Elysium and Interior Solutions

Nemesis

I'm glad to hear that your intuition is piqued by the Space Generation Model of gravity.

The extra spatial dimensions you refer to that would "dilute" gravity and thereby "explain its weakness," as I recall, arise in the context of string theory. The basic idea there is entirely different from mine. String theory still regards gravity as an attractive force, for example. Its extra dimensions are supposed to be "compactified" to extremely small size and are essentially unobservable.

It bears repeating that the extra dimension arising in my model, if it is essentially correct, would be forcefully revealed if a test object in the tunneled sphere problem does not oscillate. Evidence that this may be what happens is found in the kinematics of star clusters. But the best way to test it would be in an Earthbased laboratory.


RBenish

Larry,

Perhaps I missed a loophole in the problem you've stated.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted by Larry Burford:

Suppose we have two masses, m_1 and m_2. Their radii are equal (r_2 = r_1) but the density of m_2 is twice the density of m_1, so that m_2 = (2 * m_1).

If we place an accelerometer on the surface of m_1, it reads a_1. An accelerometer on the surface of m_2 reads a_2, where a_2 = (2 * a_1).

How is it that after watching these masses for a while they are still the same size (r_2 still equals r_1)?

BTW, there actually is a fairly clear and understandable answer to my question that has no need of the mathemagical fourth dimension. Here is a clue. Think about the relationships among distance traveled, velocity, acceleration and time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The standard equation for distance traveled under constant acceleration (with initial velocity v = 0) is

s = 0.5 a t^2.

Suppose the masses you posited are spheres with the density of tungsten and cobalt, tungsten being very nearly twice the density of cobalt. The acceleration measured by an accelerometer at the surface of the tungsten sphere would be double the acceleration measured by an accelerometer at the surface of the cobalt sphere. If we regard this acceleration as indicating an expansion rate of the sphere's surfaces <i>in three-dimensional space</i>, using the equation presented above, it can easily be shown that, in about 15 minutes the size of the cobalt sphere will have doubled; whereas the size of the tungsten sphere will have tripled.

Obviously, you did not use the above equation, or you have added a twist. What do you have in mind?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted by Larry Burford:

Until you can answer a simple question like this, or like nemesis’’ even more basic question regarding expansion of space, you are going to have a lot of trouble generating interest in your theory. Appealing to a forth dimension (or any other math-only device) will just make matters worse.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

On one hand, it's true that I have neither a simple visualizable picture nor an equation corresponding to the basic (falling, orbiting) consequences of gravity. That's why I call my work a "model" rather than a "theory." That's also why I've put so much emphasis on the experiment that would unequivocally decide whether the model is viable or not.

On the other hand, I disagree that appealing to a fourth spatial dimension "will just make matters worse." In my humble opinion, the analogies I've proposed are, as Oppenheimer's words suggest, much "deeper than formulae."

With my limited mathematical skills, I've been kicking around my analogies and working in my laboratory for years, pretty much isolated from the physics community. As noted in my last response to Nemesis, and in my first (soon to be) published paper ([url] www.gravitationlab.com/Grav%20Lab%20Link...-Experiment-2007.pdf [/url]) in spite of this limitation, it is relatively easy to show that the model has definite consequences (predictions) for the kinematics of stars in star clusters. And so far the evidence tends to support my predictions.

Since I've discovered that doing the crucial experiment myself is rather difficult, I have no choice but to at least try to generate interest in the model and the experiment by writing about them, knowing and being reminded repeatedly how such a model is resisted, at least initially, by most everybody.

It has happened once before in physics that the researches of an investigator who had very little mathematical training, but a strong intuition for the patterns he perceived, were caught hold of by a physicist with a similar intuition but much more mathematical training. The resulting physical theory turned out to be of some importance. I would humbly suggest that, contrary to the opinions of R. P. Feynman (and probably most others) such a thing could happen again. A skilled mathematical physicist might see fit to take my embryonic ideas and give them a rigorous mathematical form. Possibly, such a person would be able to prove the contrary – that my ideas contain a contradiction that makes it impossible to do so, or that it is mathematically possible, but the predictions that follow do not correspond to physical reality. My guess is that there would be correspondence with reality and no contradiction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted by Larry Burford:

Earlier you mentioned that our concept of gravitons pushing stuff together was not very satisfying to you.

