Originally Posted by paul schroeder

I understand that science focuses on a definition of 'theory' that includes rigorous principles and propesitions. There is a more common underswtanding of 'theory' that we grew up with that theory is an explanation whose status is conjectural. Many people use the word in that context. It feels better that guess or speculative idea which concepts are more singular in their application than is a new overall perspective. In any case you can be safe in assuming I am not out speculating on quantative relationships for pieces of my perspective as I am instead connecting my ideas together with logic. Varifications are often done later and by others.

Originally Posted by Nereid

Interesting.

Density is mass divided by volume, as normal. Maybe the issue here Is that stmt 1 should have the more spin, the more mass rather than the more gravitation.
Resulting gravitation effects depend not only on mass but also on distance from the density of the mass. The concept of a collapsing star, nutron star or a black hole is that the same mass that existed in one volume now occupies a much smaller volume. The surface gravitational effects of the denser (more concentrated) mass will be much greater even though its impact across space is not greater.
In your example the surface gravitation of the sphere outside the container is greater than when in the container containing also vacant non spinning volume. The internal location of the density and its spins matters.

Can you please explain how this (my bold):

"My [ATM idea] proposes that the spin of a mass defines its density. To account for the relative motions of the particles making up the mass, it is their motion that causes there to be density. The more density, the more interference with the penetration of paeps and thus the more gravitation."

is consistent with this:

"You still have the same number of platinum electrons in the container that you had in there when you put in the solid sphere. It mostly wouldnt matter if they were in solid or vapor form, the total spin remains about the same."

Please include a definition of 'density' in your answer, and, if that definition differs from the standard (physics) one (i.e. mass divided by volume), please say so explicitly.

Originally Posted by paul schroeder

x

Density is mass divided by volume, as normal. Maybe the issue here Is that stmt 1 should have the more spin, the more mass rather than the more gravitation.

Originally Posted by Nereid

Yes, essentially all of them.

Here they are again, re-stated to incorporate your clarifications so far:

1) What, in the idea you have presented in this thread, is the relationship between the observed 'gravitational redshift' and the mass (let it be 'm') and distance (let it be 'd') of the source?

Assume a static universe with just the one source mass and a (massless) observer.

I have spent some time thinking about your question , I had not done so previously. So, first of all to solve my corrected gravitational redshift explanation, there cant be a massless observer. I include and require the pull of the mass near the observer. My overall conclusion is that increments of redshift are somewhat dependent on and similar in each distance unit. So there is some form of summation by distance.

In the original presentation I assumed some sort of summation of redshifts while the incremental shifting always decreases over distance. I am not the one to figure out a formula. But I can see the roadblocks within the schwartzchild gravitational redshift formula. The problem is the calculated redshift decreases with distance. That must be why we have schwartzchild radii for black holes etc.

If a body like the sun causes any degree of separation of photons, what makes them come back together and shorten their wavelength as they further depart from the sun?? The redshift formula in question is
z = 1/(1-2GM/rc(sq))sq -1. The issue is the ongoing increase in r.

I conclude we have no logical starting point for summing gravitation. The speculation I would begin with is to take the redshift we observe for the sun which is z = 3x10(-6) and accumulate it for every r/distance to the sun. the r is the distance to another star. This will give too large a result since more distant from the source gives lower incremental redshifts.

2) See my post immediately above.

2.1) What is the "number of particle spins" of an element (presumably)?

2.2) What are the "velocit[ies]" of these particles (presumably)?

2.3a) What is the "direction to the volume occupied by a particular molecule"?

2.3b) In particular, how does this relate to non-molecular forms of various elements?

I answered all these #2 questions as best I could in post #27.

3) To what extent can you show - quantitatively - consistency between your idea, as presented, and results of Pound-Rebka experiments?

I dont have quantative answers. My submissions try to answer the 'how and why' of spatial issues, not the 'what'. I Try to provide logical views that are in agreement with existing knowledge. My goal is to not to require observations or calculations that are different.

4 and 5) How can one independently verify this statement ("My gravity particles produce the same impressions as current theory. The resultant bending should be the same")?

Specifically, where have you published a demonstration of this?
nowhere

6) Q: How would the observed redshift of a distant star change during a micro-lensing event?
A: "Possibly the secondary gravitational effect the slowing that accompanies the lensing, would cause additional slowing of the beam and result in a greater redshift like my explanation of the redshift for quasars"
Q: Please expand on this answer, by providing details of the logic that links your idea to your answer.

Originally Posted by Nereid

(my bold)

As I understand it, 'logic' includes (or assumes) that the terms, statements, propositions, etc that are being linked must have certain characteristics.

