Entrainment of Elysium

Furthermore, discussion about the particle nature of the elyson and its frictional properties could help contrive the net velocity of the entrainment. If elysons bound closely to the gravitating mass rub past elysons on a different vector, a net force could be calculated (whow, how tiny would this be). Everytime I re-read this thread, I start trying to think of, "How can I test this?" Any ideas?



Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Are you using the term <u>matter ingredient</u> in the MM sense of "one of the hypothetical building blocks of the smallest currently detectable particles of normal matter" ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, but don't confuse it with an MI actually being the smallest currently detectable particle of normal matter. I think it is more accurate to describe a matter ingredient as being the smallest particle which, when impacted by a graviton, results in the manifestation of gravity as we perceive it (Tom?).

And I'm not sure that matter ingredient refers to a single particle or even a class of particles. I think that, if my description of elyson binding is correct, matter ingredients may actually be particle aggregates composed of a central particle surrounded by bound elsyons. I've been playing with marbles to try to model elysons bound to a central particle that is not an elyson, is smaller than an elyson, and which is not transparent to gravitons when struck dead center. It becomes evident that the elysons most closely bound to the central particle must be treated as being part of an aggregate that behaves as a single particle. It may be that this aggregate is what we mean by 'matter ingredient' in that it responds as a unit to the impact of a single graviton. I'll try to diagram this for clarity when I get a chance.


No great thing was ever created suddenly - Epictitus

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><br />When we speak of transparancies of these infintesimal particles, I think we need to think more about volume than density. Is it not possible for MI's to simply be larger than elysons. Meaning that more of the volume of an MI is solid.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

According to the MM nothing is solid. That is, as any particle is examined at lower and lower scales it is revealed to be mostly space. For an atom it is accepted to take the form of the Bohr model, electrons surrounding a central nucleus with some statistical distribution.

At lower scales this Bohr model probably repeats itself so that, say, an electron is made of seemingly solid particles which are actually more tiny versions of the Bohr atom.

Likewise for elysons, which would explain their apparent 'semi-transparency'. Just as, on a solar scale, a comet perturbs the orbits of planets and moons which it passes closely by, so does a graviton perturb whatever components make up elysons. For that matter, the analogy applies to the matter ingredient, except that the degree of the perturbation for the matter ingredient would be greater than for the elyson.

This isn't new. I think it represents the model Tom lays out for the universe in his books.

What I am proposing, as I think about the elyson structure and the nature of matter ingredients, is that one need not invoke a particle other than the elyson and the graviton to describe the composition and behavior of ordinary matter. I think, if we accept that Bohr model as conceptually representing elysons properly, we can explain how matter ingredients are composed strictly of elysons and their derivatives.

Here are my thoughts on how elysons can themselves, in conjunction with captured gravitons, constitute matter ingredients and, in greater scale, baryonic matter.



Start with a single ("1st degree")elyson that has a structure resembling Bohr hydrogen atom but at greatly reduced scale: assume that the elyson is made of a nucleus (red) and some orbiting particle or maybe multiple orbiting particles (blue).

If the nucleus of the elyson captures a graviton (green) the result is a second degree elyson in which the orbiting particle now has a reduced diameter orbit.

Repeat this process so that the result is some n-degree elyson with a greatly reduced orbital diameter. At some point it will attract a cloud of first degree elysons, and at some further degree of graviton capture it will exhibit sufficient gravity to tightly bind some of the first degree elysons.

In modeling his with solid spheres (I used glass marbles) the first case of bound elsysons will take the form of a tetrahedron with the n-degree elyson surrounded by four 1st-degree elysons.

Because of the overwhelming abundance of first degree elysons relative to those which capture gravitons, the structure represented here will be the most common form of elyson cluster.

As described in my earlier post on this thread, this cluster will act as a unit with respect to bulk elysium. It can continue to grow as gravitons are further captured by the core elyson, but it will do so more slowly because the surrounding elysons will intercept and deflect gravitons.

