what is the observed distance range of gravity?

Gregg, Can magnetism be related to energy as gravity is to mass? The two real force fields are related to the two real particles and interact in many ways. Maybe they are misunderstood do to a human need to give fields qualities that they don't have.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Gregg, Can magnetism be related to energy as gravity is to mass?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom Van Flandern made the general observation that there is no such thing as "pure" energy - totally divorced from particles with mass. Any energy, if examined in fine enough detail, will be seen to be particles which have mass and velocity. What is conserved is momentum: mass X velocity.

So, it has been proposed that the force of gravity is actually a flux of gravitons. I am obliquely proposing that if atomic - molecular matter has a "closed" structure - that is atoms are not almost entirely empty - then such a structure (crystal, if you like) could "redirect" gravitons, by means of obstructive collision, into "focussed" or colinear streams. If so, that could represent magnetism. To the best of my knowledge, magnetism does not exhibit heat and appears to have a propagation speed much more like gravity than like light.

Rutherford's experiment was to "fire" alpha particles at an extremely thin film of gold. The emitted velocity of alpha particles out of Polonium nuclei is about 12% the speed of light. Giving the alpha particle an atomic weight of 4 and a Gold nucleus of 187, a direct collision of an alpha particle against a Gold nucleus would result in both entities proceeding forward - in the original velocity vector of the alpha particle - at many thousands of miles per hour. Run the math. By Rutherford's own logic, the alpha particle hit only one Gold nucleus. If you read up on the experiment, you will find that the experimenters had a motivation to have the results fit an already pre-conceived mathematical formula. Not a good idea.

The use of energy fields or force fields has no meaning to me. If both of those phenomena can be accounted for by particles with velocity, then "field" does not have any apparent utility.

Back at the astronomic level, I recall Tom Van Flandern assessing the mean free path of a graviton as being somewhere within the range 3,000 and 7,000 light years. (before colliding with another graviton)

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gregg: March 1:
Tom Van Flandern made the general observation that there is no such thing as "pure" energy - totally divorced from particles with mass. Any energy, if examined in fine enough detail, will be seen to be particles which have mass and velocity. What is conserved is momentum: mass X velocity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">TVF was of the opinion that energy is made of particles. I believe particles are made of energy. E/M waves are pure energy (a disturbance of the ether). What's needed is a mechanism to explain how a pair of E/M waves can be locked in orbit around one another at the speed of light, thus converting their energy to rest mass of a particle. That mechanism must be a non-random exchange of momentum with gravitons. If the momentum exchange is random (TVF's scattering), the net force is zero.

In my model, the gravitons are longitudinal ethereal waves, and the E/M waves are transverse ethereal waves. The exchange of momentum is non-random because it is depends on relative phase and polarity as well as wavelength.

Longitudinal waves pass thru one another freely; they don't bounce off of one another like elastic spheres. So my model does not suggest that gravity must have a limited range.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gregg: March 1:
If atomic structure is not "wide open" as proposed by Rutherford, Bohr, Pauling - then perhaps nuclear structure causes a structural change in the gravitational flux.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I believe the flux of gravitons (longitudinal waves) is altered in an angular pattern around an E/M (transverse) wave. The pattern is different for different wave lengths and phase angles, and it has a particular shape with reference to the polarity of the transverse wave. Therefore, pairs of transverse waves may either strengthen or weaken the flux that is felt by one another, giving rise to both attractive and repulsive forces.

The graviton flux around an orbiting pair of transverse waves consists of the rapidly rotating flux patterns around the individual transverse waves. The flux pattern spirals outward from the orbiting pair. I'm not sure if it spreads at the speed of light or the speed of gravity, but I'm guessing the latter.

For two pairs of transverse waves to be strongly attracted to one another, their spinning flux patterns must match in such a way that they remain in sync for a significant time. There should be a very short range within which this is possible. Repulsive forces may dominate until the two pairs are close enough for their spinning flux patterns to mesh.

Given the 3 colors of chromodynamics, I suspect that quarks may consist of triplets, rather than pairs of transverse waves.



Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Gregg, The field is not energy particles or matter particles. Its more like the space where energy and matter play. Fields exist around conducters, right? How would you describe a magnetic field in an electric device?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Gregg, The field is not energy particles or matter particles. Its more like the space where energy and matter play. Fields exist around conducters, right? How would you describe a magnetic field in an electric device?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A field is just a mathematical model of the effects caused by particles of matter and/or energy.

This dispute calls to mind the ludicrous concept (held by some Jews) that the "word" is more important than the object it represents. "In the beginning was the word...." A field is just a word representing something with substance. We may not know what the true substance is, but we can be certain that it is more important than the word used to describe it.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

PhilJ, The word is as Shakespeare said it was-the meaning of a field is it seems a problem here. If a model must be used then space needs to be factored in as well as energy and matter. Space is required and spheres within open space are fields where energy and matter interact. When mass is involved gravity rules the sphere and when energy enters several new fields follow one of which is magnetism. It makes more sense to ask what is gravity and magnetism though than claim they are particles that move. No doubt we can agree both are forces and if so thats close enough I guess.