One of those characteristics is consistency, in the sense that a term ('density' say, or 'spin') has the same meaning (or 'value') wherever it is used (unless declared otherwise).

Another is that the premises are either carefully stated, or (where 'unknowns' are used) declared to be undefined (or similar).

We can see, by the extract from your post that I quote above, that at least one key term was not defined (in the OP; 'theory' in this case); in an earlier post, it seems that, at least, there is lack of clarity over the meaning (definition) of another key term ('density').

In order to avoid mis-communication, which would waste precious days of the 30 that this thread has (among other things), perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm that the following terms have, with respect to the idea(s) you are presenting in this thread, their standard meaning, as found in standard physics (or astrophysics, or cosmology) textbooks? If any do not, please provide a concise, precise definition of the relevant term, as it applies to your idea(s), as presented in this thread.

A good exercies. I intend most of these terms to have their standard meaning. My early introduction mentioned that I was going to focus on gravity, pushing gravity, spin, and redshift. So those terms may have their definition expanded within the whole treatise. Part 2 specifically redefines gravity. I address my features of a couple terms you presented.

universe - infinite

gravity - pushing

particle

redshift (different from 'red shift'?) - Microsoft 'word' doesnt like the word redshift so it may have come out in either form.

time

distance

light

mass - probablu std. but gets analyzed

quasar

galaxy

speed

velocity

photon

'shift of light'

'beam of particles'

beam (of photons)

accelerate

periodic chart

molecule

Note that 'density' is already the subject of a different post - and question.

You have used the term 'spin' many times so far in this thread. The first time, in the OP ("This particular theory requires no concepts beyond [...] and an in depth analysis of the contributions of spins (rotation and revolution)"), points to the centrality of this concept to your idea(s). That use of the term also seems (to me) to imply 'spin' has a meaning similar to that of classical physics.

However, in a later post, 'spin' seems to be used with a meaning that is at least partially one (of several) used in quantum physics ("You still have the same number of platinum electrons in the container that you had in there when you put in the solid sphere. It mostly wouldnt matter if they were in solid or vapor form, the total spin remains about the same.")

Please provide a clear, precise definition of 'spin' as you intend to use the term in presentation of your idea(s). If you have, earlier in this thread, used the term in a way that is inconsistent with your definition, please re-present the relevant part(s) of your idea(s).

Spin is an ongoing subject of analysis and is very complex. I dont modify its definition here. It is other than wobble, can be revolution or rotation, is plus or minus and defined as 1/2 , 1, and 2. It is mostly discussed in terms of a ball rather than a circle.

As you continue to present your idea(s) in this thread, please take particular care to ensure that all key terms are defined, especially if you intend them to have meanings other than those found in standard physics textbooks.

Originally Posted by Nereid

Here is "stmt 1"*Perhaps the re-statement is:

"My [ATM idea] proposes that the spin of a mass defines its density. To account for the relative motions of the particles making up the mass, it is their motion that causes there to be density. The more spin, the more interference with the penetration of paeps and thus the more mass."

Is that it?
That seems to summarize it best.

Please connect this with the re-stated "stmt 1"; in particular, please connect 'spin' into this.
The effects depend not only on total mass but also on the distane and direction of the spinning electrons that make up the mass. Disbursed electrons within the larger volume create less surface gravitational effect than there is on the surface of the dense solid.

What does "vacant non spinning volume" mean?
A poorly worded statement that the remaining volume is probably air/gasses that have fewer spinning electrons.

Finally, in your second statement ("You still have the same number of platinum electrons in the container that you had in there when you put in the solid sphere. It mostly wouldnt matter if they were in solid or vapor form, the total spin remains about the same", my bold), what are the parts that would matter? How does the "total spin" differ?

The total spin includes whatever air/gas that occupies the remaining portion of the containes in the 2 different situations. Also, the situation is like comparing the gravitational effects of steam vapor, water, and ice. I am not sure if the dispursed electrons spin at exactly the same velocity. Clearly for ice the molecules are farther apart than for water, so there the volume varies.

*I think; if not, please state what it is.

Originally Posted by paul schroeder

m

Originally Posted by ToSeek

These are not acceptable responses. Do it again, and you'll get a suspension. Do it more than once, and you'll be banned.

ToSeek
BAUT Forum moderator

Originally Posted by ToSeek

UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that paul schroeder is not being flippant but just having problems with the quoting mechanism on this forum - his comments are inside the quote box. Therefore, this warning is retracted.

A note for Paul: Make sure your comments are not stuck between the [ QUOTE ] and [ /QUOTE ] parameters, else they will look like what you're responding to, not your own comments.

