Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: The Universe is Otherwise - part 2 - Paeps (gravity particles)

  1. #1

    Red face The Universe is Otherwise - part 2 - Paeps (gravity particles)

    The Universe is Otherwise
    Part 2- Paeps (gravity particles)

    The concept of gravity having a metaphysical “attraction” nature needs to be corrected. It is time to look at gravity as having a physical causality. Doing so clarifies its logical system and properly specifies how it functions. Try thinking of gravity as particles pushing on things. Doing so reveals exciting concepts.

    The basic concept of gravitation is that in our universe, masses want to come together. This pulling together is learned to be an attraction. Students tend to be brainwashed with the idea of gravitational attraction. It is very hard to think about gravity otherwise, and so attraction implies one body such as earth pulling objects toward its center. Attraction gravity implies action at a distance, which concept is untenable in seeking physical understanding. Newton and others rejected the concept without further defining their “form” of gravitation. Einstein focused on warped space and gravity wells. Modern physicists may be able to visualize some form of local causality in their formulation of gravity, but their causality is not obvious to the general population.

    My definition is that space, the field, or the ether, is gravitation moving in all directions at speed C. It carries radiation which is the reason that electromagnetic phenomena travel at speed C in space. Essentially, the field, ether, or whatever you choose to call it must have physical properties and participate in the transmission of electromagnetism. This correlates with some of Einstein’s later views in which space is an active participant and carrier system. He wrote that “space without ether would be unthinkable because there would be no propagation of light.” My gravitation carries light.

    My gravitation is a physical presence that provides a pressure upon masses. For ease of imagining, one could view the gravitational field as corpuscular in nature like our atmosphere with its molecules. Just like our atmosphere produces an atmospheric pressure, gravity likewise provides pressure. I introduce here PAEPS as the components of gravitation. Paeps stands for ‘particles applying external pressure’. They are the smallest possible particles and fill the whole of space. They are paeps only as long as they don’t have spin.

    As the smallest possible particle, paeps form the background against which everything else is identified. They are individually invisible and undetectable. Considering the nature of gravitation, the paep field will never be directly observed.

    External gravitation is gravity that transfers a push effect by motion. In the “void of space,” paeps travel at velocity C in all directions. In open space, there is a paep equilibrium from all directions such that the paeps have no net impact upon each other just as photons don’t affect each other. A single mass located in this “void of space” will be impacted equally and constantly from all directions. Thus heavenly bodies take spherical forms.

    How do paeps provide gravitation? Since paeps are so small, most pass through any mass. A few interact and are absorbed. Visualize a spherical planet. Paep interaction and absorption results in a reduced pressure coming up from the surface on the side opposite the entry point side of the sphere. This reduced, upward-moving gravitation partially offsets the downward pressure of gravity from above. The result is the gravitation force we understand today but now it’s a net force between pressures from opposite directions. The force is greatest at the planetary surface as that is where the maximum percentage of upcoming paeps have passed through the planetary mass. At higher elevations more of the paeps impacting a mass from below come at angles and were less affected by the planet as they passed through less of it. The net effect is of the same pressure from above and an increasing pressure from below. Further elevation causes a lessening of downward net pressure. The pressures have become more nearly balanced from above and below. The ultimate elevation is into the remote region, the “void of space.” Carrying this logic forward yields the universally accepted inverse square law for calculating gravitational force by distance of separation.

    The neutrino is an example of a particle that passes through mass and is rarely absorbed. Penetration by neutrinos supports this hypothesis of gravity particles penetrating masses in space. Scientists can detect neutrinos. Therefore they aren’t basic paeps. However, they may be slightly modified forms of paeps.

    Paeps serve more purposes than providing gravitation. The following properties of paeps are important to understand:

    1. The paep is an elementary, perhaps the elementary particle.
    2. Paeps travel at the speed of light. They do not exist as such at rest or at lesser speeds.
    3. Paeps travel in equal quantity in all directions in the void of space, generally without interacting with each other.
    4. Paeps are particles with no spin.
    5. Paeps penetrate mass, and in doing so are somewhat diminished and potentially somewhat absorbed.
    6. In an unbalanced region, paeps can affect each other such that path of one may be bent by another, and ultimately spin may result from the turbulence.
    7. Paeps acquiring any degree of spin or cyclical wave path qualities, or losing velocity, begin the preliminary step of conversion into a mass particle.
    8. There is a spectrum of particle existence with a paep at one end and the gradually more spinning, more dense, more externally static particles at the other end. The characteristics at this other end define mass particles. The spectrum extends to the most dense mass particles. Ultimately spin defines the existence of mass, and the amount of spin defines the specific mass of particles.
    9. A paep applies pressure to a spinning particle specifically because the paep does not spin. Because of its spin, mass is pressured, and in return, the spin causes the paep paths to become bent.
    10. Mass exists as the antithesis of its background of non-spinning paeps. By exhibiting pushing pressure, paeps exhibit a property like mass, but they should not be confused with mass.
    11. The field of paeps is the medium or ether. Depending on perspective, slightly modified paeps may be included in defining the medium.

    Some postulates about gravitation follow from the idea of paeps and will lead to future discussion.

