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 jrich</i>
<br />it follows that there exists infinite mediums.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the characteristics of mediums is that they are composed of nearly identical particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, they are <i>apparently</i> identical from the perspective of an observer on a larger scale, but not even approximately identical in close-up detail. For example, all snow flakes look alike to us, yet it is commonly said that no two are alike when viewed under a microscope.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But we also observe on our scale that there is a lot of stuff (planets, rocks, stars, etc.) that are clearly not medium particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On the contrary. Stars in particular surely look nearly identical to a super-large scale observer who sees them only as bright, hot "atoms" grouped in "molecules" (galaxies) making up some vast structure that he can plainly see but we cannot.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the smaller the particles that we look at the more uniform they appear to be and the larger the structures (galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.) the less uniform they look.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a natural consequence of resolving power. Imagine a "graviton microscope". By examining protons in high magnification using gravitons to create our images, we would see that no two protons are alike. Each is a unique world in its own right. -|Tom|-

<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 />All,

I feel that of all the early experiments, those of Rutherford, Chadwick, Thompson, Bohr, and the rest are the most closely "meta science" types of experiments. I say this because the models are built from deduction and predictions concerning the undiscovered particles completed the models as predicted. Making sense of what is happening in the atom is fascinating work. I have always contended in conversations and posts that the keystone is understanding the graviton in such a way that we can use it for visualization (a gravity microscope). A centrifuge in space shielded from external gravitons could help create a more true mass gradient for these particles and allow us to see their properties better. I speculate that their interactions which are impossible to avoid or control for have caused variations and assumptions in our body of knowledge which to this point are unavoidable. Any comments?

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

I have no particular problem with your statement but we must be careful about precisely what was done by each of these persons. I draw a powerful distinction between experimental results with conclusions drawn from them...and "pure" theory.

The first person to use the word <b>charge</b> was Benjamin Franklin. I have no problem with that, but he chose to throw in the plus and minus sign concepts. These are human affectations. What is their relationship to reality? We have apparent attraction and repulsion by magnets, and previously, an attractive force of gravity. We now better interpret gravity as a pushing force with the "apparent" attraction caused by a combination of pushing force and geometry. The same issue may exist in magnetism. After all, if we turn one of the magnets around, the attractive force becomes a repulsive force. All we have changed is geometry.

Thompson's idea of an atom was overthrown by an experiment run by Rutherford's assistants under his guidance. Thompson was not overthrown; his idea was overthrown. The experiment used Polonium as a source of alpha particles, which are simply Helium-4 nuclei emitted with an initial velocity of about 3% of light. Released and "fired" against an extremely thin film of gold, only a very few were repelled backwards. Rutherford concluded that the center of the atom was very small, massive and hard, and that most of the atom was a cloud of electrons. His conclusion carried unintended baggage: the plus charge of protons and the minus charge of electrons - <b>with the implicit absence of Elysium (aether).</b>

Others came up with the idea of electrons orbiting the nucleus, in order to avoid collapse of the atom due to the attraction of negatively charged particles to positively charged particles. Further analysis indicated that even if an electron were orbiting, it would instantaneously lose energy and fall into the nucleus. The experimental results did not dictate this. The assumption of positive and negative charges dictated this conclusion.

Rather than examining the human concepts (premises) Neils Bohr "rode to the rescue" by announcing, <b>ex cathedra</b>, that electrons have fixed orbits. I am not aware of any experiment by Bohr which demonstrated this or gave hard evidence for this conclusion.

It gets worse.

In 1924, De Broglie announced that a wavelength of light could be removed from the electron orbit. Appaently the orbit would "repair" itself and become a smaller orbit. The wave length would take off. By maniplulation of human equations, he "proved" that 1 = 1. That is, the wave length was precisely the span removed from the electron orbit. By what experiment? By what actual observation? None.

It gets worse.

In about 1928, two young physicists proclaimed that all the degrees of freedom of the electron had not been exhausted, and, therefore, the electron had spin. By what evidence? Did they consider that very high angular momentum they attributed to the electron would be in serious conflict with an orbit?

It gets worse.

In about 1930, Linus Pauling proclaimed that chemical "bonds" were achieved by the orbiting electrons, in spite of the fact that they would repel one another. Somehow they overcame this repulsion and were magically attracted to the other nucleus! Chemical "bonding" can be explained in a far simpler way and attraction is both un-needed and unwarranted.

It gets worse.

Today the electron has, according to quantum mechanics, six distinct, different quantum numbers for defining its "identity" and its behavior. Since each quantum number can be changed independently - and if we assume that each quantum number can be a single digit value - there are about 531,000 permutations of these quantum numbers. This means that the electron can be any thing it likes, including being President of the United States! (Not a bad idea, come to think of it...)

If anyone wants to attach their "star" to this house of cards, be my guest.

