A different take on gravity

Nah, let's just forget about it, put it down to the idle musings of a deranged mind [)][][]

You might have some valuable ideas, Stoat, but you're not communicating them effectively. Try again when you become more proficient with dimensional analysis. At least you're not going on about Mayan calendars and doomsday 2012.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Phil,
No one here appreciates your superiority more than I do, trust me on this, but while I am familiar with the box and its contents, I am just trying to think outside of it.

For instance, I am quite aware of the popular theories of the day, most of which are humble enough to admit that they cannot paint the complete picture nor explain everything in a simple yet satisfying fashion.

Have you considered that if all the heavy elements were made in the manner currently popular in the field by solar fusion and super nova super-fusion and, these somehow are able to drift around and accumulate into planets, that these heavy and very heavy elements would have to be much more present and obvious throughout the entire cosmic background in order for there to be enough to form planets in this way. So, I personally, against the popular tide, think that the popular "theory" on heavy element creation is seriously flawed, not that some couldn't be formed in that way. What I am offering with my model of gravity is a simpler, more logical, "new" idea about how matter/mass/elements might form in a different way, while giving a more intuitive explanation of how the various forces could be really just the same particles, only acting at different intercept or collision distances, and directions.

The other point I thought was obvious about my model was that all the Particles (which includes all photons that act and propagate in "waves" and patterns of waves) coming into a gravitational center or well can't "pass through" these centers. That is exactly why they are what they are--"gravitational" or particular barriers where "mass" accumulates from the energetic (energy) particles that are acting or gravitating toward each other in geometrically balanced proportional numbers or strenghts. There is no lost of conservation of energy because it is all being converted into mass, which, looking at it from the other direction is just compressed potential energy. That's Einstein's "E equals . . . " You know that each year the Earth (and I assume all other planets) slowly accumulate a very thin layer of dust that is what forms the strata that allows us to accurately date fossil records. Where do you think all of this new matter is coming from? It has to be "Cosmic" dust or particles. And, yes, that would include solar wind dust, also. But instead of passing through the Earth, it simply accumulates on the surface, doesn't even penetrate one atomic layer of the crust, just sits right on top--growing the planet atom by atom year by year.

Frankly, I am not sure how you can justify not considering the very obvious copious amounts of energy coming from all the stars as being a more active element in your model but are relying solely on the notion of your causal energy coming entirely from comic soap "Bubbles" spontaneously popping and somehow mysteriously doubling. Sorry, I just don't see where you are getting that idea. It makes no sense to me. And I see no evidence of it in the deep sky pictures. I see the obvious Geometry of the foam <i>LIKE</i> <u>distribution</u> of the galaxies, which fits my Cosmic Geometry-Solar Winds model neatly, but I don't see any bursting bubbles in that picture nor any actual substantive "Foam."

I am just asking you to keep an open mind and not try to insist that our new ideas agree so much with the old ideas, they wouldn't be new after all, then, would they? Just that they make sense on their own feat (sic). And remember the "old" model isn't completely right yet, so let's not lose sight of that.

Just the Best, Aaron

Stoat--

Bob, I want to thank you for the Feynman link. I will want to watch them (his lectures) more than once I am sure.

Great Stuff, Aaron

Aaron,

While we do need new ideas, and many of the old ones are certainly flawed, we also need to be cognizant of what the prevailing theories are and appreciate the evidence supporting them---or the lack thereof. Nuclear fusion and the whole field of particle physics is sitting on pretty firm theoretical and experimental ground. The idea that heavy elements are synthesized inside the Earth is nearly as absurd as the hollow Earth theory. And if gravitons don't penetrate the Earths surface, then why are you not weightless inside a cavern? And why is gravity greater on more massive planets? And why do the Earth and moon not completely shield each other from the suns gravity during eclipses?

