Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

Tom,

Here's a phase diagram for hydrogen: www.hydropole.ch/Hydropole/Intro/Phasediag.gif

The true liquid phase of hydrogen is restricted to the region below the critical temperature of hydrogen, which is about 32.97 K. Above that temperature the liquid phase simply does not exist--it can only be a gas or a solid, depending on the pressure. There is one other possibility, though: if hydrogen is heated above the critical temperature <i>and</i> compressed above the critical pressure (1.293 MPa, or about 13 atmospheres), it goes into a supercritical phase, where liquid and gas are indistinguishable. Hydrogen in its supercritical phase essentially behaves in a way we would consider to be gaslike. However, at high enough pressures, the supercritical phase can become more liquidlike, becoming what is called liquid metallic hydrogen.

Since that graph is a little bit oversimilified, here's a more accurate one: militzer.gl.ciw.edu/diss/log_phase_diagram08.png

I'm not sure what the densities in the Sun are like, so I can't really find the conditions of the Sun on the graph, except for the temperature. Judging from the temperature alone, it would seem that the Sun's surface could be either a molecular fluid or a metallic fluid, depending on the density, and the Sun's core could be either a plasma or a metallic fluid. It all depends on the densities, which I don't know.

Something about that particular graph looks funny to me, though, so I'm not sure how far you should trust it.

By the way, metallic hydrogen is basically hydrogen that has been compressed to the point that its electrons become unbound and behave like conduction electrons in a metal.

--Astro

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />By the way, metallic hydrogen is basically hydrogen that has been compressed to the point that its electrons become unbound and behave like conduction electrons in a metal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Great info. Many thanks.

As all this pertains to Robitaille's liquid Sun model, can he still call this hydrogen state with some liquid-like properties a "liquid"? Is that a matter of definition, a convention, or a misnomer? -|Tom|-

We talk about conductors as having an electron gas of free electrons but when we consider the electrons as matter waves then it's best to think of them as a fluid. As a fluid we are interested in the drift rate. Now, the coefficient of viscosity for a conductor is the electron total spin per unit volume. Pair electrons up, top to tail, and we get zero viscosity. So I think viscosity looks good for comparing matter, ether and elysium.

On the pressure question, at about half a million atmospheres, we can create ice that has a melting point above that of boiling water.

(Edited once more, last time, promise

(Edited) I think this could be of interest in setting up an experiment to find the speed of gravity. "Slow Light," physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/7/9

This one is better, for a more complete explanation of what's thought to be going on. www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/lig...eze/lightfreeze.html

(Edited again) A quick read through of this, and put down some half digested ideas [8D] I find that being in that sort of floaty stage often lets ideas pop into my head. Let's say for the moment that we have a substance in which the refractive index flips from positive to negative at the light speed barrier. Now shift that barier towards zero and beyond [] Now, the researchers are saying that when they have a negative speed of light, that's a faster than light phenomenon. But, suppose it's not. Suppose that we have a region where three Bose Einstein condensates meet. In short we are pulling down the speed of gravity to close to that of light.

The researchers want to lower the speed of light so that they can watch the atoms of the condensate "surf." They wil not see the point in trying the same thing with their negative speed of light; because they see it as being faster than light. I think that we would still see the atoms doing a spot of surfing []

(Edited once again, last time, promise [] ) if the ether were a Bose Einstein condensate of pairs of neutrinos, can a graviton of ftl speed "see" them? The very fact of "seing" them would disrupt the ether. A lorenzian contraction for the ftl graviton would have a transcendental function to uniquely label one of the neutrinos but as it is being contracted down extremely rapidly in its approach, the neutrino "pair" would revert back into their bosonic condensate state. Can ftl gravitons "pulse" as they move through ether?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
All the points you raise here and below are interesting and will require more thought. But on this one...

A) I don't see how there could be lab experiments to simulate temperature and pressure on the Sun's surface. Extrapolations would seem particularly untrustworthy when changes of state are involved.

Whether what you say is factually correct or not, how does it make physical sense for a critical point to be unaffected by pressure, no matter how high?

c) I don't know much about the details of a change of state. But for the Sun, let's simply envision that the hydrogen molecules in the corona get squeezed closer and closer by gravitational pressure until finally they are all in contact. That hydrogen medium would seem to have the main properties of a liquid, even if it technically remained a gas by some definition.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no extrapolation in regard to the critical point. Above the critical point the substance is a fluid. There is no physical distinction between vapor and liquid. As one approaches the critical point from below (in regard to temperature and pressure) the vapor and liquid phases of a substance approach one another in all their properties. At the critical point, there is no physical difference between the phases and the interface disappears. Yes, one can increase pressure until you might say that it is a liquid - but there cannot be a surface, or interface to the "liquid"! Therefore, if the Sun has a liquid surface, it cannot be liquid hydrogen and helium. The observation is that <b>there is a liquid surface</b>, but it has to be some other than protonic matter.

