OK, I'll re-phrase my objection. Gravity is not 32 ft. per second.

Thanks for your help Captain.

DrRocket,

Your explanation is exactly the general idea of pushing gravity. My version of it, however, also involves fluxing and flowing aether, and non-linear current flows and resultant vectors at points where gravity is very week and where gravity is very strong. These flows do not change the Newtonian force of gravity but the direction of the push would not be exactly in the direction of the gravitational source. At the boundaries where two stars have equal gravitational influences these vectors would become perpendicular to a straight line between the stars.The is because it is a vortex model of gravity, meaning a vortex or aether surrounds stars and to a small extent planets and smaller bodies. A black hole, for instance, would have the largest vortices surrounding them where the force of gravity would be totally non-linear and would only slowly orbit inwardly in the same path the material in their surrounding field would orbit.

There are other vortex models of gravity. But for the middle range of gravity, the entire solar system from the planet Venus out to the Oort cloud would be contained within this linear range. Within this range the flow of aether would be linear toward the gravitational source and so the gravitational force would simply follow the inverse square law for bodies moving directly toward this source. Other bodies moving in a direction different from a straight line to the gravitational source, whether linear, orbital, or at a different speed relative to the aether flow inward, would have a relative motion to the field and would therefore also experience a minuscule aether drag or aether friction.

grav,

It may seem that way but as you know all matter consists almost entirely space. Accordingly these aether particles vary in size from roughly a billionth the size of an electron to maybe a thousandth an electron's size. This aether moves into the Earth's surface where it is absorbed for the most part by the Earth's crust but the accelerating vectors of its push continue inward in a slow but continuous chain reaction of vortex pushing all the way to the core. As matter moves continuously based upon these vectors friction occurs and it heats up the surroundings. At the molten part of the Earth's core these vectors increase the kinetic motion and decrease the viscosity. Along with the heated interior, the core would build up heat by this process if it didn't conduct out and equal amount of this heat that eventually conducts to the Earths surface where the excess heat is radiated away in a continuous cycle.

As far as pushing gravity forces between two bodies is concerned, take the Earth and the Moon for instance. Each accordingly would have the inward flow of field motion pushing into them. Between them, however, the vector motions at one point would change directions and become discontinuous. This would result in a lower field pressure between the two bodies whereby the continuous inward pushing vectors on their outside surfaces would push the two bodies together excepting for their orbital momentum. This is described in detail at pantheory.org pages 57B-58.

Fortis,

They are equivalent based upon a perspective. My preferred perspective is this: a rock on the ground experiences a continuous pushing force upon it which we call gravitational force. The same rock traveling through space relative to the movement of the field at 32 feet per second has mass and potential energy. This potential impact force is only realized at the moment of impact so it would only have an instantaneous inertial mass which could be equivalent to the force which it exerts on the Earth which is a continuous force. That impact force in space would be equivalent to the force of the rock being dropped from a height of 32 feet to the ground.

This same rock on another equivalent Earth in another galaxy type or of a different age would experience slightly different forces, perhaps as much as a 1% difference. This difference would be a function of the aether density in the galaxy. The logically related hypothesis would be that aether would be at its densest in inter-galactic space and less dense in the oldest elliptical galaxies.

Nereid,

As to your first query, since two different formulations are being used, two results will be obtained that will always be at least a little bit different. What I said was that if there were a difference in the results, what would be the value to my calculations for anybody else other than myself since there is no way that I know of to verify these observations to confirm which distance or location answer was correct. To me, therefore, it would be a waist of time unless the results could somehow be verifiable.

My theories are essentially theories of everything, but unlike other string theory multi-dimensional models, as well as a new theory of Relativity unrelated to Einstein or any other theory of relativity. My theory of gravity is fundamental to the whole but not the primary focus of my book. I don't discuss gravitational lensing of any type in my book, and gravitational deflection of light only briefly. Again, for short distance gravity mechanics like lensing of any type, I would defer to Einstein's equations unless some observational confrontation comes to the fore. Then I would promote my alternative logic and related equation if it might resolve the quandary and ultimately prove my theory. The initial experiment that I proposed in my first thread would probably be the easiest proof of the theory.

Lastly I had to look up what a "mass map" is. Don't recall hearing that expression before. Now that I've looked it up, I don't see how I could use this tool since I'm not involved with these astronomical lensing intricacies or observational data. Again, I'm not competing with GR on this scale, only on the grand scale/ scheme of things.

