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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />I turn on a flashlight, and it begins emmiting EM radiation (pressure waves). What is the external force involved here? How does that force modify the medium (elysium) so that these waves are able to ignore the flow of the medium in which they are propagating?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is indeed the crux of the matter. My somewhat incomplete answer is in two parts.

(1) The elysium bubble around a mass is an example of a pressure effect that ignores the flow of elysium and holds its effect to a frame fixed in the mass.

(2) The displacement of a much smaller mass element -- the one that "generates a photon" -- also changes the gravitational field of the displaced mass and creates a "mini-bubble" of sorts, but one with a propagating pressure wave instead of a static bubble.

Think about how a sound wave propagates in the deep ocean. There is no air to carry it, and the water molecules are squeezed too tightly together to have density condensationa and rarefactions the way air waves do. But the molecules are not squeezing one another through their own momentum. Instead, it is the force of gravity doing the squeezing. That is why an elysium bubble remains intact even if the elysium is flowing by rapidly.

So if the elysium bubble vibrates, it sets off waves centered on its generating mass and ignoring the elysium flow. The same should be true on a much smaller scale when a particle decays and generates a photon.

Do keep picking at this. I'm not at all satisfied with this explanation. But that's as far as I've been able to take the model at the moment. -|Tom|-

<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 MarkVitrone</i>
<br />If electrons had varying masses, then the orbitals would not be a locationally defined as they are. Heavier electrons would orbit farther than lighter ones. This would not seem to be the case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not arguing that proton or electron masses <i>DO</i> vary. I'm trying to keep us from making assumptions that may be wrong because that leads to bad models.
-|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would reiterate your statement above to the hilt. It was decided that the "electron" was a single particle <b>in the conceptual absence of a light carrying medium</b>. It has also been <b>assumed</b> that the electron orbits the nucleus; that it is a sphere and that it has spin.

None of these ideas have been demonstrated to be true. In fact, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that it is not a single particle and that it does not orbit the nucleus. In chemistry, based on experimental evidence, its presence has been described as a "cloud" with specfic shape and orientations about the nucleus. No one in chemistry has dared to question the idea that it is a single particle, so they refer to the "electron" as <b>madly dashing about trying to be a cloud</b>.

Does anyone seriously believe that fundamental particles "try" to do anything? They are dead as doornails and as stupd as bricks. Their behavior is <b>passive</b>.

If Metascience is serious about the atomic level being virgin territory to examine, then the prior assumptions(1900 - 1930)about the atom, proton and electron should be looked at critically.


Gregg Wilson

All,

I feel that of all the early experiments, those of Rutherford, Chadwick, Thompson, Bohr, and the rest are the most closely "meta science" types of experiments. I say this because the models are built from deduction and predictions concerning the undiscovered particles completed the models as predicted. Making sense of what is happening in the atom is fascinating work. I have always contended in conversations and posts that the keystone is understanding the graviton in such a way that we can use it for visualization (a gravity microscope). A centrifuge in space shielded from external gravitons could help create a more true mass gradient for these particles and allow us to see their properties better. I speculate that their interactions which are impossible to avoid or control for have caused variations and assumptions in our body of knowledge which to this point are unavoidable. Any comments?

Mark Vitrone

All,

One of the things that has always bothered me about the MM is also whats sets it apart from other theories - mediums and scales. Since there are infinite scales and Tom posits that each scale is roughly similar to the next it follows that there exists infinite mediums. One of the characteristics of mediums is that they are composed of nearly identical particles. But we also observe on our scale that there is a lot of stuff (planets, rocks, stars, etc.) that are clearly not medium particles. We can extrapolate this observation to all other scales. So the MM Universe seems to consist of two different types of particles at any arbitrary scale - those that compose a medium and those that don't. The particles of widely varying sizes that don't compose mediums are what we call <i>masses</i> and the interaction of <i>masses</i> with the particles that compose mediums are refered to as <i>energy</i>. The problem is that the smaller the particles that we look at the more uniform they appear to be and the larger the structures (galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.) the less uniform they look. But at some point these trends must reverse (abruptly?). In fact I propose that we should define a scale as the area between these points. The problem is that can't think of any mechanism that would cause or maintain this uniformity boundary.

JR

<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 />I have always contended in conversations and posts that the keystone is understanding the graviton in such a way that we can use it for visualization (a gravity microscope).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A first step toward controlling gravitons would likely be creating super-dense matter states such that they can block most gravitons. Once we can manipulate gravitons, we can create "sails" or "windmills" to extract energy from the graviton field. -|Tom|-

I'll probably have more to say about this later, when I have more time, but here are a few quick notes that might help you think about these issues.

<b>[jrich] "Since there are infinite scales and Tom posits that each scale is roughly similar to the next ... "</b>

Rather than visualizing each scale being roughly similar, visualize each range of scales being similar. For example, the range of scales that we can detect runs from about 10^-20 [meters] to about 10^+20 [meters]. Within that range of sizes we see little tiny things and we see really big things. As you pointed out, they fit together and interact with each other in different ways.

We could not always see as big and as small as we can today. In the future we will be able to see bigger and smaller than we can now. What will we see when we can? To know for sure we sill have to wait, but MM expects there to be some repetition of what we can see now.

===

One day we may be looking at something small in a new super-duper-nanoscope, and see enough new detail to be able to say " ... atoms really do look like solar systems ... ". Or instead we might say " ... atoms don't look at all like solar systems, but sub-quarks (the things that quarks turn out to be made of) do ... "

Later, when we have the newest super-duper-attoscopes to play with, we might discover that although sub quarks look a lot like solar systems at "low" magnification they turn out to be a lot different when you can zoom in. But gravitons look like galaxies, and when you zoom in enough you can see parts inside that look like stars, and when you zoom in some more you can see smaller particles moving around those star-like gizmos, and some of them have smaller particles orbiting them, and so on.

It is unlikely that the things we see at "our" range of scales will be repeated exactly at that (or any other) range of scales. Mostly we will see vague similarities, and perhaps the occasional remarkable similarity. But somewhere down there (or up there) we may eventually find a range of scales where the resemblance is close enough to be spooky. Perhaps even to the extent that "life" can be found on some of those particles orbiting those star-like objects.

LB