Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

Taking this response out of sequence, do you mean that if we rub amber with fur, and glass with silk, they will not attract one another? Or do you simply mean that the attraction can be explained by pushing forces similar to the way gravity can? -|Tom|-
[/quote]

Apparent attraction could be explained by pushing forces plus geometry (but may involve more than just a force within 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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />[Gregg] "I would suggest that all forces are a push, momentum transfer occurs by collisions only, and particles can get in each other's way."

All three of these are core concepts of Meta Model. Perhaps you meant this post for a message board on a different Website?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Then I am acknowledging that as a basis for chemistry and nuclear physics.

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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />We know (and knew then) that aether and normal matter do not interact at all (to a first approximation). But normal matter with a (static) charge on it, or with a (dynamic) current flowing through it did (and still does) interact with the aether, AKA elysium.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's great to have others thinking hard about these concepts. The following is some new thinking of my own, not yet thought out well enough to be "mature".

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.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So, what would it take for a "propeller" to be able to move a useful (detectable) amount of elysium? If we give it a positive static charge then electrons will be removed and the charged propeller will have a higher percentage of protons than an uncharged propeller. That means that the propeller is now surrounded by a field of higher-than-normal-density elysium. If we then rotate the propeller that field of extra elysons should rotate with it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The same conclusions about pressure rather than density should apply at the baryon level. So matter is very non-interactive with elysium. But it can still block a small percentage of gravitons, which are very interactive with elysium. So your positively charged propeller is surrounded by a higher elysium pressure, but not a higher density. When we rotate the propeller, the higher pressures follow, but with no added elysium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And elysons do interact with elysons ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysons are like water molecules in an ocean. They interact with one another like a fluid, not like particles. Matter interacts with elysium rather more like it does in very thin air – essentially encountering no resistance except at very high speeds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">this gets us back to my earlier question about the nature of elysium entrainment near gravitating masses. Is this entrainment static or dynamic? Statically entrained elysons would attach to and move with the gravitating mass through space. Dynamically entrained elysons would move closer to each other, then resume their normal spacing, as they speed past (and/or through) the gravitating mass.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So elysium entrainment must be dynamic in this pressure model. But I have not yet thought through all the consequences of this new picture. Feel free to tug on threads and see what unravels. -|Tom|-

<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 />In a number of your writings, you state that the elysium is more concentrated near matter than in empty space. You also mention that the elysium medium around protons would be spongy. This certainly sounds like the elysium medium can be compressible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With the pressure model, the action is more like buoyancy than compressibility. -|Tom|-

Hydrogen has a crtical temperature of -399.8 degrees F. Helium has a critical temperature of 5.2 degrees K. Above these temperatures helium and hydrogen cannot be gases, no matter how high the pressure. This is experimental fact, not theory. So unless the surface of the Sun is below about 5.2 degrees K, any liquid properties and behavior cannot come from the two elements that constitute 99+% of the Sun's surface. According to electromagnetic wave measurement, the Sun's surface is about 10,000 degrees F. If there is a liquid it is something else.

When I poke a temperature "gun" into an ethylene cracking furnace to measure temperature (about 2,350 F), the "gun" is measuring the wavelength of the Elysium, not the protons of the metal tubing. The cracked gases which come out of the inside of the tubing are measured at about 2,300 F (also by wavelength). Therefore the temperature gradient across the tube wall is about 50 F degrees. We are not directly measuring the temperature of protons but that of the light carrying medium.

When a chemical explosion occurs, there is the release of light and high temperature thermal radiation. There is also a huge expansion in volume. The protons, nuclei, atoms, molecules are not expanding in size. They are being pushed. If it is not the Elysium which is expanding, is there a fourth medium beyond that of graviton flux, light carrying medium and protonic matter? Or do we regress to "pure energy" somehow distinct from particles which have mass and velocity?

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 />Hydrogen has a crtical temperature of -399.8 degrees F. Helium has a critical temperature of 5.2 degrees K. Above these temperatures helium and hydrogen cannot be gases, no matter how high the pressure. This is experimental fact, not theory. So unless the surface of the Sun is below about 5.2 degrees K, any liquid properties and behavior cannot come from the two elements that constitute 99+% of the Sun's surface. According to electromagnetic wave measurement, the Sun's surface is about 10,000 degrees F. If there is a liquid it is something else.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">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.

D) It surely isn't cool in the cores of gas giant planets, which are said to be mainly metalic hydrogen. (BTW, I don't know what "metalic" means in this context. If you do, please elaborate.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When I poke a temperature "gun" into an ethylene cracking furnace to measure temperature (about 2,350 F), the "gun" is measuring the wavelength of the Elysium, not the protons of the metal tubing. The cracked gases which come out of the inside of the tubing are measured at about 2,300 F (also by wavelength). Therefore the temperature gradient across the tube wall is about 50 F degrees. We are not directly measuring the temperature of protons but that of the light carrying medium.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysons (the constituents of elysium) and lightwaves do not have the same properties any more than air molecules and sound waves do. The temperatures you speak of are a property of lightwaves, not elysons. The vibrations of elysons are an entirely different property, but would be more deserving of being called the "temperature of the elysium".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When a chemical explosion occurs, there is the release of light and high temperature thermal radiation. There is also a huge expansion in volume. The protons, nuclei, atoms, molecules are not expanding in size. They are being pushed. If it is not the Elysium which is expanding, is there a fourth medium beyond that of graviton flux, light carrying medium and protonic matter? Or do we regress to "pure energy" somehow distinct from particles which have mass and velocity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">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.

It's going to be a busy week for me, so take your time responding. -|Tom|-