A different take on gravity

Phil,
In your model, how fast does gravity travel? And does it (gravity) spread out from the bursted cosmic bubble each time this occurs?

Aaron

Aaron: 24 Jul 2009 : 03:18:52 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Just for the fun of comparison, can you put similar number treatment to your bursting cosmic foam bubble wave gravity model for us? Just for comparison?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I never said I was a mathematician, Aaron. Besides, I suspect, to flesh out my model with meaningful numbers, a whole new branch of chaos theory may need to be invented; and the whole field of chaos theory is in its infancy. Until the math is invented, I'm just trying to guess within a few orders of magnitude.

Aaron: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In your model, how fast does gravity travel?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I take Van Flandern's computations of the speed of gravity on faith. I found an estimate for the speed of electrostatic force which is just 50% greater than Van Flandern's minimum speed of gravity; I believe this number was derived independently, so it helps me to believe Van Flandern's number.

If my pressure waves behave like ordinary acoustic pressure waves in ordinary solids, the speed of pressure waves should be the square root of the ether's inertial density divided by its bulk modulus; c = (y/rho). The speed of light should fit the same formula, except with the shear modulus instead of the bulk modulus. It's difficult for me to imagine how the bulk modulus can be 20 billion times greater than the shear modulus; maybe the pressure waves somehow propagate directly across the middle of the bubbles, while the shear waves must follow the membranes around the outside of the bubbles. We really don't understand the dynamics of our own cosmic foam. Our ether foam should be similar (except for scale) to our cosmic foam at some point in our past or future; we can't know how old the sub-universe is because its time is running backwards. Presumably, the cosmic foam goes thru a series of phase changes over billions of years, so I'm just guessing that maybe our ether foam resembles our cosmic foam as it is today.

Aaron: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And does it (gravity) spread out from the bursted cosmic bubble each time this occurs?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I do suspect the pressure waves spread out because, in a fractal universe, there must be a transition from the analog realm of the sub-universe to the quantum realm of our universe. Somewhere between the size of an electron and the size of an ether-foam bubble, things are no longer quantized. From a sub-universe perspective, the membrane (wall of galaxies) separating two bubbles (cosmic voids) pops, and the two bubbles become one. The tension across the middle of the newly unified bubble is no longer there, so the middle of the bubble spreads outward pulling the ends inward until a new equilibrium of forces is reached. So a positive pressure wave spreads outward in the plane of the ruptured membrane, and negative pressure waves spread in opposite directions perpendicular to that plane. From the perspective of our universe, all that takes place in reverse time; so the pressure waves converge and a new membrane forms across the middle of one bubble turning it into a pair of bubbles. And that is how the number of ether-foam bubbles increases by one, converting an unknown quantity of dark energy into a cubic Planck length of new space.

The energy equivalent of space could be determined, by E = mc^2, if we knew the inertial density of the ether, which I suspect might be a googol times the regular-mass density of a neutron star; or maybe it's only a billion times that of a neutron star.


Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

<b>[Aaron] "My model of gravity can tie all these forces together as being just different concentrations and orientations of the same basic complete mixture of the various fine quantum particles pushing against each other in accordance with geometric probabilities and patterns."</b>

This is a fairly good description of a Le Sage model, but based on photons and protons instead of an as yet undetected particle. Unfortunately all the known particles move too slowly to create a force that matches observed behavior.

Phil,

Okay, then, since you are not claiming to be a mathematician, would you mind going through the process you used to come up with the numbers concerning my gravity model that you presented, so I can examine it to see if I think that you are properly mathematically modeling my model with your mathematical set up; please include any data sources that I might refer to, also, if you wouldn't mind.

I loved the McGuyver reference, though. He was great, wasn't he? It was amazing how he would get into these impossible situations and always manage to come up with some simple but brilliant solution to solve his problem and best the bad guys. So, I am encouraged by your comparison and all the more motivated to pull a McGuyver maneuver out of my hat, here.

I am not clear which force you are referring to in this section of your post of 23 July 2009 (that I have underlined) in this quoted portion of your post below:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The pushing force of the stars is minuscule compared to gravity, as evidenced by the fact that planets orbit stars. If you divide the total power of sunlight Earth absorbs by the speed of light, you get the force exerted by sunlight on Earth. According to my calculations, the suns gravity pulls Earth about 14 billion times harder than sunlight pushes Earth. (I may have missed something because I think the ratio might be much greater than that. I also calculate that the <u>tangential component of that force</u> should be sufficient to make us fall into the sun in less than a year; that is obviously wrong.) At our place in the solar system, the suns magnitude is -26.74; thats 13 billion times brighter than Sirius (magnitude -1.46). Even if all the stars, other than the sun, were pushing us from one direction, their combined push would be less than the push of our own suns light. For the push of stars to be significant, they would have to have unseen and undetected energy output billions of times greater than the output that we can detect.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It sounds like you are saying that my model couldn't be responsible for the amount of gravity that the Earth is experiencing at present using a Newtonian model for calculating the Solar Gravitational Force between the planets and the Sun, but that it could be strong enough to cause the Earth and other planets to "fall" into the sun very rapidly. These two ideas seem to be contradictory. Are you taking into account the same centrifugal Force due to the planets' angular momentum as they move around the sun as would still be appropriate to do?