    1. Angular gravitation is an energy that can convert to matter upon impact, thus reversing our mass to energy focus with E=mc2.
    2. The degree of spin distinguishes gravitation particles from mass particles, forming a spectrum of “states of existence.”
    3. The localized push of paeps is not diminished and provides the nuclear force.

    Many in science have sought an illusive elementary particle. One theory proposed in the 1960s by Peter Higgs suggests the existence of a most fundamental elementary particle called the Higgs boson. It exists within a theoretical Higgs field that permeates the universe and gives mass to other particles. It is logically undetectable with today’s technology. It was suggested as an extension of the many particles discovered under quantum theory. As an aside from our study of gravity, those who understand the reasons for conjuring up the Higgs boson will realize that paeps act in a logical way that causes them to accomplish what is expected of a Higgs boson. And paeps do so without having been incorporated for that purpose.

    Regarding the form of the universe, I conclude that it has existed always and is infinite in scope. It consists everywhere of paep particles moving in every direction. They give the universe structure/existence. Masses may have always existed or were formed subsequently.

    A follow up part will suggest an initial application of angular motion leading to revolutions and solar system creation. At some point I will offer comparisons with and improvements to LeSage’s pushing gravity theory.

    Paul Schroeder

  2. #2
    I would read Feynman, P. R. 1994, Six Easy Pieces, 107-110. There is a discussion of the exact same particle for gravity. According to Feynman everyone has this idea at one time or another. But observations do not allow it. See his text for the reason why, pp 107-110.

    How does your hypothetical particle cause gravitational redshift, time dilation, deflection of light from a distant star grazing the surface of the sun, gravitational lensing, ocean tides on the surface of the earth?

    What is the difference between your particle and a graviton?



    CC

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    The Universe is Otherwise
    Part 2- Paeps (gravity particles)...
    First of all, shouldn't this thread be merged with your other thread on the same subject.

    Second, would you mind posting a link to the pages Coldcreation suggested that you read?

    And beyond that I have a few questions:

    Having the background made up of Paeps seems quite reasonable. But please explain why they move at the speed of light. How did they get accelerated to the speed of light? Do they all move at the same speed and if so why?

    Do thy have momentum without mass?

    Gravity being a push imbalance proportional to mass is a great theory. Is there some way to test it that distinguishes the effect from simple curved spacetime?

    If you are right, Paeps cause gravity by pushing from all directions and being partially absorbed in the process. Won’t the paeps get used up eventually because the supply of paeps gets diminished as they are absorbed to cause gravity?

    If the paeps can cause gravity is there energy being transferred from the paeps to the objects? Does the absorption of paeps cause an increase in the mass of the object that absorbs them, does it increase the temperature of the mass, and if neither, are the absorbed paeps sloughed off by the mass in some fashion? What is the relationship between paeps and energy?

    Do protons or electrons or photons or various quantum particles form from paeps that have acquired spin? How do paeps with spin group together to form more massive objects? What forces are involved in the formations of such groupings? Is it all push and spin that holds mass together?

    As paeps acquire spin do they slow down and become mass moving at near the speed of light? Objects moving at near the speed of light approach infinite density. Is that a problem? How does mass decelerate to form structure in the universe?

    Or if paeps that acquire spin are not the source of matter in the universe, has matter always existed along with the paeps? What would keep all of the mass in the universe from crunching together into one huge mass?
    Last edited by Bogie; 2007-Nov-14 at 04:48 AM. Reason: Added another question

  4. #4
    It is indeed encouraging that this idea still persists, despite being thrown out by many.
    Please excuse me for not reading other threads on this topic.

    Some years ago, fresh from 5 years of studying physics I went out on a tangent along this line. I had not thought about it for years until today. Paul, your surname reminded me of Erwin Schrodinger (1887-1961) a physicist who came up with the famous ‘wave equation’ amongst other things.

    I realized then, to convince anyone of this idea it had to explained in a way that took into account the current understanding of Classic Physics and Modern Physics including Quantum Mechanics for example.
    The strong and weak nuclear forces.
    Electrostatic charge attraction.
    Quantum states and energy levels of electrons.
    Magnetism.
    Gravity.

    That’s were it gets hard and I gave up in the end. We do need a freethinker to come up with a theory for everything. Good luck Mr Schroeder.

    I wrote a short paper (which I have since lost) on the subject. It was titled ‘Into the coffee cup and beyond’ and it went something like this...

    Looking into space imagine the infinite distances. Look into your coffee cup and do the same thing on a small scale. There is no end either way. So imagine the infinitely smallest most particle. This particle is as small as infinity itself and will never be observed.

    Matter, waves and energy are related.
    Energy travels in waves.
    Energy is relative movement.
    Matter and energy are related.
    Matter is comprised of waves.

    We don’t walk anywhere, we undulate!

    So imagine (just imagine for a moment) the universe to be ‘infinitely dense’ with these ‘smallest most particles’ and matter is actually less dense.

    The small particles are wanting to ‘even out’ and in there attempt all manner of waves and spinning voids are created.