If I missed anybody or any comment please let me know, respects to all, forrest

hhEb09'1's,

Of course it's not. It's 32 ft. per second of acceleration or 32 ft/sec./sec.

Don't blame you for not reading my long posts but the quantitative force of gravity was explained in my third to the last post.

respectfully, forrest

What aligns the vortexes of the atoms toward the center of the Earth? How would two individual atoms in free space gravitationally attract?

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

grav,

An aligned vortex in this theory is the same as an aligned atom, meaning it's polarized or magnetized. Although accordingly there would be just random alignment of atoms, a small percentage are oriented South because of the Earth's magnetic field. This however is inconsequential as far as the influence of the inflowing aether is concerned. The gravity force will add a downward vector to all atomic and molecular vortices regardless of their orientation. Since matter almost entirely consists of space, this space is about 3/4 filled with funneling vortices of aether, the rest that isn't matter would consist of transitional aether currents between vortices.

Two individual atoms in free space would not attract each other except by magnetic influence such as two hydrogen atoms forming a molecule. The kinetic flux of the aether field would be too strong to enable micro-gravity to work on this scale. Only within a very cold dust or gas cloud of adequate density could the central matter be pushed together and begin to clump.

It is somewhat difficult to see how gravity directs the inflow before the vortexes are set up in such a way as to produce the gravity to begin with, similarly to the way Einstein's rubber sheet analogy of gravity requires gravity beforehand to demonstrate as well. Which brings me back to my second question. How would two individual atoms in free space gravitationally attract each other?

EDIT - Oh, okay. Just noticed you answered that in the second part of the last post.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

This leads to another question. How would a cloud of hydrogen in free space begin to clump to form galaxies and stars if there is no gravitational influence between the hydrogen molecules?

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Grav,

They can be pushed together if they are close enough together but the natural flux of the aether field particles (bouncing back and forth off each other) would prevent molecules from being pushed into a cluster unless there was substantial density and very little heat energy. At first they would become molecules and then loosely clustered. When large enough quantities have been aggregated in a cold cluster the external inflowing aether forces would become strong enough to begin compacting the cluster tighter and tighter.

This would be a very slow process because the heat resulting from compaction would need to be continuously radiated away for the process to continue. Pre-existing space dust, small and large asteroid size material would all be pushed together eventually into a proto-star if the quantity of matter involved is massive enough. Once the mass is large enough a large vortex of inflowing matter would be creating by the vortex currents of gravity and would continue to build up the central mass which would become progressively hotter by friction.

The proto-star would have considerable heat radiation outward and surrounding areas would become superheated and the resulting gas pressures would eventually push much of the volatiles such as water, methane, chlorine, and hydrocarbons such as ammonia, etc. in a direction away form the proto-star to condense in the outer parts of the accretion disk until the heat of the proto-star would ignite in fusion and the resultant heavy EM radiation would greatly slow down this accretion process.

So why is there less gravity on the Moon or Mars? surely in your theory my mass is the same so it should feel the same for me wherever I am.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Strictly speaking the rubber sheet analogy, showing how objects are deflected by curved spacetime, doesn't require a downward pulling gravity. If you let objects follow the straightest lines that they can on the sheet (or geodesics), they will be deflected. I agree, however, that the huge flaw in how the rubber sheet analogy is presented is that without a fair bit of explicit explanation it looks like it is gravity pulling things down into the dents in the sheet. It just shows how dangerous these analogies can be.

My question was related to the force acting on two different "rocks" (e.g. one made of pure gold, and one made of pure silicon) that had the same inertial mass. Is the force the same for both "rocks" or does it differ?

Turning to the CMB (cosmic microwave background), or as I think you sometimes call it, the MWB (microwave background).

If I have understood correctly, in your ATM idea this is "the re-radiation of star light by extra and intergalactic matter" (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I have been unable to find anything in the material on your website (including the book) on how you derived the temperature of the CMB, nor on where you showed that it would have a blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution). Can you please point me to where this is covered?

Based on our previous discussion, is it fair to say that at the moment you cannot claim that your model will reproduce the gravitational phenomena observed on the Earth and elsewhere within the solar system? By this I mean quantitative matches, not just qualitative matches to observation.

If the aether moves into the Earth at 32 ft per second, and that gravity is the result of matter being dragged by the aether, doesn't this mean that the terminal velocity of an object free-falling to the ground can be no higher than 32 ft per second? This would correspond to the object being at rest relative to the aether.

