pantheory

Wow, Lots of cool equations and graphics. How do these equations and graphs relate to Temporal Uniformity? best regards

Thanks again, looking forward to it. I also concur that we are in agreement concerning our understandings of time.

Thanks Daedalus, looking forward to it. Here is a good example of my postings concerning understandings of the concept of time. I was just researching modern concepts of time in physics and came across this book called From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Although I haven't read it, there is a huge difference of "opinion"/ theory here. Mine is that time is one of the simplest concepts to explain and understand in physics, similar to space -- that time can simply and fully be explained and understood by a one sentence definition and no more. On the other hand the author's opinion, concerning modern physics, is that an entire book is needed just to explain the possible theoretical developments needed for such an "Ultimate Theory of Time" to someday be created. I would call the difference of these two opinions an abyss. This is what I consider a good example of the logical problems with modern physics, many of which I think stem from misguided attempts to translate theoretical physics into language. //

Sounds good to me. Although I describe gravity via the pushing forces of aether particulates in vortex and fluid dynamic motions, the math is MOND-like vector equations and not that sophisticated. I have been struggling with the realization concerning gravity formulations and galactic motions, that math alone including a particulate aether or dark matter, will never seemingly be able to predict anything at the galactic scale without direct observation of the details of the observed motions involved-- seemingly remaining an ugly step-child in physics requiring retrodiction -- even though we may be able to improve on the poor level of retrodiction that present dark-matter models are presently producing. But yes, show me the math and if I understand its possible application , maybe I could somehow realize how to use it to make better gravity formulations/ predictions

Congrats NE0317537, You have some positive philosophies , there are probably many that might agree with your opinions, but what about your Speculations? Hopefully something related to science?

Thanks for the extended reply to my comment Daedalus. I agree. I cannot think of any kind of change that does not in some way involve motion of some kind, but I prefer using the word "change" rather than the word "motion" to define time since some motion, like particle spin, for instance, presently concerns nebulous descriptions of it in physics, in my opinion. I think your presented proposal on time can be based solely upon logic alone and needs no math. I think sometimes mathematical physics confuses more than it clarifies. As we both know in some facets of physics time has different meanings according to a particular theory/ model, but I believe all those that think that time has any other meaning aside from change or motion, are following "false gods." I think that time can best be understood and explained by definition alone using simple words such as "an interval of motion/change" and little more. Unfortunately nowadays some physicists seem to like making the simplest of concepts into post-grad college material if somebody is paying them to do it. Defining time with complicated concepts and math that seemingly reinforces the complication, I think is a good example.

Based upon the kinetic theory of heat, heat can be thought of as energy of oscillations and/or bouncing around of molecules and atoms within a solid, liquid, or gas. The common definition given is similar to this: Definition: Heat energy (or just heat) is a form of energy which transfers among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particle.......... Heating something can be accomplished by radiation, conduction, or convection. Here on earth the most common way to heat something is to put a fire under or surrounding it as in a stove or oven, or to micro-wave it. When a solid, liquid, or gas is compressed it also produces heat but this is an uncommon means of producing heat. Heat is usually a by-product of compression. In air conditioning and refrigeration systems a compressor is used concerning a liquid or gas, to localize the heat within the medium. A fan is used to pass air over the heated coils, cooling they down. Then when pressure is again reduced the liquid/ gas becomes cooler than its surroundings and is then able to absorb heat. As to the possibility of time and space being compressed: In this model neither time nor space can be compressed. Time is accordingly an interval of change and nothing else accordingly, so it cannot be compressed. Space in this model is simply the volume matter occupies, the distance between matter which extension does not extend beyond the Zero Point Field. The contents of space can be compressed but accordingly space itself cannot. This cosmological model is based upon simplicity principles. Some mottos for it might be stated: If an explanation seems ridiculous to ones common senses, then that explanation should be analyzed with skepticism :: Always look for simpler explanations outside the box that has been analyzed by practitioners.

(words in parenthesis added) Adding math to a discussion can encourage some to further questions and discussion, but it can discourage others. After all it sometimes takes more time to analyze the math involved, concerning a particular theoretical physics proposal, than it does to analyze the logic and merits of the model. //

The considered range would be an exact relative position (a point) being analyzed such as its distance from the sun and relative position within the solar system, for instance. The active range is a variable which is also a relative position within the volume being analyzed. Taking our solar system for example, the active range is accordingly where gravity becomes more than about 5% non-linear (has a perpendicular vector force of gravity more than ~ 5%). This I call the vortex range of gravity. In General Relativity it has a relationship with the frame dragging effect. Such variable positions are unknown and are calculated from best fit algorithms when possible, or just otherwise estimated. See page 57E pantheory.com. for diagram. Calculations of rotation curves of spiral galaxies are calculated in two dimensions only; no depth or time dimension of the spiral is considered. The quantity of the variables are input via algorithms into at least 2 equations to find the best-fit variables for a given galaxy, to retrodict its rotation velocities. These variables accordingly represent the strength and torque of vortex currents. The variable are based upon observations of the redshift differentials when observing the galaxy. The same kind of calculation would involve rotation rates of galaxies in a cluster. //

Yes, I agree. Time is one of the simplest of concepts but motion is not its essence, just one of the most important factors of it. I think the simplest single word to define time is change. A point in time is not time itself, it is just a single time frame. Time itself might best be considered an interval of change(s). Although I believe everything in reality is relatively simple, many believe the opposite: that much of reality is extremely complicated and beyond the comprehension of humans, ever. Some theorists believe reality is very complicated with multi-verses, many extra dimensions, worm holes, etc. and believe that time is also complicated enough to allow the possibility of time travel. Occam's Razor may not always be the best indicator concerning the mechanics of the universe, but it often provides wise guidance concerning better directions to look, as you seem to suggest.

