A different take on gravity

You guys have given me plenty of opportunities for rebuttal! Forgive me if I ignore a few.

Aaron: 13 Jul 2009 : 07:08:33
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you can describe exactly how a field can do work in the physical world while having "no physical Substance" than what was all that quoting of the Masters of historical Physics in your previous post all about?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I wish you would ask questions about my model in a thread about my model, but since you ask it here: The shear (transverse) waves and the pressure (longitudinal) waves of my Fractal Foam Model of Universes are very much like acoustic waves in any other solid medium. The particles that make up the ether are sub-universe galaxies, about 10^59 times smaller than the galaxies of our universe. And those sub-universe galaxies are composed of atoms perhaps 10^59 times smaller than the atoms of our universe (though the present day scale factor in the sub-universe is anybody's guess), and those atoms consist of orbiting pairs of shear waves in the ether of the sub-sub-universe pushed around by pressure waves in the ether of the sub-sub-universe. Then there's a sub-sub-sub-universe, a sub-sub-sub-sub-universe, etc., <i>ad infinitum</i>. If there exist an infinite number of scales smaller than our own, then the distance between particles is zero, and there is no action at a distance.

A "field" is a mathematical description of the gross effect of a force; it is a way of side stepping the question of cause. Those who worship mathematics believe the field is the cause of the force it describes rather than a mere description of the effect.

Aaron:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In my simple model for Gravity, EVERYTHING is made of particles, even light, and therefore all processes are particle driven.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In my model, all particles consist of waves in a solid medium, and that medium is made of smaller particles which are made of waves in a still smaller-scale solid medium, etc. <i>ad infinitum</i>.

Aaron:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">These processes, namely, Gravity, Magnetism or Electro-magnitism, the Strong and the Weak Nuclear forces, can involve the exact same particles acting at different ranges of concentration which determines how often they will collide with other particles, which in turn determines how dense or massive will be the particular action that they are presently involved in. What is unique about my model is that all sizes and types of particles are considered as actors or instigators in the processes of Gravity, Nucleation of particles into Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, Hydrogen, Helium . . . dust, grains of sand . . .grains of uranium, astroids, planets, stars and Finally and/or Primarily: Galaxies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Or ... All of those processes may involve the exact same waves exchanging momentum in a hierarchy of different geometric configurations. Fundamental particles are strange attractors in a chaotic sea of shear and pressure waves. Larger particles are strange attractors in a chaotic sea of fundamental particles. And so on, up to galaxies which are strange attractors in a chaotic sea of stars. And the cosmic foam is the largest strange attractor in our universe. And our cosmic foam is a chaotic sea of shear and pressure waves in a super-universe.

Aaron:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One way you have particles bumping into other particles and jamming them closer and closer together (this makes perfect sense),...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Isn't this the exact opposite of diffusion? Where does the exergy come? (Exergy is discussed in The entropy of systems .
See GD 22 Jun 2009 : 23:35:59.) How can particles jam one another closer together? This decreases entropy, which is why I wonder if these particles are operating in reverse time. Another thing that comes to mind is the hypothetical and paradoxical negative-mass particles. (I discussed those nearly six years ago in Repulsion of like charges . That was before I formulated my fractal foam model.)

Aaron:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...ergo the Weak Force, the escaping radioactive particles of heavy elements that are brought to the surface of a planet where the overall cosmic pressure is not concentrated enough to contain all of the internal resistance in the same way it must be contained deep in the center of planets in order to form into that heavy element in the first place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I was not aware that nuclear fusion took place within planets. Do you contest the generally accepted hypothesis that all elements from lithium up to iron come from nuclear fusion in stars and all elements heavier than Iron come from supernovas? Or is this news to you?

Aaron:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All the while the pressure needed to compress these particles into atoms and molecules is being supported by the column (or "cone" if you like) of particles constantly streaming in toward the center of the planet (or other body) from all those distant galaxies as well as from all the local Galaxy's stars.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What becomes of those incoming particles when they reach the center of gravity? Don't they have to come out the other side? Why don't they push outward on their way out the other side? Do they vanish into a wormhole and reappear in another universe? How is their momentum and energy conserved? Or is gravity immune to conservation laws?

