A different take on gravity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force, is a pure dimensionless number, end of story.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You do get a dimensionless number if you compare the gravitational force between a pair of protons to the electrostatic force between a pair of protons at the same distance. However, you'll get a very different dimensionless number if you compare the gravitational force between a pair of electrons to the electrostatic force between a pair of electrons at the same distance. The ratio for a pair of electrons is about 3,323,300 times greater than the ratio for a pair of protons. And you get something in between for an electron and a proton. The reason you get a dimensionless number is that you are taking mass and charge out of the equation and comparing only the force for a particular mass and a particular charge. You cannot call that number "the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force"; that is a gross over generalization.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Hi, Phil,

This is getting to be fun, now.

My own, and possibly a 'new', understanding of a "field" or a "wave" is that it/they only make/s sense if these two very connected ideas are also, like Gravity, not acting by some sort of "action at a distance"--lacking any transmittable <i>substance</i>, which means to me that there has to be some quantized particular force or momentum as an intrinsic part of any field or any wave model, thereby forcing a mass component ala E=mc^2. Therefore I conceive that all energetic fields must be composed of some kind of fine particular substance, ergo--particles. And Waves must compress and relax (rise and fall in height or pressure) working, also, through some kind of fine particular substance, ergo--particle to particle transmission. If you can describe exactly how a field can do work in the physical world while having "no physical Substance" than what was all that quoting of the Masters of historical Physics in your previous post all about?

In my simple model for Gravity, <i><u>EVERYTHING</u></i> is made of particles, even light, and therefore all processes are particle driven. These processes, namely, Gravity, Magnetism or Electro-magnitism, the Strong and the Weak Nuclear forces, can involve <u>the exact same particles</u> acting at different ranges of concentration which determines how often they will collide with other particles, which in turn determines how dense or massive will be the particular action that they are presently involved in. What is unique about my model is that all sizes and types of particles are considered as actors or instigators in the processes of Gravity, Nucleation of particles into Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, Hydrogen, Helium . . . dust, grains of sand . . .grains of uranium, astroids, planets, stars and Finally and/or Primarily: Galaxies.

It is a simply matter of the number of particles (of Quantum-izable energy) in various concentration, and the coming-together points are determined by the geometry of where, by their originating direction and momentum, the forces of all these particles (whether they are conceived of as coming in waves or fields or as individual entities) come to meet an adequate number of opposing particles to form a stable balancing of forces. These points in space would naturally be self adjusting--moving in one direction or another until they are "in the middle" in a sweet spot, if you will. Statistically, these points will just sift out, naturally coming to equilibrium where they actually, physically come into equilibrium, and these points are all dynamic or fluid, changing with the changing of the cosmic tides or fluctuations. This same principle could be applied to Galaxies, their associated Star offspring, star's planets, planet's moons, astroids, atoms, electrons, even photons and possibly beyond as we gain understanding of scales smaller than photons.

Next point.

Phil--referencing me in paraphrase:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
. . . In one place, you seem to be saying that mass occurs at a point of convergence (where there is a net influx) of gravitons; whether the mass causes that influx or vice versa is irrelevant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Au contraire! What I actually said was:

"The results are <i><u>indistinguishable</u></i> whether you see gravitons as "coming into" matter from far away (by mere cosmic geometry) or if mass is somehow "attracting" gravitons just because it's there."

But I was speaking only of how it would look mathematically, not conceptually.

Whether the mass <i>causes</i> that influx or vice versa is extremely <u>relevant</u>.

One way you have particles bumping into other particles and jamming them closer and closer together (this makes perfect sense), and the other way, with mass "somehow <i>?causing?</i> an influx," is action (attraction) at a distance. Mathematically they may represent the same direction of forces, but conceptually the difference is huge; it's everything to the understanding of the physical process that is taking place with the <i>particular (sic)</i> phenomenon that we call Gravity.

Phil--Paraphrasing Aaron:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In another place you refer to: ". . . the long distance fields of particles (at Galactic separation distances) coming out from galaxies."

Phil: Are the particles coming out, or is there a net influx?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have to admit that I like your use of the term "net influx." Not a black hole event horizon <i>total</i> influx--just a simple democratic majority of influx over out-flux. Gravity would only require a simple majority influx of particles to begin to manifest the compressing of all the energies contained in those particles into "mass" which is after all just highly compressed and confined and condensed movement of fine particles (energy), most likely consisting of mostly photons.