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

I am not responding to this message, I am just using it as a quick example of the proper use of quotes. Notice that I added the What happens to what I type here? Is this between the quota and /quote codes?[ /QUOTE ] or here? code above in order to add this text here. In order to resume the quote I copied the opening [ QUOTE ] code below. I could have also just written a [ QUOTE ] code (without the spaces, of course).

As an extra bonus, the [ CODE ] window below should show the codes for the above almost as you would see it in the editor. Ignore the closing ] before the QUOTE. Enjoy!

Originally Posted by Nereid (extract)

You have used the term 'spin' many times so far in this thread. The first time, in the OP ("This particular theory requires no concepts beyond [...] and an in depth analysis of the contributions of spins (rotation and revolution)"), points to the centrality of this concept to your idea(s). That use of the term also seems (to me) to imply 'spin' has a meaning similar to that of classical physics.

However, in a later post, 'spin' seems to be used with a meaning that is at least partially one (of several) used in quantum physics ("You still have the same number of platinum electrons in the container that you had in there when you put in the solid sphere. It mostly wouldnt matter if they were in solid or vapor form, the total spin remains about the same.")

Please provide a clear, precise definition of 'spin' as you intend to use the term in presentation of your idea(s). If you have, earlier in this thread, used the term in a way that is inconsistent with your definition, please re-present the relevant part(s) of your idea(s).

Originally Posted by paul schroeder

Spin is an ongoing subject of analysis and is very complex. I dont modify its definition here. It is other than wobble, can be revolution or rotation, is plus or minus and defined as 1/2 , 1, and 2. It is mostly discussed in terms of a ball rather than a circle.

Originally Posted by Nereid

The Eöt-Wash Group has done many, very exacting experiments into the extent to which 'weak-field' gravity differs from the Newtonian description.

One set of experiments involved electron spins, and would seem to be tests of your idea.

The findings are that there is no spin-(electron) dependent component to gravity, down to a very small limit.

Please explain a) the extent to which these experiments serve as tests of your ATM idea, and b) how these experiments' results are consistent with your idea (i.e. that the spin-dependent part is less than a very small amount).

Originally Posted by paul schroeder

Nereid,
You are right, I do need to be more specific about defining this activity called spin.

Spin within the external gravity perspective is necessary motion somewhat perpendicular to paep motion, and which moves such that retains its general location.

Consider a particle at rest which we associate with our concept of mass. For gravity to be a pushing activity, the pushing components, which I call paeps, contact or interact with the mass. The smaller the mass particle within its field, the less likely it will be impacted by paeps. Paeps travel very fast and don’t, or hardly do, vibrate. The likelihood of contact can be increased by moving the mass particle perpendicular to the paep path. The faster it moves across a beam of paeps, the greater the likelihood of contact. If the mass particle motion was one of continuing in its path it would be no more than a form of radiation. Therefore the mass particle must cross back and forth across the beam to seek contact. If it did so in a longitudinal manner, it would still be a wave itself. The particle must instead recross the paep beam by curving back around as part of the process of reversing its direction. This motion allows rapid repeated attempts to interact with paeps and as such is most easily represented as a spinning motion. The motion retains its spatial location and internally gives the stability of mass. The more rapidly the particle moves around the undefined center, the more possibility of contact with paeps and therefore, the greater the apparent density of the circle and the greater the mass.

The rotation around some nearly stationary center as described is by what I previously called some particle of mass. As it is now going around its center, we might call this spin a rotation around a circular surface. There might be reason to identify something within the center as a mass particle. More appropo is looking beyond relative to which this spinning particle defines a particle of mass. There may be another level of spin relative to this newly defined center. That might just be another level of rotation. However if this second level of spin is relative to the whole particle, then it is an orbiting motion.

I assume the initial level of spin most nearly suggests electrons. Expanding outward gives electron clouds, larger particles and ultimately heavenly bodies.

Originally Posted by paul schroeder

I am not familiar with the idea of weak and linear gravity and appreciate your explanation of the findings. They do seem to coincide with my ideas, as I do describe gravity as a very long wavelength radiation, which pushes mass specifically because my paeps dont have any spin. I wonder what similar testing finds about spin within photon streams which are radiation with vibrations of wavelenghts. Photons also shouldnt contain a spin of the form of electrons. I suggest spin begins where radiation wavelength becomes maximum. Note: Photons are considered to have no at rest mass. When in motion, what one sees of anothers vibration's can appear like spin since it is hard to determine if all the vibrations occur going forward or if some might wrap back around like spin.



I guess these tests are a good confirmation for my ideas.