    And some other stuff which I have forgotten…(sips glass of wine).
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    So if anyone is interested I can go on and on about such things as:

    A spinning electron could be a spinning mass of small particles. A spinning mass contains energy by the simple fact it is spinning and has relevant movement.
    It can spin in any direction. Why do electrons end up the same size? I have no idea, perhaps they are not the same size……

    Oh yes, we are being pushed onto the earth. This I do believe.

    PK

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post

    The concept of gravity having a metaphysical “attraction” nature needs to be corrected.
    Einstein did that very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    It is time to look at gravity as having a physical causality. Doing so clarifies its logical system and properly specifies how it functions.
    Attributing a kind of particle to gravity still does not specify its physical mechanism.


    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    Try thinking of gravity as particles pushing on things.
    Wether one considers gravity as an attractive force or a repulsive force is exactly the same thing observationally.

    Is an apple pulled from below or pushed from above? The observation is the same: and the fact remains: an apple, or any other object, falls toward the earth.

    An apple experiences no force at all during its free-fall. It is thus neither lured from below nor shoved from above. So, why on earth (pun intended) do objects plummet in a gravitational field? Implicitly, general relativity describes this phenomenon correctly: the apple follows the path of least action. It follows the geometrical shape of the curved field, falling ‘down’ the slope or gradient of the spacetime manifold.

    In another way, the objects is freely falling. It feels no force, from above or below. That is the Euclidean connection...something which I see as lacking from all hypothesis known to date (including paeps) that attempt to describe the mechanism responsible for gravity.

    Taking these cold hard facts at face-value—the equality of inertial and gravitational mass (see Einstein's equivalence principle), the behavior of clocks and measuring-rods on a rotating body, the deflection of light by a gravitational field (over the entire celestial sphere), the displacement of spectral lines towards the red (gravitational redshift), and the gravitational time-delay of light signals—we obtain sufficient information to construct a precise picture of the four-dimensional field associated with gravitation. There is no need for a hypothetical particle. Gravity must be perceived from all possible view-points; the Euclidean (or Galileian) reference frame, the local fields, and the global fields, if we wish to appreciate the mechanics and dynamics operational involved in the gravitational interaction.


    CC
    Last edited by Coldcreation; 2007-Nov-14 at 02:48 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldcreation View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldcreation View Post

    Taking these cold hard facts at face-value—the equality of inertial and gravitational mass (see Einstein's equivalence principle), the behavior of clocks and measuring-rods on a rotating body, the deflection of light by a gravitational field (over the entire celestial sphere), the displacement of spectral lines towards the red (gravitational redshift), and the gravitational time-delay of light signals—we obtain sufficient information to construct a precise picture of the four-dimensional field associated with gravitation. There is no need for a hypothetical particle. Gravity must be perceived from all possible view-points; the Euclidean (or Galileian) reference frame, the local fields, and the global fields, if we wish to appreciate the mechanics and dynamics operational involved in the gravitational interaction.


    CC
    If there is a particle, whether the paep or some other unifying energy particle, those observations would be “sufficient information to construct a precise picture” of a three-dimensional field associated with gravitation, and curved spacetime and the mathematical singularity would not be required. That means that if curved spacetime is correct we don’t need a background field and if there is a background field we don’t need curved spacetime.

    It seems to come down to the fact that if there is such a background it could help to account for more that just gravity while curved spacetime stops short of accounting for anything other than gravity, i.e. the action of particles in the Planck regime.
    Last edited by Bogie; 2007-Nov-22 at 04:06 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Here is how the OP of the other ATM thread you started on this idea ended:
    The big bang and expanding universe should be replaced by a static, infinite universe whose structure is a consequence of the motion of its gravity particles - see part 2.
    When will you be presenting details of how the observed structure of the universe is "a consequence of the motion of its gravity particles"?

    In that presentation, showing that it is "a static, infinite universe", to what extent will you be addressing Olbers' paradox? the primordial abundance of the light nuclides (H, D, 3He, 4He, 6Li)? the blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB? the angular power spectrum of the CMB?

  8. #8

    responses

    I can answer some of the questions submitted. Others I might guess at and some I dont have the right background to relate to. If I dont answer something you consider important please redo and resend it.

    1. Coldcreation
    I dont have the specific 6 easy pieces of feynman and dont know how to find the pages referenced on line for myself and for Bogie. I am kind of busy to get the book right now.

    My particle is intended to perform as exactly like Newtonian attraction as possible. When not in equilibrium, its net effect causes redshift and bending of light by 'pushing on photon streams. The moon blocks a path of paeps so the presswure on earth is lesser where that path arrives. The net effect is the same as attraction and all explanations bout the time delay of tides etc would apply the same.

    I am not fully cognizant about the properties of gravitons in order to make comparison. My paeps are described in detail. Gravitons are usually sought in deep space and very closely associated with waves in nature. I could review gravitons in order to respond better.

    2. Bogie

    Maybe the topics should be merged, but I chose to separate them as major subtopics.

    Paeps are to us are the quintessinal 'speed of light' They are why radiation moves at that speed. They have always moved so and are not acelerated. Essentially everything qualifying as a paep moves at that speed. Paeps can dapart from the strict definition possibly exist as nutrinos or other slightly slower or shorter wave particle.

    Paeps demonstrate something like momentum by pushing on mass. They do so because they are the longest of wavelengths. Mass require having wavelength.

