Gravity by I-try

[I-try]

I follow the many attempts on science forums, to provide an understanding of the nature of gravity or gravitation; also such phenomena as the nature of the known forces. Because there is a requirement that a discussion on subjects such as mentioned above must not involve speculation, I am left to wonder why such subjects are allowed in the general physics category.

Mainstream science has an almost religious belief and for practical reason for the General Theory of Relativity. Even so, and despite the statements made by GR regarding gravitation being an illusion, and gravity only existing because matter has the ability to warp space, there is a lingering belief that gravity and gravitation are physical extant phenomena; hence the discussions.

The point I am attempting to make is as follows. I have been made aware that physicists are only prepared to consider as science, only that which can be measured, and disdain anything that has its origin in the unmeasurable realm of philosophy.

With regards to the attempts to shed some light on the mysteries of gravity etcetera; would I be considered to be disobeying the rules of this forum if I proposed that the origin of gravity belongs in the philosophical domain that is well below the reach of present day physics, (everything must be capable of measurement and mathematically explained or it is not to be considered) and therefore not likely to be explained if the concepts derived from GR must be followed.

 

My work on the subject of gravity and gravitation is conceptually and not mathematically explained. It begins in the philosophical domain, and up through the differing levels of reality to conditions at the galactic centre. It represents a lifetime of work and is now published in book form. Unfortunately, most self published work lack the sales ability of the recognised publishers, and so rapidly buried beneath the many science fiction books available. I am well aware that I am not allowed to attempt to promote the book on this forum. Even so, I am prepared to provide counter argument regarding gravity and gravitation as depicted by GR, whilst agreeing that the warping of space is a physical reality, as Einstein’s mathematics so accurately required.

I am making this inquiry because on The Science Forum, I was banned for life because I could not explain in my next post, the fundamental nature of gravity and gravitation. That demand followed all my previous argument being dismissed because it was conceptually and not mathematically explained. I was subjected to criticism such as; it does not conform to QM without an explanation as to why it did not conform, or it does not conform to GR and such comments extending to ridicule involving pink unicorns. Not one of my opponents were able to provide an attempt at explaining the fundamental dynamic nature of mass and matter, but were totally not prepared to engage in the why and the how of my proposals.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I think you missed the quick part of, 'Quick Forum Questions.' I'm moving your thread to Speculations. Please be aware that there are additional rules pertaining to posts in this forum and that you will be expected to abide by them. They may be found here: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

[swansont]

My work on the subject of gravity and gravitation is conceptually and not mathematically explained.

 

How can you test your work to see if it properly explains and predicts what we observe?

[ajb]

Mainstream science has an almost religious belief and for practical reason for the General Theory of Relativity.

Not religous belief. If some evidence that GR is not a good theory within its domain of applicability became clear then there would be huge interest in seeing if alternative theories fit the data better. Maybe new formulations of gravity theory would be needed. Anyway, until such evidence is found then GR will remain the standard theory of gravity.

 

My work on the subject of gravity and gravitation is conceptually and not mathematically explained.

This is a big problem. It will lack the language and formalism that we require. As swansont has pointed out, how can we test your idea without any numerical predictions?

[Phi for All]

Mainstream science has an almost religious belief and for practical reason for the General Theory of Relativity.

 

Your understanding of both religion and science is flawed if you can make this statement.

 

My work on the subject of gravity and gravitation is conceptually and not mathematically explained.

 

 

In my experience, this means, "I gave up studying math but kept speculating in science using only words". Words ultimately are not precise enough for science, where numbers can easily show you that an idea is unsound.

 

Not one of my opponents were able to provide an attempt at explaining the fundamental dynamic nature of mass and matter, but were totally not prepared to engage in the why and the how of my proposals.

 

 

Again in my experience (ten years here at SFN), this means, "Everyone told me that my ideas were trivially falsified mathematically, but when they also tried to use just words to explain it to me, it didn't make sense, so those explanations don't count". When you're trying to explain a concept with only words, you're subject to differences in language, dialect, inflection, context, and a whole host of other problems that numbers ignore.

 

I don't ever see anyone who understands the math disagree with GR and QM. It's the lingual approach that confuses so many.

[I-try]

Speculations Forum Rules

The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

• Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is not testable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

• Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.

• Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

Have fun.

 

Hypervalent_iodine.

 

Rule number one and three are the reason I have not and will not be responding to other posts in future. I have already had two warnings, one of which I was accused of hijacking when I answered a part of a question concerning the qualification of the author of an article read by the thread starter. The other posters thought that he might have been a quack and did not respond further.

 

With regards to test ability: As stated in my question that has turned into a post on Speculation, my work begins in the region of the physiological, and deals with what present science would refer to as the fundamental dynamic nature of a quantum wave: we are not capable of measuring the energy in a portion of a quantum wave. On a higher level of physical reality, the equation of E=MC² is attempted to be explained utilising the information and logic provided by the discussion concerning the nature of quantum waves; as is the bases of the following statements regarding anomalies.

