Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

[LB] " ... the electron’s gravitational potential field (the elysium bubble, and each of the individual elysons comprising it) moves the same tiny fraction of a meter."

I think I'd like to amend the above to say -

... the electron's gravitational potential field (the elysium bubble) moves the same tiny fraction of a meter.

The individual elysons that comprise the bubble shift a little bit relative to each other, rather than moving as a group.

[LB] "The gravitational force field at a range of 1 kpc will respond to this position change in a little more than half of a second (if my calculation is correct, and assuming that the speed of gravity is 20 billion c)."

I slipped a decimal point here. The (lower limit of the) speed of gravity is about 634 LY/sec instead of 6340 LY/sec, so it takes a little over 5 seconds (instead of half a second) for the change in the electron's gravitational force field to propagate to a distance of 1 kpc from the electron.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />The difference is that the wave must travel from one elyson to the next by the internal (to the bubble) mechanism of momentum transfer, while the bubble moves as a single entity, behaving much like an extension of the electron, because it is driven by an external (to the bubble) force that happens to be very fast.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I began this diversion back at the end of January by saying:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: elysium ... in the Sun's field at Earth's distance has a density increase of ~ 10^-8. Earth's surface potential is about an order of magnitude less. So masses make only very small changes in the background elysium. But if masses have so little effect, that means the overwhelming bulk of the elysium current is flowing by at high speed unaffected by Earth, and is not entrained. This would make no sense if the graviton wind blowing Earthward made density changes rather than pressure changes because light could then not be entrained (contrary to several experiments) and light’s propagation speed would differ in different directions as it was carried along by bulk elysium currents. Therefore, I conclude that gravity must produce pressure changes in the elysium near masses, unaffected by bulk elysium motion. And light must be pressure waves, not density waves, or the problems just cited would occur.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At several points I stressed this is "virgin territory" and being newly thought out, with a significant probability that it might be wrong. I think I'm now ready to concede that it must be wrong.

Here’s my current restatement of the problem in a nutshell, aided by the discussion, especially Larry's input. We need light waves to propagate at the characteristic speed of elysium and have a characteristic range on the order of 1 Gpc, yet be unaffected locally by elysium currents. Pressure changes can ignore currents locally. But once far from a mass, they have only elysium as a frame of reference and must be carried along by the currents. So even though light waves are slight compared to the density of elysium, much like sonar waves under water, elysium must be entrained by masses (the original model), much the way ocean currents disappear near islands or shores. I no longer see "pressure changes" as having distinctly different physics than density changes, and will resume speaking of density or pressure changes in local elysium as if they are equivalent.

But it should still be kept in mind that the entrainment of elysium is caused by graviton winds, not by friction or cohesion with matter. In that particular point, the analogies I used with oceans are not applicable.

My thanks to Larry for sticking with this until it seemed clear that my "pressure waves" alternative was unsupportable. Do we have any remaining open issues over this "meaning of entrainment" point? -|Tom|-

I apologize for the long pause in this discussion. I've been thinking about it quite a bit, however, and I believe I'm finally ready to resume.

<b>[TVF] "Do we have any remaining open issues over this "meaning of entrainment" point?"</b>

Yes.

At least I think we do. It seems to me that we have resolved the issue of whether light is a pressure wave or a density wave. Since both types of wave behave the same relative to the media within which they propagate, light could be either type. IOW, we still don't know which type it is, but we now know that it does not matter.

The issue that I see still facing us is the nature of elysium entrainment. The available options are

1) entirely dynamic (out to the range of a mass' gravitational force field, thus no transition to background)
2) entirely static (out to the range of a mass' gravitational force field, with a transition to [the moving] background at that range)
3) a mixture of static and dynamic (with a transition from static to dynamic occurring at a relatively small distance from the entraining mass - somewhere between a few mass diameters and some dozens of AUs - perhaps near each mass' gravitational sphere of influence) (Since entrainment is dynamic beyond this range, there would be no significant tramsition to background at the much greater range of the mass' gravitation force field, as in option 1.)

I think #3 is the only reasonable answer. I believe you still favor #1.