    I dont know about testing. Perhaps the correction to redshift suggests a test of the difference with curved spacetime. I think the concepts may be able to coexist.

    Paeps dont get used up because of a form of recycling. Paeps become di minished because they take on the form of other radiation such as light. They acquire shorter wavelengths. Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox.

    When paeps hit mass occasional contacts do produce heat. It is the source of the suns heat and planets likewise generate some heat of their own. In this way the energy created during pressure contact is disemminated as heat and also as light. Photons are paeps that gained wavelengths.

    All quantum particles, like photons, form from paeps that acquire spin. Joining into groups is a slow process requiring the low probability impacts that are the same as those occurring within a large mass. Over time those impacts can create and increase spin of already created mass particles and of the paep itself. Sufficient spin causes particles to merge together and the joint spin holds them together.

    Paeps acquiring wave frequencies take a step within the spectrum of existence toward slowing as mass. Shortening wavelength into spin defines mass. The more spin the less quickly they can move.

    Whether mass existed in the beginning, I dont speculate. However any distortion in the sea of paeps can gradually create mass.

    My section on angular motion will begin to explain why masses dont crunch together.

    3. Pkay

    You were right to focus on the contribution of spin .

    4. Coldcreation

    The physical mechanism of gravity is only its being the essence of things.

    Attraction or repulsion do yield the same observations

    I cannot argue your views supporting general relativity. I am painiting a different picture of gravity which yields many different perspectives about our universe.

    5. Nereid

    The structure as a consequence of the motion of paeps is being revealed in steps. We have touched on waves, spin, particles, mass from paeps, The infinite and essential existence of paeps, etc.

    Remove air from a container and you get a vacuum. But the space within still exists. Remove paeps and there is nothing.

    I mentioned Olber's paradox above.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    [snip]

    Paeps dont get used up because of a form of recycling. Paeps become di minished because they take on the form of other radiation such as light. They acquire shorter wavelengths. Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox.

    [snip]

    I mentioned Olber's paradox above.
    Why isn't the intensity of the microwave background infinite?

    How does your ATM idea account for the actual, observed intensity of the microwave background?

    Why is the 'interim step in this process [...] the microwave background'? Why isn't it a near-infrared one? or a far-infrared one? or a VLF radio one?

    In this ATM idea of yours, should we be able to see GRBs with redshifts of 10? 100? 1,000? a million? Should we be able to see AGNs with redshifts of 100? 1 million? a billion?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    [snip]

    When paeps hit mass occasional contacts do produce heat. It is the source of the suns heat and planets likewise generate some heat of their own. In this way the energy created during pressure contact is disemminated as heat and also as light. [snip]
    What role does fusion (of hydrogen to helium) play in generating 'the suns heat'?

    In this ATM idea of yours, is 'paeps hit mass' also the (sole) source of all stars' heat?

  11. #11

    reply to rereid

    Your questions about the various longer redshift radiation are interesting. As you realize, I am not the one to answer them. There are many who analyze various transmissions. We do see some near and far infrared, but maybe dispersion minimizes the number coming through.

    As we know today, fusion generate the sun's heat. It is the instigating of the fusion event in which paeps play a role by striking nuclei just right.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    Your questions about the various longer redshift radiation are interesting. As you realize, I am not the one to answer them. There are many who analyze various transmissions. We do see some near and far infrared, but maybe dispersion minimizes the number coming through.
    If you wish to retract your previous assertions, or modify them, please say so (and do so).

    Otherwise, they stand, as your presentation of your ATM idea.

    As such, BAUT members are encouraged to question and challenge them, and you are required to answer their questions and challenges in a timely manner.

    If you do not know how to answer a direct, pertinent question about an aspect of your ATM idea, as presented, please say so.

    If you cannot answer such a question, please say so.

    So, let's try again, shall we?

    Here's your ATM assertion (my bold): "Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is* the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox."

    Here are my questions on this (I've added numbering):

    1) Why isn't the intensity of the microwave background infinite?

    2) How does your ATM idea account for the actual, observed intensity of the microwave background?

    3) Why is the 'interim step in this process [...] the microwave background'?

    4a) Why isn't it a near-infrared one? 4b) or a far-infrared one? 4c) or a VLF radio one?

    Please answer these questions.
    As we know today, fusion generate the sun's heat. It is the instigating of the fusion event in which paeps play a role by striking nuclei just right.
    How do paeps 'strik[e] nuclei just right'?

    *There is no ambiguity here; per your post in the other thread ("I am [...] connecting my ideas together with logic"), there must be a firm logical link for you to write "is"!

  13. #13

    pushing gravity

    [/COLOR]I happen to be fairly well versed in the concept of “pushing gravity”. There is extensive discussion of the subject at Tom VanFlandern’s http://www.metaresearch.org. Also check out Wikipedia’s LeSage’s theory of gravitation. Actually, Newton’s associate, Fatio, probably deserves more credit than LeSage. Paul Schroeder’s “paeps” were called “gravitons” by LeSage; VanFlandern calls them “classical gravitons” (CG’s) to distinguish them from the gravitons of today’s standard model, to which they bear no resemblance, whatever. (I plead ignorance concerning standard model gravitons.)

