'Edge' of the Universe

[Larry]"OK. Suppose I change your change.

From "effect" or "result" to "attractive effect" or "attractive result".

Do you still agree?"

Yes, Larry, now I agree.

Let me give an example of how there can be honest, differing viewpoints:

Take your home vacuum cleaner, hold on to the suction end where there is, say another six inches of metal pipe forward of your hand that is holding it. Approach the leather on a couch. Suddenly the suction end of the hose darts forward and mates with the leather surface. You see it dart forward and you feel the hose pull your hand forward. Now, is it an attractive force or a pushing force?

Scientifically we know that the force is caused by a difference in air pressure. But we cannot see the air.




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 />No matter what scale we observe in the universe, a decision must be made that attractive force exists or repulsive force in combination with geometry must exist. The essence of repulsive force is that face to face collisions must occur in order to have an effect or result. The essence of attractive force is that results must occur without collision - by definition. Attractive force demands one of two things: either action from a distance or that particles are somehow alive, awake and make decisions. IMHO, neither of these options is tenable or has been demonstrated.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I do not understand your point here. Is the Le Sage gravitational force attractive or repulsive? Is your point semantic or substantive? How can there be a truly attractive force, even in principle?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In regard to geometry, there is structure at every scale. IMHO, I see no evidence or logic for things being the same at every scale:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">These are fundamentally the same, but always differ in details, as your examples show. In "Structure of Matter in MM", I showed how gravitational and electrodynamic forces are involved on the quantum scale. Remember, the way a particular force acts on some scale very much depends on the size, speed, and range of the particles and/or the density of the medium that produces the force.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At the largest scale that we can perceive, there are great walls of galaxies separted by great voids. No hint of sphere.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Everything larger than galaxy nuclei is beyond the rms distance that a graviton can travel before being scattered. So structures influenced by gravity must be flattened spheres. The structures larger than that appear to be waves of elysium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The premise that things are the same at all scales does not appear to be the case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The problem here is semantic because I used the same examples to argue that they are fundamentally the same -- particles and waves of various mediums doing their thing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A hollow pyramid shape for the proton answers more issues than simply the structure of larger entities:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No matter how many answers it supplies, it introduces more questions that lack the appearance of having any possible answer. It is not so important that we understand how real protons are actually built. But it is vital that we understand how a given hypothesis about their form can be <i>possible</i>. For me, that step is presently lacking.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1) In strict accordance with collisions being the cause for results, it explains the arrow of time. It selects the direction of time and clearly shows why it is not reversible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only the standard model needs such an explanation. MM has an understanding already built in: time is simply a measure of change.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2)The hollow pyramid completes the great circle route for the exchange of energy between the gravitational flux and the light carrying medium. That is, it explains why the universe does not proceed to a dead end, but remains a stable structure of dynamic equilibrium.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is another "problem" that does not exist in MM because the universe is infinite and gravity (as well as an infinite number of other forces) is anti-entropic.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My put on the proton is only speculative. However, I have proposed a test which either supports that shape or negates that shape in a separate article.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Can you describe this test in a few words?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Let me give an example of how there can be honest, differing viewpoints: ... vacuum cleaner ... is it an attractive force or a pushing force?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't understand the question. How, even in principle, can there be such a thing as a truly attractive force? How can momentum transferred to a target body be directed in any direction except the one in which the contacting particles are moving?

Conventional physics is filled with too many magical concepts. I am not eager to introduce more of them. -|Tom|-

||Posted by Tom|I do not understand your point here. Is the Le Sage gravitational force attractive or replusive? Is your point semantic or substantive? How can there be a truly attractive force, even in principle?|

I have consistently argued against the idea of an attractive force. Gravity is a pushing force.

||by Tom| These are fundamentally the same, but always differ in details, as your examples show. In "Structure of Matter in MM", I showed how gravitational and electrodynamic forces are involved on the quantum scale. Remember, the way a particular force acts on some scale very much depends on the size, speed, and range of the particles and/or the density of the medium that produces the force.|

How does MM explain crystals which have flat planes, straight lines and sharp corners. How does it explain the highly distinctive structure of molecules? How does it explain the fixed position, orientation and length of chemical bonds?

||by Tom|Everything larger than galaxy nuclei is beyond the rms distance that a graviton can travel before being scattered. So structures influenced by gravity must be flattened spheres. The structures larger than that appear to be waves of elysium.|

These are sensible explanations for the larger structures and why they are not spheres.

||by Tom|The problem here is semantic because I used the same examples to argue that they are fundamentally the same -- particles and waves of various mediums doing their thing.|

Again, please explain crystals, molecular structure, chemical bond structure.

||by Tom|No matter how many answers it supplies, it introduces more questions that lack the appearance of having any possible answer. It is not so important that we understand how real protons are actually built. But it is vital that we understand how a given hypothesis about their form can be <i>possible</i>. For me, that step is presently lacking.|

A model typically raises more questions than it answers. The pyramidal proton idea is not a TOE. At the nuclear level, it predicts that a nucleus will approach a sphere at about atomic number 40. Larger nuclei become more and more like a sphere. A larger scale it shows influence up to the level of a solar system, but not beyond that.

||by Tom|Only the standard model needs such an explanation. MM has an understanding already built in: time is simply a measure of change.|

Why do gravitons supply energy to the Sun and why does the Sun export energy via the Elysium? Why not the opposite?

||by Tom|This is another "problem" that does not exist in MM because the universe is infinite and gravity (as well as an infinite number of other forces) is anti-entropic.|

Same question.

||by Tom|Can you describe this test in a few words?|

A magnet is placed within a hard vacuum chamber. The magnet is fashioned such that the two poles face another. However, the gap between them is vacuum. A needle like stream of atomic hydrogen is injected, parallel to the faces of the magnetic poles. The hydrogen stream splits into two streams, each one arcing over to a magnetic pole. The streams are equal.

