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 Gregg</i>
<br />there is evidence of elysons being in both a liquid state and a vapor state!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Liquid, yes. Where's the vapor-state evidence?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You had an article in the September Bulletin describing the overall structure of the Sun as being liquid. It certainly is not liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Look up the critical properties of these elements.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That paper was by Robitaille, not me. What is there about the "critical properties" (whatever that means) that prevents the Sun from being liquid hydrogen and helium? As I understand Robitaille's model, the inferred temperatures and pressures for the standard model do not hold for the liquid model.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Proton properties can also be derived from the facts of chemistry. I hope that your binding force is a push and not an attractive force.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Of course. Normally, each proton has a spongy elysium atmosphere surrounding a "solid" nucleus. When two come close, their elysium atmospheres resist further compression, which pushes them away from one another. But if either atmosphere is breached, the two protons become like a single nucleus resting comfortably inside a single combined elysium atmosphere. They no longer have any reason to repel one another.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree [about multiple media] but what is your point?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seemed to think it significant that there were great differences between proton, elysium, and graviton mediums. My point was that all mediums are different, so thre is nothing unusual about the differences you cite. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Liquid, yes. Where's the vapor-state evidence? - Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If there is not a vapor state of elysium then how do light waves travel from the Sun to Earth? - Gregg

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That paper was by Robitaille, not me. What is there about the "critical properties" (whatever that means) that prevents the Sun from being liquid hydrogen and helium? As I understand Robitaille's model, the inferred temperatures and pressures for the standard model do not hold for the liquid model. - Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am not arguing with paper or who wrote it. The temperature and pressure at the surface of the Sun are far beyond a liquid state for hydrogen and helium. The hydrogen would not even be molecular but would be highly ionized. I would look to the Elysium as being the liquid.- Gregg

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Of course. Normally, each proton has a spongy elysium atmosphere surrounding a "solid" nucleus. When two come close, their elysium atmospheres resist further compression, which pushes them away from one another. But if either atmosphere is breached, the two protons become like a single nucleus resting comfortably inside a single combined elysium atmosphere. They no longer have any reason to repel one another. - Tom <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The protons do not repel each other. Each one is simply in the other's way. I agree with you that an Elysium layer would keep them together. I agree with your description on general principle. However, your model does not distinguish between nuclear contact and chemical contact. That is why the geometry of the proton is critical. - Gregg

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You seemed to think it significant that there were great differences between proton, elysium, and graviton mediums. My point was that all mediums are different, so thre is nothing unusual about the differences you cite. - Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Of course there is a great significance! The mediums of the three fundamental particles behave quite differently. Only the protons lead to rigid structures. All of the other structures which you have cited are built from protons with the participation of the elysons and gravitons. And the experimental test of a proton half life showed no decay, thus setting its half life (if it has one) at greater than 10^34 years. Do any of your larger structures have that length of lifespan? - Gregg

<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 />If there is not a vapor state of elysium then how do light waves travel from the Sun to Earth?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium is like an ocean with contiguous elysons. That is why elysium waves are primarily transverse rather than longitudinal. Light is just a transverse wave in liguid elysium, similar to underwater waves. It is definitely not like sound waves.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The temperature and pressure at the surface of the Sun are far beyond a liquid state for hydrogen and helium. The hydrogen would not even be molecular but would be highly ionized.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But my point was that we do not have any idea what the Sun's surface temperature and pressure are if the Sun is not a gas or plasma, but is instead a liquid. If liquid, then the wrong equations were used to estimate those properties.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The protons do not repel each other. Each one is simply in the other's way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then why do two macroscopic, positively charged bodies repel?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do any of your larger structures have that length of lifespan?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If we recognize that stability is model-dependent, none of the half-lives (protons included) are really known. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Gregg raises an interesting point about possible states in elysium. I see no reason given sufficient momentum transfer to elysium particles that they would not achieve a gaseous like state. Now it may be that the required energy density is so great as to be naturally unattainable, but the possibility seems plausible. We know that even though elysium is continuous it is not under uniform pressure. The highest pressure is encountered near highly massive objects with the limit near objects that are opaque to gravitons like Mitchell stars. Likewise, we might also theorize conditions producing low pressures. A sufficiently dense object like a Mitchell star moving through the elysium might create pressure gradients large enough to cause the equivalent of cavitation and a phase change in the elysium. I wonder what that might look like.

