Temporocitor

It was closer to 1995 when I was able to crunch enough numbers to actually believe that gravity from within matter cannot endure heat even in the range of 100,000 deg C., let alone 10,000,000. (There are no lnks to corroborate this, although I find it hard to believe that every (any?) physicist out there can perfectly balance all the Special Equations of State as they pertain to stellar gravitation and result in fusion.) The result is a runaway imbalance of neutrinos, thus the star disintegrates, leaving a body of neutrons, while any protonic and electronic matter propels outward. That is simply the reason I began looking in other directions (no pun intended) for stellar mechanics that defeated this quandary. The rest of this is what started making sense around 2000, then in 2004 or 2005 I found some of the concepts of LeSage and Fatio, but only recently these articles that pretty much convinced me Newton allowed religion to mandate his scientific thinking. ___________________________________________________________________________ Nobody can prove or even evidence the cause of gravity as of current technology. I can see why though: Most of the so-called scientific minds one encounters on the net are only accomplished in the idiot art of spreading hatred. No imagination that's worth 2 cents; just jealousy, jealousy, jealousy that becomes and purveys hatred and ignorance. Have fun with that, but I've been experimenting with magnetism, light, gravity and time for longer than most you have been alive. Show me evidence of any elementary, weak particle that can withstand 10,000,000 deg C.

I think that LQG is where the paradox of conflicting forces rears its ugly head. The force field, as shown above, could easily act as star birth in reverse. If a dipolar stellar field were to split into two opposing fields, the reverse of plasma jets, as would be seen in the star's initial birth, may have inverted, so gravitons and other higher order particles would radiate from the star's equator. The above depicts stellar matter, whether born of contracted intergallactic hydrogen or anihilated older stars, flowing into the star normal to the axis. I've overlaid the Hubble image with graphics to depict energy flow and the polar lines of force. Whether gravity is quantum or relativistic or mechanical, certainly an anamoly of gravitational force manifests the accretion force(s). If a black hole evaporates, this is a likely mechanism (there's that "mechanic" word again...) that results from a reversible work process. Balance to what? So-called scientifics can draw a breath of relief because you defended their lack of imagination? Mooeypoo won't offer a CAUSE of gravity any more than you can. As for this theory being better, I think that would only emerge through discussion with people who actually know a bit about Netwon and what he thought. I find it INSULTING that this thread was moved. I think that was done out of obstinance if not blatant ignorance of the historical value, let alone lack of imagination. If Faraday had been that unimaginative, we'd be making feeble attempts to communicate over the "candlenet."

I think you shouldn't be a moderator, mooypoo. I challenge you to provide a more accurate CAUSE of gravity. Oh what's the use...