I agree, little cross collisions, just a powerful torquing maelstrom torus.

This is the summary of the gravity equations: from pantheory.com ; starting from page 57a. , which is my pushing gravity model being discussed. The mathematical formulation of these pushing currents of gravity would be based upon the Newtonian style equation Ø ≈ G • Mm/ rn where the value of "n" would be determined by two variables that would depend on the masses and their relative positions within the surrounding field, where n = 2^ (1 + ar. / cr.) . ar. is the distance of the active range in a given system where the vector forces of gravity becomes non-linear. cr. is the considered range which is the distance between the beginning of the active range to the particular location being evaluated. Additionally there are "e" factor (base e) equations for redshifts greater than ~.6 that effect what we will observe at these distances. These can be found here on pages 101 - 102A. The null effect condition for the first equation is Newtonian gravity, and the limit of the second equation is equivalent to Milgram's MOND gravity. The use of these equations always would consist of at least two equations for stellar systems and many more for complicated best-fit modeling of galaxy structures or clusters. Summary: F=G x Mm/r^n where "n" = 2^ (1 + (plus) cr./ar.) for the "inside range" of gravity for stellar sized bodies and for the "outside range;" where n = 2^ 1 - (minus) cr./ar. for groups of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters structures. These are simple vector division tensor equations. All combined vector forces of this pushing gravity model are both Newtonian centripetal vectors with additional tangent vectors. Since both ar. and cr. variables require rotational observation to enable calculations, these formulations have the same problems as hypothetical dark matter. Tell me how the galaxy rotates and I will make the predictions of how the galaxy rotates , pure retrodiction. In this model the aether being the source of gravity is based upon its motion rather than its placement or mass, since the aether accordingly is a particulate mass-less ZPF with particles roughly Planck size 10-35 m. //

The ant network/ colony would seem to be a cool idea to try to model, but since you have already made a good start on your field development model, I think you should stay with it until you think that it has merit or not //

Hawking is right; a lot of theorists believe the universe could have come into existence by such a sub-atomic popping-into-existence kind of beginning. I agree with you that such a proposal seems highly unlikely, but Hawking's ideas are highly respected by many. As to the question 'Did God Create The Universe', it is simply a matter of whether the religious explanation of creation is valid or not. Few in science believe that it is. Pope Pius XII, however, did indicate that Big Bang cosmology seemed to be consistent with the bible. The founder of the Big Bang model was a scientist but also a Raman Catholic Priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_teachings_of_Pope_Pius_XII

This must be the basis of your program that I watched. It was fun to look at, wondering what it's going to evolve into //

You got me beat on the math concerning simplicity; that's for sure. My own math concerning theoretical physics is different but no simpler than the standard model The math in my gravity model is a MOND like formulation that has at least 3 variables. In my overall cosmology model math does not represent reality, it is simply an estimation of it for the purpose of prediction. A mathematical model of gravity with 3 variables is no better than the dark matter hypothesis. All of it is simply a matter of retrodiction and accordingly the degree of accuracy might improve as knowledge improves, but such equations or the use of dark matter accordingly could never be better than a poor step-child concerning a representation of reality. Unfortunately in math, complexity is often needed. But I think simplicity concerning any explanation of reality or the related math, is infinitely better if you can make it work //

In my own model, aether is a simpler thing than matter. It is made up of the same simple strings/ springs of particulates as matter but less complex and shorter strands of it. I have at one time read Masreliez material. In my own model there is a simply "why" answer for every question. Why would matter get bigger seems unanswerable, but why matter/ field material would get smaller is not the same. It gets smaller because it accordingly has internal windings that cause it to unwind which also explains the particle spin of matter. If matter is getting smaller, then it would have been larger in the past. Larger matter would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation, hence the observed redshifts. Such a simple aether field is still hypothetical but I believe it is a far simpler idea than a pure energy background field (the ZPF) which to me requires reality to be much more complicated. In my model everything in reality is relatively simple, including gravity as a simple mechanical pushing force //

Michel, Mine also is a Scaling theory of sorts. The slowly decreasing size of matter relates to larger matter in the past producing longer wavelengths of EM radiation which we accordingly call redshifts . 3 10^6 km per second, per what quantity of matter? On what basis is this calculated? Is this reduction based upon diameters or what dimension? For what reason does this reduction take place? //

