A different take on gravity

The HIGGS is a mean graviton.

I like that on so many levels! Thanks for the idea, Phil.

However, Phil, if any of the photonic particles were to get very large in relationship to the others in the 'gravity' mix, they would begin to become "massive" by comparison and would start to act as their own gravity wells compared to the other "lighter" photons. They (at any size) could still act as gravitons in a geometric model, if they were moving into a region of culminating barrier density opposition, even if they were moving slower than the lighter photons, which would only make sense as the size, ergo rest mass, increases. The larger the mass the "stiller", in terms of inertia, it is in relationship to the faster moving less massive inter-actives. A super massive black hole sits still at the center of billions of stars that whip around it. A star sits still at the center of its planetary system. Planets have moons and rings. Atoms may have orbiting electrons. The smaller you go the faster the possibility of being accelerated all the way down to photons that seem to top out all together at "light speed."

There seems to be a very consistent correlation, sliding from large and still to small and fast or vice versa.

I would like to take a look at just why there is a top speed limit for light, by the way. I have not worked out all the details for why this should be, but I feel that this Phenomenon has a reasonable explanation with variables that are accessible relating to minimum possible size corresponding to a maximum velocity that goes something like this: As you get smaller and smaller in the division of matter you eventually reach a saturation point where the vast number of parts being created by separation/division can't divide faster than the rate at which they are merging back together with each other due to sheer density of parts per volume per time. An equilibrium of separation to coalescing is reached, and that is the smallest and therefore the fastest that you (light) can go.

Any thoughts on this idea?

--Warmly, Aaron

Phil,

In your Gravity/Sheer waves model, do you identify any sort of source for the creation of your two different kind of waves?

For instance, most waves that we are somewhat familiar with all have a 'point' source or cause, sound waves, radio waves, a pebble in the pond, etc. My model clearly points to the individual stars as the source/s for the particles/waves (photons et. al.) that eventually re-coalesce in geometry as the phenomenon of Gravity where they compress into the associated Mass. So, where do you envision your waves originating? And do you think that there is any geometric dispersion associated with their propagation? Such as getting weaker or less energetic per area as they move out from their source as all other waves appear to do? Are tsunamis an exception, gaining power as they progress?

Warm regards, Aaron

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Aaron:
In your Gravity/Sheer waves model, do you identify any sort of source for the creation of your two different kind of waves?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes.[^] The expansion of our space stretches the bubble walls (walls of galaxies) in our cosmic foam. Ultimately, one by one, the bubble walls pop. A gap opens near the middle of the wall, and the galaxies accelerate toward the surrounding walls, eventually crashing into them. To conserve energy and momentum, pressure waves propagate outward thru our cosmic foam, which is the ether foam of a super-universe. The same happens in the cosmic foam of the sub-universe, which is the ether foam of our universe. So that is the source of the pressure waves in our ether.

When a cosmic-foam bubble wall pops, two bubbles become one, which represents a decrease in the number of cosmic-foam bubbles in the region. (The total number of bubbles in the cosmos is infinite, so it can't increase). If space can be measured in bubbles, a decrease in bubbles represents shrinking space. To me, this strongly suggests that the arrow of time reverses from each universe to those above and below it in the dimension of scale. So from our perspective, the pressure waves in our ether converge toward their future cause. When they get to their cause, an ether-foam bubble wall unpops, and one bubble becomes two; so on average, a cubic Planck length (10^-105 cubic meter) of new space is added to our universe---approximately <s>10^52</s> 10^88 times per second per cubic meter. Since the pressure waves are converted to space, they fill the role of dark energy. [Error discovered on 7.30/09. Explained in thread "[url=" www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...02&SearchTerms=10^52 "]Might all forces propagate at speed of gravity?[/url]" ]

The ultimate source of shear waves is a bit more puzzling and uncertain. I have one candidate source, as follows: Assuming that the bubble sizes in the ether foam are randomly distributed, there must be randomly occurring micro regions (call them blobs) in which the mean bubble size is significantly greater than the overall mean. If the distribution of bubble sizes is nonlinear, such blobs may be more common. A pressure wave passing thru such a blob should change speed going in and resume speed coming out. If the pressure wave slows going in, that imparts forward momentum to the blob; when the pressure wave leaves, it gets back its momentum but leaves the blob ever so slightly out of its equilibrium position. Shear forces return the blob to equilibrium, radiating shear waves perpendicular to the path of pressure wave.