If photons cannot escape a black hole, then why would we expect either a particle or a force weaker than light to escape it. Hawking radiation, simplicitely, is heat that radiates away from the singularity... somehow. Now black holes are... quantum?... Relativistic?... Mechanical? With any of those, exactly how would that little graviton, or a quantum gravitational loop, manage to escape the gravitational force of... well... the gravitational force? ________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath181/kmath181.htm Soon after the appearance of Isaac Newton's Principia, describing the law of universal gravitation, Newton's young friend Nicolas Fatio (1664-1753) conceived the idea that the apparent force of gravitational attraction between material objects might be due to an imbalance of repulsive forces arising from the impacts of tiny rapidly moving corpuscles from the nether regions of space. Objects would tend to shield each other from this shower of gravific corpuscles, so they would be driven together, and it's easy to see that the strength of this effect would be inversely proportional (at least approximately) to the square of the distance between the objects, in accord with Newton's law. Since the force of gravity depends strictly on the mass of an object (not on its apparent size), Fatio postulated that material objects are almost entirely transparent to the gravific corpuscles. At the time, this was a radical suggestion, but Fatio argued for its plausibility by noting that corpuscles of light can pass through solid glass, even though glass is as seemingly dense and impermeable as other solids. Fatio also noted that the lack of appreciable drag on moving objects could be explained by postulating a sufficiently high speed for the corpuscles. He also explained that the gravific corpuscles must be slowed by their interactions with ordinary matter in order to transfer the necessary momentum. Fatio continued to refine and promote his theory throughout the rest of his life, even after enlisting with the exiled Camisards, a insurrectionist sect of Huguenots from the south of France. __________________________________________________ ___________________________________ http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath209/kmath209.htm It's an interesting historical fact that the attitudes of scientists toward the Fatio-Lesage "explanation" of gravity have varied widely, not just from one scientist to another, but for individual scientists at different moments. This is exemplified by Newton's ambivalence. On one hand, he told Fatio that if gravity had a mechanical cause, then the mechanism must be the one Fatio had described. On the other hand, Newton usually inclined toward the view that gravity does not have a mechanical (material) cause. It's true that he explicitly denied (in a famous letter to Bentley) the intelligibility of bare action at a distance, but he just as explicitly rejected (in a letter to Leibniz) the notion that space is filled with some material substance (a la Descartes) that communicates the force of gravity. His alternative was to say that gravity is caused by the will and spirit of God, not by any material cause. Of course, he gave consideration to various possible material mechanisms, and even included some Queries in the latter editions of Opticks, speculating on the possibility of an ether that is least dense near matter, and whose density increases the further we recede from matter. This could be interpreted as a somewhat obscure reference to Fatio's theory, since the flux of gravific corpuscles is reduced in the vicinity of matter, due to the shadowing effect. And yet David Gregory reported that, behind Fatio's back, Newton laughed at his method of explaining gravity, and Newton scrupulously avoided mentioning any such explanations in his cherished Principia – aside from making it clear that his conception of gravity did not assume any particular mechanism, nor even whether gravity was due to an inherent pull between matter or was caused by some kind of impulsion. Indeed Fatio was unhappy that Newton never publicly acknowledged, let alone endorsed, his theory. He wrote to Conduitt in 1730 "I have often wondered how the second and third Edition of Sir Isaac Newton's Principles do touch so lightly upon this matter. For if there be a mechanical cause of gravity – as it is most probable – there is also a demonstration that there can be no cause of it than that which I give, and Dr. I. knew it very well." Apparently Fatio didn't appreciate how anathema his "explanation of gravity" was to Newton's fundamental doctrine, which was to eschew occult (i.e., hidden) causes for manifest phenomena. Even setting outside the outlandishness of the explanation, Newton was never able to extract from Fatio's idea any testable consequence that could support it, so the idea remained an occult mechanism which, according to Newton, is not the proper purview of science. The way this all settles in states that Newton's concept of a process neutral to religion, favors a fairy tale as gravity's cause rather than a sound scientific one. If we delve further into the idea that gravity is mechanical, rather than "Holy Spirit," we can find mistakes, nonetheless, a scientific principle that might be refined and may be the correct concept. __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Perhaps black holes do not jive with loops of force that reach a mighty hand upward to pull us down by the seat of our pants, because even singularities are subject to Occam's Razor, thus the path of least resistance. If not, then the razor is feable at best, but crippled at worst. What I find fascinating at times, is that a concept such as mechanical gravity arises when examining issues such as propulsion. I first encountered it when looking at the "glue" holding stars together. At the moment of fusion, gravitational force reverses because it is is overwhelmed by the atomic forces designed to do exactly that at millions of degrees C., unless, perhaps, a graviton is collectively a force stronger than electromagnetism. We know that is not true. A billion splattered atoms can't be wrong. On the other hand, a particle with inifnite range, such as the graviton, especially as an inbound stream, would be unaffected by such high heat (though not vice versa) and the force it generates because the infinite range, requiring the potentially inifite velocity, is a jugernaut compared to the force of a single boson, or even a domino-train-like string of bosons, because the boson is finite opposed to the collective string of gravitons, approaching infinite velocity. One needs to remember that a star, even though vast compared to us or a single atomic particle, is but a speck compared to the force available to an infinite universe, both material and potentially material.

If energy increases as we approach 0 then, per energy-mass equivocation, mass follows.

Why do we necessarily need to restrict our comparisons to a naturally occurring black hole? As Airbrush pointed out, although in analogous terms, energy increases as we approach zero radius. This is synonomous to energy in a vortex as simple as 2 planes, upper and lower, where velocity = energy/PIr^2. At zero radius, energy will equal infinity, thus velocity also will equal infinity. Where the topic query comes in, we might actually be able to endure the entire journey through the singularity because the forces are still in equilibrium between the central velocity and the energy required to maintain the black hole as an open entity. A singularity is merely arbitrary, because at zero radius, the mass would become infinite and thus engulf the entire mass of the universe. To compare, once again, to the fluid vortex, we would factor in the volume of fluid, say a flask with a magnetic stirrer versus the drain in a swimming pool.

I thought I did this before ... I'm Temporocitor. The nick is a take off from "This Island Earth"'s interocitor. I'm a weird, eccentric science guy who concentrates his efforts on the stars, relativity and time-space transcendence...