But, in any case, I think that both you and Larry Burford are missing the Main Contribution that I am offering up to the scientific community. That is the Empirical geometric positioning of the gravitic energy sources, regardless of the type of energy that is the acting agent/s for the gravity effect, if it has any sort of a material aspect or component, and if it has a starting or originating point or more likely multiple starting points (stars and even Galaxies could be considered relative "points" in this regard, but we could also consider the possibility of dark stars/galaxies, rouge black holes or exotic sources with unknown or undiscovered properties), and if this energy is radiated out from such cosmic points in radial like concentric spheres or ovals, reducing their strength or intensity at a steady rate relative to their distance from their "point of origin", then, because of their materially interactive component, energies will be able to or inclined to react with both like or dissimilar energies or other forms of material substance whenever they encounter any, each according to their individual momentum at the moment of their interaction.

Then just following the directional geometry of these energies to where they begin to interact with other energies, there is bound to be certain probable energy crossing regions that will begin to interfere enough with each other that a region of denser energy concentration will begin to occur.

Once this happens, what should follow is that all these denser regions, which will occur at any point where equally opposing energies meet, will continue to grow in energy density until the region takes on a "permanent material inertia", in other words it begins to form mass (or re-form mass, again). This Geometry is totally independent of the speed or material coefficient of the energy actors, which could be made up of any or all of the known material energies or particles or wave forms of energy or Larry's faster particles or waves or either positive outward energies like stars throw out or possibly even negative inward vacuum energies like loose black holes or "dark stars" might produce. There simply <i>exists</i> such a geometry; this recognition is the most important contribution that I could hope to add to the discussion.

The fact that the stars and galaxies are moving only makes these geometries fluid and a lot more complicated, but this is not a problem for the individual Quantum Particle or wave front; they will just continue to move forward until they encounter some opposing or glancing energy force or object and sort things out statistically at that time and place. But they will, any and all, still be governed by the simple, inevitable Geometry of their individual trajectories, distances and velocities. Then statistical averaging steps in to make any natural adjustments to the net directional effect, so that the balancing of forces is ever and continuously self correcting.

Personally I would like to see the Gravity effect formulated using just the particles and energies that are familiar and somewhat known to us, without having to invent exotic, far out, imaginative, unsupportable solutions, but I am very open minded if someone actually has a reasonable addition.

For instance, String Theory is very imaginative, but it arbitrarily limits the minimum size of a string to a plank length. Well, if you just apply that same limitation to particle size, then the Standard model is every bit as valid, and you get to avoid the embarrassment of Zeros in the denominators that yield "ridiculous" infinities, so I see that as just including a big arbitrary fudge factor with no justification.

In my model, what would correspond to "Membranes" (as in the extension of "String Theory") would be photonic "pressure" ranges, analogous to the elevation lines on a topographical survey map but in three dimensional "onion rings" and squishy. Furthermore, a plank length diameter sphere occupied by a plank number of "average photons" is the requirement for the nucleation of a proton. (There has to be a natural average--or mean--for any data set) So there is a lot of agreement with existing theories but with a bit more intuitive logic behind my model.

I am going to keep trying to get Larry to see that if the net force that is driving the Stars' solar systems around their galactic centers is gravitational (And what else could it be?), then it will be driving the planets along with their entire orbital paths and even the astroid belts as a unite in the same direction as the star or sun, and, more to the point, at the exact same net velocity through space, thus making them act as if they are all just passengers in the same solar "system", car or elevator--the same frame of motion reference, therefore there would no "delay" between the gravitational "center of mass" of the solar system and <u>any</u> of its "passengers" including the star as the solar system's nucleus. Larry, why can't you see the logic in this?

Next time I will include a discussion about light and how it could be acting like a wave while at the same time representing the full momentum of a quantum particle.

Who Loves Ya, baby?--Aaron

Larry,

I was meaning to ask you directly, what is it material interactive nature of your concept of gravity? Specifically, is it a pull or a push, and is it particles or waves or something altogether new? If new, please, elaborate as much as possible.

Aaron,

On the Home page of this website you will find a series of tabs near the top. Click the one labeled Cosmology. On that page click the tab labeled Gravity. A list of articles along the left side includes <i>Possible New Properties of Gravity</i> and <i>The Meta Cycle</i>.

All of the articles are interesting and informative. Tom was a great communicator. But the two mentioned are most relevant to your question. They will answer it and many others, but of course that always leads to new questions.

Once you have absorbed the information in them you will be able to ask questions that are more focused. Of course, if you read the other articles you will find that most of your new questions have already been answered.

And you will find that you then have a completely different set of new questions. That is the point at which your inquiries start to become interesting.

Happy hunting,
LB