I see the entire process as an extremely long time fluctuation--an ebb and flow. There would have to be a very long time of accumulation of particles to form galaxies with their associated stars and planets forming and "dying" (exploding) throughout the life-time of the Galaxy. But Galaxies must also have a life-spand, which there may not have been enough time lapsed to have occurred as of yet--let alone for us to have observed one "dying." But throughout the life of a galaxy (or a star) there will be a time of growth (net influx) and a time of dying or repelling (net out-flux). The particular pressures, literally the pressure caused by individual particles that are collectively aimed contiguously or simultaneously to come together within a relatively shared frame of time in a relatively "temporary" compressing or condensing of the sheer number of particles in a shared space, will manifest as a very dynamic dance of coming together under pressure and also constantly resisting that pressure at all times, escaping whenever possible, ergo the Weak Force, the escaping radioactive particles of heavy elements that are brought to the surface of a planet where the overall cosmic pressure is not concentrated enough to contain all of the internal resistance in the same way it must be contained deep in the center of planets in order to form into that heavy element in the first place.

Net Flux "direction" (inward or outward) is the key to whether you are experiencing the Gravitating to the Strong Force Effect or the Weak Force to Solar Radiating Effect. However there is a huge overlap of the two effects across the entire range where particles are both coming into and leaving points of nucleation in near equilibrium. Think of how at any level of decent below the ocean, the pressure is "the same" in all directions . . . almost . . . because it has to be just slightly higher on the bottom side for the pressure to keep increasing the lower you go. To personalize it, if we did not have an equal containing pressure in the air pressure around us on the surface of the planet, or within our space station or our space suit to the internal pressure in our bodies, we would just explore, like an air filled balloon in a vacuum.

In the middle of this in-flux / out-flux balance of particles, lie the metals that can exhibit an organized maximum flow of particles that, once put into motion, will tend to continue in motion with equal numbers of particles streaming in at one side and exiting from the opposite side. This is all that magnetism is. Any piece of iron will have the same number of particles coming into it and exiting it at all times whether or not it is "magnetized." But under certain conditions of initiation, the flow of particles can be directed or forced to move in an orderly manner in one or another direction through the piece and out the other opposite side, but because there is already enough random particles coming in and going from the metal, a palpable "magnetic" vortex can be established involving a dense enough "field of particles" at close range to bend or sweep or carry all the incoming particles into the established "flow" through the metal. It makes no difference to the individual particle that is just following its own path of least resistance whether it goes straight in and bounces out or if it gets caught in the "current" of swirling particles and follows along.

In my model these same particles that are responsible for this magnetic effect are the exact same particles that are the incoming particles that at a less concentrated mixture were moments before responsible for the push toward the surface of the Earth that is the Gravity effect.

To carry it further, each atom is like a little "magnet" in as much as there is a constant in-flux and out-flux balance of these very same partilces. Only, because of the very tiny scale, the density becomes incredibly higher as a Plank-number of particles tries to come together at one time around one point. That's a lot of particles, but for our planet at this point in time at this point in space, it seems to be the magic number that keeps popping up experimentally. Although, I have a very strong suspicion that on other planets and in other larger or smaller solar systems, they could have a unique "Plank-Constant" that produces the same kind of atomic ratios as our own chemical table of elements, but with a different specific "particluar" constant for the number of partilces needed to nucleate an atom in that planet's (or other Cosmic body's) unique Gravitational density.

At the atomic size range scale--radius--the in-flux / out-flux density of this primal universal particle mix reaches the level of the Strong Nuclear Force. It is the simple density of the number of universal "particles" or Wave-fronts as in: Energy equals Plank times Frequency. All the while the pressure needed to compress these particles into atoms and molecules is being supported by the column (or "cone" if you like) of particles constantly streaming in toward the center of the planet (or other body) from all those distant galaxies as well as from all the local Galaxy's stars.