The work provides answers to present anomalies such as the masked assimilation and return of heat energy in a changing of state during changes of water to steam and back to water. Many anomalies such as just described occur throughout physics, and are explainable by the GTE.

Another anomaly occurred during the flyby of Jupiter by Pioneer. If I state the excess acceleration was gravitationally induced because a planet's gravity field is exactly balanced in conformity with the planet's velocity, the first post that followed that statement would demand a proof. Unfortunately the attempt at a proof is located in and requiring an understanding of a large part of 152 pages of explanation.

I will be leaving the fun part you referred to, to other posters to this Forum

 

Phi for all.

GR states that gravitation is an illusion, and gravity only exists because matter is compelled to follow geodesic pathways; that is an example of the need to carefully describe the findings of maths by the use of words. I do not doubt that Einstein's mathematics are correct; my concern is with the fact that despite all physical evidence presented by our study and experience regarding gravitation, mainstream science has a religious like belief in the conceptual statements derived from GR. My work agrees with and provides a reason why that which provides reality to our concept space, can be crudely referred to as warped where matter is located. Also in all space when matter is not located. The work also states that Einstein was correct to state that gravitation is not a force, and incorrect to declare gravitation to be an illusion. In that regard, there is the gravitational effect and gravitational induced unbalancing of force that leads to the gravitational effect.

With regards to the curvature of light and the gravitational ability of a photon; a photon travelling past an electron will undergo a curvature of its path in conformity to a inverse of square of the distance law; which in regards to the gravitational effect of an electron on a photon, is of much greater magnitude than the Newtonian law pertaining to the gravitational interaction between bulk bodies. I find that a photon has no ability to create a gravitational effect.

It is an impossible task to defend the above statements because as previously explained, the bases of the work is not measurable as demanded by the rules stated above, and by the physicists statements that all must be measurable or it cannot be regarded as contributing to science.

 

Presently, Australian scientists have found a regularly repeating pattern of climatic behaviour locked in ancient ice cores drilled from Antarctica. It is my belief that those patterns of changes to climate will coincide with sunspot activity. Also to the slow but regular alignments regarding positions relative to the Sun of the planets of the solar system. Thereby conforming to what I refer to as a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect. The GTE is responsible for many phenomenons that occur in physics, and are now referred to as anomalies. For instance: the magnitude of rapidity of random molecular motion is a measure of a portion of the dynamic state of matter, even so rapidity of random motion of molecules is not heat energy, but is a necessary precursor of heat energy. The closeness and rate of approach and retreat of electrons with each-other dictates the intensity of thermal activity - GTE - ranging from the far infra-red to beyond the ultra violet.

The GTE is the principal reason for the excessive volcanic activity on Jupiter's moon Io, due to Io's rapid and much extended orbiting in Jupiter's strong gravity field.

 

With regards to giving up the study of maths, I never had the opportunity to begin due to the privation inflicted by the great depression. My study of physics has always centred on the how and the why of fundamental realities necessary to be understood if science is to advance beyond the false concepts derived from GR; such as regularly reoccurring gravitation induced waves capable of detection after travelling long distances. No matter how valiant or expensive the attempt at detection extends, the non existent cannot be detected. With regards to having the benefit of hindsight; the work referred to above was available 40 years ago and clearly indicated that such waves cannot exist.

Edited July 14, 2014 by I-try

[Mordred]

if you never studied the maths involved in GR then how do you pretend to understand GR? there is plenty of material to learn the maths involved that do not involve money, it only involves taking the time and energy to do so. I would have no faith in any book or article with regards to physics without the supportive mathematics. No one in their right mind would. You obviously have no interest in learning what physics is really about.

 

here is a free one equivalent to any textbook

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

take the time to actually learn it before making outlandish claims

Edited July 14, 2014 by Mordred

[I-try]

Mordred.

 

Because I believe that an answer to your post number 7 will not contravene the rules of this forum; therefore I will state that like all others, you are entitled, correct or otherwise, to state your beliefs regarding my understanding of physics. However I should be entitled to state that mathematics requires the use of words at the beginning, to provide the manner in which mathematics symbols are to be regarded. Following the findings of mathematics, words are essential to conceptually explain the information derived from the mathematics. I will state again that I have great faith in the mathematical ability of Professor Einstein and further for his first wife's ability; she achieved high grades in both physics and mathematics and would have been of great assistance to him. Therefore, I do not require an understanding of the mathematics involved that allow Einstein to use words such as the warping of space/time. My work as stated in my post above, is in agreement that the warping is a crude reference to the physical reality that transpires in the the presence of matter, however, my work in book form you contemptuously refer to, along with providing an explanation of other anomalies, also conceptually, by the use of words, explains why and how the warping must occur.