Any thoughts?

Just to add to my previous post, a lead ball would reach a speed of 32 feet per second after falling less than 6 metres.

Captain Swoop,

Seriously, I wouldn't mind going either place and conducting of few experiments. Since I can't go to either of these worlds at the present time I went down to Tijuana Mex. instead and conducted a few other experiments.

Back to your query. The more mass a body has the greater the extent of its EM radiation. This radiation consists of outward moving pressure waves that reduce the field pressure surrounding all matter. The greater the mass the greater the field pressure differential around it and the stronger and more forceful the inflow of aether to equalize the field pressure in a continuous cycle. This inflow is the accelerating force of gravity which is stronger for more massive entities.

Nereid,

You're right about that. I don't believe there is a CMB as the first light of the BB, instead, as you suggested, it is called the MWB by infidel ATM theorists like myself.

Yes this is true concerning your understanding of what I believe i.e. that the MWB is "the re-radiation of star light by extra and intergalactic matter." This could be a quotation from my book. The other two secondary heating sources of the MWB would be gravity and magnetic forces caused by high speed ions, primarily electrons and protons. There are also other smaller factors that also contribute to this heating. The primary ultimate source of this re-radiation is galactic and intergalactic neutral hydrogen since it represents the bulk of radiating galactic and intergalactic matter.

The most important part of the process which equalizes this temperature is absorption and re-radiation primarily by iron and graphite particles. Another important process would be heat conduction (but no radiation) by the aether which also increases its flux surrounding matter in accord with the matter's temperature. This omni-present process would equalize the temperature of the MWB. Many of the small hot spots that we now observe in the MWB are accordingly in our galaxy and other hot spots are distant galaxies and clusters beyond the range of today's radio-astronomy technology.

I don't discuss how exact numbers could be derived but by a rough density calculation of galaxies, by their average EM constituents, and with the inverse square law of their average estimated distances I could make a rough estimate. Others, for the past 90 years, have come up with a number of estimates; some have come very close to what is actually observed. I also didn't discuss whether it has a black body character or why it could, because I believe too much explanation volume would be spent and too many of the readers would not appreciate it. If I were to mention it I might refer them to a concurring explanatory source in the index.

Thanks for checking it out in the book.

Fortis,

Yeah, their inertial mass would be the same as in conventional theory.

Thanks for that explanation, I agree. For that reminder I might not mention the rubber sheet analogy as often. The main problem with the warped space idea is changing the simple concept of space into something complicated which, I believe, is not necessary to explain anything.

In my theories I assert that all of reality, from the big to the small, is relatively simple and could be explained in detail to the average High School student, excluding the mathematics. One of the most important aspects of my set of theories logically, is answering all the "why" questions that none of the other theories, that I know of, can. The reason being is that I propose that there is a simple answer to every "why" question that you can imagine in cosmology and physics, whether I understand it and can explain it properly or not, and that someday this simplicity will be revealed to all. The intent of my book is to encourage the process of logical thinking, especially when things don't seem to make sense. I devote a lot of time in the book answering every possible "why" question that I could imagine, I hope, in a simple logical way.

The amount of EM radiation radiating from an object is related to its surface area, not its mass. (For partially transparent objects, column depth effects will come into play, but if you are talking about things like the Moon, etc., that shouldn't be an issue.) One of the other factors is the temperature of the object, with objects emitting more radiation when hot, than when cold. Does this mean that in your model we should see thermal effects in the gravitational interaction between two bodies?

I think that you have misunderstood what I was trying to get at. The question is, would their gravitational masses be the same?

It actually does a tremendous job of explaining the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. In any other area where we find that a force is proportional to the mass, they invariably arise because we are working in a non-inertial frame. For example the centrifugal force, and coriolis force, only appears because we are trying to work in a rotating coordinate system. We have to "make up" the coriolis and centrifugal "forces" so that we can go on using Newton's laws.

In essence this is what we get in GR. Gravity is akin to the coriolis force, etc, because the force that we experience is just because we are not in an inertial reference frame.

Fortis,

Of course it matches quantitative measurements. Knowing the results beforehand all theories would need to explain quantitative verifiable reality with measurement or calculation.