This model explains how elysons can appear to be semi-transparent to gravitons. It also explains how matter can seem to appear from the vaccum of space, as in the case of the Arp/Narlikar model - but see below for another mechanism that might make more sense in this case.

As the process of graviton capture by elysons continues, larger and more complex structures can build until they are large enough to be detectable as components of baryonic matter.

I was able to model the growing structure to a second order, in which there are six additional elysons bound to the cluster that would each have equivalent binding energy. It is difficult for me to diagram this but it is easy enough to do yourself with some marbles and a little superglue.

It is interesting that this process is analogous to the building up of elements from protons, neutrons and electrons. This is consistent with the concept of the Meta Model of infinite scale.

One could also model how elysons could grow in mass by a second, different mechanism - elyson fusion. In this case, the nuclei of two elysons would fuse, and the orbiting particles would now orbit the fused nucleus. The energy required for fusion would need to come from somewhere and since elysium is conceived as a contiguous, low velocity medium the only possible mechanism to provide fusion would be pressure. Since elyson pressure is higher around and within stars and planets than it is in extra-stellar space, this mechanism would favor elyson fusion where ordinary matter already exists. Thus, it could explain matter creation in the vicinity of galaxies as proposed by Arp and Narlikar.

Although the calculations are prohibitive, this model could provide a foundation for explaining Slabinski's determined ratio of K(scattering) to K(absorbing) of about 2.9 x 10(29) (Pushing Gravity, Edwards, Ed., Apeiron 2002, p. 128).

It becomes evident that this mechanism would result in a structure for matter ingredients composed of strictly of elysons and aggregates of elysons, a portion of which contain captured gravitons. Of course, at finer scales the process repeats in some fashion, but ignoring finer scales this provides for an explaination of how matter forms at the scale of the graviton medium and the light carrying medium.

The result, over time, of graviton capture by elysons and/or elyson fusion, is an increasing number of increasingly complex elyson aggregates. At some point these manifest themselves as quarks, then electrons, protons and neutrons. In other words, I think that it is possible that matter is composed of the light carrying medium - elysium - itself.




No great thing was ever created suddenly - Epictitus

The interactions of elysons and gravitons is an important subject, and will probably need to be explored here before a complete answer to the question of elysium entrainment can be found. But before we go there I want to focus on a different part of the scale dimension.

===

The spherical bubble of blue-tagged elysons around my star sized mass M is about 200 light years in diameter. But the diameter of the bubble of all elysons entrained by M is 10 or 20 thousand light years. This corresponds to M's gravitational potential field.

Now suppose that an earth size mass (m) is orbiting around M with an orbital radius of 1 AU. This smaller mass will also entrain some elysium. The diameter of the elusium bubble entrained by m will also be about 10 to 20 thousand light years, so most of these two entrained elysium bubbles overlap. As m orbits M, m's entrained bubble orbits with it.

===

Let's go back to the situation where M is moving at the same velocity as the local elysium in our great void. The individual elysons comprising M's elysium bubble are therefore stationary wrt M in both dynamic and static entrainment. But there are some differences I will get to shortly when I discuss the mixed case.

The situation is less ambiguous for m and its elysium bubble. Since m is moving wrt M it must also be moving wrt the local elysium. If entrainment is dynamic then individual elysons that lie in the orbital path of m are flowing through m at m's orbital velocity. They are pushed closer together by m's gravitational force field as m approaches, and then return to their previous location as m moves away. If entrainment is static, however, individual elysons have become "attached" to m and are orbiting with it.

For the static entrainment case there are also individual elysons "attached" to M. So, for both M and m the size of the bubble of "attached" elysons under the static entrainment case can be as large as 10 to 20 thousand light years. There would have to be some "boundary zone" between M and m where elysons attached to m and orbiting with it pushed their way through the elysons attached to M. (NOTE - more complicated relationships are both possible and likely. One is the mixed case mentioned next.)

Under the mixed case scemario, sub-surface and nearby elysons are statically entrained by (attached to) M and m but elysons at some distance from M and m are dynamically entrained. I think for simplicity, at least at this early stage of the investigation, we can put the mixed case on the back burnner.