 

With regard to your statement that "I obviously have no interest in learning what physics is really about", then perhaps you may be interested in a discussing regarding the statements made concerning relativistic mass. My work requires that the mass of matter must increase or decrease due to the circumstances of the gravitational thermodynamic effect – GTE – but in an accelerator, a particle of matter travelling close to C has experienced constant changes to its momentum, and not an increase of its mass. If mass constantly increased as speed C is approached, it would require equal force to deflect a particle into a circular path as it would to accelerate it in its original direction of motion. Under acceleration in an accelerating machine, a charged particle must radiate because it is instant by instant experiencing jolts derived from the Abraham-Lorentz force, (reason for such force explained in the book) and therefore cannot be credited with energy increase in the form of an increase in mass. When speed of a particle is approaching C, accelerating force would become less and lesser effective in achieving acceleration because the accelerating force can only travel at speed C.

Also what is your opinion with regards to the constant changes of the parameters responsible for the particles other phenomena such as its electrical, gravity, and magnetic fields.

[Mordred]

how would you expect me to have any faith in what you say if you don't understand the math involved by your own admission? When I judge a book on physics I expect the author to at least have a solid understanding of the mathematics involved, even if they don't use the math itself in the books writing. (by the way I never buy a physics book unless it includes the metrics, and I have over 30 in my collection)

 

I've long ago lost count on the number of times I've had to clarify verbal descriptions used by those books. such classic examples includes

 

1) if space-time warps what is it made from?

2) what inside or outside the universe? consequence of poorly described balloon analogy

3) all the misconceptions involved in the rubber sheet analogy

 

When I buy a physics book I want to be able to take the details in that book and calculate specific models of my own.

 

I want to know exactly how much of an effect an interaction described by a particular model has in terms of the metrics. I also want to know exactly what the relevant formula are and how they are used. Otherwise I'm just reading a good story. Not a book designed to teach physics

Mordred.

. Under acceleration in an accelerating machine, a charged particle must radiate because it is instant by instant experiencing jolts derived from the Abraham-Lorentz force, (reason for such force explained in the book) and therefore cannot be credited with energy increase in the form of an increase in mass. When speed of a particle is approaching C, accelerating force would become less and lesser effective in achieving acceleration because the accelerating force can only travel at speed C.

 

 

 

fine explain to me how the modified Abraham Lorentz Dirac equation works term for term variable per variable.

 

here use the one in this reference

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2203v1.pdf

 

teach me how to use it mathematically, after all you wrote a book on it

 

how do you specifically solve the runaway acceleration problem?

I know how others have shown solutions for it what is yours?

 

describe the scaling properties of the self field?

what is the evolution equation for ALD? what does it describe and how?

what is the conservation of stress energy tenser equation and how does the stress energy tenser decay?

 

if I'm going to buy a book describing an alternate model outside of the concordance definitions, those are the types of questions I would want the answers for

 

and yes I have read articles on ALD

Edited July 17, 2014 by Mordred

[I-try]

Mordred

By your use of the word FINE regarding my statement you quoted, does not indicate your opinion of the relevance of the information provided in the quote; do you agree or disagree with my statement indicating that the physical parameters that undergo change involve a continual increase in momentum and not an increase of relativistic mass. Also, by stating that the referred to jolt has an explanation in my book, implies that it is accounted for in my work. In that regard, an electron experiences an instant by instant attempt to resist acceleration, the physical realities being explained in the work. There was no statement that I agreed or disagreed with or changed any information provided by your link. I agree that the phenomenon referred to can be referred to as a jolt, and required by the Abraham-Lorentz jolt.

 

You made no comment regarding the simple explanation of why matter cannot be accelerated beyond speed C, whilst making demands of your own that I should explain the complications experienced in the study of physics resulting from applying mathematics to inadequately understood dynamic realities of matter, that end up in runaway acceleration problem or require the application of the normalisation process to remove mistaken mathematically derived concepts that result in infinities.

[Mordred]

I have no problem with a book written about the Abraham-Lorentz jolt, in and of itself my point is how does one write about something without understanding the math involved. That is my problem, as I said its not a main stay model so many of the standard cosmology teachings are different in this particular model. So if I buy a book on it I would want to see those math relations and have them explained in how they are derived. That is my point

It would be like buying a textbook that describes the PID (proportional integral derivitive) equation used in pressure systems in engineering, that doesn't show how to use the PID equation.

 

Or a book written in how to perform surgery when the author has never picked up a scalpel.

 

"With regards to giving up the study of maths, I never had the opportunity to begin due to the privation inflicted by the great depression"

 

this statement you posted above, does not give me any confidence in your book, simple as that. Quite frankly you can't fault me for wanting to know the author writing a book describing a mathematical model understands the math involved. The questions I asked are merely examples of the types of questions I would expect a good book to the model to explain and cover in detail ( in other words I shouldn't need to do my own research on the subject if the book already covers those details)

as far as the questions above I already have coverage of those questions or at least I would if I can remember where i saved the files on it lol

(too big a database of articles)

 

 

the runaway acceleration has to do with the third order derivative in a ALD model, (if I remember it correctly) afiak there is no agreed upon solution for it

 

I wanted to know which solution you preferred, but I guess I'll provide that answer for you

"On radiation reaction and the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2203v1.pdf

 

please note the conclusion

"In this task the runaway instabilities appear and their elimination had not been attained" so even this paper does not completely solve the problem

 

this iterates my point on writing a book on a mathematical model, without knowing the math

Edited July 25, 2014 by Mordred

[I-try]

Mordred.