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 />A sufficiently dense object like a Mitchell star moving through the elysium might create pressure gradients large enough to cause the equivalent of cavitation and a phase change in the elysium. I wonder what that might look like.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's an interesting question. I'm not sure what the new properties might be except by invoking a loose analogy to water and water vapor. But one thing is for sure: Because it is no longer a contiguous medium, vaporous elysium cannot transmit transverse waves such as light, so we'll never know that it "looks like". -|Tom|-

[tvf] "Because it is no longer a contiguous medium, vaporous elysium cannot transmit transverse waves such as light, so we'll never know that it 'looks like'."

That might not be true. Think about some of the computer visualizations you've seen of black holes (but realize that it is actually a Mitchel Star). We can't see the star itself, but we can see the way other matter very near by is influenced by it. This part gets kind of squishy, but by actually seeing "where it isn't", so to speak, our mind can put x and y together to get 4 (and "see" the star).

A region of space containing this hypothetical vaporized elysium ought to have some sort of visible influence on near by matter, including non-vaporized elysium. Some possibilities:

1) Background EM waves would be refracted / reflected/ absorbed in various patterns .
2) The boundary between normal and vaporized elysium would likely be a source of EM waves at many frequencies.
3) As would (parts of?) the volume of vaporized elysium.
4) Some frequencies might be favored over others, depending on the specifics of the causal event.

===

Back when the concept of the aether was in vogue, there was a (mostly science fiction) concept of an "aether propellor", a device that could displace aether particles and produce thrust. Even in a vacuum, because of course the aether was everywhere.

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.

So, what would it take for a "propellor" to be able to move a usefull (detectable) amount of elysium? If we give it a positive static charge then electrons will be removed and the charged propellor will have a higher percentage of protons than an uncharged propellor. That means that the propellor is now surrounded by a field of higher-than-normal-density elysium. If we then rotate the propellor that field of extra elysons should rotate with it.

And elysons do interact with elysons ...

***
NOTE - this get 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.

(Matter with a positive charge also raises the local elysum density.)

Either way, when the charged propellor rotates there will be a field of compressed elysons rotating with it. The difference is whether it is always the same elysons (static entrainment) or always different elysons (dynamic entrainment).

The possibility exists that the real answer is: "some of both". At first entrainment is almost purely dynamic. But as time goes on more and more individual elysons are extracted from the general background flow and become attached to the charged object.

Entrainment could probably never become purely stacic because of "friction" between statically entrained elysons and background elysons. Although this process can operate throughout the volume of the entraining object, once the cocoon of statically entrained elysons extends very much beyond its physical surface frictional erosion becomes more likely.
***

But they were talking about this stuff a hundred years ago in novels. I've not found any mention of actual experiments that were done to see if it works, but I can't imagine that they weren't done. (At that time belief in the aether did not brand you as a kook, so proposing such a test would have been considered "mainstream".) If the experiments did not produce the desired result, they would almost certainly have fallen into obscurity. (At that time such experiments would have been self funded. Why go to the bother and expense of publishing your failures?)

===

One likely reason for such experiments to fail is that the field of compressed elysons near the propellor would need to be shaped like a propellor to do what a propellor does. But for normal sized propellors (even the ones on the biggest rotor wing machines we have) the shape of the elyson field is probably going to be more like a sphere. If so, no amount of rotation would produce detectable thrust.

But suppose we went into orbit and built a Really Big Propellor? Big enough for the static field around it to be shaped somewhat like a propellor ...