Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

<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 />Ah Ha,

Gregg, I see one other possible mis-communication going on here. When I talk about property values varying, I'm not talking about them varying in one particle over time. I'm talking about them varying from one individual particle to another individual particle. But for any given individual the value remains essentially fixed for all time.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Larry

Your statement here does remove a "fear" I had about MetaScience. I would add that experimentation has presumably established that protons do not fall apart in less than 10^34 years. However, that falls infinitely short of eternity. Perhaps actual results of experiments and process can place boundaries on our ideas. When I have gone to the startup of a plant that I designed, Reality has humbled me a great many times.

Gregg Wilson

Suppose I've got an electron in a quantized orbit, it's simply not allowed to go from orbit a, to orbit b, through the intervening forbidden orbits. So, I change it into a "fat" electron, I do this faster than light. This thing has an orbit and its own forbidden orbits. Make it fatter again. Then I change it back to an electron in a higher or lower orbit. At sub light speed it all looks as though an electron has simply jumped orbits without any changes in its mass.

The ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity is a vastly important ratio. I would like to see an explanation of ftl transactions which produce the appearance of a quantized world. I can't buy into the idea that electrons can vary by as much as one or two percent. Quantum mechanics works in a very pragmatic sense but it does work.

<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>
<br />I would like to see an explanation of ftl transactions which produce the appearance of a quantized world.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Electrons complete billions of cycles per second. Orbital jumps could very easily be gradual on quantum time scales, yet still below our ability to resolve, appearing instantaneous to us.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I can't buy into the idea that electrons can vary by as much as one or two percent. Quantum mechanics works in a very pragmatic sense but it does work.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Most quantum laws are statistical in the same sense. They apply accurately on average, and we lack the ability to observe what happens with single units. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Perhaps we need to review the rules of electron orbital filling which then leads us to the Uncertainty Principle that you restated above:

1. Aufbau Principle: electrons will fill the lowest orbital of an atom first
2. Pauli Exclusion Principle: electrons will spin in opposite directions when paired
3. Orbital size rules: 2, 8, 18, 36 etc. the electrons fill based on these rules.

If electrons had varying masses, then the orbitals would not be a locationally defined as they are. Heavier electrons would orbit farther than lighter ones. This would not seem to be the case. Also, I would point out that Robert Millikan provided very accurate masses and charges for electrons in the famous Oil Drum experiment. I am not sure if much variability in electron mass exists. Arguably though, the amount of energy absorbed or retained for a small amount of time could change the electron's mass, however if it is released as a quanta of energy than the mass would return (like the electron) to its ground state. See Einstein Photoelectric effect and ground vs. excited state chemistry of hydrogen (one electron - good example) for some support of this.



Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />If electrons had varying masses, then the orbitals would not be a locationally defined as they are. Heavier electrons would orbit farther than lighter ones. This would not seem to be the case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not arguing that proton or electron masses <i>DO</i> vary. I'm trying to keep us from making assumptions that may be wrong because that leads to bad models.

If the electrons were planets, they could have masses varying over a wide range, yet negligible (to a casual observer) variation in Kepler's law for the distance of planet "orbitals". That is because bodies of all masses fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. In existing Meta theory, electron orbitals are also caused by gravitons, so the same should be true about electron masses -- Variations are virtually unconstrained by observations.

Moreover, I have grave doubts that "orbitals" really mean orbiting in the familiar sense. And I now have even more confidence that the property of "spin" is not anything like classical spin. Merely using a classical word such as "spin" is probably very misleading to modelers. It was better when later physicists started naming properties after colors and flavors, indicating we really have no idea what they mean.

By keeping our "uncertainties" in the model, where they belong, we keep our options open and are not led to fantastic, unimaginable conclusions. -|Tom|-

<u>[LB] "Please note - pressure waves are not different from density waves wrt the bulk flow of their medium."</u>

<b>[tvf]"Then I have failed to define my concepts properly. Density waves have no frame of reference other than their medium."</b>

(We agree about this, and we agree about the spherical elysium bubble around each mass.)

<b>[tvf]""Pressure waves are generated by an external force that modifies the medium in ways that relate to the frame of the external force."</b>

Perhaps focusing on a specific example will help me understand your definition of pressure waves as it relates to EM radiation.

I turn on a flashlight, and it begins emmiting EM radiation (pressure waves). What is the external force involved here? How does that force modify the medium (elysium) so that these waves are able to ignore the flow of the medium in which they are propagating?