The main weakness in the above mechanism for forming shear waves is that pressure waves should be striking the blob from all sides so frequently that the blob doesn't remain out of equilibrium in any one direction long enough to generate shear waves. [?]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Aaron:
And do you think that there is any geometric dispersion associated with their propagation? Such as getting weaker or less energetic per area as they move out from their source as all other waves appear to do? Are tsunamis an exception, gaining power as they progress? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My suspicion is that both shear and pressure waves at the smallest scale spread in the manner of macroscopic acoustic waves. In fractal universes with both macro and quantum scales, there must be two transitions between those scales per universe. There must be a scale smaller than the quantum scale in which waves behave like macro waves.

Perhaps wave-particle duality is best explained by some sort of multiverse theory. Pressure waves are the ultimate source of energy in our universe, and they are caused by cosmic-foam bubble popping events which lie in our future and the sub-universe past. So each of our possible futures must have already taken place from a sub-universe persepctive. This leaves only two possibilities; either our future is predestined, or all possible futures exist---and continue to exist even if we don't go there.

So the probability waves of the Schrodinger equation represent the probability that we shall experience a particular convergence of dispersed actual waves. Sorry if that is unclear; I haven't had much opportunity (none, actually) to debate these views.

I feel guilty [] about discussing my model in a thread which is supposed to be about Panteltje's model. If you're interested, please go to one of my threads. The most recent is Might all forces propagate a speed of gravity?

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

<b>[Stoat] "Hi PhilJ, I use S.I. units, unless I explicitly state something like a mass in tonnes, I don't use electron volts, it's not a S.I. unit and should not be used at all on this board. However,if I wanted to talk about Harold Aspden for example, I would have to talk in terms of the units he used, which were cgs units. Often rather tricky that."</b>

Are you sure you want to place the burden of remembering what you do under this circumstance or under that circumstance on your audience? It makes your message very difficult to follow. Did you mention this back in the beginning? If you did I either missed it or have forgotten about it. What about members of the audience that have joined since you made such a declaration?

<b>[Stoat] "2h is just a number ... "</b>

Perhaps you mean it is just a number in <u>your</u> theory. In that case, you must explicitly say so (if you want your message to be understood). In most mainstream theories and in most maverick theories the lower case letter "h" is used to represent a physical constant that has specific units attached to it. Using the number part without the units part (or even worse with some alternate units) is not a scientifically valid operation.

h = 6.62 X 10^-34 [joules * seconds] in the SI system of measurement that you imply governs here, since you did not state otherwise.

===

Perhaps you really are trying to say that you are ignoring the units part of Planck's constant, and using just the numerical part for some other purpose?

6.62 X 10^-34 (without any units) is in fact just a number. By stating this number in the way that you do (equating it to the letter h without saying explicitly that it has no relation to Planck's constant) you are implying that it actually does have some connection to Planck's constant.

42 is also just a number. But you have rejected the only rational basis (units) for favoring one of these numbers over the other. So even if you had stated "no connection to Planck" you would still just be pulling numbers out of your ... er, out of the air This is numerology, not science.

PhilJ,

Getting others to give your ideas a hearing is not easy. Nor is it without monetary and other costs. For one thing (hint hint) other people with other ideas are always trying to hijack your audience. There are other reasons for the difficulty as well. Stoat is struggling with things like an unwillingness, or perhaps an inability, to state his ideas in an understandable way. When challenged on this point, as you and I recently did, his explanations seems to make things worse. At least to me. Were you able to glean any understanding from his response?

===

If you did not mention your ideas in the discussion of someone else's ideas, you could avoid the guilt you say you feel. But you would also miss an opportunity to lure someone into a discussion of your ideas. You see yourself as being between a rock and a hard place, most likely.

But suppose that some aspect of your ideas provides support for some aspect of our ideas. (Or, suppose that you can refute something of ours?) You could then legitimately bring up your ideas just about anywhere on this message board by mentioning this connection to the ideas of your Host. That would be us. No guilt need be felt in such circumstances.

It means that you need to study our ideas and come to understand them well enough to notice where your ideas and our ideas either match or clash. This is work. But it is rewarding work. The discussions that flow from such posting activity would be very interesting.

We can help you understand our ideas, once you get to the point where you can ask reasonably specific questions. The starting point is, of course, Tom's book and a few other books, and his many published papers, most of which are available for free in electronic version on this website. Our store is temporarily closed for updating, so you will have to go to Amazon etc if you do not already have a copy of his book. Libraries are an option as well, but the need to treat these books as a text book (highlighting and marginal notes, frequent reference over extended periods of time, etc) makes the library option less attractive.

Regards,
LB

h equals the speed of light squared, divided by the speed of gravity squared. That's pretty specific. h is a dimensionless number then, it does not have any units, it's not joules per second. It's a number, a ratio.

As for explicitly stating that i work in the S.I. system, we all do, and have done for years.