Can you be more specific?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

First, let me say that I deeply appreciate the existence of the individuals and the community of non-believers in the status quo at Meta Research (and wherever else they may be found). With great interest I have read much (but not all) of Van Flandern's work on the speed of gravity, Pushing Gravity, and critiques of the Big Bang Theory. There is no doubt that such unorthodox discussion is healthy for science.

As for Pushing Gravity, I would raise the following issues:

1) In the history of physics it has often happened that the puzzles presented by various phenomena were proposed to be solved by positing the existence of some new <i>thing</i>, typically a particle. In some cases this worked out well. Evidence for the existence of the particle mounted so that it is now regarded as a real physical entity. In other cases, however, I think this kind of solution in not likely to be of much help. A well-known example is the hypothetical "Higgs particle," which is supposed to "give other particles their mass." In my opinion, even if the Higgs particle is found, it will not shed much light on the nature of mass. We cannot know the nature of mass until we know what any given particle must be <i>doing</i> to produce the properties of mass. Rather than invent ever more things to explain physical phenomena, I think more emphasis needs to be put on underlying <i>process</i>. In Pushing Gravity we have not only the particles that do the pushing (gravitons), we have the particles that make up the light medium (elysons). Neither of these show much promise of ever being directly observed. Two new hypothetical things. My intuition moves in other directions.

2) At an early stage of this thread I asked and Tom answered:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Posted by Benish:

Have you conceived of an experimental test or observation that would definitively decide between them? Is there some physical fact which, by its exposure, would give standard theorists no choice but to acknowledge the truth of your model; or conversely, which would prove to you that pushing gravity is untenable?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Posted by TVF:

In the PG book, I discussed the six unique properties of gravity in MM. In brief, these are:
** strongly FTL propagation speed
** finite range of 1-2 kpc
** shielding by ultra-dense masses
** elysium drag
** gravitational heating
** different perihelion advance rate for two comparable masses

Favorable results are already in for some of these, and there are no problems yet with the others. But if one of them does fail, the model is falsified. And I'm no fan of patching models to keep them viable.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Most, if not all of these testing grounds would be in the realm of astronomy. Unfortunately (as I'm sure you know) even if evidence might lean in your favor, most astronomers and theorists are likely to conceive explanations that are consistent with Newton and Einstein before they would see it as support for Pushing Gravity. The problem is that both laboratory sized objects and astronomical objects do not readily exhibit behaviors that <i>decisively</i> favor one theory or the other. This does not necessarily reflect a flaw in your theory, but it allows more wiggle room (adjustable parameters) than one would really like. Observationally, the difference between conventional theory and Pushing Gravity is thus far from being ideally <i>robust</i>.

3) One of the biggest problems in physics is the lack of a unified theory that includes all the fundamental forces, gravity being the defiant one. In any new model of gravity, one therefore naturally looks for its <i>potential for unification</i>. As far as I can see, Pushing Gravity leaves this problem pretty much as it stands or makes it even more complicated by invoking more hypothetical things.

Pushing Gravity's gravitons, as I understand it, are super-teeny little chunks of stuff that are so numerous and so fast that they would account for gravity's effects by only every now and then colliding with the not quite so teeny chunks of stuff comprising ordinary matter. What I want to know is, what a chunk of stuff must be <i>doing</i> to have the capacity to push or resist being pushed in the first place.