Is that Smucker's Moon Jelly or Kroger Cost Cutter? (Sorry... couldn't resist... ) What would you think about creating then adding controlled amounts of mass to a micro-black hole? Some of us have this crazy notion that one can be created within the right magnetic conditions with very little energy. I would believe, though, in your example time would be in a gradient magnitude, thus you would not be limited to say "in and out," but within a range. If we imagine an arc and its chord as a trajectory to simply cross over the event horizon, the arc would descend into the black hole along with any space attached to it. If we take a straight course along the chord, our space will be younger than the space emerging from the arc, thus the chord space is in the future of that space relative to the arc

Likely referencing the physical manifest of the BEC. The superatom forms as the target medium approaches absolute zero temperature. Motion stops, but time does not. Relativistically, this test is falsifiable because the BEC manifests as a flexible solid, i.e. a gel, rather than a rigid solid, i.e. a crystal.

I suppose my first question to see where minds are at would be "How may are familiar with the theories, discarded but occassionally revisited, of LeSage and Fatio?"

Time is intrinsically a flow of particles. We can measure the flow of photons from point A to point B to ..... point n. Planck time is a division of time based upon the speed of light. I'll venture as far as to say there likely is a basic, primordial particle that breaks the unit down to an absolute degree of infinitesimality. The Higgs field or Boson? According to Lederman and Schramm the initial instance of material time was 10 -43 seconds. Beyond that I would need to develop a theory of everything to support it and would be best addressed as a seperate launch post.

I've been out of touch with this thread for a bit... no Mitt Rmney jokes on that either I've been asking around for opinions in different ways about this and the most who I actually end up having something resembling scientific con fabbing with (a couple others :eyeroll: ) to exchange info, seem to find some consensus in centrifugal force versus siphoning that feeds the caldera at nominally 10,000 ft. One bit of data was the depth of brine and depth of the water sources ranging from 1.5 to 3 miles deep. The maximum freeze depth would be around 4500 ft. That surprised me. I was actually using 100 feet deep as my floor. Even 1000 ft being deep frozen for a couple years even would be capable of causing further fracturing. The park didn't just pop up in 1823. Assuming the consensus is correct that the basin has gone through fracturing for millions of years, we also know it didn't simply happen 2 or 200 million years years ago then stop. The last known eruption was around 70,000 years ago. There would certainly be a great deal more fracturing going on not unlike we frack for gas and deep well water, only the expansion be carried out by freezing instead of chemical reactions. The deeper the water veins run, for the longer the period, the deeper the divergence point of the fractures. Crazy as it may sound, an ice vein left in deep freeze long enough could drill deeply while being compressed at the deeper depth. Wouldn't that tend to produce compressed deuterium over a long period of just such deep freeze?

It appears we have another flare developing... this ios unexpected.

It is a well known fact that science is a very jealous field. Those in the field very often usurp the work of others and if someone points them out as being the second to arrive at some conclusion or process, they strike out after their life's ambition is suddenly shattered. It happens in both directions. Consider Dr. Philo Farnsworth. He battled for years to retain the patent rights for the TV he rightly was the inventor of but RCA had bigger bucks and essentially starved him out of his rights. He later had some success with fusion, but he died before it could be perfected and the work went by the wayside. Tesla has opened doors for many other areas of science to include accelerator technology. Just because he also included time travel in his repertoire, but couldn't duplicate the effect he claimed, is no reason to discount his rights to respect as a scientist. Was he mad? Not as likely as merely having severe character flaws that many others have. Maybe some remember the movioe "Rain Man." Was Raymond mad, a genius or simply different? Many autistic people are extreme one trick ponies. Do we discount the one who can play mozart by ear at age 5 and beyond because he can't tie his shoes? He brings something good to the world. Tesla did too. If we must label him, why not "typical" genius?

It should be legal. It is probably the safest antidepressant known to man. Lack of motivation is a half-myth. One doesn't want to go anywhere because it might lead to problems associated with its illegality. Lack of motivation to do harm is a good thing. Fewer accidents, because people want to stay home and do things at home. Few people get stoned and go on a police chase, unless they might be chasing dowen the police to give them a flower. Legalizing pot will see less violence and crime. It will find some who react in different ways that may be negative, for instance someone doesn't feel like doing something he should. It was likely that he didn't want to in the first place; pot just became an excuse. Many people find themselves more adroit at certain skills, such as painting. Some find they are so relieved of external pressures they can write code comfortably. There are more goods than bads. Legalize it.