Thanks for your reply regarding your belief that I have written a book on the subject you refer to. The reference to the Abraham-Lorentz jolt in the book is at the bottom of page 82 as follows: *Similar to the Jerk referred to and required by the Abraham-Lorentz force; the electron's acceleration only being partly retarded by such impact.

That information is supplied to further inform a reader of my work regarding the instant by instant changing of parameters affecting gravity, electric charge and field, momentum, magnetic field, and how the relatively sudden change in speed results in radiation perpendicular to the direction of motion, during the acceleration of an electron.

 

Do you have any comment to provide with regard to the need to change from relativistic mass to relativistic momentum, as indicated in post number 8, and requested in post number 10.

[Mordred]

Mordred.

 

.

, then perhaps you may be interested in a discussing regarding the statements made concerning relativistic mass. My work requires that the mass of matter must increase or decrease due to the circumstances of the gravitational thermodynamic effect – GTE – but in an accelerator, a particle of matter travelling close to C has experienced constant changes to its momentum, and not an increase of its mass. If mass constantly increased as speed C is approached, it would require equal force to deflect a particle into a circular path as it would to accelerate it in its original direction of motion. Under acceleration in an accelerating machine, a charged particle must radiate because it is instant by instant experiencing jolts derived from the Abraham-Lorentz force, (reason for such force explained in the book) and therefore cannot be credited with energy increase in the form of an increase in mass. When speed of a particle is approaching C, accelerating force would become less and lesser effective in achieving acceleration because the accelerating force can only travel at speed C.

Also what is your opinion with regards to the constant changes of the parameters responsible for the particles other phenomena such as its electrical, gravity, and magnetic fields.

 

particle accelerators themselves are not a particularly good example of the differences between ADL and GR, first off you need to define what type of accelerator. Secondly the forces applied are not consistent so are inherently jerky (be much the same as jerk and snap though on the forces themselves lol)

well here is a quick slide on the differences. As well as how the magnetic forces relate to the mass and momentum for each type and how centrifugal for is applied. Most people tend to jump to the conclusion that constant energy is applied to increase a particle to relativistic speeds but this isn't necessarily true.

 

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~zcapf71/Particlephysicsshow1.pdf

 

fundamentally particle accelerators uses electromagnetic polarization. An increase of momentum is an increase in mass based on the total energy of the particle.

 

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html

 

by the way if you use the term Abraham Lorentz force I will automatically think of the non relativistic forces, I hope your aware that Abraham Lorentz force is not valid for relativistic particles. For that you need to use the ADL Abraham Lorentz Dirac force. If you want to include quantum definitions then you need the Abraham–Lorentz–Dirac–Langevin equation. Lets keep the terminology specific to the examples shall we? (my memory on this model is fuzzy enough without adding confusion lol, been over a year since I last seriously studied it)(too busy in regards to the Higg's field, and SO(10) for my own research)

 

by the way I'm not particularly interested in relearning ADL at present, my queries had to do with the math and book writing I mentioned in my last post. For the reasons I already mentioned.. I've already studied ADL my concern had to do with the book itself when you mentioned not knowing the math involved. Not the pros and cons of one model compared to the other, (I would have the same probllem if someone wrote a book on GR without knowing the math) you keep missing that point (its also something you should consider rectifying, ie study the math itself, you would be amazed at the insights) (it also helps prevents misunderstandings in articles that are poorly worded)

Edited July 26, 2014 by Mordred

[I-try]

Mordred said.

particle accelerators themselves are not a particularly good example of the differences between ADL and GR, first off you need to define what type of accelerator. Secondly the forces applied are not consistent so are inherently jerky (be much the same as jerk and snap though on the forces themselves lol)

well here is a quick slide on the differences. As well as how the magnetic forces relate to the mass and momentum for each type and how centrifugal for is applied. Most people tend to jump to the conclusion that constant energy is applied to increase a particle to relativistic speeds but this isn't necessarily true.

 

http://www.ucl.ac.uk...hysicsshow1.pdf

 

fundamentally particle accelerators uses electromagnetic polarization. An increase of momentum is an increase in mass based on the total energy of the particle.

 

http://galileo.phys....rgy_p_reln.html

 

My reply.

I was referring to the Large Hadron Accelerator underground in Europe. My information was derived from;

http://www.scienceinschools.org/print/651

The following paragraph was copied from the article accessible via the web address above.