    Einstein assumed that the force vector of gravity should point to where its source mass is now, not to where the source was when light now arriving at the observer left the source. (See Wikipedia Speed of Gravity.) That is the logical equivalent of the force of gravity propagating with infinite speed—though Einstein insisted gravity does not propagate, rather it is a timeless property of the space-time continuum. Pushing-gravity theorists have assigned various finite speeds to gravity; some mainstream scientists claim gravity propagates at c, but to my knowledge, Paul Schroeder is alone in claiming that paeps move at light speed. VanFlandern’s latest estimate is that CG’s have a mean speed of vg > 20 billion c; being a perfect gas, they don’t all move at exactly the same speed. VanFlandern cautions against confusing the speed of gravity force with the speed of gravity waves; he agrees with Einstein that gravity waves propagate at c.

    If, indeed, CG’s move faster than 20 billion c, they carry a tremendous amount of energy. If you multiply the CG’s momentum by its speed, it quickly becomes obvious that absorption of CG’s cannot account for gravity; the object would absorb the energy equivalent of its own mass in less than a picosecond. If only scattering of CG’s is involved, there can be no net push. VanFlandern claims that the energy of the few absorbed CG’s is somehow transferred to the many CG’s that are scattered. Victor J. Slabinsky did the math for VanFlandern and concluded that at least 1020 CG’s must be scattered for every one that is absorbed.

    I have my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, in which (pressure) p-waves in the ether fill the role of CG’s, and (sheer) s-waves in the ether are photons. (As J. C. Maxwell said, if there is an ether, it must be a solid in order to transmit transverse waves.) I posted an early version some months ago as my own ATM thread; it died without receiving serious consideration or comment. Since then, I have made major changes to the model. The changes are near the small end of the scale—in the area of particle physics, not astronomy; so I’m not sure if you want them on your website. If the moderators reopen my ATM, I’ll discuss the changes, there. In the mean time, my latest updates can be viewed on my Yahoo!360 blog.

    Some comments on Olber’s paradox:


    If you assume Hubble’s “constant” is constant (just to simplify the problem), you can easily calculate a distance at which objects are moving away from us at the speed of light; I think that is similar to how BigBangers get the number 13.7 billion light years. The closer you get to that distance, the greater the red shift and the less energy is contained in the light (in the observer’s frame). At even greater distances, objects recede faster than light. So even if the universe is infinite, only a finite portion of it can ever be seen. (Note: Faster than light velocities do not violate relativity. The 4D space-time of general relativity covertly redefines velocity. The instant the pilot puts the pedal to the metal, the destination may become light years closer than it was the instant before, but the velocity of the destination remains zero. This permits a space ship to reach its destination in less time than it takes for light to get there—without ever moving faster than light. In a 3D version of general relativity, c is the speed limit for two objects passing one another, but there is no speed limit for distant galaxies ahead or behind an accelerating observer.)
    Perhaps another clue to keeping the universe cool may be found in the conversion of dark energy to new space. The expansion of space is an infinite heat sink.

    Furthermore, Stephen Hawking’s insane ramblings not withstanding, we have no way of knowing what the universe was like 13.7 billion years ago. Shouldn’t we understand gravity before extrapolating Newton’s equations that far into the past? Maybe there were no light sources then in existence whose light could now be reaching us from such a distance.

  14. #14

    LeSage and pushing gravity

    Pushing gravity has proceeded through many hands from Descartes in 1669 through Newton via his assistant Fatio, Huygens, and to LeSage in the mid 1700s. LeSage first set the parameters of pushing gravity that few scientists have followed up on until today. LeSage recognized and promoted the advantages of considering gravity as corpuscular (bits of matter) with interaction via impacts. He was a first to predict the mostly void space within mass. He knew that corpuscles he labeled as gravitons could push upon and penetrate masses while being only partly absorbed. He anticipated the existence of nutrinos by 100+ years. With gravity passing through planetary masses, he denoted the resulting output region as shadowing. His shadowing meant there were less upward pushing gravitons and thus a downward pressure and attraction upon any adjacent massive body.

    I find that LeSage presented many arguments similar to mine. A few of his parameters were:
    1. A change of state such as attraction, of a body is due to impulsion, ie. A physical pressure.
    2. The medium or ether, must be fluid.
    3. The fluid must be discrete corpuscles flowing simultaneously in all directions (isotropic) while not interfering with each other.
    4. The pores of bodies must be great allowing nearly free passage to graviton corpuscles. .

    Concerns regarding pushing gravity are frequently raised and remain unanswered to the satisfaction of science today. This keeps the idea of pushing gravity out of the limelight.. Searching for answers ultimately leads into my theory. One property of LeSage's 'ultra mundane corpuscles' is they travel at nearly infinite speed. Using a speed in excess of the speed of light removes the important concept of gravitation particles serving as the transportation medium for electromagnetic phenomena. Some have suggested a second medium acting in tandem with the original for carrying radiation differently than the way gravitons are carried.