Granted

That's true but a free falling object would accordingly experience acceleration because: The aether itself would be accelerating. At ground level it accordingly would be moving at 32 ft. per second but further up it would be moving at a slower speed according to the inverse square law and the volume of a sphere. The free falling object to start with would be stationary relative to the ground. As the object is released the accelerating aether would move against it and as the object begins to move with the field, aether would also flow in behind it at the speed of light. The same forceful vector differential would remain behind it and a lesser resistance vector in front of it, therefore the object would experience acceleration in a continuing cycle until it hits the ground, even though it could be moving at a speed much faster than the inflowing aether.

respectfully, forrest

(bold added)

How is starlight re-radiated by "galactic and intergalactic neutral hydrogen", with temperature equalisation largely achieved by "absorption and re-radiation primarily by iron and graphite particles"?

What I am asking for is a description of the principal photon-particle interactions, whether "neutral hydrogen" or "iron and graphite particles" or any other intermediary. Please clearly distinguish between those found in standard physics textbooks and your own, ATM, ideas.

In your ATM idea, where do the "iron and graphite particles" come from?

Also, lastly for this post, how do you account for the CMB dipole, in your ATM idea?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If the body is moving at the same speed as the aether, why would there be any differential flow around the body? If we treat the aether as a fluid, the body is at rest in the flowing fluid. There is no reason for the fluid to redistribute itself around the body. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Thanks for being persistent Fortis.

Because of these question and answer sessions I will review my explanations in the book to improve clarity where I can. If I can't explain it to someone as smart as you then I'm going to have a hard time with the general readership of my book.

To answer your question; Treating the aether like a set of apposing vectors might be a better analogy. The pushing force behind an object would accordingly always be greater than the apposing force in front of it regardless of the speed of the field. This would be because the field is accelerating inward and the fluid density in front of the object would always be less the the density behind it.

This again is because matter creates a low density area in the field surrounding it. Because of this, the speed of the aether in which the object is traveling will accelerate inwardly. The object will begin to accelerate at a rate according to the speed of the field but because it is too big to experience flux resistance as do aether particles, the object would therefore accelerate at a greater rate than the field accelerates.

Hope this explains it. If not I'll try again.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid,

As you may know galactic and intergalactic neutral hydrogen radiates at the same frequency as the MWB --

http://www.dsri.dk/~mykal/tmp/tycho/Verschuur.doc

As neutral hydrogen is heated by processes described below it re-radiates heat generally in all directions. Additionally iron and graphite can absorb a lot more heat and again radiates in all directions. These are major factors in the temperature equalization process of galactic and intergalactic matter which Hoyle and many others have proposed.

(from my previous post)

"The other two secondary heating sources of the MWB would be gravity and magnetic forces caused by high speed ions, primarily electrons and protons. There are also other smaller factors that also contribute to this heating.

One of the most important heat equalization processes would be heat conduction by the aether which also increases its flux (akin to oscillating kinetic energy) surrounding matter in accord with the matter's temperature. This omni-present process would accordingly equalize the temperature of the MWB."


Iron and graphite particles are mostly the remnants of supernovae and according to my theory are fairly evenly distributed as rarefied dust particles all over the observable universe as well as all other atomic matter found here on earth. These two elements have been shown to absorb and re-radiate in a more uniform manner than other elements. This info I believe can easily be found online, if not I'll look up some links for you to read.

My theory and most all other ATM theories predict this effect. The so called "Axis of evil." If the background radiation is not the first light of the big bang and is instead just the radiation of galactic and intergalactic matter then there seemly should be a hemispheric relative motion between us and this intergalactic radiation of matter that should be observable since we are probably not at the center of the universe and without relative motion to this MWB radiation.

respectfully, forrest

I saw your reference to this in the material on your website.

May I ask if you have read the Verschuur paper that was (finally) published? And the Lieu analysis done subsequently?

I ask this because while Verschuur's PR may get the uninformed reader excited, what counts in science is a) whether the work, when written up, survives peer-review, and b) whether it is subsequently validated, independently.

Given that there is no established relationship between "galactic and intergalactic neutral hydrogen" and the CMB, and given that "galactic and intergalactic neutral hydrogen radiates at the same frequency as the MWB", how does your ATM idea account for the lack of correspondence?

Is this, as far as you know, a process one can read in a standard physics textbook (the "re-radiates heat generally in all directions", not what causes it to be heated)? If so, can you please give a reference? I'm particularly interested in the extent to which the re-radiation is non-isotropic, and the SED (spectral energy distribution) of the re-radiated "heat".