They enter the LHC at 99.9997828 % of the speed of light. After acceleration, they reach 99.9999991 %. This is about the maximum speed that can be reached, since nothing can move faster than light, according to the theory of relativity. Although it might seem like an insignificant gain in speed, at close to the speed of light, even a small acceleration results in a large gain in mass, and this is the important part. A motionless proton has a mass of 0.938 GeV (938 million electron volts). The accelerators bring them to a final mass (or energy, which in this case is practically the same thing) of 7000 billion electron volts (7 tera-eV or 7 TeV).

 

For practical purposes, I would agree with the statement that I have underlined in the copied paragraph above, that with regards an accelerator; it does not matter if an increase in kinetic energy is referred to an increase in mass. That would be because the time rate of change to the velocity of a remnant matter particle being simultaneously accelerated and confined to the accelerator within strict limits, would simulate an increase in mass. Even so, physical reality tells us that although kinetic energy and momentum are much increase due to achieving a speed close to C, kinetic energy and momentum cannot generate a gravity field that can affect other mass via the gravitational effect. According to my work of the fundamental nature of energy and matter, there is a chalk and cheese difference between the concepts of mass, kinetic energy and momentum. I find that there are two distinct parts to momentum, and not just the acceleration of the rest mass of matter particles. The change in dimension of a matter particle travelling at a speed close to light and as required by the Fitzgerald-Lorentz effect, would require that which remains of the particles mass, to be flattened perpendicular to the constantly changing direction of motion. There would be a very strong following magnetic field generated by the particles perpendicular to their direction of motion that provides the believed increase in mass. At a speed close to that of light, there would be only faint vestiges of a gravity field generated in the direction of motion of the remnant mass of a matter particle.

Having stated the above, then if in physical reality, gravitation is an illusion and gravity only existing because matter is compelled (indicating that a force is acting) to follow Geodesic pathways as required by GR, then the increase in mass referred to in the above copied paragraph would be correct.

 

I am sorry if my reference to the Abraham-Lorentz force and referred to jolt experienced by an electron when electrically accelerated, resulted in confusion; that was not the intention. When I referred to the Abraham-Lorentz conclusion regarding an electron receiving a jolt, I made that comparison because my explanation of an electron's instant by instant acceleration by electrical force, also requires frequency dependent impacts.

[I-try]

Because there have been no posts in reply to my above post, I will take the opportunity to reply to those who stated that I must supply an example of a verifiable prediction that my work regarding gravity makes. The following is an extract from a resent email I sent to ESA regarding the comet probe Rosetta.

 

Extract from the referred to email.

My 70 years of work concerning the fundamental nature of matter supplies a concept of gravity and gravitation that requires the physical existence of a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect, (GTE). I therefore believe and predict that the Rosetta comet probe will record thermal activity resulting as per the following: Due to the relative rapid, gravitational induced constant increase in velocity as the comet approaches the Sun, the believed GTE will result in the comet's internal heat increasing by the inverse of the square of the distance, and said heat will be varied by the time rate of radiation ability of the material between the comet’s centre of gravity and vacuum of space. The referred to increase in heat energy is addition to radiation received from the Sun. The referred to production of heat energy is required because the comet’s material must conform to the physical requirements of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum.

Upon reaching perihelion, and after the excess heat energy derived via the GTE is radiated from the comet, the temperature of the comet will depend only on the reception of radiated energy received from the Sun

When the comet begins to travel away from the Sun, the heat production effect from the GTE will reverse and only radiation from the Sun will be warming the comet. Due to departure from the Sun, the GTE results in a cooling of the comet’s material in proportion to the square of the distance from the Sun. Again, the reducing radiation referred to being varied by the time rate of radiation ability of the comet’s material, and in conformity to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum. . The magnitude of cooling referred to will be in excess of the reducing radiation being received by the comet from the Sun.

The velocity of the comet relative to the Sun will reduce to less than that expected to result from Newtonian gravitation. The magnitude of reducing acceleration will conform approximately to the reduction of acceleration relative to the Sun, and measured by NASA for the Pioneer spacecraft. The word Approximately was referred to because some of Pioneer’s unexpected slowing may have resulted from unbalanced radiation of heat energy in the direction of motion of Pioneer, and as now believed to have been the physical reason for Pioneer’s unexpected slowing. Even so, the major amount of slowing will result from the GTE on the comet’s mass. The unexpected slowing and proportional cooling of comet 67P/C-G, should concur with the excess slowing of Pioneer in proportion to distance from the Sun, and now held in NASA's records: there should be a square of the distance dependency.

A comparison made between the heating and cooling of the comet relative to similar distances and with regards to direction of motion to and from the Sun, will conclusively indicate whether the GTE referred to above is a physical reality.

[I-try]

It appears that there is to be no discussion regarding my post above predicting the thermal activity to be registered by the spacecraft Rosetta during its encounter with comet 67P/C. Perhaps I may be able to encourage comments by posting an abbreviated * description of the physics supporting the prediction, and provided by my concept of gravity and gravitation. The concept referred to requires the prediction to be an accurate description of phenomena expected to be recorded by the Rosetta spacecraft, and resulting from the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect, GTE.