We are in agreement on the issue of a single source for all the forces, though I favor a wave source, while you prefer a particle source. I dont want to go too deeply into my model in a discussion of someone elses model, but we havent seen Panteltje in a month, and since you raise the questions here and avoid my discussions like the plague, I'll answer your specific questions here:

JAaronNicholson: 16 Jul 2009 : 10:06:46<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Frankly, I am not sure how you can justify not considering the very obvious copious amounts of energy coming from all the stars as being a more active element in your model but are relying solely on the notion of your causal energy coming entirely from comic soap "Bubbles" spontaneously popping and somehow mysteriously doubling. Sorry, I just don't see where you are getting that idea. It makes no sense to me. And I see no evidence of it in the deep sky pictures. I see the obvious Geometry of the foam LIKE distribution of the galaxies, which fits my Cosmic Geometry-Solar Winds model neatly, but I don't see any bursting bubbles in that picture nor any actual substantive "Foam."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Galaxies are known to be distributed in a foam-like fashion, and space is known to be expanding (though there is dissent on that latter point). Common experience with ordinary chemical foams tells us that when a foam expands, bubble walls get stretched thinner and more fragile and eventually pop. This idea comes from listening to the head on a glass of beer. In the case of beer, the bubble walls grow thinner because gravity drains the fluid from them, but the effect would be similar if you expanded the foam by pumping the air out of the room. The word "pop" might be misleading because of the vast difference in time scales. From a God's eye perspective, a galaxy wall might pop in an instant, but to our mortal eyes, it might take a billion lifetimes to pop.

The lack of evidence for popping cosmic-foam bubbles stems from our lack of any way to detect non-radial motion of galaxies and from the lack of any means other than redshift for measuring such great distances with precision. The 3D map provided by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is actually a map of redshift which is presumed to be proportional to actual distance. It is the redshift distance which tells us that galaxies form a foamy structure.

Is the cosmic foam substantive? Little is known about the intergalactic forces which give the cosmic foam its elasticity. There is likely to be some dark matter involved between galaxies, though I'm skeptical of it being ten times greater than the visible matter. There may be some electromagnetic attraction between galaxies in addition to gravity. I suspect there may be a force of attraction which increases as galaxies move farther apart, but which breaks down if they get too far apart.

We do see many galaxies in collision, which could be due to popping cosmic-foam bubbles, but we cant tell which galaxies within a cosmic neighborhood are nearer or farther from us. If a cosmic-foam bubble wall which is not perpendicular to our line of sight pops, we should expect the galaxies on the near side of the wall to accelerate toward us, and those on the far side to accelerate away from us. Unfortunately, we dont know which galaxies are on the near side and which are on the far side because we have no way to distinguish between the redshift of local motion from the redshift due to the expansion of space.

The pressure waves that result from our cosmic-foam bubbles popping constitute the dark energy of a super-universe in which the width of an electron might be a trillion times our Hubble length. The pressure waves that constitute our dark energy come from the popping cosmic-foam bubbles of a sub-universe in which a median-size cosmic-foam bubble is, by our measure, roughly a Planck length across.

The dark energy of the pressure waves is copious, indeed; and that can be explained by the extreme density and hardness of the ether. Maxwell and Fresnel spoke of an ether with the density and hardness of steel; I believe that is a gross underestimate. Conceivably, a sub-universe galaxy might have as much inertial mass as a comparable galaxy of our universe. The ether of "empty space" might have a googol times more inertial density than a neutron star. The tensile modulus of the ether is comparably high, since the speed of light is presumably the square root of shear modulus divided by inertial density. (This formula comes from acoustics. In several of my past writings I omitted the square root because I was taking a wild guess, not having studied acoustics.)

c = sqrt(shear modulus/inertial density)

For the speed of gravity, substitute compressive modulus for shear modulus.

The reference to doubling stems from my presumption (wild guess, actually) that the quantity of space in a region is directly proportional to the number of median-size ether foam bubbles in that region. (If my model ever gets developed mathematically, it may turn out that a more complex time dependent relationship exists, but Occams razor tells me to start with the simplest formula, which is direct proportionality.) Im saying that is what space and distance are; even empty space has a concrete existence, not just a mathematical concept.