    The reason we don’t hear about LeSage’s theory is the unsatisfied objections. LeSage’s system and its recent modifications run into objections primarily because his gravitons, rectilinearly passed outward from the sun, will in some degree, via friction, impede the progress of orbitals such as planets. This drag issue and other objections are listed here:

    1. By bumping into gravitons during its orbital motion, a planet is inhibited and incurs drag. The faster the planet’s revolution motion, the greater the drag becomes.
    2. Aberration theory suggests the ‘apparent’ angle of the gravitational source will be offset due to the gravitons spending time in transit.
    3. The internal impacts of gravitons within a mass would raise the temperature of the mass to impossible levels.
    4. Long term there must be depletion or net slowing of the universe’s graviton streams due to absorption by masses. Gravity will diminish throughout the universe.

    A mainstay of current pushing gravity theories is nearly infinite speed of gravitons to minimize the drag. LeSage used 10(13th) times speed of light others 10(24th) times. Extremely high speeds require extremely small particles in the Newton gravity formula. Besides not being a 100% solution, the velocity creates more of a concern with the buildup of heat. There is a suggestion of a second medium by Tom VanFlanders to dissipate the heat. This medium he calls Elysium.

    A questionable statement by LeSage was that curvilinear motion is forced. Once the generator of the force is removed, the curvilinear motions become rectilinear. My solution does not accept that premise. The drag and the aberration issues go away using a curvature flow of paeps.

    I believe my system overcomes the LeSage objections. The key issues introduce part 3 of my submissions here which will discuss angular motions, gravity causing revolutions and rotations, and the creation of planets.

  15. #15

    response to nereid

    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    If you wish to retract your previous assertions, or modify them, please say so (and do so).

    Otherwise, they stand, as your presentation of your ATM idea.

    As such, BAUT members are encouraged to question and challenge them, and you are required to answer their questions and challenges in a timely manner.

    If you do not know how to answer a direct, pertinent question about an aspect of your ATM idea, as presented, please say so.

    If you cannot answer such a question, please say so.

    So, let's try again, shall we?

    Here's your ATM assertion (my bold): "Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is* the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox."

    Here are my questions on this (I've added numbering):

    1) Why isn't the intensity of the microwave background infinite?

    I believe intensity varies with distance from the source and by the time light or heat waves from stars have stretched into microwaves they have traveled very far.

    2) How does your ATM idea account for the actual, observed intensity of the microwave background?

    See question 1. Also, I have not worked on this, but am learning how important it is. Why is it isotrophic and at this particular wavelength of 1.9MM - 2.725 degrees? Is it possible the motions of the earth as receptor has something to do with the shape and length of the waves observed especially when they are very long. Much to contemplate.


    3) Why is the 'interim step in this process [...] the microwave background'?

    The word interim confuses the issue here as microwaves are near the extreme length where the various infrared wouuld be more interim in nature.

    4a) Why isn't it a near-infrared one? 4b) or a far-infrared one? 4c) or a VLF radio one?

    Please answer these questions.How do paeps 'strik[e] nuclei just right'?

    As fusion is essentially the merging of 2 hydrogen atoms, pushing two nuclei together may be by the simultaneous hitting of 2 nearby nuclei by 2 separate paeps.

    *There is no ambiguity here; per your post in the other thread ("I am [...] connecting my ideas together with logic"), there must be a firm logical link for you to write "is"!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    2

    1) Why isn't the intensity of the microwave background infinite?

    I believe intensity varies with distance from the source and by the time light or heat waves from stars have stretched into microwaves they have traveled very far.
    1a) How does "intensity var[y] with distance from the source"?

    1b) How does "intensity var[y] [...] by the time light or heat waves from stars have stretched"?

    1c) How far do "light or heat waves from stars" travel for them to be "stretched into microwaves" (in an infinite, static, universe)?

    1d) If, as you say, the universe is static and infinite, why is the intensity of the microwave background not infinite?
    2) How does your ATM idea account for the actual, observed intensity of the microwave background?

    See question 1. Also, I have not worked on this, but am learning how important it is. Why is it isotrophic and at this particular wavelength of 1.9MM - 2.725 degrees? Is it possible the motions of the earth as receptor has something to do with the shape and length of the waves observed especially when they are very long. Much to contemplate.
    2a) When do you expect to have finished working this out?
    3) Why is the 'interim step in this process [...] the microwave background'?

    The word interim confuses the issue here as microwaves are near the extreme length where the various infrared wouuld be more interim in nature.
    Here is your earlier statement:
    Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox.
    3a) Please re-state this, clarifying the word 'interim' so that it no longer "confuses the issue here".

    3b) Why, in a static, infinite universe, aren't radio waves "near the extreme length where the various infrared wouuld be more interim in nature"?

    (to be continued)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441

    (continued)

    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    2
    [snip]

    How do paeps 'strik[e] nuclei just right'?

    As fusion is essentially the merging of 2 hydrogen atoms, pushing two nuclei together may be by the simultaneous hitting of 2 nearby nuclei by 2 separate paeps.
    As you know, modern physics accounts for fusion extremely well, with a fundamentally very simple theory called QCD.

    What aspects of fusion, within mainstream physics, are not explained, in terms of detailed, quantitative matches between theory and the entire set of good observational and experimental results? In other words, what is the complete set of gaps, wrt fusion, where 'paeps striking nuclei just right' may add explanatory value?

