Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />One of the principles of Metascience is "no action at a distance". In other words entities must have contact with one another in order to have an interchange of momentum. Does this not invalidate the concept of attractive force?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In a word, yes. Hence, "pushing gravity". -|Tom|-

Would not this requirement of contact(collision) for momentum exchanger also apply to the light carrying medium and the protonic matter medium?

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />Would not this requirement of contact(collision) for momentum exchanger also apply to the light carrying medium and the protonic matter medium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, it applies to everything.

Elysium is a contiguous fluid, somewhat like an ocean. So forces transmitted through it, e.g. by gravitons, might be pressure waves instead of particle collisional transfers. But the underlying principes are the same for every kind of force. That is why force is defined as the time rate of change of momentum. -|Tom|-

Apparently the mean free path of a graviton is unbelievably larger than a graviton, so the geometry of a graviton is physically irrelevant to its own medium and to elysons and protons.

The mean free path for an elyson is apparently much smaller and close to the size of an elyson, so the elyson geometry is probably, physically relevant to the Elysium medium. Apparently the medium can transform from vapor to liquid and back.

The mean free path of a proton is practically meaningless, because the protons are the building block of nuclei and molecules. And geometry is the foundation of chemistry. So the geometry of a proton is highly physically relevant to proton masses.

So there are great differences between the three mediums.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />Apparently the mean free path of a graviton is unbelievably larger than a graviton, so the geometry of a graviton is physically irrelevant to its own medium and to elysons and protons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?? By "geometry", do you mean size or shape? Shape is irrelevant for gravitons, but size is not. Graviton-graviton collisions scatter gravitons and change the inverse square gravity law to an inverse linear law. This explains the peculiar dynamical behavior of galaxies and galaxy clusters without need for "dark matter".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The mean free path for an elyson is apparently much smaller and close to the size of an elyson, so the elyson geometry is probably, physically relevant to the Elysium medium. Apparently the medium can transform from vapor to liquid and back.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?? There is no evidence for changes of state in elysons. Elysium has the properties of a contiguous ocean with no gaps between elysons, just as there are no gaps between H2O molecules in the ocean. Forces in elysium are probably pressure forces, as they are in water oceans.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The mean free path of a proton is practically meaningless, because the protons are the building block of nuclei and molecules. And geometry is the foundation of chemistry. So the geometry of a proton is highly physically relevant to proton masses.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In "The structre of matter in the Meta Model", I explained how to get proton properties from elysium and gravitons. The binding forces in nuclei come from the same picture.

I don't know much about molecule-molecule binding, which is of critical importance to chemistry. Your "geometry" may well come into play there. But I'm not yet seeing the need at the proton level.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So there are great differences between the three mediums.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sure there are, but not as great as the differences with the interplanetary/interstellar mediums, the asteroid/comet medium, the medium of stars, the medium of galaxies, the medium of "great walls and voids", etc. through an infinity of scales upward and downward. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />By "geometry", do you mean size or shape? Shape is irrelevant for gravitons, but size is not. Graviton-graviton collisions scatter gravitons and change the inverse square gravity law to an inverse linear law. This explains the peculiar dynamical behavior of galaxies and galaxy clusters without need for "dark matter".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <i>I am referring to shape. It has to have a shape if it has size.</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[quote} There is no evidence for changes of state in elysons. Elysium has the properties of a contiguous ocean with no gaps between elysons, just as there are no gaps between H2O molecules in the ocean. Forces in elysium are probably pressure forces, as they are in water oceans.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <i>But there is evidence of elysons being in both a liquid state and a vapor state! You had an article in the September Bulletin describing the overall structure of the Sun as being liquid. It certainly is not liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Look up the critical properties of these elements.</i>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In "The structre of matter in the Meta Model", I explained how to get proton properties from elysium and gravitons. The binding forces in nuclei come from the same picture.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <i>Proton properties can also be derived from the facts of chemistry. I hope that your binding force is a push and not an attractive force.</i><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">I don't know much about molecule-molecule binding, which is of critical importance to chemistry. Your "geometry" may well come into play there. But I'm not yet seeing the need at the proton level.<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"><i> It is actually atom to atom binding. The "geometry" is very real. The geometry of the molecules must arise from the geometry of the chemical "bonds" coming out of each nucleus. The <b>observed </b>geometry of the "bonds" invalidates the Rutherford and Bohr atom models. The electrons are not orbiting the nucleus. In fact, it is highly questionable that electrons are involved in chemical "bonds".</i><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"><i>So there are great differences between the three mediums.</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sure there are, but not as great as the differences with the interplanetary/interstellar mediums, the asteroid/comet medium, the medium of stars, the medium of galaxies, the medium of "great walls and voids", etc. through an infinity of scales upward and downward. -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><i> I agree but what is your point?</i>

Gregg Wilson