The concept of gravity and gravitation referred to above conforms instant by instant to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum. The time rate of change in a body's velocity due to the gravitation effect is proportionally accompanied by instantaneous compensating change to its momentum. When a body of matter such as comet 67P/C approaches the Sun, the constantly decreasing distance to the Sun, results in a reduction of the mass of said body in the form of heat energy, and in proportion to the inverse of the square of the distance. With regards to how hot a body would become, there is a time rate of change to the decreasing distance to the Sun, varied by the inverse of the square; the magnitude of mass involved and radiation ability of the mass also critically controls the retention or radiation ability. A body with its center of mass close to the vacuum of space will retain less heat than a body with its center of mass better insulated with similar material, and with similar parameters acting on both bodies. Jupiter’s moons especially Io, are a macro example of the GTE. However there are micro examples extant in mainstream physics now referred to as anomalies.

With regards to our ability to sense the effects of the GTE as a body approaches the Sun, that is because of the large amount of energy available from a unit of mass, that transforms to heat energy according to the equation E = C² . Our ability to notice the effect of the GTE is also due to the huge number of particles of matter available to individually contribute a minute amount of heat energy in proportion to the reduction to their mass.

 

When comet 67P/C begins to travel away from the Sun, the gravitational effect results in a reduction in velocity in proportion to the requirements of Newtonian gravitation. There is also the GTE that reverses activity and results in an increase in the mass of said body that physically results in a cooling and a reduction in velocity relative to the Sun, thereby exhibiting over sufficient distance from the Sun, a gradual increasing of mass and a corresponding reduction of velocity beyond that expected due to Newtonian gravitation. With regards to our reduced ability to sense the effects of the GTE when a body of matter is travelling away from the Sun, is because of the large amount of energy required to be available to replace the slight loss of mass from each particle during the approach to the Sun, the replacement of mass also required by the conservation of energy and momentum laws.

With regards to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum, all changes however slight and irrespective of precursor, must be accounted for in obedience to those laws.

 

• My attempt now in book form required 152 pages to provide an outline understanding; also argument supporting the physic involved with the concept of gravity and electric fields attempted to be explained. Even so, I am prepared to provide further information if there are people willing to attempt to understand the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect.

[I-try]

Presented below is an abbreviated description of phenomena attempted to be explained by my work regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of matter

 

Mainstream science refers to the gravitational mass, inertial mass, relativistic mass and invariant mass to describe various phenomena. According to ? (? Substituted to represent my work) regarding gravity and gravitation, there is only one mass and that is the mass that results from the continual interaction between matter and that responsible for its original creation. Mainstream science is quite prepared to believe in an original creation of matter with a vague reference with regards to the creation resulting soon after the Big Bang. The difference between the two concepts is with regards the following: The mainstream concept has matter created complete and self sufficient with an ability to generate and exchange electromagnetic photons, thereby influencing other distant matter. Whereas, ? requires that matter in the form of electron and positron was not created self sufficient and final, but undergoes continual instant by instant interaction with that from which it was originally created, thereby providing a time relative to an electron. In that regard, matters gravity field, gravitation effect, electric and magnetic fields and all other attributes are a result of the referred to continual interaction. I find by utilising the nominal electron radius provided by the Feynman lectures on Physics, that the maximum possible rate at which an electron could oscillate would be 5.319 x 10²² (53,191,489,361,702,127,659,374) cycles per second. The speed of light divided by the nominal electron radius, and further divided by two because there are two “time” related parts to the electron’s cycle. A reason as to why the actual frequency would be below the stated maximum is provided by the referred to work.

 

Mainstream science also indicates the possibility of the oscillation of an electron by referring to a reoccurring short wave train, and Feynman stated that perhaps the reason oscillations of the electron have not been detected is because the rate of oscillations is more than 10¹².

 

The concept of gravity and gravitation supplied by ? forbids the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves, and requires that Professor Cavendish measured the gravitational effect, and not gravity as has often been stated. According to ?, gravity is the link between the fundamental dynamic level of reality and the reality of physics as presently known.

 

In post 16 of this thread, the change in mass resulting from the action of the GTE referred to that which is now called the invariant mass. The change to mass is required because matter undergoing a relative rapidly approach to and from the Sun, the parameters responsible for the replenishment of mass undergo instant by instant relative large changing that, unlike our inability to measure slow and slight approaches, become more pronounces and measurable. Any physical reason provided to explain those changes such as increasing or decreasing velocity and momentum induced by the gravitational effect, must have a logical conformity with all other explanations of phenomena pertaining to the fundamental dynamic nature of that we refer to as the mass of matter.

On other posts, the reason why the Pioneer spacecraft received acceleration in excess of that expected from the Newtonian version of gravitation resulted because the gravity field of Jupiter is varied in proportion to its orbital velocity. The gravitational effect adjusts accordingly.

I propose in ? that there is an unrecognised force referred to as Particle Force, requiring that irrespective of whether a star, a planet, a moon or an electron is the subject of investigation, macro or micro, all are subjected to particle force. In that regard, the Michael-Morley experiment had no hope of registering a positive result beside the presently accepted reason provided by the shortening of matter required by the Lorentz equation. A reason why matter undergoes a distortion in lateral and longitudinal dimensions in proportion to the magnitude of its velocity, is provided by ?.

 

Although I was not aware at the time of launch of Pioneer that ? predicted the excess acceleration of Pioneer and the unexpected slowing of Pioneer with increasing distance, my prediction of phenomena to be expected to result from the spacecraft Rosetta investigation of comet 67P/C-G is also required by ?, and is confidently expected to be correct. Is that statement an indication of arrogance or simply a statement derived from the totality of the physics provided in ?. The simple fact is that my 70 years of work regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of phenomena supporting our concept of physics stands or falls depending on Rosetta’s information gleaned from its encounter with the comet it now orbits.

Edited September 5, 2014 by I-try

[hoola]

I-try.....I have several questions as to gravitational phenomena. The first involves virtual particles. Do you think they act as a partial mechanism of gravitational behavior? Why does gravity seem to ignore individual particles below certain rest masses? If the warpage of space results in gravitation , why does matter warp space? And if matter does warp space, is this warpage a cause of gravitation or a symptom/component of some underlying mechanism? I see a possibility that gravity results from the underpinnings of mathematics, which is logic and therefore described from a source prior to the development of the maths, so slightly incompatible with the maths, which do describe the other fundamental forces so well. Which goes along with my model that logic predates the BB, which generates math, and only after that generated description reaches a certain point, can the BB and the subsequent universe happen...

Edited September 5, 2014 by hoola

[I-try]

Hello Hoola, and before I can attempt to answer your questions of post 18 above, we would need to be communicating on the same wavelength.

Mainstream science refers to gravity and gravitation as different versions of one and the same concept; matter generates a gravitational field which has an ability to exert a pull or an attraction on other matter. On other occasions, reference is made to the effects of gravity.

By his statements regarding his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein indicated correctly that gravitation was not a force. However, any belief that gravitation is an illusion is false according to ?. Also, by implying that the gravity concept only results because matter is compelled to follow geodetic pathways in space, Einstein appears to have attempted to make the concepts of gravity and gravitation redundant, although later in life, he stated that was not his intention. In that regard, the ability of his geometrical based mathematics enabled him to correctly forecast that due to warping of space, light photons would be displaced from their straight line trajectory when bypassing the Sun. With regards to the above; what is your idea of virtual particles and gravitation?

 

According to my work, gravity is a continual creative phenomenon, and electrons, (I would call them negatron) positrons and their various attributes are essentially dependent on the continual instant by instant interaction between the + and ^_ electron and that responsible for their original creation. With regards to that from which electrons are created, ? requires that units of primeval energy involving speed of light motion under immense pressure, are travelling from all direction throughout the entire universe. Primeval energy represents the basic reality. Virtual particles exist as an intermediate level of reality, prior to the creation of matter via the gravity process. Virtual particles exist for the shortest period of that we call time.

I leave attempts to imagine the original creation such as is attempted to be provided by the BB to others to speculate on.

Hoola, I hope the above provides sufficient answer to your questions.

[hoola]

I-try....thank you for your kind attention..hoola

[I-try]

Hello again hoola, and now that I can afford more time, I have reread your questions and find that some were not answered.

With regards to gravity ignoring individual particles below a certain rest mass, the short answer is all particles possessing what we call rest mass are not ignored because gravity is instant by instant responsible for their continued rest mass. If you were referring to virtual particles, ? requires that a virtual particle has a short lifetime, and exists in the form of a wave phenomenon for most of that time. Their alternating particle nature only exists for a small fraction of their lifetime. Their wave nature is an almost infinitesimal version of gravity that fleetingly provides their particle like nature whilst they travel at the speed of light through that which provides the reality of space. If electrons are created indirectly from primeval energy, and electrons have an ability to generate an electric field, than primeval energy is fundamentally electric in nature, thereby providing physical reality to what Einstein referred to as the fabric of space-time.

Virtual particles can appear at rest similar to that referred to as quantum foam by quantum theory, or can result from photon like bursts of energy directed in any individual direction.

 

Regarding your question; If the warpage of space results in gravitation , why does matter warp space? And if matter does warp space, is this warpage a cause of gravitation or a symptom/component of some underlying mechanism?

 

That which Einstein referred to as the warping of space results from gravities intermittent instant by instant spherical centripetal ingress of what ? refers to as primary energy towards the centre point of electrons. The referred to centripetal motion is balanced by the almost immediate expulsion of that maximum amassed energy from the electron in the form of its electric field. ? finds that there are two parts to an electron’s cycle, the first half of an electron’s cycle furnishes its electric charge and mass via the spherical ingress of half primary energy due to gravity, and the rebound of the imploding energy results in the electron’s outgoing electric field during the second part of an electron’s cycle. In that regard, ? finds that the scientists of the 19^th century were correct regarding the nature of gravity, and the relegating of the idea of aether to the dustbin of history was a mistake, because although the spherical ingress of energy towards the central point of an electron is the maximum possible derivable via the parameters acting in an electron’s locality, the time taken per cycle approaches the maximum rate of oscillation of an electron, which is approximately 5.319 x 10²² cycles per second. The statement by the opposing scientists that the Earth would fry in a second was a valid argument because those supporting the idea of aether failed to realise or emphasise the connection between gravity and an electron’s electric field; the short period of time involved would have helped them to defend their aether concept of gravity.

[I-try]

hoola.

Further to my two posts above in reply to your questions, I would add the following statements: Similar to a chargeable battery that undergoes a cycle of charge followed by a work doing discharge then recharge, an electron can be looked upon as a microscopic rechargeable battery capable of performing work due to the manner of its creation and subsequent attributes.

Also, if you critically examine the description provided regarding an electron’s cycle, you should find answers to quandaries such as the reason why an electron can describe an orbit around a nucleus and not be required or compelled to radiate in excess of its electric discharge.

[hoola]

I-try....in the most fundamental basis of reality, do you agree with john wheeler's idea that at the bottom of everything is mathematics? Does your model have anything to infer on what led up to the BB?

[hoola]

here is an idea I had a while back when considering a possible gravity mechanism, Suppose gravity is due to random entanglements between various components within matter. If, as an average, all the spins within material constituents occasionally "see" the exact same alignment in materials surrounding them, and they become briefly "entangled", but then quickly lose that, as they are exposed to the random "brownian motion" in the immediate spin state environment. During that brief moment of entanglement, which is going on between a certain proportion of all material objects in the universe continuously, each momentary entanglement allows a component of the gravitation process to engage. Those brief pulses of entanglement "make and break" somehow provide the necessary "communication" between every bit of matter in the universe...the more matter in a large object, the higher number of possible arbitrary entanglements it could have to be "communicated" within itself and to external matter...so the more matter, the more gravitation. If this were to be true, in order to cancel a gravitational field, you would have to shield entanglements from occurring across a specific boundary of a test area. It would have gravity within itself as normal, but would be free from external gravitational influences...if the test area was inside a sphere, it would become gravitationally detached from the rest of the universe...this goes along with the idea that gravity does warp space, but that may be more of a result of the gravitational process, and not a mechanism...as space itself, or virtual particles, may respond to the same make and break mechanism of the arbitrary entanglements to proximate massive objects...

Edited September 13, 2014 by hoola

[I-try]

Hoola.

 

It would appear that you and I are the only persons continuing to post to this thread. In that regard, your most welcome questions provide little indication of how you regard the validity of ?. Consequently, I would appreciate any critical comment regarding your assessment of the statements that I have to date posted that do not conform to that of mainstream concepts. I sincerely hope that my efforts on this Forum are not doomed to the silence experienced during my 40 year effort to have my work officially or otherwise evaluated. It is my hope that after the posting of sufficient physical information regarding ?, evaluating comment will be provided by the members of this forum who are qualified to comment. .

 

My answer to your questions of post 23, (I-try... in the most fundamental basis of reality, do you agree with john wheeler's idea that at the bottom of everything is mathematics?) is as follows.

 

In the fundamental domain of that which ? refers to as basic physical reality, there are no observers with measuring sticks or stop watches supplying input to calculators, therefore so like all our other inventions, both the highly developed concepts of time and mathematics are a human invention and belong at our level of physical reality. I am aware that both concepts have been endlessly debated, therefore the only comment I will provide on this thread is to state that at the fundamental dynamic level of reality, constantly reoccurring rate of oscillating motion provides us with a measurement tool regarding time. Mathematics is essential to make sense of and compare the various reoccurring methods of measuring our concept time, or our many other thoughts regarding the machinations of that we refer to as nature or physics. .

 

? postulates that units of primeval ability of movement under pressure resulting from their speed C and short wavelength, are propagating from all directions throughout the entire universe, thereby providing a logical base underlying all of physics, that is enabled by an ability at a higher level of reality to create parameters and precursors. The mathematics of Special Relativity are provided to enable us to gain an idea of dynamic conditions pertaining to uniform motion relative to all frames of reference.

 

Answer to question: Does your model have anything to infer on what led up to the BB?).

 

As stated on the second last line of post 19, I leave speculation on the original creation of the physical universe to others. ? does not speculate on the original creation of primeval potential energy that is essentially intrinsic with an ability to move.

 

? provides information that suggests that the gravity of the many thousands of galaxies existing between Earth and the apparent distances indicated by the resolving power of our telescopes, would cause a stretching of that (fabric of space-time, gravitons or gluons, or primeval energy) which provides the realities of space similar to that of the expansion required by the postulated BB. Even so, there is a similarity between ? and BB because both require the existence of a high pressure of energy.