<b>[TVF] "But it should still be kept in mind that the entrainment of elysium is caused by graviton winds, not by friction or cohesion with matter."</b>

I agree that entrainment, whether dynamic, static or a mixture, is caused by gravity rather than by friction or cohesion. But it seems that observation dictates that the nature of that entrainment must be modified after-the-fact by friction and/or cohesion and/or some other mechanism, possibly specific to elysons.

===
If the individual elysons at/near Earth's surface have <u>any</u> motion relative to that surface, that motion would show up as direction dependent variations in the speed of light waves and we would detect that motion with experiments like MMX and GPS.
===

Consider that, regardless of how small the interaction is between normal mater and individual elysons, there is still some interaction. Given enough time (and a lot of that is available), that tiny interaction could, and apparently does, result in some elysons detaching themselves from the greater background of the elysium, and attaching themselves to a particular gravitating mass. These elysons are why we detect no direction dependent variations in the speed of light.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />The issue that I see still facing us is the nature of elysium entrainment. The available options are<ul><li>1) entirely dynamic (out to the range of a mass' gravitational force field, thus no transition to background)</li><li>2) entirely static (out to the range of a mass' gravitational force field, with a transition to [the moving] background at that range)</li><li>3) a mixture of static and dynamic (with a transition from static to dynamic occurring at a relatively small distance from the entraining mass - somewhere between a few mass diameters and some dozens of AUs - perhaps near each mass' gravitational sphere of influence) (Since entrainment is dynamic beyond this range, there would be no significant tramsition to background at the much greater range of the mass' gravitation force field, as in option 1.)</li></ul>I think #3 is the only reasonable answer. I believe you still favor #1.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I favor the dynamicity of #1 and the transition of #2. The transition range is at the sphere-of-influence boundary. But the entrainment cannot be simple confinement. It must have a nature similar to that of an ocean current near an island. No water molecules are confined to stay near the island, but the local motions of water molecules do not participate in the ocean current's flow either.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Consider that, regardless of how small the interaction is between normal mater and individual elysons, there is still some interaction. Given enough time (and a lot of that is available), that tiny interaction could, and apparently does, result in some elysons detaching themselves from the greater background of the elysium, and attaching themselves to a particular gravitating mass. These elysons are why we detect no direction dependent variations in the speed of light.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "attachment" to a local mass must be of a fleeting variety because elysium does not participate in Earth's rotation. (The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments show fringe shifts from MMX platform rotation, indicating that elysium is not participating in the rotation, even when the platform is the entire Earth.)

A second factor deals with EPH explosion mechanisms. If elysium did not continually and rapidly exchange with non-entrained, bulk elysium at large, graviton heating of local elysium would cause a planet to explode in a matter of microseconds. So what we call "absolute zero" is not a minimum temperature of everything, but is instead the mean temperature of local elysium, below which we cannot reduce the temperature of other masses of any chemical composition. This consideration, the need to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium for masses embedded in the elysium sea, also means that local elysium must be continually on the move and transporting away excess heat generated inside masses.

Here's a third clue. While the following ideas are still under discussion, it is generally agreed that all atomic clocks on Earth and in Earth orbit are slowed by denser elysium in January, when Earth is closer to the Sun; and all speed up in July, when Earth is farther from the Sun. This is confirmed by comparison with pulsar signals, which are "clocks" unaffected by local elysium and local motions. However, my interpretation of GPS data is that changes in the Sun's gravitational potential <i>inside Earth's sphere of influence</i> have no effect on local atomic clocks. For example, GPS satellite clocks do not slow down when the satellite is on the part of its orbit nearer to the Sun. And that is pretty amazing when you think about it.

So some sort of entrainment is going on. But it cannot be entrainment in the simplest sense. So we do still have some open questions about the exact nature of this entrainment, as you said at the beginning of your message. -|Tom|-

I've been thinking for some time that this part of the thread has drifted far from the Title Topic. Although the originator of this thread has not complained, this situation has also come up in some off line discussions.

So I guess I ought to move further posts to a more appropriate thread, or more likely start a new thread. Now all I have to do is figure out where. I'll let you know.

LB