Aaron, it's obvious to me that you are missing some basic knowledge which, if you had it, would make you rethink your whole model. I recommend that you find a way to watch some DVDs from the Teaching Company www.teach12.com/teach12.aspx . I don't know what the libraries are like where you are, but where I am many of these DVD courses can be checked out free for 3 weeks and then renewed if there isn't a waiting list. I especially recommend the following:

Chaos
Cosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe
Dark Matter, Dark Energy: The Dark Side of the Universe
=" www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=153 "
Great Ideas of Classical Physics
Particle Physics for Non-Physicists: A Tour of the Microcosmos
Philosophy of Science
Quantum Mechanics: The Physics of the Microscopic World
Superstring Theory: The DNA of Reality
Understanding Complexity
Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy, 2nd Edition

Stoat: 13 Jul 2009 : 07:39:32
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That number is the conversion factor between the coulomb and the statcoulomb.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The number I posted (3,323,300) is the square of the ratio of the proton's mass to the electron's mass. The conversion factor you refer to (2,997,924,580) is 10 times the speed of light divided by 1 meter per second.

Stoat:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The equation used by Dirac et al, is e^2 / G mp *me
e = 4.8E-10 erg^0.5 cm^0.5
G = 6.7E-8 erg cm g^-2
That gives us 2.3E 39<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know what Dirac called the number 2.3E 39, but it is, in fact, the ratio of electrostatic to gravitational attraction between a proton and an electron. The ratio for a pair of protons is smaller by the factor 1,823, and for a pair of electrons, it is greater by that same factor. Each of those ratios is, of course, a dimensionless number, but generalizing to all charged particle pairs yields a number with dimensions of charge and mass.

Stoat:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Note that I haven't multiplied that by 137)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why would I think that? I see no such ratio in your numbers.

Stoat:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now that's pretty good we are talking about 1700 when we are dealing with huge numbers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Assuming you didn't just pick a number at random, I'm guessing that number represents an approximation to the ratio mp/me, which is in fact 1822.88850204.

If you would show your work, I might be less confused.

Stoat:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the questions addressed by Eddington in particular, was is there a constant mass particle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am completely unfamiliar with the concept of a constant mass particle, and there seems to be little written about it on the web. Is this supposed to be a real particle that should be looked for in particle accelerator experiments? Is it a hypothetical particle whose mass is the same to all observers? Is it supposed to gain no mass when falling into a black hole? Wouldn't that violate the principle of conservation of mass-energy?

Stoat:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">e^2 = 1/137 barh * c Is approximately (m' / 137 me) me c^3 t / [4pi n t^3 c^3 / 3]^0.5<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Where does this come from???? There seems to be about a page of explanation missing!

Stoat:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All I'm saying is that this needs to be looked at, where we allow ourselves the pure number of the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I, too, am keenly interested in anything that offers a clue to the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity. (And yes, that is a dimensionless number.) Tom Van Flandern somehow determined that it has to be at least 20 billion. (Perhaps Larry Buford can post a link to TV's calculations and logic on that matter.)

According to Holoscience.com ,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's about 50% faster than VanFlandern's minimum speed of gravity force. I suspect that the " simple calculation " may be found at the link identified as Ralph Sandburys Papers . I dont know what credence to give to this site, if any, but I do believe all the fundamental forces share one common speed limit, while the waves and particles share a different common speed limit.

Aaron: 13 Jul 2009 : 07:51:35
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When you take into account the "radius of influence" just using the Gravity Equation, I think you will find that it is just a matter of concentrations (density) of Photonic pressure (in sheer numbers of photons or e.m. waves) being very high within the radius of an atom and much higher within the nucleus.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I dont know if it is proven, but it is generally presumed that the electrostatic force has unlimited range; what makes gravity take over is the near impossibility of separating electrically charged bodies by any great distance. If you <font color="orange">str!pped</font id="orange"> one electron from each atom in a kilogram of carbon and attached them to a different kilogram of carbon, the electrostatic attraction between the two charged masses would be considerable, whereas the gravitational attraction would be negligible. Im sure the voltage difference would be sufficient to jump quite a long spark gap, as well. Anyone care to do the math?
(Stupid profanity filter! If a word can be used profanely, it must be a profane word.)
Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Looks like Stoat is having difficulty posting his link to the Feynman lectures. Try these:

Rapid Library .
Pearson .

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

The number I thought you were talking about was 3.335646048004448e-10 the conversion for statcoulomb to coulomb.

The question of why they decided to use a hydrogen atom in the cgs equation.
I get for e^2 / Gmp*me =2.3E 39 For a proton squared, it's 1.3E 36 and for the electron squared it's 4.1E 42

I have to assume that they modeled all three, then chose the hydrogen atom. One of the predictions of one of the models is that G is aprox 1 / t using two electron masses should alter that rate. i suppose this brings us into the thorny question of gravitational shielding. Nowadays we can, and should, look at teo electron masses, in terms of the Cooper pair. Though when Dirac and Eddington were working they would have thought in terms of the helium atom. Two electrons but there's always something in between them.