At the temperature of the Sun's surface, both hydrogen and helium would be in a plasma state. This is where there is no physical difference between the "electron" portion of the hydrogen or helium atom and the surrounding Elysium. Just as it was with the critical point, the physical difference between the "electron" portion of the hydrogen and helium atoms and the surrounding Elysium disappears. There is no interface.

I think you must give more investigation to the nature of the Elysium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
There are an infinite number of mediums in MM. It is very unlikely to be elysium doing the pushing. Rather, the energy from explosions is largely in the form of high-energy lightwaves. Waves of course can carry energy even when the constituents of their medium just oscillate in place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why invoke an infinite number of mediums when the Elysium can account for the expansion? I truly don't see the difference between this statement of infinite mediums and magic. As an engineer, I have to come up with utilitarian solutions for the customer. I cannot afford to be philosophical about the phenomena. Your objective and valid presentation of a light carrying medium has strongly influenced my view of chemistry and thermodynamics, and I practice these disciplines on an hourly basis. I also have to practice (recognize) geometry on a continuous basis, whether I like it or not. The aspect of geometry is unavoidable in process design. It is not arbitrary but very real. A part of physics, not mathematics.

Once again, I think you should further investigate the nature of Elysium.

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 tvanflandern</i>
<br />I have never resolved the ambiguity about whether changes in elysium are density changes or pressure changes. But I have tended to assume they are density changes because that seemed easier to visualize.

Equating elysium density with (the negative of) gravitational potential gives an important estimate about just how much change source masses make in elysium density. We can equate orbital potential -GM/r to -v^2, which is an exact equivalence for circular orbits. But this is relative to the potential background density at infinity, which is proportional to c^2 (or we wouldn't have the v &lt; c limit for propagation of masses through elysium when E-M-type forces are used).

This means that elysium density in the Sun's field at Earth's distance has a density increase of ~ 10^-8 (= v^2/c^2 for Earth's orbit). 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 wind is blowing 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 winds.

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. Having said that, I can see ways in which the pressure interpretation makes more sense. For example, wave amplitude (which determines intensity) is a transverse pressure, not a sideways density change. It is easier to see changes of many orders of magnitude in pressure than in density.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, I've been away on business and have not had the opportunity to see where this thead has progressed until now. It's interesting (at least to me) that I have always assumed intuitively that the gradients induced in the elysium by gravitons were of pressure rather than density whereas yours was the opposite. I assume that all the light-bending and such near masses still hold for elysium pressure gradients as for density ones.

JR

[JR] "It's interesting (at least to me) that I have always assumed intuitively that the gradients induced in the elysium by gravitons were of pressure rather than density whereas yours was the opposite."

More than interesting, I would call it fascinating. I have always assumed that neither can be (entirely) correct. If the elysium gradients are in pressure then entrainment must be dynamic and individual elysons are streaming past and through Earth at large relative velocity. A wave propagating in a medium comprizing such particles ought to be seen to travel at different rates in different directions. (See tvf's boat-in-a-river analogy.) (I suppose physical contraction of matter moving in the (dynamically entrained) elysium could compensate for the rate changes of the waves. Clocks (of the atomic persuasion) are known to be slowed by such motion, but clocks are not used in MMX interference type experiments. They are used in GPS type experiments.)

If the elysium gradients are in density then entrainment can be static, at least within a "short" distance from a significant mass like Earth. The behavior of a wave propagating in a medium comprizing such particles would depend on whether it was inside the statically entrained region (no directional rate changes) or outside it. But, there ought to be a transition zone and we ought to be able to detect that zone. (The transition effects might be subtle, or masked by other phenomena. Or we might be looking in the wrong place. Or not looking at all.)

===

* Elysium entrainment is driven by the gravitational force field.
* Gravitational potential (the density or pressure gradients in the elysium) is a function of gravitational force.

QUESTIONS:

Either way (density or pressure), the elysium "entrainment zone" around a mass should have a radius of approximately 5,000 light years?

The "depth" of the zone around a small mass would be less than around a large mass, but the radius of the zone would be the same?

LB