    How, in principle, could your ATM idea about 'paeps striking nuclei just right' in (hydrogen) fusion be tested?

    ==================

    When will you be answering all the other direct, pertinent questions about your ATM idea(s), as presented?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    1d) If, as you say, the universe is static and infinite, why is the intensity of the microwave background not infinite?
    I'll answer this generally from static universe point of view, not specifically from point of view of Paul's model. If universe is static (i.e. not expanding), infinitely large, and infinitely old, there is an average energy density of the universe. Only when the average energy density of the universe is infinite, you have a situation where any average point in space will have infinite amount of energy, be it in microwave or any other waveband. It is hard for me to imagine how it would be possible to achieve infinite energy density, but I think it would have to involve places where infinite amount of energy is produced during a finite time period. So, as I don't think places like that exist, my answer to your question is that the energy density of the universe is finite.

    If you're thinking this as an application of Olbers' paradox, you have to remember that we don't see infinitely far; in every direction there will eventually be an object that blocks your sight, and also blocks the radiation coming towards us. So, at any case you don't see infinite amount of "radiators", you see only those "radiators" that are within the radius of total blockage (i.e. the distance from us where every direction is blocked). Rest of the "nearby" universe shields us from excess radiation.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki View Post
    I'll answer this generally from static universe point of view, not specifically from point of view of Paul's model. If universe is static (i.e. not expanding), infinitely large, and infinitely old, there is an average energy density of the universe. Only when the average energy density of the universe is infinite, you have a situation where any average point in space will have infinite amount of energy, be it in microwave or any other waveband. It is hard for me to imagine how it would be possible to achieve infinite energy density, but I think it would have to involve places where infinite amount of energy is produced during a finite time period. So, as I don't think places like that exist, my answer to your question is that the energy density of the universe is finite.

    If you're thinking this as an application of Olbers' paradox, you have to remember that we don't see infinitely far; in every direction there will eventually be an object that blocks your sight, and also blocks the radiation coming towards us. So, at any case you don't see infinite amount of "radiators", you see only those "radiators" that are within the radius of total blockage (i.e. the distance from us where every direction is blocked). Rest of the "nearby" universe shields us from excess radiation.
    Ari, it's not enough to have material blocks. The light itself has to be degrading. I don't think there is any way out except to assume a tired light model. In those models the total flux from all distant sources goes to a finite value. Here is a paper by Assis which sums up the story. See in particular Eqn. 3. If we add in tired light then everything else you said is fine.

  20. #20
    In a static model, the total amount of radiant energy being injected into space per cubic cm must equal the total quantity being lost per cc. In a tired light model, this situation has been shown to hold. (eg, the first parts of this paper)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpErdMann View Post
    Ari, it's not enough to have material blocks.
    Well yes, sorry, my explanation wasn't clear. I didn't intend to explain whole Olbers' paradox by the blocks, but just the part why we don't receive infinite amount of energy. It's true that we need more than blocks to reduce the received energy to the observed amount.

  22. #22
    If the intercepting matter were dust, say, then it is easy to see that the dust would heat up to the point where it was reemitting as much energy as it received. For larger bodies, eg stars, the same argument would hold if the incoming flux were indeed infinite.

  23. #23

    response to nereid

    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    1a) How does "intensity var[y] with distance from the source"?

    As I understand it, the intensity of sound varies inversely with the square of the distance. I expect the same would apply to light.

    1b) How does "intensity var[y] [...] by the time light or heat waves from stars have stretched"?

    1c) How far do "light or heat waves from stars" travel for them to be "stretched into microwaves" (in an infinite, static, universe)?

    These 2 questions restate the problems with current formula that I have mentioned. There is no summation formula for gravitation and formula grav redshift seems to diminish with distance. If I had any background in how to solve these issues it would have been part of the paper.

    1d) If, as you say, the universe is static and infinite, why is the intensity of the microwave background not infinite?

    I do like the answer by Art. Beyond that I think this and other of your questions consist of conflicting infinities. For example there is an infinite range of wavelengths at the varying distances from the infinite number of sources. Opposite to the question of infinite microwave intensity , at any point there might be none of a specific frequency because there are an infinite number of other possible frequencies for each source beam.

    2a) When do you expect to have finished working this out?
    Not soon.

    Here is your earlier statement:
    my earlier statements, in blue to you, dont come through for me to respond to.
    To replace i'nterim steps', I could say - during the gradual lengthening of the wavelength of light, its length will match those of microwave waves before ever reaching the infinite length of paep streams.
    3a) Please re-state this, clarifying the word 'interim' so that it no longer "confuses the issue here".

    3b) Why, in a static, infinite universe, aren't radio waves "near the extreme length where the various infrared wouuld be more interim in nature"?
    I suggested earlier that the role of the observer, in our case, the motions of earth may limit the observable length of radiation stream wave lengths.

    (to be continued)

  24. #24
    g
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    As you know, modern physics accounts for fusion extremely well, with a fundamentally very simple theory called QCD.

    What aspects of fusion, within mainstream physics, are not explained, in terms of detailed, quantitative matches between theory and the entire set of good observational and experimental results? In other words, what is the complete set of gaps, wrt fusion, where 'paeps striking nuclei just right' may add explanatory value?