On the question of 137 in the SI equation we have to work out the ratio but then multiply it by the reciprocal of the fine structure constant, to get it o fit with the cgs equation's solution. Admittedly it's a bit of a tag on, to allow for the strong force but I've only done what everyone else does here.

I think I may have made a little mistake in one of these posts[](never in the world, I hear the cry!!!) k = 1 / 4pi epsilon, and I may have said that the epsilon is the permittivity of free space, when it's not it's just the permittivity. 1 / c^2 = epsilon*4pi*mu that's 4pi*epsilon*1E-7

No great shakes.

Oh, one point I forgot to mention. Looking in an old book on the question of G changing with time, about one part in ten billion years, Tom gets a mention, something in Science page 44 1976 an article about the moon.

On the idea about the pion. A classic electron has a radius of about 2.4E-12 the compton wavelength, an anti proton has a radius of about 1E-15 its all a matter of their energy density. We could start with a model universe made of nothing but pions and over tim, for some unknown reason they change into electrons and protons and the rest.

As I've said, the grav energy of an electron is horrifyingly huge about 1.3 tonnes, yelp!! With my proposed speed of gravity the photon has a grav energy of an electron but the e.m. "rest" mass of 5.9E-64 kg Two compton wavelength soft gamma photons can smack into each other and create a electron/positron pair but only if their Swartzchild radii hit spot on.

Stoat: 15 Jul 2009 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the predictions of one of the models is that G is aprox 1 / t using two electron masses should alter that rate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What models? What is "t"? What rate?

Stoat: 15 Jul 2009
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i suppose this brings us into the thorny question of gravitational shielding. Nowadays we can, and should, look at teo electron masses, in terms of the Cooper pair.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you suggesting a way to measure the effect of gravity shielding on Cooper pairs? Or are you just mentioning two unrelated ideas?

Stoat: 15 Jul 2009 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On the question of 137 in the SI equation we have to work out the ratio but then multiply it by the reciprocal of the fine structure constant, to get it o fit with the cgs equation's solution.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you saying that 137 is a cgs to SI conversion factor, or vice versa? I still don't see where this comes from.

Stoat: 15 Jul 2009 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">.... k = 1 / 4pi epsilon, and I may have said that the epsilon is the permittivity of free space, when it's not it's just the permittivity. 1 / c^2 = epsilon*4pi*mu that's 4pi*epsilon*1E-7<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm taking a wild guess that you are referring to your earlier statement in which you wrote:

Stoat: 13 Jul 2009 : 07:39:32 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the SI system we have e^2 / k G mp^2
k = 1/4pi epsilon = 8.85E-12 That comes out at 1.69E 38 (after we multiply y the fine structure constant)If we change that bottom line to mp *me We get 2.5E 39 (Note that I haven't multiplied that by 137)
Now that's pretty good we are talking about 1700 when we are dealing with huge numbers. It's in the ball park. As I say, once we have a bunch of pure numbers we can knock up integrated, rather than differential models of the universe and compare them. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If so, then you have failed to clarify your meaning. Perhaps I would get it if you quote the whole erroneous equation and then quote the whole corrected equation. Does this correction affect your figure of 1700? I'm still mystified about where that number came from.

Stoat: 15 Jul 2009
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As I've said, the grav energy of an electron is horrifyingly huge about 1.3 tonnes, yelp!! With my proposed speed of gravity the photon has a grav energy of an electron but the e.m. "rest" mass of 5.9E-64 kg Two compton wavelength soft gamma photons can smack into each other and create a electron/positron pair but only if their Swartzchild radii hit spot on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Please clarify what you mean by "grav energy" and "e.m. energy", and going back to your earlier "explanation", what do you mean by "gravity space" and "e.m. space". And then show the math that arrives at 1.3 tonne.

In fact, it might be very helpful if you would start over from scratch, all the way back to June 14. Try not to leave out any steps, this time. And while youre at it, please don't omit the units, whether they be cgs or SI. Note that the units of the Planck constant are the same, regardless of whether it is energy times time or angular momentum; it's just a question of whether the force is parallel to the motion or perpendicular; either way, it is not dimensionless. I stopped reading partway thru your June 15 post because I was disgusted by they way you swept dimensions under the rug, pretending that they don't exist. If you don't mend your ways, this time, I still won't read it.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator