Notices
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: The cause of gravity

  1. #1 The cause of gravity 
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    The Infinite Spongy Universe
    EEP Dependant Quasi-Steady State multi crunch/bang universe that has alway existed, had no beginning, no creation and no cause.


    The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is a quasi-steady state universe . It is characterized by big crunches that become big bangs here and there, now and then, throughout an infinite space of infinite content. Energy is the basic component and is composed of elementary energy wave/particles (EEPs). Matter is made of EEPs, the quanta of energy that makes up the energy density of space.

    No Beginning

    The ISU has always existed; it had no beginning and does not require a singularity like the unexplained beginning in Big Bang Theory (BBT).

    Infinite in Space and Content

    The ISU is infinite spatially and in content.

    Energy

    The ISU is composed only of energy.

    Energy in the ISU takes two elementary forms, energy in space called Type 1 energy (contiguous space or T1 space), and energy in matter called Type 2 energy (mass, matter, objects in space or T2 space).

    Common Denominator: The EEP

    In the ISU, the elementary energy wave/particle (EEP) is the common denominator between energy in contiguous space (Type 1), and the energy in matter (Type 2). The EEP has mass and therefore both Type 1 (T1) and Type 2 (T2) energy have mass. EEPs in T1 space exist as independent EEPs, and EEPs in T2 space (matter) have formed stable groupings of EEPs. EEPs in T1 space will repel each other as they pulse (T1 repulsion), and EEPs in T2 space (matter) form stable groupings (EEP nucleosynthesis) and pulses are merged into vibrations with resonance.

    Energy Balance

    In the ISU, energy and matter are in balance; the energy density of contiguous space (T1 space) and the energy density of matter (T2 space) are in natural proportion (T1:T2) on a large scale (LS).

    Scale

    Scale in the ISU is established by a natural phenomenon called an arena. An arena represents the amount of space from which the T2 energy (matter) collapses due to the natural attraction of mass (gravity) to form a big crunch. This arena is limited in volume because when a big crunch reaches critical capacity it bursts (bangs) and the big crunch is destroyed and redistributed throughout the arena. In the ISU, “large scale” (LS) encompasses at least a number of arenas.

    Arenas

    Arenas from one big crunch to the next overlap and redistribute energy across wide ranges so that energy from one crunch/bang will not reform into a subsequent crunch using the exact same arena. There are no cyclical crunch bangs, only new crunch/bangs here and there, now and then throughout the ISU. The crunch/bangs keep the ISU from collapsing into one large scale big crunch, and the overlapping arenas redistribute energy throughout the ISU, keeping entropy in check.

    An arena normally starts out with a balance between T1 and T2 energy in natural proportion (T1:T2) to the large scale (LS) balance of the ISU and with an energy density within the range of equilibrium. Gravity causes T2 energy to collapse toward the center of gravity of the arena. The crunch compresses T2 energy into a huge ball, surrounded by T1 energy in the contiguous space around the T2 matter ball.

    T1 Density Map

    One characteristic of T1 energy (contiguous space) is that it has density that is measured by the relative number of EEPs within it. The density of EEPs in T1 space can be within a wide range for any given volume. The average density of contiguous space is represented by the letter D followed by the numeral 1 (D1 = average density). If the density of a given volume of space is greater than the average density of all contiguous space, then it is represented by the “>” before the D1 (>D1). On the other hand if the density in a given volume of space is less than the average density of all contiguous space, then it is represented by the “<” before the D1 (<D1).

    There is a density map of any given volume of contiguous space. The map shows areas of high EEP density of T1 space as >D1 and low EEP density throughout the contiguous space as <D1.

    The density of the T1 energy is always lower (<D1) around T2 space (matter). (see gravity, and see photon creation)

    Changes in the LS density map can tell you what is happening in regards to crunches and bangs on a LS basis. (Diagrams)

    T1 Equalization

    EEPs are always in the process of trying to equalize the density of T1 space.

    EEPs repulse each other in T1 space as they pulse between their individual expansion and contraction phases. They take up their own share of T1 space and fit themselves among each other as they pulse, using all of the available contiguous space by adjusting the volume of their expansion to fit the available space.

    EEP pulsing in T1 Space

    Individual EEPs are a specific amount of energy. They represent the smallest amount of energy that can be meaningful in the ISU. They are tiny energy packets with individual identities in T1 space. Each packet retains its own identity while pulsing between a volume (expansion phase) that contains the energy of the EEP, and a mass (contraction phase) that contains the same energy of the EEP. With each pulse the EEP is propelled through T1 space at high speed. The energy (E) of an EEP is E1 and at the average density of space, the volume of that energy is V1.

    The T1 space EEP matrix

    Given the five characteristics of the EEP, (Type 1 or Type 2, Energy, Density, Volume, and Period (frequency) and knowing the range of each characteristic, a matrix can be presented that includes all possible T1 space EEPs. (Matrix to be prepared from following)

    Space is permeated with energy and Type 1 contiguous space contains energy in the form of free EEPs.

    The density of EEPs in T1 space can vary based on circumstances related to crunches, bangs, and T1 space in proximity to T2 space. T1 density is lower surrounding T2 space. Average density is D = 1. Lower density is <D1 and higher density is >D1.

    The Energy of an average EEP is E = 1, but they can vary within a narrow range.

    The EEP pulse has frequency and volume characteristics. The period of the average pulse is P = 1, and the expanded volume of the average EEP is V = 1. Both pulse frequency and expanded volume can vary within narrow ranges.

    EEP repulsion in T1 Space

    The pulsing of EEPs in T1 space results in EEPs repelling each other. The repulsion occurs because there is enough space (low enough EEP density) for each individual EEP to expand sufficiently (to its full volume).

    If the density of EEPs in a given T1 space exceeds D1 (average density) to any significant degree (approaches D2), EEPs begin to interact and merge. Merging lowers the density of the given T1 contiguous space while maintaining the energy (now combined to include T2 energy). A merged pair of EEPs has energy of E2 and occupies similar volume as one individual EEP by pulsing in the same space.

    EEP Interaction

    EEPs interact with each other in two classes. Class 1 interactions take place in T1 space between free EEPs, and Class 2 interactions that take place in T2 space within matter.

    Class 1 Interactions

    There are two Class 1 interactions. They are repulsion (R) which causes EEPs to move toward equilibrium in T1 space, and merging (M) which is the process of EEPs combining to form matter out of the energy continuum of T1 space (nucleosynthesis).

    Class 2 Interactions

    Class 2 interactions lead to Nucleosynthesis.