This just leaves the Weak Nuclear force to be explained. This is perhaps the simplest of all. It is only under very unique conditions that the weak force will manifest. First of all there must build up enough pressure, presumably over a relatively long time, layer upon layer of not only material atoms but also of sufficient depth or radius to create heavier/denser elements. Then all that is required is, for any reason, some of this denser material or atoms to be removed from the pressure under which it was produced to a less pressure dense location e.g. bringing Uranium up to the surface of the Earth from deep in the "bowels" of the earth where the pressure would prevent "radio-active decay." This predicts that outside of the condensing influence within the gravitational well of a star's "solar-system" all elements heavier that hydrogen should "decay" all the way down to Hydrogen or possibly completely into photons by the Weak nuclear force.

In a big way, every star is very actively manifesting the weak nuclear force. There must have been some amount of time as the star was growing into a star, when it was dark and just gathering particles itself, being pushed into the center of a massive particle crossing gravity "well." The pressure built up until the time when there was more pressure internally to "escape" than there was externally to confine or contain it. This moment of Maturity for a star can take different amounts of time for each star and they can reach a range of different sizes, but for some reason, most likely because their "supporting" stars have drifted out of range, their out-flux begins to overwhelm or at least out number their in-flux and they start to release particles in the form of light and radiation. This is nothing more than the larger version of The Weak nuclear force doing the same thing that uranium is doing when it release radio-active particles, just on a bit of a grander scale.


One principle covering everything from Black Holes to atoms. No time reversals or anything like that required. Oh, and don't forget light; I haven't forgotten about "Light."

I'll discuss that next time. It works there, too, though.


Oh, my, that was a bit long. Sorry!

Aaron

That number is the conversion factor between the coulomb and the statcoulomb.

The equation used by Dirac et al, is e^2 / G mp *me

e = 4.8E-10 erg^0.5 cm^0.5
G = 6.7E-8 erg cm g^-2

That gives us 2.3E 39

In the SI system we have e^2 / k G mp^2
k = 1/4pi epsilon = 8.85E-12 That comes out at 1.69E 38 (after we multiply y the fine structure constant)If we change that bottom line to mp *me We get 2.5E 39 (Note that I haven't multiplied that by 137)

Now that's pretty good we are talking about 1700 when we are dealing with huge numbers. It's in the ball park. As I say, once we have a bunch of pure numbers we can knock up integrated, rather than differential models of the universe and compare them.

One of the questions addressed by Eddington in particular, was is there a constant mass particle? The equation, modified by others is
e^2 = 1/137 barh * c Is approximately (m' / 137 me) me c^3 t / [4pi n t^3 c^3 / 3]^0.5

n is the number of photons per unit volume. The constant of mass particle, m' comes out as about a pion mass.

All I'm saying is that this needs to be looked at, where we allow ourselves the pure number of the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity.

Stoat,

I would like to say that I can follow your Mathematics and that you are brilliant. Maybe you are, but I can't.

But I would like to try. Do you think you could dumb it down a bit for us non-Mathematicians by expanding your variables (descriptions) a bit (verbosely) and I wish there were a better way to write mathematical symbols on this site.

Where can one watch Feynman's lectures?

Anyway, I totally agree with you about the relative strengths of gravity compared with magnetism and the strong and weak forces.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>

. . . [Righto, my argument is essentially that gravity is not a very weak force but equal to e.m. force. It only appears to be weak because gravitational space is so huge. . . .
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
When you take into account the "radius of influence" just using the Gravity Equation, I think you will find that it is just a matter of concentrations (density) of Photonic pressure (in sheer numbers of photons or e.m. waves) being very high within the radius of an atom and much higher within the nucleus.

Aaron

Hi Aaron, I wish I were brilliant but I'm really as thick as two short planks. Then again most brilliant people are pretty lonely i think. Dirac couldn't be in the same room as anyone else, he was so shy. Hoyle, on the other hand, was so obnoxiously egotistical that no one wanted to be in the same room as him. Another brilliant person, thought it would be fun to put these two together, and it worked! They got on great!

I have to agree with you on the question of writing equations on the board. I have to write them down on a bit of paper in order to understand them, even simple equations look alien on the board. In fact some of the equations to do with the cosmological argument, I haven't a clue how to write them down here.

Anyway, I'll give some thought to why I think there's scope for some insights into how this stuff might get us closer to the speed of gravity; after I've read through your posts.

Here's the link to the Feynman lectures. Note what he says about the fine structure constant among other things.

[] Oops vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8