As I see it, if gravity is conceived as a process of outward movement of matter, which process includes the generation of a proportional amount of space, we would then have a model in which gravity and inertia are due to the same underlying process. A given body's resistance to being pushed is the same as the outward pushing that the body is perpetually engaged in. In this model there are no new hypomagical things, but there is one new dimension of space. Although the extra dimension adds some complexity, one of the offsetting simplifications is in the interpretation of motion detecting devices (accelerometers and clocks). Instead of indicating state of motion <i>or</i> static forces, they always indicate state of motion. And finally, this model provides an extremely robust empirical test. The test object in the tunneled sphere either oscillates or it does not. There is no wiggle room in this prediction (no oscillation).


RBenish

Benish,

For the W and Co example, you say that if I get two spheres of either metal (are these single atoms, 1 mole, ?) and I let them sit next to each other, they get bigger! I have a sample of both metals in my lab and they come in little bottles made of plastic and have been on the same shelf for like 20 years (I have a shelf for pure elements, no compounds on the shelf. They have not gotten any larger, nor has the space between them grown. If I took this shelf and only allowed the Co and the W to sit on it, then I transport this shelf away from the earth's gravitational sphere of influence, what do you think will happen if both jars were now in contact with each other. Say I take exactly 1 mol of each. Now I have two masses, freed from the pull of the earth, exposed to the elysium and the sea of gravitons. Since W has a density of 19.25 g/cm^3 and Co has a density of 8.90 g/cm^3, would the MM would predict some attraction of Co by the W, since gravitons would be more shielded by the object of highest density. As far as size goes, the W sphere or pile looks smaller, while the cobalt sphere or pile looks larger, while more mass is concentrated in the W, the Cobalt is a larger shield to gravitons. Now two competing events are taking place. Since neither mass can be technically positioned in space next to each other without the slightest angular motion, the disparity in shielding and size allows the lightest particle to orbit the heaviest particle, orbital velocity than counters gravitational attraction and the particles remain at a set distance from one another. This is observed. Gravitation shielding is observed, not contrived. Mainstreamers view these observations as pesky and ignore them. One could not expect the two particles to grow in size, why? How come the earth and sun don't double and triple in size of time?



Mark Vitrone

<b>[Mark Vitrone, to Benish] "For the W and Co example, you say that if I get two spheres of either metal (are these single atoms, 1 mole, ?) and I let them sit next to each other, they get bigger!"</b>

This is not exactly what Expanding Matter theories say. They say that two masses of different density expand at different rates. Because that is what accelerometers on their surface say.

But you and exerything else are expanding too, and space is expanding (in Benish's variant), so two balls of cobalt, for example, would always expand at the same rate and you would never notice (except that your density is different, so you expand at a different rate ... ).

<b>[Benish] "Obviously, you did not use the above equation ... "</b>

Actually I did. Along with several other of the standard equations that relate position (distance) and velocity and acceleration and ...

... time. (Yes, this is another clue.)

You are on the right path. Just move a little farther down it. Caution - there is no fourth dimension at the end, but there is "static acceleration".

<b>[Benish] " ... finally, this model provides an extremely robust empirical test. The test object in the tunneled sphere either oscillates or it does not."</b>

This experiment has the ability to falsify Expanding Matter theories in general (and therefore yours as well), but it says nothing about the existence of a fourth spatial dimension.

At least nothing that we can recognize. Until someone can design an experiment (even if the experiment can't be built because our technology is not yet advanced enough, as in the case of the graviton detector experiment) that does say something about a fourth spatial dimension, using that dimension in a model or a theory is nothing but handwaving and does not help your cause.

Designing the experiment, on the other hand, would help your cause. Focus your energy and talent where they at least have the possibility of success.

In the experiment in question, what kinds of accelerometers are used and how do they take their meausurements? Could any of these factors affect the results and therefore give false results or biases? Factors such as: thermal variation, electrical conductances, thermal resistivity, metallic electron transfer due to shape, thermal expansion or contraction, oxidation at the surface, other surface chemistry interaction. Here is a simpler way to determine if the substance is expanding differently over time. Encase a sphere of metal inside a shell of another metal, make sure that the metal predicted to expand more is on the inside. Let them sit and watch the inner sphere break through the outer shell. I don't think this will happen though...