===

If entrainment is dynamic there is no boundary zone between M and m, and elysium flow through m can carry away excess heat from graviton collisions. But ... there is also a strong elysium wind blowing at m's surface that will be detected by a Michaelson-Morley type experiment (MMX).

If entrainment is static then individual elysons at the surface of m are stationary wrt that surface. Even if m is rotating. Thus an MMX will not detect an elysium wind. But excess heat isn't blown away. And there will be a boundary zone of some sort between m and M where elysons stop being attached to m and start being atached to M.

Right now I'm leaning strongly toward static entrainment, because of the elysium wind problem under dynamic entrainment.

===

Unlike the atto-scale or smaller situation of matter ingredients interacting with elysons, we might actually be able to detect a macro-scale effect such as the boundary zone. Or, we might get very lucky and already have data that could support or refute it.

But first it would need to be modeled and some predictions made. Dang, there's always a catch.

Comments, please,
LB

&gt;&gt;The interactions of elysons and gravitons is an important subject, and will probably need to be explored here before a complete answer to the question of elysium entrainment can be found. But before we go there I want to focus on a different part of the scale dimension.

I'll grant that elyson composition isn't germain to distinguishing 'static' from 'dynamic' flow but I thought I had resolved that issue and was moving on. Let me try again.

Since elysium is a contiguous medium at the scale of heavenly bodies any change in elyson flux relative to a moving body will manifest itself only as pressure - gravitational potential. We can and do detect this.

At the scale of elysons, any elysons not bound to matter ingredients will flow around the matter ingredients just like water flows around a fish or a rock in a stream. For this flow to be detectable - in any model, static or dynamic, it's irrelevent- the wave generated would need to contain enough energy to be perceptable as light or other emf, which is the only way we can detect elysons with current technology. Since the waves generated by elysons as other elysons or matter ingredients pass by are very small - at the scale of elysium particles - any such wave will not be detectable as emf because we have no instruments capable of detecting these small perturbations. This is what I meant when I pointed out that the wake of an elyson is it's DeBroglie wave.

It's basically the same question as asking whether you can detect your own DeBroglie wave. Can you? GR and LR both admit there's a DeBroglie wave but we have to accept it on faith because we just don't have a means of building a device sensitive enough.

The energies of an elyson DeBroglie wave are way too small, way too long and dissipate over a very small distance when considered at the scale of ordinary matter.

So I think the static/dynamic issue is resolved.

Let's move on. If your purpose is to prove the existence of elysium then the way to do it is create a theory and build testable hypotheses. The MM is our theory, and I've just advanced a hypothesis wherein the LCM composes ordinary matter. So how can we test this hypothesis?

One way is to make predictions. My elyson fusion hypothesis says that elysons will fuse to create ordinary matter in regions of high gravitational potential such as heavenly bodies - i.e. matter will beget matter. My graviton capture hypothesis says matter will beget matter regardless of gravitational potential. But testing either prediction means waiting long times for, say, the earth to grow in mass or for, say, hydrogen to spontaneously appear in a closed evacuated vessel, and so isn't practical.

I'm thinking about whether they make any predictions about magnetism, and about electrical charge. Any thoughts? Because if they do, then maybe we could devise some practical means of testing the hypotheses.

No great thing was ever created suddenly - Epictitus

Larry, sorry, I was in admin mode and hit edit instead of respond, , lost your original response. - Don

&gt;&gt;So, is elysium entrained statically or dynamically by planet and star sized masses? [-Larry]

[Don:]
It's a dynamic equilibrium, as I said way back in the beginning, but also irrelevent.

You're not understanding my answer because you are ignoring the overwhelming influence of scale. You're trying to think of elysium as a constituent of matter at the scale of ordinary matter. It's not. It cannot be, except where some mechanisms like the ones I propose cause it to coalesce and form larger aggregate structures like atoms and at that point the scale is then the scale of ordinary matter.[/Don]