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 tvanflandern</i>
A first step toward controlling gravitons would likely be creating super-dense matter states such that they can block most gravitons. Once we can manipulate gravitons, we can create "sails" or "windmills" to extract energy from the graviton field. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think your concept defines the "ultimate" drive for a spaceship. One might be able to "polymerize" deuterium to achieve this dense material. It might be done at very close to absolute zero temperature with an intense magnetic field where gaseous deuterium condenses to a solid material in a hard vacuum. This presupposes that deuterium is actually a pair of neutrons - which fits in nicely with performance of the "hydrogen" bomb and with chemistry. But one has to discard many mainstream assumptions. And the burden of proof here lies with me, not anyone else.


Gregg Wilson

Two protons hate each other's guts; so, we assume that they swop back and forth beteen being protons and neutrons. In the proton model where we have a couple of thousand electrons and poitrons making up the proton, it's a simple exchange of a positron. With deuterium we have a proton and a neutron. let them still do the swopping over. It would look as though we have two protons or two neutrons.

Put two deuterium atoms together to form a molecule that has filled its k shell with two electrons. Drop the temperature to near zero and this becomes a Bose Einstein condensate. In effect it becomes one giant atom. An atom with a mass billions of times the deuterium atom.

(edited) Let's stick in an aether "atmosphere" round each deuterium atom. As half the rest mass energy is given over to creating this, we have a fall of that's an inverse fourth power (suggests a dipole). Where these two atmosphere "bubbles" meet we get a flat disk. Now this is where we will find our two electrons. Two fermions close together look like a Cooper pair to me. They are now a boson and not subject to the same quantum rules as fermions.

(edited) Ah, what we've done here, is taken two onions and chopped the ends off. We have a disk which is a series of rings of differing energy density. Let's kick around the idea that our two electrons are on opposite sides of this disk. Energy has to flow outward in this disk. So I'm toying with the idea of the Bernouli effect between the two electrons. They are held together by a force greater than the repulsive force. A whirlpool effect.

Let's say that a rotating Cooper pair is a quantum dot. These thing are flatpack, they look like planets orbiting a non existent sun. There's a table of quantum dot "elements" now. I suppose we can look at a Cooper pair as either a hydrogen molecule, sans nucleus, or as a helium atom sans nucleus.

if we have two electrons caught in a whirlpool of aether energy, then we have a field that can contain a singularity. Now this aether sisk is zero to light speed. What happens when we have ftl aether interacting with the disk? Now we could have a disk with a positive refractive index and another, with a negative refractive index. Also, inthe sublight speed disk we have an invese fourth power fall of, yet an inverse square power for the ftl disk. As the energy gradient of the disk field approaches the speed of light, the electrons get closer together. Then we know where they are. That would mean that we don't know, cannot know, their momentum. [8D]

<b>[tvf] “Think about how a sound wave propagates in the deep ocean. There is no air to carry it, and the water molecules are squeezed too tightly together to have density condensations and rarefactions the way air waves do. But the molecules are not squeezing one another through their own momentum. Instead, it is the force of gravity doing the squeezing. That is why an elysium bubble remains intact even if the elysium is flowing by rapidly.”</b>

I agree that the elysium bubble remains intact, whether it has been entrained dynamically or statically, due to the action of gravitational force on the individual elysons “near” the gravitating mass.

But the elysium bubble around a mass is not a light wave. It is not a wave, period. (When two bubbles overlap, they do not interfere. Bubbles do not have a characteristic speed.)

===

<b>[tvf] “(2) The displacement of a much smaller mass element -- the one that "generates a photon" -- also changes the gravitational field of the displaced mass and creates a "mini-bubble" of sorts, but one with a propagating pressure wave instead of a static bubble.”</b>

What is the speed of propagation of this gravitational force driven pressure wave?

Let’s try a specific example again. In conventional physics it is usually the displacement of an electron (the “much smaller mass element” you mention above?) that generates a light wave. This displacement is usually described as a transition or jump between energy levels, but probably involves the physical movement of the electron.

Consider an electron undergoing such a displacement. That physical movement would also change the gravitational field of the electron, as you say.

The gravitational force field at a range of 1 kpc will respond to this position change in a little more than half of a second (if my calculation is correct, and assuming that the speed of gravity is 20 billion c).

This change in the gravitational force field will drive a corresponding change in the elysium bubble, also within about half a second.

The electron moves a tiny fraction of a meter. The electron’s gravitational force field moves the same tiny fraction of a meter. And the electron’s gravitational potential field (the elysium bubble, and each of the individual elysons comprising it) moves the same tiny fraction of a meter.

Is this not the propagation speed I asked for?

But the light wave generated by the displacement of the electron will take about 3,250 years to reach this location.

===

The difference is that the wave must travel from one elyson to the next by the internal (to the bubble) mechanism of momentum transfer, while the bubble moves as a single entity, behaving much like an extension of the electron, because it is driven by an external (to the bubble) force that happens to be very fast.