In the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread, at what typical distance does inter-galactic space become opaque to microwave radiation, due to absorption and re-radiation by "iron and graphite"?

What is the (space) density of this "iron and graphite"?

How does the density of these particles (whiskers?) vary throughout space? For example, is it many orders of magnitude greater in and near (normal) galaxies than in voids?

How important - quantitatively - are these "heating sources" compared with the primary source?

How - specifically - does "gravity and magnetic forces caused by high speed ions, primarily electrons and protons" heat the neutral hydrogen and iron and graphite particles?

These seem to be processes found in standard physics texts; if so, can you please give a reference?

What is the thermal conductivity of "the aether"? An order of magnitude estimate please, in SI units.

(I'll address the rest of your post later)

Nereid,

No I haven't.

The point of Verschuur's paper, concerning my comments here, is that I believe the MWB could be corrupted by HI radiation from our galaxy even though there was no correlation (accepted by peer review) based upon the whole galactic map.

Although there was no accepted correlation, since they radiate at the same frequency, it would be seemingly very difficult to preclude the possibility of corruption. I account for the radiated temperature of the MWB believing some of this radiation is within our galaxy, and the rest of it would be the microwave radiation by all non-stellar intergalactic matter within a range of maybe no more than 100 million light years by the processes I've described above.

Hydrogen, or most gases for that matter, when heated from all sides will radiate in all directions. When heated from just one direction it will absorb and re-radiate to a greater extent in a line away from the heating source. This is standard textbook stuff.

Iron and graphite would be great for redistributing heat radiation but all galactic and intergalactic matter in the form of dust particles could refract light or absorb its energy and re-radiate it. When you're talking about micro-wave energy at the lowest level such as the MWB, my guess is that it would be absorbed by intervening matter every 50-200 million light years and re-radiated again.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0228143538.htm

After research I could make an educated guess on this one but what would be the purpose. In my theory, since it's a theory of everything, if I went into this kind of detail in every aspect of reality, the book would be longer than an encyclopedia.

My guess is that the density of these elements would be greater within or near galaxies, as you mentioned, by a factor of maybe 500.

[quote]How important - quantitatively - are these "heating sources" compared with the primary source?[quote]

This of course would be a matter of location but these secondary heating sources, might represent 15% of the total heating of intergalactic space which includes the heating forces and jets of galactic black holes which I forgot to mention.

The gravitational forces of heating could make up 25% of the heat of a star according to theory that I've already presented on this thread. Magnetic forces, primarily within young newly forming galaxies, would motivate ionized particle to very high speeds whereby they would interact with other matter, as well as the above examples, resulting in friction and increased kinetic motion of the contacted matter.

Except for the gravitational heating process, the rest of this stuff is standard text book stuff that I'm sure you're familiar with, otherwise you couldn't ask as many knowledgeable questions.


respectfully, forrest

I know some of my posts are long, and that I sometimes ask a lot of questions in them. On the whole you have responded to the questions asked of your ATM idea quite quickly forrest noble, something that is rather unusual in this section.

However, there is one question in my last post you did not address, so let me ask it again, in a post of its own.

Here is you, quoting something you had written in an earlier post (and repeating what's on your website, I think):

(bold added)

And here is my question: What is the thermal conductivity of "the aether"?

Please provide at least an order of magnitude estimate, in SI units.

I'm going to try to limit my questions to just one, or a very few closely related ones, per post.

(bold added)

To what extent is this process, or mechanism, different from any of the ones already identified as producing cosmic rays?

Does your ATM idea lead to predictions of the composition and energy spectrum of cosmic rays, as observed here on Earth and with instruments on spacecraft (both within and beyond the Earth's magnetosphere)?

Perhaps if we consider what happens in a few simple cases.

1) Empty space full of aether: What happens here? Does the aether move as a fluid? Is the aether made up of particles that travel at c? Can you create pressure waves in the aether?

2) What happens if we now have a uniform spherical mass in the above system?

There is a third case, but I want to understand the first two before I get on to that.

Thank you for your patience.

Continuing the one-question-at-a-time posts ...To what extent would the unambiguous detection of point sources in the microwave waveband be inconsistent with your ATM idea?

Specifically, how would your ATM idea account for the result that there are (many) such point sources at distances considerably greater than 50-200 million light years?

To what extent do you expect that the optical depth of the inter-galactic medium, in the microwave waveband, departs from isotropy?