If a wall separating two bubbles pops, those two bubbles become one, and the number of bubbles in the region is reduced by one; fewer bubbles equals less space. Since we know that space is expanding rather than shrinking, it appears that the arrow of time alternates from one scale-wise universe to the next. In fact, I believe the direction of the arrow of time is dictated by the expansion of space. So, from a sub-universe point of view, a cosmic-foam bubble pops and pressure waves radiate outward; from our point of view, pressure waves converge and an ether-foam bubble un-pops. This converts dark energy to new space, which is what the concept of dark energy is all about. The question of cause and effect should keep philosophers busy for centuries.

I do see some potential problems with my model, but until someone asks the right questions, I can only debate them in my own mind. Someone, please point out my flaws!

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

MARX (evolivid) commented on PhilJ's thread, "Light Has Mass" and it seemed appropriate to respond to him, here, because it seems most relevant to the discussion we have been having here.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by evolivid</i>
<br />
If you use E=mc^2 you just use the energy of the photon to find its mass then try to see how many photons can make up a electron, as my intuition thinks it might be, remembering that we know that every thing is made of energy just what is the purist form of energy, "Light" or "Gravity", and does "gravity move threw space-time", and "light with it" are the both just a mutation of space-time or does space-time have a special tunnel type dimension that only each uses, Just think of two tubes and gravity uses one and light the other.

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



MARX

I have also included this basic Energy to Mass equivalence as the primary corner stone for a gravity model based just on cosmic geometry, because if light can do work such as cause an electric current to flow in a wire, then obviously it must have enough mass to create a <u><b>Force</b></u> sufficient to push electrons around. Whether you think in terms of light having Force or Momentum, both have a Mass component.

But why stop there? If light can push electrons, then why not protons and neutrons as well? And isn't that all that Gravity does? So, I postulate that light is at least a part of "What" makes Gravity or contributes to the gravitating "Effect" and light (i.e. all the quantum bits across the entire Electo-magnetic spectrum) is most likely the majority of what constitutes the gravity effect. But the Effect is just that, an "Effect" of many combined tiny bits or particles merely coming together in natural cosmic focus points that, then, manifest as "gravity wells", whose strength or "size" depends only on how much of a major crossing point each crossing point is, due to its unique position between the overall mixture of contributing stars, including collective groups of stars that are associated with galaxies. So, for Gravity to manifest, there only needs to be a condition where light and other slower but heavier particles come together wherever in the vastness of space that they naturally come together. And these crossing points have to be there just as surely as drawing lines of sight between each and every star and observing where these lines cross. The simple geometric positioning of the stars makes this inevitable, even if all the stars are in motion at every odd angle and velocity relative to each other. You can still draw the lines only they will appear to be curved lines due to the motions of each star, but they will still intersect and manifest "gravity wells."

But light particles need not be the only movers in this Gravitating process, and not all light or other particles will always be involved in a gravitating process at all times. Sometimes they will be just throw-off from stars and travel for billions of years without a single collision, but at other times, especially within gravity wells, they may secondarily be involved in the process of nucleating atoms back into mass as electrons, protons, neutrons, layer by layer, all the way up the atomic chart of chemical elements.

So, I propose, what if there is just one unifying "conglomerate of particles" of all sizes, that, because of their geometrical movements and natural comings together, each interact in turn as temporary contributors to the various major physical forces--depending only on the density of their collision interactions. The larger the gravity well, the denser the inward pressure will be, of course, while the shorter the distance between collision interactions becomes, the denser the combined light energies will become. Therefore, since more particles are becoming closer packed the more massive or inert the overall net-density becomes, thereby, literally creating or "re-creating" mass (as densely packed energy and/or Photons) back into atoms, again, in an endless dynamic steady state cycle.

Warm Regards, Aaron