    As EEPs interact and merge they form groupings of EEPs. They can interact by locking in orbit around each other or by merging with each other to form a grouping.

    When EEPs interact and form a group, the group itself defines a new environment and the equilibrium of the EEPs in this new environment is quickly established so that the EEPs are in balance with the space they occupy. This balance is characterized by their combined pulsing which becomes a vibration of the grouping.

    EEPs can merge by pulsing in phase or out of phase, meaning with one expanding while the other contracts in the same space, or by orbiting while they pulse either in or out of phase. Some mergers are compact and very stable, while other merges are less dense and less stable. Vibration and pulsing of the combined EEPs determines the way the small groupings interact to form larger groupings.

    In the chaos of high density T1 space during periods of crunch/bang expansion when EEP grouping and matter formation is abundant, the various groupings that form can collide and smash each other apart. These smashed groupings quickly try to reestablish equilibrium, but before equilibrium can be establish by attracting free EEPs to restore the stable environment that existed before the collision, there is a period where very unstable fragments of the prior stable grouping will exist. These unstable fragments will not readily combine with stable groupings and will be repelled by some groupings and attracted by others depending on the relative vibrations of the EEPs in the fragment to the vibrations of the EEPs in the attracting or repelling stable grouping.

    This chaotic environment allows a wide variety of EEP combinations with differing properties that lead to nucleosynthesis of very stable protons and neutrons, as well as the electrons that surround the nucleus.

    Photons

    Photons are composed of EEPs. Photons are created from EEPs that freely enter T2 space (matter in the form of atoms), but are emitted by T2 space as electromagnetic radiation carried away from matter by photons into T1 space.

    T2 space is matter which is composed of EEPs that have formed stable combinations, and those stable combinations abundantly take the form of atoms in T2 objects. The structure of the atom is extremely porous relative to EEPs in T1 space. This porous characteristic of T2 space is the result of the various forces that build up around atomic particles as they form atoms. The wide distance between the nucleus of an atom and the electron rings is filled by energy taking the form of the force that binds the nucleus and confines the electrons to their various rings. The structure of atoms attracts EEPs that flow into T2 space are forced into the electron rings by the same forces that maintain the structure of the atoms. Those EEPs are absorbed by the electrons. The electrons reach energy capacity and emit photons as organized packets of energy (a specific stable grouping of EEPs).

    Photons travel freely and unimpeded through T1 space and do not interact with EEPs in T1 space. EEPs are very low (E1) energy compared to photons that may be E10^n (for discussion). It takes a huge number of EEPs to result in the emission of one photon so there is a huge inflow of EEPs into mass (matter) relative to the outflow of photons.

    The radiation of EEPs from T2 objects in the form of photons is unaffected by the separate phenomenon of photon absorption and photon radiation such as is associated with “black body radiation”. EEP (E1) to Photon (E10^n) is photon creation vs. photon (E10^n) absorption and photon (E10^n) emission in black body radiation which is a balanced exchange of photons.

    Gravity

    The flow of EEPs from T1 space into T2 space causes a lower (T1D<1) density of EEPs surrounding T2 space on the density map of T1 space. The inflow of EEPs into T2 space causes an outflow of photons out of T2 space. The outflow of photons has no impact on the density of EEPs in T1 space (see Photons).

    Two objects composed of T2 space existing within contiguous T1 space will have lower density T1 space directly between them than in any other direction on the density map.

    T2 objects moving in T1 space are influenced by the density of T1 space and they naturally move into lower density T1 space. Thus two objects moving through T1 space will display the gravitational effect by moving toward each others lower density T1 space.

    Gravity is caused by lower density T1 space that naturally exists between T2 objects in T1 space due to the flow into T2 space of EEPs from T1 space. Remember that EEPs are repelling each other in all other directions. Thus the inflow of EEPs into matter from T1 space creates a lower density of EEPs in space surrounding objects of mass (T2 space) accounting for gravity.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    if it is infinite in age and spatial size - why is the night sky dark?


    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    if it is infinite in age and spatial size - why is the night sky dark?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    if it is infinite in age and spatial size - why is the night sky dark?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    if it is infinite in age and spatial size - why is the night sky dark?
    The finite life of stars, the expansion of the visible universe. Big bangs and big crunches here and there now and then. Olbers' is solved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    The finite life of stars, the expansion of the visible universe. Olbers' is solved.
    As the visible universe is the only conencted component you have to work with, why are you talking about in infinite space then?

    The finite life of stars does not solve olbers paradox btw - as long as stars are in equilibrium (as they would be if you have infinite age) you still have the problem.

    What happens if you flip time around with your expanding universe?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    The finite life of stars, the expansion of the visible universe. Olbers' is solved.
    As the visible universe is the only conencted component you have to work with, why are you talking about in infinite space then?

    The finite life of stars does not solve olbers paradox btw - as long as stars are in equilibrium (as they would be if you have infinite age) you still have the problem.

    What happens if you flip time around with your expanding universe?
    Notice that in the ISU, we are in the expansion phase of a big bang exactely like we are in BBT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    So all this is in essence is the oscillating universe model? EDIT: How do you get around all the entropy problems of such a model?

    Do you have any maths to show how this theory works?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    So all this is in essence is the oscillating universe model?

    Do you have any maths to show how this theory works?
    My OP specifically addresses the oscillating universe. Re-read.

    The EEP is well described and is a bottoms up engineering of the universe. Math will build from the EEP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    So all this is in essence is the oscillating universe model? EDIT: How do you get around all the entropy problems of such a model?

    Do you have any maths to show how this theory works?
    Entropy is addressed in the OP. Re-read slowly. Give it some time. Think about the EEP. The OP points out that this is an EEP dependant idea. Try to grasp the EEP concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    My OP specifically addresses the oscillating universe. Re-read.
    Did re-read, where do you address heat death etc?

    The EEP is well described and is a bottoms up engineering of the universe. Math will build from the EEP.
    Well then build the math - until then you dont even have a conjecture, just a work of prose. Now as every spacetime which exhibits any form of expansion nec. has a singularity in its finite past, how do you get round that?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    My OP specifically addresses the oscillating universe. Re-read.
    Did re-read, where do you address heat death etc?
    Arenas have T2 space (matter), the matter crunches and then bangs, the energy from the bang forms particles that lead to nucleosynthesis, then stars, galaxies, gravity, and it all gets into another big crunch in a different arena and crunch bangs again, and then in another arena, etc. hense no heat death. Entropy is defeated.

    The EEP is well described and is a bottoms up engineering of the universe. Math will build from the EEP.
    Well then build the math - until then you dont even have a conjecture, just a work of prose. Now as every spacetime which exhibits any form of expansion nec. has a singularity in its finite past, how do you get round that?
    No can do. This is an Idea. If it doesn't belong here or on the science forum let me know.

    Gravity idea appeals to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    Arenas have T2 space (matter), the matter crunches and then bangs, the energy from the bang forms particles that lead to nucleosynthesis, then stars, galaxies, gravity, and it all gets into another big crunch in a different arena and crunch bangs again, and then in another arena, etc. hense no heat death. Entropy is defeated.
    Not so fast there cowboy - the entropy of every bounce is carried along so you still have the heat death problem. Also for a universe as we observe it you need a ridiculously small entropy to start off with so something special had to have occured previously with each of the previous bounces.

    No can do. This is an Idea. If it doesn't belong here or on the science forum let me know.
    Its not a physics idea though - mathematics is the langauge of physics.

    Gravity idea appeals to me.
    Then it would be a good start to learn the basics so that you can make whole coherent conjectures.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    Arenas have T2 space (matter), the matter crunches and then bangs, the energy from the bang forms particles that lead to nucleosynthesis, then stars, galaxies, gravity, and it all gets into another big crunch in a different arena and crunch bangs again, and then in another arena, etc. hense no heat death. Entropy is defeated.
    Not so fast there cowboy - the entropy of every bounce is carried along so you still have the heat death problem. Also for a universe as we observe it you need a ridiculously small entropy to start off with so something special had to have occured previously with each of the previous bounces.
    The ISU is infinite in energy content. So where is the entropy problem.

    Big crunches recycle old cold matter into new EEPs, all fresh and rosey.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    infinite energy (what ever that may be - i think that opens a whole pandora's box of problems unless you can define your energy densities properly) does not get you around the entropy problem either - none of it could be usable.

    Recycling matter also does not help, if the bounces are connected then entopy would be transfered from one universe to the next. Entropy does not just disappear in a closed system.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    infinite energy (what ever that may be - i think that opens a whole pandora's box of problems unless you can define your energy densities properly) does not get you around the entropy problem either - none of it could be usable.

    Recycling matter also does not help, if the bounces are connected then entopy would be transfered from one universe to the next. Entropy does not just disappear in a closed system.
    Energy is all there is in the ISU. It takes the form of the elementary energy wave/particle (EEP). EEPs are indestructible, they compose matter via nucleosynthesis, and are extracted from matter during the heat/compression of the big crunch which then bangs and releases all those indestructible EEPs which then form matter again.

    A crunch bang expands out into the greater universe. Other crunch bangs are going on at the same time and the expanded contents from one bang cools and spreads out into other arenas that then crunch and bang here and there, now and then.

    They aren't cyclical. Entropy is defeated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    The cause of gravity:

    Energy in space is repulsive.

    Energy is attracted by mass.

    Where ever energy goes it is repulsed except when it is going toward mass.

    It enters mass readily.

    The density of energy in space around mass is lower than the average energy density of space elsewhere because energy flows into mass and is repulsed in all other directions.

    All mass is surrounded by low energy density space as energy flows freely into mass.

    The energy density between objects in space is lower than the energy density of space in all other directions.

    Gravity is displayed as moving objects in space take the lowest energy density path and move toward each other.

    The energy inflowing into mass is processed by atoms that act like little nano photon machines. Energy is forced into the electron ring by the forces within the atom. The electrons reach full energy capacity and emit excess energy as photons.

    Atoms produce photons from energy that flows into them from space.

    Energy flows in, photons flow out.

    Photons do not impact the density of energy in space.

    Gravity is caused by the inflow of energy into the atoms in mass which produce photons that are emitted by mass but when emitted have no impact on the inflow of energy or on the energy density of space surrounding mass.

    Energy flows into mass causing the mass to be surrounded by low energy density space which causes the path of objects in space to move toward each other as they follow the lowest energy density path through space.

    That is what causes gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Energy is mass. Photons are particles. Before we say too much jada about "he can't decay, cause he moves in the speed of light", you must remember that everything moves in the speed of light. It was discovered that the fourth dimension was ict. We are moving in the speed of light. And truely, how can a photons energy become mass, if momentum is not preserved? And mass is preserved ofcourse since mass is energy. If mass and momentum is preserved, then the mass is still moving in the speed of light, isn't it? The universe are merely photons. Do photons dissapear after one pulse? I don't think so. For more info, look at the thread Mass Being Energy in general discussion.

    --this is not a joke--
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Energy is mass. Photons are particles. Before we say too much jada about "he can't decay, cause he moves in the speed of light", you must remember that everything moves in the speed of light. It was discovered that the fourth dimension was ict. We are moving in the speed of light. And truely, how can a photons energy become mass, if momentum is not preserved? And mass is preserved ofcourse since mass is energy. If mass and momentum is preserved, then the mass is still moving in the speed of light, isn't it? The universe are merely photons. Do photons dissapear after one pulse? I don't think so. For more info, look at the thread Mass Being Energy in general discussion.

    --this is not a joke--
    I see the logic. Ok, I'll look.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    I guess you've looked now. I might still be wrong here and there, I am not a perfect person. But I think I actually got it right. A proton or an electron for instance can't move faster then the speed of light, since the electron can only move in (under) lightspeed and the proton are made partly by negative particles, thereby it can't move faster then the electron. And I'm only guessing now, but it seems that it is actually positive particles that have less mass then the electron. You must understand that I have not verified my more advanced thoughts on the photons speed etc. But there were experiments in emitted photon speeds since they differed a bit. my thesis is the speed only vary under a wave length and not under longer distance (atleast not very much)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    Not to piss anyone off but Tachyons are theorized if not proven to travel faster than the speed of light. Just thought I would make a note of that. And if energy was repulsive upon energy at what rate would this occur? Light maintains laser formation for some distance is this even relevant to what you were saying. If energy was infinite, entropy would definitely be defeated but so would life in general and we wouldn't exist. I for one need math before I understand anything, I have a hard time with english (yes it's my first language). Don't run away because of us Bogie, we just want to know more, so discuss further Darlin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    So kayons are tachyons? (if I am not misstaken, that is how one should put it).

    What is a kayon?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Beky
    Not to piss anyone off but Kaons are theorized if not proven to travel faster than the speed of light. Just thought I would make a note of that. And if energy was repulsive upon energy at what rate would this occur? Light maintains laser formation for some distance is this even relevant to what you were saying. If energy was infinite, entropy would definitely be defeated but so would life in general and we wouldn't exist. I for one need math before I understand anything, I have a hard time with english (yes it's my first language). Don't run away because of us Bogie, we just want to know more, so discuss further Darlin.
    I love it when you call me darlin, darlin. I can add a thought, but on the math, still no can do yet. (You could do the math I bet.)

    Atoms are tiny energy converters, converting energy from contiguous space into photons, thus creating a perpetual flow of energy through the atom and lowering the energy density surrounding the atom (mass).

    Energy in space self-regulates its density, i.e. distributes itself consistently throughout contiguous space.

    We know that gravity, thou diminished with distance, still has a potentially infinite reach. With energy re-equalizing itself across contiguous space, how come the lower density isn’t faded into the rest of the energy density during the equalizing process at some distance out from the mass which would then end the reach of gravity?

    That is because the flow of energy into photons and out of the atom is more efficient than the rebalancing.

    The flow is like energy entering a bottomless hole in space created by the atom. Photon production increases or decrease with the change in density of energy in the space flowing through. As the rebalancing effect is always engaged trying to increase the energy density in the low density area around mass, the increased energy density sparks an increase in the photon production of the atom maintaining and extending the low energy density out from the atom.

    Since this flow began when the atom took shape (billions of years ago), the surrounding low density zone will always be expanding as long as the atom exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    So kayons are tachyons? (if I am not misstaken, that is how one should put it).

    What is a kayon?
    No! A Kayons just another Hadron. My bad I'll stop doin that I swear.

    I fixed it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    What about during a big crunch. How do you propose the quantification of this theory and how can it be given conjecture. What do you see as being the practical method of viewing these events. I see some zero point energy type stuff going on do you see it as relevant.

    TTYL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Beky
    What about during a big crunch. How do you propose the quantification of this theory and how can it be given conjecture. What do you see as being the practical method of viewing these events. I see some zero point energy type stuff going on do you see it as relevant.

    TTYL
    A big crunch eventually strips all the electrons away from matter and stops the photon machines. [edit - Unless energy flows toward protons and neutron which have been stripped of their electrons]Energy stops flowing in as the atoms are negated into lesser particles and then back into EEPs themselves which leads to compression locked (repressed pulse) EEPs in the core. Potential energy builds and when the "repressed" pulse of the EEP core overcomes the compression of the crunch (gravity diminishes without the energy flow through matter composed of atoms), the big crunch bursts (bangs) and releases all the energy that has built up. A new big bang expansion begins, very high energy density, nucleosynthesis, atoms form, atom produce photons and start the process of lowering the energy density and creating gravity, ho hum.

    Quantification starts with an EEP having an energy of 1 I guess, lol.

    I wish I knew how these events could be viewed but I'm guessing that the idea would have to resonate with a lot of people and then some good minds might get some ideas.

    I'm thinking outside of QM and I don't know enough about zero point energy. Energy in space is in quanta that I call EEPs. I am taking a complete bottoms up approach to engineering the universe but thinking how things would have to be in order for us to observe what we do. I have started small. The EEP is the smallest increment of energy that could possibly have any meaning in the universe. Its characteristics are only what they would need to be to make things work. A smaller amount of energy would not be able to do anything meaningful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    The guy next to me smells like Ginger root. Anyway there are actually a lot of similarities in all your ideas to present day theories. The one thing thats really different in your idea was that energy repels itself except for when it attracts to mass. I think thats what you would have to delve into to make something appear in the direction of reallising this theory. A lot of theorists do believe in an infinite number of Universes where one feeds off the other. But if you had a particle with almost no mass but infinite heat and temperature all those universes would burn; that being said there's probably a problem with anything being infinite in reality(not that theres any real way to prove that). I would read a litle more about particle physics suge(just a suggestion, I like particle physics , I suck at it to). Have fun!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Beky
    The guy next to me smells like Ginger root.
    Are you attracted to him for it? What is the setting (work, school, library, etc.)?
    The one thing that’s really different in your idea was that energy repels itself except for when it attracts to mass. I think that’s what you would have to delve into to make something appear in the direction of realizing this theory.
    The repelling nature of energy in space is part of a chain of logic. Remember, I am building the universe from the bottom up so I'm not dealing with a history of observation, theory, testing and math. If the idea resonates with someone who can build on it, then great.

    The chain of logic is: The universe is infinite and filled with energy (see OP). Everything is made of energy. Energy in space or in matter is in the form on elementary particles that contain their own perpetual energy by pulsing.

    The pulse is caused by the tendency for the particle to collapse because of its near infinite density, but can't collapse to infinite density/zero volume so it bounces off those unattainable limits and expands off the bounce. The expansion is soon reigned in by its extreme density that makes it collapse again, and so it pulses. The volume of the full expansion of the pulse is what causes it to be repulsive when in an environment like contiguous space because it expands into space and shoves its "weight" around so to speak.

    When it collapses, the other particles nearby may be expanding and they use the space that the other particles just contracted from. This works fine when the energy density in the space is low enough to accommodate all of the particles, but the energy density in space is variable depending on the proximity to high or low energy events like bangs and crunches.

    In a high energy density environment the energy particles can't fully expand and they begin to combine into groups which starts the process of big bang nucleosynthesis leading to the formation of the light elements of hydrogen and helium, which leads to stars, galaxies, and then eventually to the next crunch somewhere nearby.

    So the repulsion is based on the energy density being low enough to allow all the particles to expand freely, and when they can't, matter begins to form. Therefore, the most abundant matter formation takes place in the high energy density environment following a big bang.

    In average energy density situations like the period when the local space is well into the expansion phase of a big bang, the energy density is lower as a result of both the expansion from the bang, and the lowering of energy density as matter formation occurs.

    When matter forms atoms, atoms are very porous relative to the tiny energy particles, and so the energy particles that are jostling for position flow into the atoms, are influenced by the atomic forces that bind the nucleus and repel the elections (these forces are based on the self-contained energy in the energy particles themselves and in the way they combine to form matter).

    The energy particles are forced out into the electron rings and when enough extra energy is forced into the rings, the elections emit a photon. A photon sloughs off maybe a billion tiny energy particles into a photon and so atoms are little nano photon machines.

    As the atoms slough off energy into photons, more energy flows in and gets sloughed off and the energy density around the matter is lowered relative to other contiguous space. Since this process begins with the formation of the atom and continues until the electrons are stripped off in some high energy event like a big crunch or a black hole, the low energy density surrounding the matter continues to expand.

    The production of photons also lowers the energy density of space and as the matter content of space goes up, more and more energy particles are drawn from the energy density of space and forced into the production of photons.

    The energy density around matter is lower than it is in the space further out and the density increases the further you get from mass. Therefore every mass in space is surrounded by low energy density.

    Two objects in space that are both surrounded by low energy density space relative to the energy density in all other directions will tend to move toward the low energy density between them. That movement is gravity at work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    No! He's rather small and unattractive, I like football players! I'm in the library. I'd build on your theory but as of yet I still can't model anything beyond hydrogen. I have made tank canons however, I just recently reallized how to make a radiation suit(might need one soon with North Korea and all). I like to read thoughts on anything and always keep this sort of stuff in mind, you never no when it may become logical or practical. Did you know in a big bang it takes some 300 000 years before quarks start to appear. You should check out Gluons and W Bosons they may have something to add to your theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Beky
    No! He's rather small and unattractive, I like football players! I'm in the library. I'd build on your theory but as of yet I still can't model anything beyond hydrogen. I have made tank canons however, I just recently reallized how to make a radiation suit(might need one soon with North Korea and all). I like to read thoughts on anything and always keep this sort of stuff in mind, you never no when it may become logical or practical. Did you know in a big bang it takes some 300 000 years before quarks start to appear. You should check out Gluons and W Bosons they may have something to add to your theories.
    OK, the radiation suit. I was thinking, (I know, OMG) that if we could put an object in a screen room that cuts down the incoming electromagnetic radiation, and measure the photon output of the object, we might be able to discern some anomaly in the photon output vs. input that we could attribute to the inflow of EEPs. Great idea, right?

    So can we engineer your radiation suit idea to test for EEPs flowing into the isolated object?

    I wouldn’t mention it except that you said you like to read thoughts on anything, and this is in that category.

    Having solved gravity, all I have to do now is prove it, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Let’s take Big Bang Theory, even though it is only part of the story since it picks up after an implied Big Bang Event that is the beginning of the BBT scenario. Energy emerged. We can’t say for sure from what or how, but there is some consensus that initially all of the energy in the universe was at a point of beginning, concentrated, highly dense.

    This beginning quickly lead to an inflationary epoch of a fraction of a second, spreading faster and faster exponentially until it was big enough to prove that the big bang was in fact the cause of the universe that we observe today. If there had been no exponential expansion in the first second after the implied Big Bang, then the background temperature that is consistent in all directions would not have had time to cool so consistently.

    At the end of the inflationary expansion, and before the cooling was sufficient for matter to form from the energy in space, the energy density in space was the only form of energy.

    Theories abound about how matter formed from the initial energy from the big bang, but it seems to be the consensus that matter formed from that energy density in space that originated with the big bang.

    Once matter formed we also had gravity.

    Objects are attracted to each other by it.

    It is caused by the low energy density space that surrounds objects in space.

    Energy density in space is a little hard to map because one often thinks of energy in space as photons, or X-rays or Gamma Rays or cosmic rays, etc, but these are examples of energy transmission, not energy itself. The transmission of energy via electromagnetic radiation or momentum of objects themselves in space does not count as energy density. They count as energy removed from the original BBT energy density of space that existed at the beginning of the BBT scenario.

    The energy density in space is reduced as energy is taken from the energy density and converted to photons, or X-rays or Gamma Rays or cosmic rays, or particle acceleration, or atomic particles and forces. When those things occur, the energy that they represent was at some prior point included in the energy density in the surrounding space that originally emerged from the Big Bang.

    That is why matter is surrounded by low energy density space. At some point in the history of any particular matter, it existed as energy in space and was part of the energy density of space until it was removed from the energy density of space and converted to matter. That matter was immediately surrounded by low energy density space because the energy to form it came from the immediately surrounding energy density of space.

    Once matter exists in space, it acts like a hole in the energy density of space, and energy flows into it from the energy in space. The flow is perpetuated through mass because mass and the forces that account for the stability of mass, process the energy from space into more mass as photons are created and emitted back into space.

    One photon created in this manner would contain energy in proportion to E = mc^2, so a huge amount of energy flows into mass from the energy density of space for every single photon that is created by that mass.

    If we conclude that protons and neutrons existed before electrons, then we could conclude that protons create electrons by processing energy in space through the proton, into a band around the proton where electrons form from the flow, and when the electron ratio to protons is reached (the protons can only support one electron), photons are emitted by the electrons.

    In this scenario, neutrons do not process energy from the energy density in space; they are inert. That is why an atom generally has one electron per proton, regardless of the atomic weight which includes both protons and neutrons.

    The energy density in space is quantum. A tiny amount of energy can be extracted from the energy density of space in discrete amounts. The discrete amount of energy is called an elementary energy particle (EEP).

    Any thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    Yeah stop spelling electrons elections (what's with that). You made me see something, what came first mass or gravity, that's a good one. As I continue to read I keep thinking the same thing you really need to read up on Gluons and W Bosons, they are fundamental force transmitters just like the photon and the theoretical gravitron, but have some differences. There are four fundamental forces gravity, weak, electromagnetic and strong. You also need to apply the Lorentz factor(Gamma) to E = mc^2; Gamma = SQRT(1/(1 - v^2/c^2)) which plays a significant role in mass to energy and special relativity. In many respects it's similar to what your saying, except your taking zero point energy and turning it into photons(I think). As for the Radiation suit you can buy one online for $1200 bucks from Dsomething, I don't know how well it blocks nutron radiation they didn't even mention it. I don't think they sell the suits they use in nuclear plants or warhead factories. The significant difference between the two would be the ability to reflect nutron radiation. Furthermore your never gonna find a source of nutron radiation, although for your purposes it would be unnecessary. Just buy the $1200 suit. Mine would probably cost significantly more, or maybe not haven't figured out costs yet. Oh yeah as far as I know Quarks came before electrons(not sure though) but when did nutrinos develope? Would Gravity reverse polarity in a big crunch(I'm assuming no)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Beky
    Yeah stop spelling electrons elections (what's with that).
    OMG, I don't know. Ah, hmm, well I was just testing to see who actually reads this stuff, lol.

    You made me see something, what came first mass or gravity, that's a good one.
    Somebody had to tell you; why not me .
    As I continue to read I keep thinking the same thing you really need to read up on Gluons and W Bosons, they are fundamental force transmitters just like the photon and the theoretical gravitron, but have some differences. There are four fundamental forces gravity, weak, electromagnetic and strong. You also need to apply the Lorentz factor(Gamma) to E = mc^2; Gamma = SQRT(1/(1 - v^2/c^2)) which plays a significant role in mass to energy and special relativity.
    I'm working my way to those things, slowly. Let me check out QM, and especially Gluons and W Bosons. I suspect that they come from the same energy density in space that everything else does and are probably steps along the way to the atomic particles.

    You didn't mention if you thought that the idea of everything coming from the original energy of the Big Bang had any merit. The process of big bang nucleosynthesis would be based on the little quantum of energy and various structures would have to emerge based on the various ways the EEPs interact to form matter.
    In many respects it's similar to what your saying, except your taking zero point energy and turning it into photons(I think).
    Give me an idea of what you mean by zero point energy and how it might fit with my scenario if you can.
    As for the Radiation suit you can buy one online for $1200 bucks from Dsomething, I don't know how well it blocks nutron radiation they didn't even mention it. I don't think they sell the suits they use in nuclear plants or warhead factories. The significant difference between the two would be the ability to reflect nutron radiation. Furthermore your never gonna find a source of nutron radiation, although for your purposes it would be unnecessary. Just buy the $1200 suit. Mine would probably cost significantly more, or maybe not haven't figured out costs yet.
    Why is yours so expensive?
    Oh yeah as far as I know Quarks came before electrons(not sure though) but when did nutrinos develope?
    I think that if there is such a thing as a quark, and if the protons (and neutrons are made of quarks, then the quark would have to come before the electron if the protons create the electrons by processing the energy from space (EEPs).
    Would Gravity reverse polarity in a big crunch(I'm assuming no)?
    Polarity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    I believe every individual Universe came from a singularity, a point of pure energy. I do believe there is more than one Universe expanding and contracting. I can't see there being a problem with an infinite expanse but at the same time I'm not sure. ZPE is kind of the void or lack of energy density surrounding particles, but remeber this, atoms are in no way the smallest entity. They currently observe the motions of Quarks in super colliders. Although the Neutron and Proton are the most readilly present Hadrons there are some 100 or so more, J/Psi, Kayon, B meson etc., all made up of various combinations of Quarks. There are six Quark "Flavors" as they like to call them, up, down, charmed, strange, top and bottom and all their anti equivalents. The Big Bang is pretty observeable already and the timeline is already calculated down to like the first second; at which point everybody shrugs their shoulders(I cant calculate any of it yet). It would make sense that the electron came before the quark(W+ decays into a e+ and a mu e, W- decays into a e- and a mu e) but at the same time.........................And as for gravity polarity what if gravity fliped in a big crunch and became anti gravity ooooooooooooooo. Oh and my suit could cost less not sure either way . Lot's of material costs to consider not to mention what grade and type of suit to make(subject to weight and cost factors).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    You should be sure that there are more universes, axises that cut ours in points, letting particles travel through it and back again without adding much more mystery then the heisenberg relations. Atleast I think so.

    Have a nice time!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    Yeah exactly!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    OK, have read and think i have seen someplace else.

    up front, i have to admit i have no idea what i read. this may be a reason the subject evades my understanding. on gravity

    in solar system;
    is some place in that, was there an explanation as to why mass of objects has little to do with the actual affect of a source. or that speed seems to determine an orbit.

    we travel at 29.8 mps and closer planets faster, further out much slower. there is no indication mass has any connection even if mass and speed are considered., yet mass determines that units gravitation. this could say a very heavy object should orbit as Mercury, so long as the speed was around 50mps. this would say the push (speed) is a lone factor and pull
    (gravitation) is flexible.

    probably not making myself clear, but i will go on, if you can answer this????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    OK, have read and think i have seen someplace else.

    up front, i have to admit i have no idea what i read. this may be a reason the subject evades my understanding. on gravity

    in solar system;
    is some place in that, was there an explanation as to why mass of objects has little to do with the actual affect of a source. or that speed seems to determine an orbit.

    we travel at 29.8 mps and closer planets faster, further out much slower. there is no indication mass has any connection even if mass and speed are considered., yet mass determines that units gravitation. this could say a very heavy object should orbit as Mercury, so long as the speed was around 50mps. this would say the push (speed) is a lone factor and pull
    (gravitation) is flexible.

    probably not making myself clear, but i will go on, if you can answer this????
    It is not easy to read and grasp, let alone resonate with any preconceived set of beliefs.

    Energy density of space is the key concept. Do you have an idea of what I mean by the energy density of space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    i don't know; in empty space, EM waves, are all over going every which direction and some think this could cause a form of friction and some think this is a form of mass. i also understand the substance or content of a planet, to make mass can vary giving different weight to objects, near the same size. i don't think this is what you mean.

    i have an objective to wanting to understand gravity, but i have no preconceived idea what it is, or I'd simply accept, without question what is an accepted definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I have an objective to wanting to understand gravity, but i have no preconceived idea what it is, or I'd simply accept, without question what is an accepted definition.
    Jackson33,

    The classical (Newtonian) view of gravity is that it is a property of mass full stop. Classical physics however does not (as far as I know) hold any theory as to how this comes about.

    General relativity (Einstein) models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as mass moves.

    Quantum theory of gravity does my head in, seems to be a complete mess and appears unfinished. My view is that it's way off the mark.

    Megabrains theory of gravity (and why not).
    Gravity is a whole series of energy strings which can be stretched to infinity, they exist in their own universe parallel to ours so we cannot detect or see them other than by their effects on physical objects.
    There may however be a point at which they 'snap' or dissappear and is this that accounts for the galaxies accelerating as they move further apart.
    Like you I have many of my own theories which I like and which mean I can accept them and move onto something else!

    These strings are like light in the sense we cannot see the beam of a flashlight in a vacuum we only see what it is illuminating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    i don't know; in empty space,
    In my scenario, there is no "empty" space. All space contains energy. The density of the energy in space is a variable.
    i don't know; in empty space,EM waves, are all over going every which direction and some think this could cause a form of friction and some think this is a form of mass.
    Those EM waves are electromagnetic radiation. They are photons. The photons are energy carriers. The energy density in space is not photons in my scenario. It is the energy density of space that photons, and all matter (for that matter) are made of.
    i also understand the substance or content of a planet, to make mass can vary giving different weight to objects, near the same size. i don't think this is what you mean.
    That is not what I mean. If you noticed in the original post, space can be T1 space which is contiguous space that is characterized by having energy density, and space can be T2 space which is occupied by matter. Mass is the volume of matter times the density of matter. Mass = V * D.

    i have an objective to wanting to understand gravity, but i have no preconceived idea what it is, or I'd simply accept, without question what is an accepted definition.
    T1 space is always surrounded by T2 space.

    The energy in the T1 space flows into T2 space (matter). The atoms in matter process the energy in space and force it into the electron rings, where it accumulates until a photon quantum of energy is emitted by the atom. This process sets up a continual flow of energy from space, through the atom, and back into space in the form of photons.

    The density of energy in space is lower around matter because of the flow through the atoms. A low energy density space surrounds all mass (objects of matter in space like planets and all).

    The space between two objects in space is of lower energy density because both objects are surrounded by low energy density space. The objects tend to move in the path of least resistance, i.e. toward each other. This is how gravity works in my scenario.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    It is not easy to read and grasp, let alone resonate with any preconceived set of beliefs.

    Energy density of space is the key concept. Do you have an idea of what I mean by the energy density of space?
    The flow of energy from space, through the atom, and out of the atom into space as photons is what causes the low energy density space surrounding matter in my scenario.

    As mass accumulates, the low energy density space around that mass accumulates also.

    This low energy density space is very much like the curved space in General Relativity as far as how it affects objects moving through space. So wouldn’t the math of my gravity idea be the same as the math supporting gravity in GR?

    The curvature of space caused by the mass of an object is identical to the low energy density of space surrounding an object.

    The low energy density of space surrounding an object travels with that object. Objects do not move through it, it moves with them because it formed with them and is part of the space that they occupy. It works like a sponge to continually draw energy in toward the mass, which then flows through atoms to the electrons, and then out of the mass as photons.

    Two objects moving through space, both surrounded by their respective and proportional low energy density space, tend to move in the path of lowest energy density between then, curving their paths toward each other as they move.

    It seems like a good idea, and all it requires is that energy from the energy density of space flows into atoms, is forced into the electrons, and the electrons slough of the extra energy as a photon when it accumulates a quantum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    NS Comment

    I am an amateur scientist and cosmologist that has studied astronomy for more than 20 years and I will admit that 'bogies' ideas are more like science fiction rather than true science. As much as I hate to criticize another amateur, this theory is far out like the string theory.

    You must adhere to the 'basic' principles in physics before you begin to advance any new theory. Examples:

    Matter is 'substance'. It cannot be converted into pure energy.

    Energy is 'motion'. Matter in motion is in a state of energy but it is still matter or substance.

    Charge that is a force, creates energy or motion. It is intrinsic to matter but it also surrounds matter as the EM Fields (EMF) do.

    These 3 components of physics are everlasting in the sense that the Laws of Conservation of Matter, Energy, Momentum and Charge imply. Momentum is a combination of matter/energy.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    NS Comment

    I am an amateur scientist and cosmologist that has studied astronomy for more than 20 years and I will admit that 'bogies' ideas are more like science fiction rather than true science.
    That is true. There is no science in what I am imagining and speculating about.
    As much as I hate to criticize another amateur,
    I’m a quasi-professional imaginer (I don’t get paid but I would accept money, lol)
    As much as I hate to criticize another amateur, this theory is far out like the string theory.
    Further out would be closer in my view but I know you are trying not to over state you concern about the lack of science in my imaginings. Note that my posts are usually accompanied by a disclosure that they are unprovable and speculative. I don’t hesitate to call them imaginative ideas, and I don’t object to references about the lack of science as long as the objector offers something to the discussion. This is a discussion board after all.

    You must adhere to the 'basic' principles in physics before you begin to advance any new theory.
    I have been trying not to characterize this as theory. Theory suggest that they are science, and I am not saying they are.
    Examples:

    Matter is 'substance'. It cannot be converted into pure energy.
    OK, if you say so. Where did you get the term “pure energy”? Are you referring to the EEP which is the quantum of the energy density of space? This is just an idea that I like because it makes it possible to talk about matter coming from energy, and energy coming from matter. That concept supports the idea of a matter/energy cycle that follows their course from big bang to big crunch and back to big bang.
    Energy is 'motion'. Matter in motion is in a state of energy but it is still matter or substance.
    My idea is that there is energy that is not occupied in the motion, or radiation, or potential of matter. It is energy density of space, ready to play a role in matter formation when it is high (high energy density of space forces out EEPs that form matter), and always playing a role in gravity by surrounding matter with low energy density space. The energy density of space between two objects in space is lower in the direction between them than it is in any other direction. The objects with momentum in space tend to curve toward the direction of the lowest energy density of space, and therefore tend to curve toward each other naturally, just as if the space around them was curved/warped.

    Charge that is a force, creates energy or motion. It is intrinsic to matter but it also surrounds matter as the EM Fields (EMF) do.
    Agreed. The force inside the atom that keeps the elections from collapsing into the nucleus is a force. Atoms emit EM radiation.

    My idea is that force is the result of the pulsing of the EEPs that make up the protons. Neutrons don’t pulse because they are atoms that have been compressed in stars to the point that their electrons have been forced into their protons and the proton charge is neutralized, creating the neutron. The source star then makes helium out of them in the hydrogen, neutron rich environment, and then burns (fusion) the helium to begin the process of creating heavier nuclei. (Don’t forget the disclaimer that this is not science, but only unfounded speculation.)
    These 3 components of physics are everlasting in the sense that the Laws of Conservation of Matter, Energy, Momentum and Charge imply. Momentum is a combination of matter/energy.
    Science is merely a body of knowledge and an accepted set of procedures to increase that body of knowledge. Agree or disagree?

    You, we, and science itself don’t have the answers to many very basic questions like how a singularity could exist, how matter formed in the early universe, what causes the weak and strong forces, what causes gravity, and a complete story of energy. I’m just imagining, coming up with ideas that I like, and sharing them. Sometimes my ideas resonate with people and sometimes they don’t.

    Everyone who doesn't have preconceived ideas about what reality is, who isn't locked into a story like BBT, and who likes to discuss ideas that are born in the imagination as long as they have a link to reality, shouldn't be embarrassed discussing these ideas with me. Those who can't should put me on ignore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    gravity to me, (not a secret), is missing something in the basic understanding. even if i understood all the comments, i don't think anything mentioned, in my answer.

    space mass is another interest and does have a slight roll, but this is pretty well accepted. there may be something in the make up of matter as some elements, do have a natural magnetic nature, such as nickle.

    realms or dimensions are also other subjects and i have thoughts on them.
    these seem to involve human limitations. beyond, that i feel if light speed is achieved, this subject will explode with theory.

    lets say for now, the idea the suns gravity is strong enough to hold the earth in orbit traveling 70kmph and its weight, but not strong enough to pull in a space bolt, really does not make sense.

    i may have missed it, but one thought i have been working on is; gravity is more a chain reaction of matter as related to all matter. that is gravity in our galaxy is connected to the gravitation, of all with in the galaxy and the chain reaction may lessen in total, as it moves out through the matter to a point it can hold nothing else. the problem here is most feel spirals, become so from close contact with others and systems from out side the galaxy do become part of the galaxy. i think the latter is a forced entry and the close contact, not valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    gravity to me, (not a secret), is missing something in the basic understanding. even if i understood all the comments, i don't think anything mentioned, in my answer.
    When you figure it out let me know. My gravity idea is most certainly not the answer. It requires a whole volume of physics about an elementary energy particle that is not even known to exist except in my mind and in my posts on the Internet, lol.

