one free, or see what your public school system has in its adult education program.

The Unit Conversion Tutor 4 Hour Video Course is only $21.99 US to own. Google it for more results.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

I beg to differ. Anyone interested in this, I would say watch the Feynman lecturres. They are great fun to watch, as Feynman is an entertainer. He does his party piece, which is a hugely funny rant against the SI system. Then I would suggest that people do a google search for converting between the cgs and SI system. Be warned that when the ampere gets mentioned the reader is in for a fun couple of hours of rather complicated explanation.

The ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force, is a pure dimensionless number, end of story. Both have the same dimensions of force. One can argue against the cosmological argument but not against those pure numbers.