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 Stoat</i>
<br />Can ftl gravitons "pulse" as they move through ether?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, we have replaced "ether" with elysium because it has rather different properties. One of those is that elysium is a near-perfect vacuum to a graviton. If gravitons were not so fast and numerous, elysium would be unaffected by them. But elysium, like ordinary matter, is made of "matter ingredients", and roughly one in every 100 million gravitons passing through manages to hit something and deposit its momentum. -|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 />There is no extrapolation in regard to the critical point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We can directly duplicate pressures and temperatures at the Sun's surface in a laboratory?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Above the critical point the substance is a fluid. There is no physical distinction between vapor and liquid.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well, there is one in my mind's eye. Assuming that "vapor" means "gas" and "fluid" means "liquid", the former transfers momentum by random collisions and supports only longitudinal waves; whereas the latter transfers momentum to other molecules already in contact by means of vibration and supports both longitudinal and transverse waves.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, one can increase pressure until you might say that it is a liquid - but there cannot be a surface, or interface to the "liquid"!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">When the pressure is great enough to maintain contact, momentum must be exchanged between molecules by vibration. When the pressure is low enough, momentum is exchanged by collisions of free-flying molecules. Even if there is not a razor-sharp "surface" at the radius where the critical point is reached, the transition from contact-dominated to free-flying can be confined to such a narrow range of radius that it looks and behaves like a surface for all practical purposes, at least from our distance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if the Sun has a liquid surface, it cannot be liquid hydrogen and helium. The observation is that <b>there is a liquid surface</b>, but it has to be some other than protonic matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Don't we need to quantify this? E.g., if the transition zone from "liquid-like" to "gas-like" in the Sun is narrower than "X", then hydrogen & helium are ruled out as the primary constituents." What is X?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At the temperature of the Sun's surface, both hydrogen and helium would be in a plasma state.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">However, the temperature of the Sun's surface has never been measured. It is derived from models under the assumption that it is all gaseous. One of Robitaille's points was that, if we adopt a liquid model, inferred temperatures change drastically.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is where there is no physical difference between the "electron" portion of the hydrogen or helium atom and the surrounding Elysium. Just as it was with the critical point, the physical difference between the "electron" portion of the hydrogen and helium atoms and the surrounding Elysium disappears. There is no interface.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Do you mean a transition from neutral to ionized hydrogen?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why invoke an infinite number of mediums when the Elysium can account for the expansion? I truly don't see the difference between this statement of infinite mediums and magic. As an engineer, I have to come up with utilitarian solutions for the customer. I cannot afford to be philosophical about the phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think we failed to communicate on that point. I only mentioned the logical necessity of an infinite number of mediums in an infinite scale dimension. I did not "invoke" the other mediums for any purpose than to say there was nothing special about the three mediums you spoke of.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think you must give more investigation to the nature of the Elysium.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I certainly agree. Until the model can explain everything relevant to it, it must be regarded as just a simpler way of thinking about phenomena we cannot observe in detail. Yet the model remains subject to the possible need for radical surgery before it can be "made whole".

One purpose of this thread is to further thinking about the nature of elysium. -|Tom|-

<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 />I assume that all the light-bending and such near masses still hold for elysium pressure gradients as for density ones.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One reason for adopting density gradients in the initial model was that the physics of wave behavior in mediums with variable density is well studied; whereas the physics of wave behavior in pressure-dominated mediums is less certain, at least to me. So I have mostly been satisfying myself that either could be used interchangeably with a crude "equivalence principle". For compressible matter, greater pressure creates greater matter density. For incompressible matter, greater pressure may create only greater elysium desnity.

But this is one of those critical junctions in deductive reasoning where there are two possible ways to go, and only experiments can guide our choice. When a light ray enters clear water at an angle, its path is bent by the density change from air to water. But as the ray descends to great depths, is the path then linear because the density is (more or less) constant? Or does the path continue to bend as the pressure increases? Does anyone know an experimental answer? Or even a good theoretical argument? -|Tom|-

<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 />Either way (density or pressure), the elysium "entrainment zone" around a mass should have a radius of approximately 5,000 light years?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The word "entrainment" puts us at a disadvantage in thinking about a pressure-dominated medium.

Imagine a vast ocean with a huge underwater mountain range in its middle. The extra gravity of the mountains will put a big "bulge" in the equipotential surface of the ocean as it passes over the mountains. We can easily measure this deviation from a flat surface (really a small portion of a sphere), but water will be oblivious to it. All currents and waves will simply follow the bulge contours and do as they otherwise would in the absence of the bulge. The water droplets passing over the mountain will feel nothing because they remain at a constant gravitational potential.

Would you say that the bulge was "entrained" even though the water was oblivious to its existence? It is difficult to say without refining our definitions, especially of "entrained". Yet this is a loose analogy for elysium as a pressure-dominated medium. There will always be this anomaly in it generated by the graviton shadow of Earth, but the bulk behavior of elysium will be oblivious to this local anomaly.

Moreover, even though the Sun creates a greater local anomaly in elysium than Earth does (by a factor of 12 or so), the Sun's anomaly is a greater but flatter anomaly because of the Sun's greater distance. So the smaller anomaly created by Earth is more significant locally because it changes faster with distance than the Sun's anomaly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "depth" of the zone around a small mass would be less than around a large mass, but the radius of the zone would be the same?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The radius would be the same. But changes in the magnitude of the local anomaly with distance are apparently more important for some purposes than the size of the local anomaly. -|Tom|-

Tom, Larry,

My post was a bit confused earlier. I blame the late hour and a not insignificant amount of alcohol. Don't drink and post!

Clearly no substance is incompressible, even steel or diamond or <i>neutronium</i>. Changes in pressure always result in changes in density. My point about the pressure of elysium being higher near masses is that it is the higher pressure induced by the graviton collisions that <i>causes</i> the higher density. So I basically agree with Larry that there should be some combination of dynamic and static entrainment. It would be nice to be able to put some values to elysium characteristics like bulk modulus, index of refraction, elysium particle diameter, density relative to gravitational potential, etc.

JR

<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 />Clearly no substance is incompressible, even steel or diamond or <i>neutronium</i>. Changes in pressure always result in changes in density.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Water is (very closely) incompressible. My understanding is that the density of water is not significantly greater at seven miles depth than it is at the surface.

Can anybody quantify that? -|Tom|-