Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

<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?

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

I would interject that the atoms do in fact expand in volume due to the photoelectric effect. As a chemical explosion occurs, atoms absorb a quantum of energy which then removes the electrons from their ground states momentarily, this across the entire sample of matter would become significant as the expanding field of negative energy repels atoms 3d. Those atoms then contract releasing photons of light as they fall back to their ground states. The change in size is simply electrical in effect: negative fields pushing on negative fields. I would go so far as to say the atoms may keep the same space between them as this happens. As Rutherford calculated the atom is already 99.997% empty space (as per the Gold Foil Experiment), yet matter appears solid and firm despite the fact that its largely nothing. So even in high energy changes, pushing forces still operate.

Perhaps bombarding matter with high energy while the system is super-cooled could set up a condition where the elysium could be studied, it would be in the instant before the electrons leave the ground state. I make the assumption that the jump to the excited states is quite fast (nearly instantaneous) so measuring the reaction of the elysium around matter could get tricky. On the flipside, it could be possible to measure the lensing effect of compressed (or dense) elysium if one could quickly heat and cool a large mass and measure the distortion of light waves asymptotically tangent to the surface. Once again this situation becomes problematic because such a mass would act as a black body and then measuring the phenomena becomes uncertain. As I write this, I wonder if Einstein and Heisenberg ran into this same wall, albeit from a non-elysium angle?

Mark Vitrone

I'd like to compliment all contributors to this topic. Everyone seems to be adding something of value. (And it reminds the regulars that we have lots of knowledgable readers who speak up only when they have something to contribute.) It is just possible that ideas of lasting value to physics might come from this discussion.

<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 />Do you have another term in mind that we should consider using?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm thinking about it. First thoughts: It's not the elysium that is entrained, but the elysium gradient (presumably a pressure gradient). Light then is a wave in that pressure gradient rather than a wave in bulk elysium. So light ignores the bulk flow and just propagates as pressure fluctuations.

Because the pressure is created by gravitons, the local pressure gradient is unaffected by the rapid flow of elysium past Earth. That is also why local elysium does not eventually pick up some rotational motion from Earth's rotation. The elysium river flowing through is continually refreshing the elysium surrounding each proton and electron. So the "fields" around each particle responsible for the property of charge are maintained as "pressure shells" by gravitons. The shells are permanent, but the elysium in them is as replaceable as river water. -|Tom|-

Tom, then do you say that that an atom is like a rock in a river and the wave of elysium instead of water is standing about it?

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 tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />By the way, metallic hydrogen is basically hydrogen that has been compressed to the point that its electrons become unbound and behave like conduction electrons in a metal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Great info. Many thanks.

As all this pertains to Robitaille's liquid Sun model, can he still call this hydrogen state with some liquid-like properties a "liquid"? Is that a matter of definition, a convention, or a misnomer? -|Tom|-

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

I think that the alternating regions of strong electromagnetic forces and fusion sites provides variations in density which shift over time allowing flows and eddies to develop in the liquid-like convection in the sun. Envision a lava-lamp, density changes rapidly and all of a sudden mass-shift occurs.

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 tvanflandern</i>
The elysium river flowing through is continually refreshing the elysium surrounding each proton and electron. So the "fields" around each particle responsible for the property of charge are maintained as "pressure shells" by gravitons. The shells are permanent, but the elysium in them is as replaceable as river water. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<hr noshade size="1">
<b>I agree!!! </b>If this thread does nothing more than bury the idiotic idea of orbiting electrons, I will die a happy man.

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 MarkVitrone</i>
<br />do you say that that an atom is like a rock in a river and the wave of elysium instead of water is standing about it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's close. But I don't know if I can pack all the essentials into a single analogy.

I'd say matter is more like a sieve in a river. The water (elysium) flows right through everything except the ultra-tiny matter ingredients (like the matrix of the sieve). But then we need an analog of gravitons, which are missing in the river analogy. This is a stretch, but maybe if the sieve was a magnet and if the river consisted of iron wiskers flowing downstream, then we'd have both the flow part and something like the "pressure shell" part in the analogy. -|Tom|-