I predict that if atomic deuterium is injected into the same apparatus, there will be no splitting of the deuterium stream, with each stream going to a magnetic pole.


||by Tom|I don't understand the question. How, even in principle, can there be such a thing as a truly attractive force? How can momentum transferred to a target body be directed in any direction except the one in which the contacting particles are moving?|

I gave an example what appears to be an attractive force but is, in reality, a combination of pushing force and geometry.

||by Tom|Conventional physics is filled with too many magical concepts. I am not eager to introduce more of them.|

I agree. Observational facts overrule a human model.

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 />How does MM explain crystals which have flat planes, straight lines and sharp corners. How does it explain the highly distinctive structure of molecules? How does it explain the fixed position, orientation and length of chemical bonds?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MM has never ventured that far into the details of the quantum world. But we are not talking about some local structure such as a crystal. We are talking about one of the building blocks for all structures in the observable universe. While I can readily understand planes forming through the combined actions of gravitons and elysons on matter ingredients, I cannot imagine a way to convert every proton in the universe into a pyramid shape. What kind of particle, wave, or process of nature makes pyramid shapes?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A model typically raises more questions than it answers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. That is universally true for bad models, and universally false for good models. The chief characteristic for recognizing the latter is finding explanations within it for things that were never contemplated when the model was conceived.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Re: the arrow of time] -- Why do gravitons supply energy to the Sun and why does the Sun export energy via the Elysium? [Also, entropy?] Why not the opposite?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why are some equilibrium points stable and some unstable? It just depends on the details of the interacting mediums -- relative size, entity speed, number density, etc.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I gave an example what appears to be an attractive force but is, in reality, a combination of pushing force and geometry.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yet geometry has only a very slight role. Almost all shapes suffer nearly the same suction force.

Travel is likely to keep me from continuing in the short run. Maybe you and Larry can iron out all the questions before I get back. [}] -|tom|-

<hr noshade size="1">

MM has never ventured that far into the details of the quantum world. But we are not talking about some local structure such as a crystal. We are talking about one of the building blocks for all structures in the observable universe. While I can readily understand planes forming through the combined actions of gravitons and elysons on matter ingredients, I cannot imagine a way to convert every proton in the universe into a pyramid shape. What kind of particle, wave, or process of nature makes pyramid shapes?<hr noshade size="1">

First the proton was <b>not</b> "special" or "fundamental", now it is a fundamental building block of all structures in the observable universe. Is it therefore, more special than crystals on the infinite dimension of scale? Do protons build structures smaller than a proton?

Well, I will state that protons are fundamental and distinct. Explicit experiments to determine the lifespan of the proton have not detected the demise of any protons. In fact, the experimental result found that a proton last longer life than 10^32 years, if it has a finite lifespan. This duration of time fantastically exceeds the hypothesized lifespans of all structures, including walls of galaxies.

Would special/not special also apply to gravitons and elysons?
<hr noshade size="1">

I disagree. That is universally true for bad models, and universally false for good models. The chief characteristic for recognizing the latter is finding explanations within it for things that were never contemplated when the model was conceived.
<hr noshade size="1">

The pyramidal proton idea answers a great many questions that were not comtemplated when it was chosen to simply explain atomic hydrogen behavior in a vacuum chamber with a magnet:

1) It predicts that sunspots are planets in the making unless and until they collide and explode. It explains why they are dark, why they grow and why they migrate to the Sun's equator.
2) It predicts that Venus is a moon of Mercury.
3) It explains why planets have rings.
4) It explains all of the properties of Helium-3.
5) It explains why nuclear fusion reactors do not export net energy.
6) It explains why conventional radiometric dating is without foundation and quite wrong.
7) It explains radioactive decay.
It explains chemical bonds.
9) It explains why and how the hydrogen bomb works. (There is no hydrogen and there is no fusion.)
etc.
<hr noshade size="1">

Why are some equilibrium points stable and some unstable? It just depends on the details of the interacting mediums -- relative size, entity speed, number density, etc.
<hr noshade size="1">

The process of the Sun is reversible?

<hr noshade size="1">

Yet geometry has only a very slight role. Almost all shapes suffer nearly the same suction force.
<hr noshade size="1">

Having worked in engineering and process design for 35 years, I have never encountered a suction force. I have encountered the successful theory, design, fabrication and operation of devices which supposedly "suck". For example, a steam ejector. Its entire design and operation consists of geometry, push force and conservation of momentum. I have designed a very large number of systems which have involved both entities at pressure and entities at vacuum. Does the suction force act like a black hole?

Gregg Wilson

Hi Gregg, I don't want to go into some of areas you bringing up, but, the half life of the proton being 10E32 years is one detail I would like to know more about because I think this a false belief. If the proton is put into the proper environment its halflife would be a few nanoseconds tops. What I want to know is how and who determines the halflife of anything and if it is affected by the environment in which it exists? This detail relates to fusion and fission and lots of other stuff.