    space mass is another interest and does have a slight roll, but this is pretty well accepted. there may be something in the make up of matter as some elements, do have a natural magnetic nature, such as nickle.
    I have been going to do some imagining about the natural magnetic nature. Electric current, spinning magnets, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation; … there is something really fundamental in all that which might be fertile ground for the imagination.
    realms or dimensions are also other subjects and i have thoughts on them.
    these seem to involve human limitations. beyond, that i feel if light speed is achieved, this subject will explode with theory.
    Have you started any threads on those subjects? Let me check; if not, why not?

    lets say for now, the idea the suns gravity is strong enough to hold the earth in orbit traveling 70kmph and its weight, but not strong enough to pull in a space bolt, really does not make sense.
    It does to me. Mass, proximity, and momentum are the primary factors in how a body will respond to the “gravity” of other objects. It works. This thread is for a discussion of HOW it works. Curved/warped space, gravitons, EEPs and low energy density space, and any other ideas are open for discussion.

    i may have missed it, but one thought i have been working on is; gravity is more a chain reaction of matter as related to all matter. that is gravity in our galaxy is connected to the gravitation, of all with in the galaxy and the chain reaction may lessen in total, as it moves out through the matter to a point it can hold nothing else.
    This is an appealing view. However, there is a alternative concept that gravitational forces from all directions are influencing objects at all times. The affect that all those forces have on an object is the NET gravitation force at the location of the object. Using that concept, your idea of reaching a point where the force “runs out” is not considered much or taken seriously enough to spark much bebate.


    the problem here is most feel spirals, become so from close contact with others and systems from out side the galaxy do become part of the galaxy. i think the latter is a forced entry and the close contact, not valid.
    I’m not so sure. Galaxy formation could be “condensation” of stars from the cosmic dust and so in a big cloud of cosmic dust you could expect lots of stars to form, resulting in a galaxy. If that cloud was itself moving as the stars form, the shape of the resulting galaxy could be influenced

    Entering the galaxy from outside would be perfectly normal if an object's momentum brought it into the vicinity.

    For what it is worth, I find some posts difficult to follow because I am dense and slow, and many posters don’t take that into consideration. For example, over-use of commas and semi-colons used to break down a stream of thought often confuses to me. Sentences that don’t start with a capital letter, mixed in with sentences that use a variety of commas and semi-colons make understanding the thought hard for dummies like me.

    I was happy to find the following and I sometimes use it to help make my posts a little more understandable (I know, that may not always work). I recommend it because it is so easy to use during the typing process in any text box.

    http://www.iespell.com/ If just downloaded “iespell’ and I really like it. When you are typing into a text box like you do when you respond to a post here, or on any other forum, anywhere, you can type what you want to say, and then “right click” and select “check spelling”, and iespell will work just about like MSWord’s spell checker. Try it, you’ll like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR99/CE.../S5987154.html

    http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...rticlese1.html

    These links are some of the best thinking about the earliest time in BBT. The second link above contains the background leading to this update. The update proposes that the EEP which is central to my cosmology and gravity idea, and the quantum particles of quantum physics are not mutually exclusive, but are all part of the plasma "broth" that marks the earliest moments of the beginning of the expansion.

    I like them and have no problem with the several possibilities that they considers practical. But what they say is not the entire basis of my ideas about cosmology and the cause of gravity.

    My ideas about cosmology and gravity are right at the edge of what they don’t say. They say our universe was scalar, i.e. every point in the universe was present at ~10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. They say the universe was very likely in the form of plasma of relativistic particles at the earliest times consisting of quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and Higgs bosons represented by scalar fields with interaction and symmetry that decoupled and scattered into the first atoms of hydrogen and we know how things probably progressed from there.

    What science doesn’t say is what occurred before t=~10^-43, and how the scalar plasma emerged. That is the instant that the universe was converted from energy into the scalar plasma. The scalar plasma had all the constituents of the universe that we observe, only in the most compressed state possible, i.e. at the beginning of the expansion

    My idea addresses that period leading to the beginning of the expansion at t=~10^-43 and says that the plasma came from an energy that started the expansion. My idea picks up on the scalar nature of the plasma, i.e. it contains a tiny version of every single particle that now exists in our expanding visible universe.

    The scalar universe contained in the plasma consisted of a finite number of particles that now exist in expanded scalar form and that make up the constituents of all matter in our observable universe.

    I have simply called these tiny scalar particles the elementary energy particles (EEPs) that became the broth of particles that they describe as the plasma. I have described characteristics that they would need in order of escape the plasma, form matter, cause gravity, cause stars and galaxies and black holes, and eventually play a role in the formation of other “expansion events”, i.e. possible big crunches and big bangs elsewhere across the greater universe.

    EEPs are at the heart of the formation of the early protons that reach the point of extreme stabiltiy and which attract electrons, then form hydrogen, then stars and heavier nuclei.

    EEPs are also at the heart of the cause of gravity.

    As protons form out of this plasma they consist of stable unions of these smaller particles from the scalar plasma. As protons form they attract more of these smaller particles in a circling ring of energy that becomes an electron. As energy from the plasma is attracted to the protons it accumulates into the electron ring around the proton, the electron forms and continues to accumulate energy flowing from the plasma. When it reaches the limit of the amount of energy that can be supported by the proton, the electron sloughs off a discrete packet of energy in the form of a photon.

    Photons are continually sloughed as the energy continues to flow through the proton/electron machine.

    This continual flow of energy from the plasma which is sloughed off as photons causes a low energy density area around the proton/electron. Each proton/electron, i.e. hydrogen atom has this low energy density “warp” surrounding it.

    Gravity is caused by this low energy density “warp” and so the hydrogen atoms are attracted to each other, eventually compressing into hydrogen stars that form everywhere across the hugely expanded plasma that continues to exist and is causally connected to the initial beginning of the expansion.

    This “initial beginning of the expansion” might be the Big Bang or it might be the big burst from a big crunch.

    One thing we can predict is that gravity will weaken as the energy density of the plasma declines, i.e. as contiguous space expands. A reduction of in the strength of gravity will allow the expansion to accelerate. And yet a pound will still be a pound because weight is the effect of mass in a gravitational field, and the gravitational field of all objects will weaken at the same pace as the energy density of the plasma declines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •