Pushing gravity

[pantheory]

It is the Speed Of Light.

 

The principle is almost the same as Pancho's

 

 

My principle is that when you have in your left hand something called "matter" and in the right hand an unexisting thing called "nothing", the most evident explanation must reside in the left hand, not in the right hand. Instead of looking into this "nothing" and trying to give some properties to it, like an aether for example, it is more logic to "give" some property at what is existing.

 

This "property" could be scaling.

Why scaling? or as you wrote "for what reason does this reduction take place?'

 

The answer would be an hypothesis on top of an hypothesis.

I support largely Masreliez work which is well based. Masreliez concept is about expansion, not contraction. I have to admit that I change my mind every week about that. I have sometimes a feeling that in the end, it doesn't matter: the observational result might be the same.

IOW, I don't know.

--------------------

I notice there is no wiki page in English for Masreliez

Here is the link in French

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

//

Edited September 9, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

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

//

 

I have a matter gets bigger, and matter gets smaller. I have broken maths down to the simplest form that I could get to work...

 

+1 + -1 = 0

 

+1 is the Aether membrane.

-1 is a negative mass hole inside the membrane.

 

So scaling happens in my theory when the membrane of two Aether particles overlap. The edges overlap, and the area of those edges increases the +1 to say 1.00000000000000000000001. And that is the electron. The electron energy then reduces the +1 down 0.9999999999999999999999. The hole in the middle -1 now raised slightly. To scale the negative mass down there is an internal negative bump, cause by a polarized layer of negative particles... Dark Matter.

[pantheory]

I have a matter gets bigger, and matter gets smaller. I have broken maths down to the simplest form that I could get to work...

 

+1 + -1 = 0

 

+1 is the Aether membrane.

-1 is a negative mass hole inside the membrane.

 

So scaling happens in my theory when the membrane of two Aether particles overlap. The edges overlap, and the area of those edges increases the +1 to say 1.00000000000000000000001. And that is the electron. The electron energy then reduces the +1 down 0.9999999999999999999999. The hole in the middle -1 now raised slightly. To scale the negative mass down there is an internal negative bump, cause by a polarized layer of negative particles... Dark Matter.

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

//

Edited September 10, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

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

//

 

I think of it as a kind of physical trinary code. Where energy is pushed into containers, and when the containers overlap the energy can cross from one place to the next, expanding, and shrinking the containers. We evolved with these eyes, and senses to look through millions of these containers in one go. As we look through them we get results. As the two slit experiment travels through them it alters those containers. When we try to observe those containers we alter those containers by allowing them to overlap, and pass their information along.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[pantheory]

I think of it as a kind of physical trinary code. Where energy is pushed into containers, and when the containers overlap the energy can cross from one place to the next, expanding, and shrinking the containers. We evolved with these eyes, and senses to look through millions of these containers in one go. As we look through them we get results. As the two slit experiment travels through them it alters those containers. When we try to observe those containers we alter those containers by allowing them to overlap, and pass their information along.

 

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

//

 

Edited September 10, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

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

//

 

 

I don't know, I was surprised at the amount of movement in that. I didn't add the negative mass either. I just wanted to see what would happen. I should really do the full test. I tend to move on to other things though. I am currently working on a Neural Network of an ants nest.

[pantheory]

I don't know, I was surprised at the amount of movement in that. I didn't add the negative mass either. I just wanted to see what would happen. I should really do the full test. I tend to move on to other things though. I am currently working on a Neural Network of an ants nest.

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

//

Edited September 11, 2011 by pantheory

[mississippichem]

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.

 

Show us.

 

So far this thread has been a great example of what happens when the mathematics is left out of physics. We are left with a bunch of people babbling about their non sense pet theories without offering any proof. The fact that you can watch Pincho Paxton's video and are able to take it seriously is indicative of your lack of physics knowledge. MOND, though probably false, would be a drastic improvement to this thread.

Edited September 11, 2011 by mississippichem

[pantheory]

Show us.

 

So far this thread has been a great example of what happens when the mathematics is left out of physics. We are left with a bunch of people babbling about their non sense pet theories without offering any proof. The fact that you can watch Pincho Paxton's video and are able to take it seriously is indicative of your lack of physics knowledge. MOND, though probably false, would be a drastic improvement to this thread.

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.

//

Edited September 11, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

If you have spin, you have rotation around the black hole don't you? And you get spin from the fact that it is hardly likely that particles will cross collide. Or what do you have?

[pantheory]

If you have spin, you have rotation around the black hole don't you? And you get spin from the fact that it is hardly likely that particles will cross collide. Or what do you have?

 

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

[mississippichem]

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.

//

Okay thanks. Care to elaborate on what you mean by "considered range" and "active range"?

[pantheory]

Okay thanks. Care to elaborate on what you mean by "considered range" and "active range"?

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.

//

Edited September 12, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

...........Care to elaborate ........................ (concerning the variables of the related math)

(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.

//

Edited September 15, 2011 by pantheory