In my own model the observable universe is generally not expanding. Your model seems both interesting and sophisticated. Mine is not. Accordingly the original black holes of the universe starting as clumpings of field material that eventually got pushed together into very large dense orbs of field material. In the observable universe now, matter accordingly most often is the original seed for the clump which again becomes compressed down to field material only as it becomes very massive and dense. In this model field particles, which also make up matter, must unwind and in so doing slowly become smaller. By calculations using redshifts, field particles and matter lose back to the field about 1/000 part every 5 million years. That is my separation mechanism of renewal. // Michel, in this model matter does not expand or contract but it does slowly get smaller, about 1/1000 part every 5 million years; calculations are based upon the observed redshifts. In time these discarded string-like segments are reformed into new protons and electrons by the torsion forces surrounding galactic black holes. The result is a relatively constant matter density in the observable universe. A surrounding aether-like field would act like atmospheric gases by pushing on us in all directions. This force would act somewhat like gas pressure trying to push itself apart and material within the field together.

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling Pincho. My overall model asserts that only substance by contact or physical connection can create what we presently call a force //

Yes I've designed a test of the speed of light up vs. down. For this I need very precise timing devices which I believe I have found, accurate to a couple billionths of a second, and some extruded fiber optic material that slows down the speed of light be a factor of about a 1000. Instead of the speed of light through it being 186,000 miles per second, it would be about 2000 miles per second. Such materials do exist but maybe not 2 pieces of high quality material, both need to be a mile long. No other model of gravity or test for aether predicts a difference in aether or light speed to such a small extent, up vs. down of about 60 feet per second difference, or ~41 mph. It will likely be 2 years or longer before I will be able to conduct such an experiment based upon the time and money needed to do it. ,, I certainly agree. The simpler answer is usually the better answer. There are no "a priori" forces of any kind in my over-all cosmology model. Magnetism in all of its facets is also accordingly a pushing force concerning a background field aether in my magnetism model.

Thanks Pincho, Looked at your Universe generator link. Pretty cool. I watched the whole thing

It would seem to work the same way with pushing gravity. When inside a building there is a little bit of pushing toward the walls and a little less pushing on you, not perceptible to any degree, but still there. Inside a spherical shell you would be pushed in all directions equally toward the outer shell so you would not move. Accordingly there could be no space without the ZPF, in this case an aether. As you said, there seems to be little difference concerning pushing and pulling gravity. Pushing gravity is called a mechanical explanation of gravity which it would seem that pulling gravity could never be. I don't believe there are any other known mechanical explanations of gravity. The Pushing gravity model is not a "a priori" force. It is simply that this pushes that, which pushes that ... and so on. And acceleration of gravity is extremely simple. The vector toward matter is greater than the force pushing away from matter so a continuous net force is applied to matter in an inward direction, which causes matter to accelerate which we describe as gravity. You are correct. I do not need to have an aether to explain the inward pushing of gravity as a force, but "force theory" is always infinitely more complicated than simple mechanical theory. All past pushing gravity models including my own, us particulates like dark matter, for the pushing process. In aether theory the aether along can explain everything, including matter, EM radiation, and all of reality including the laws of physics, all by the simplest of explanations. As far as I'm concerned, how it is explained must be based solely upon observation and logic, and any other reason for explanations I think should run a distant third Accordingly everything that exists in the whole universe is simple to understand and explain! excepting when trying to make a mathematical estimation of it for prediction purposes I use different names for a physical aether field in my model, but usually I call it a Pan Field, because I call the most fundamental particles (like the "god-particle, aka Higg's particle) Pan. A string of these particles I call a Pan Chain. So as a field I call them collectively concerning a particular volume, a Pan Field. But for the purposes of this discussion I think I should call it simply an aether so that I don't need to discuss details of the whole theory, just details of the pushing gravity model

The entire model is a field hypothesis concerning the Zero Point Field, which accordingly is space containing a large number of physical entities like the dark matter hypotheses. So accordingly I can't get rid of them because they are the only thing that exists, period. These particles in the field are accordingly the elementary particulates that when forming looped strings of the same particle, make-up all matter (no quarks or gluons), and they have a mechanical innate motivator that causes them to unwind. Once these strings of particles are forced into loops they spin and we can observe them as atomic particles or otherwise. There accordingly is nothing else in all of reality. They collectively comprise everything, the whole of the universe. This one particle type forms all matter as well as all of finite space, in their vast numbers. Everything in reality can be explained and/ or defined by this single simple particle alone, including the beginning of time. Accordingly nothing else exists! So to get rid of them I would end up with nothing at all, which accordingly is an impossible state of existence/ reality Since this is a pushing gravity model, there needs to be something pushing from all sides, right? You can call this an aether hypotheses/ model (a type of dark matter model if you like) involving the physical particulates and mechanics of pushing gravity. It has many similarities to older pushing gravity models which also required particulates to do the pushing //

Thanks Pincho Paxton, Of all of my theories this model of pushing gravity is over 50 years old and still I believe one of the best This being the Labor Day Weekend in the U.S. , more people should be leaving comments in the forum