    I have no in depth view of how fusion works. We are on that topic because you initiated it. To the extent that I have opinions here it is, as usual, with the logic. In this case I cant relate to so many different kinds of particles. To me QCD is not simple. In the back of my mind I would rather define all the events within and between atomic particles as being initiated by the rapid motion of paeps. In no case am I suggesting gaps in current successful theories.

    How, in principle, could your ATM idea about 'paeps striking nuclei just right' in (hydrogen) fusion be tested?
    My reason there is action in which fusion occurs is that paeps occasionally impact particles within the sun. I have defined paeps as being the background of space and as such indistinguishable to us other than in the outcome of their pushing pressure which produces gravity etc. Being the background, paeps themselves are probably not testable.
    ==================

    When will you be answering all the other direct, pertinent questions about your ATM idea(s), as presented?

  25. #25

    Olbers paradox irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki View Post
    Well yes, sorry, my explanation wasn't clear. I didn't intend to explain whole Olbers' paradox by the blocks, but just the part why we don't receive infinite amount of energy. It's true that we need more than blocks to reduce the received energy to the observed amount.
    Note: Olbers paradox would only apply in a Euclidean universe.

    So, OP does not contradict the concept of an infinite non-expanding universe if the spacetime continuum is non-Euclidean. And we know from the GR field equations (as well as through empirical evidence of, say, SNe Ia data) that the manifold is nonlinear (from an observers perspective).

    Thus, OP is an irrelevant argument against the static, infinite universe model.


    CC
    Last edited by Coldcreation; 2007-Nov-21 at 10:19 PM. Reason: typo

  26. #26
    Why can't I edit my earlier post? I click save and the hour glass won't go away.

    Victor J. Slabinsky did the math for VanFlandern and concluded that at least 10^20 CG’s must be scattered for every one that is absorbed. [When first posted, the superscript was lost; it should be 10^20, not 1020.]

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Philip Janes View Post
    Why can't I edit my earlier post? I click save and the hour glass won't go away.

    Victor J. Slabinsky did the math for VanFlandern and concluded that at least 10^20 CG’s must be scattered for every one that is absorbed. [When first posted, the superscript was lost; it should be 10^20, not 1020.]
    I'm glad you edited that in a separate post because I wouldn't have reread the first one. Sometimes the "Save" button doesn't work too well, so if it takes too long, you can press "Go Advanced" and then "Save Changes" from there (as I'm having to do for this post, for instance ). It seems to work better that way.

    Well, as far as what you wrote, that's the same thing I have found, whereas that amount of the energy density which is scattered by an individual particle is about 10^21 times greater than than that amount which is absorbed as gravitational pressure. Not that we should get into too much of that here, though, because this is neither of our thread, unless paul schroeder is also interested, but where did you find that?
    Last edited by grav; 2007-Nov-23 at 06:40 AM. Reason: deleted formula describing topic in second paragraph

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    EEM, Ari, CC: paul schroeder's ATM idea, as presented in this thread, is not just any old infinite, static universe. He has made some quite specific statements concerning the expected microwave background, based on specific aspects of his idea. However, it's not clear to me why - assuming the specific details he presents - that microwave background should not be infinite ... hence my question.

    If you, or any other reader, can explain what the expected microwave background should be - based on the specific details of the ATM idea, as presented - by all means do so.

    Otherwise ...

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Philip Janes View Post
    Why can't I edit my earlier post? I click save and the hour glass won't go away.

    Victor J. Slabinsky did the math for VanFlandern and concluded that at least 10^20 CG’s must be scattered for every one that is absorbed. [When first posted, the superscript was lost; it should be 10^20, not 1020.]
    [Moderator Note]

    Philip Janes, this thread is devoted to the presentation of paul schroeder's ATM idea, and questions on, and challenges to, it.

    If you would like to present your own ATM idea, and answer questions on it and address challenges to it, by all means please start a new thread.

    Otherwise, please refrain from hijacking this thread to promote your own ATM ideas. Please read the BAUT rules; such hijacking and promotion is an explicit violation of them.

    [/Moderator Note]

  30. #30
    I don't think Philip's comments are totally OT. He is focusing on the Le Sage particle model, as modified by Van Flandern and Slabinski. Paul Schroeder's model involves particles too, but his differ quite a bit from the ones Philip is talking about. They go at the velocity c, for instance, and are carried by his gravitational ether. Paul has possibly caused the confusion himself, by using the particle term 'paeps', when his model seems closer to a Le Sage (Lorentz-type) wave model. So while I don't think Philip meant to "hijack" the thread, it would indeed be confusing here to talk about the Le Sage particle and wave models simultaneously.

Similar Threads

  1. How the Universe can come from Nothing. Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles
    By mcgheetech79 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-26, 06:44 PM
  2. Gravity is caused by particles of flowing intrinsics!
    By LotusExcelle in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-22, 10:28 AM
  3. A universe made of binary particles?
    By Professor Tanhauser in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2006-Aug-21, 01:36 PM
  4. Gravity And Virtual Particles
    By czeslaw in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-21, 08:51 AM
  5. Gravity particles?
    By Zachary in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-05, 05:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: