There is no gravity, just electrostatics

[Aswin Chandrasekaran]

Our theories and science, in general, are tainted by our way of sensing the Universe. The way we see things influences our description of reality.
The way we see things is by separating them as particular objects. We see the Earth and human beings as separate entities. Hence, we are able to say that there is a force, the gravitational force, between these two entities. The problem with this is that this is completely arbitrary. It could have just as well have been the case that our ability to resolve different entities was at the level of the atom. What this means is that the Universe is a stream of atoms that all attract each other electrostatically (since it is electrostatics that prevails at the atomic level).
The fact that we see clusters of galaxies would lead us to believe that there is some sort of a gravitional force present that keeps these galaxies together. However, this is not because of gravity, which is influenced by density. What I mean by that is where we see clusters of galaxy, there is a high density of atoms and where it is just space, there is a low density of atoms.
To give a more mundane example, we could say that the 'gravitational force' between the Earth and you can be increased if your mass increases. To do that we can include the mass of the air, atmosphere as part of your mass. But we don't do that because there is a great change in density at the interface between you and the atmosphere.
What this means is that gravity can be dissected to something more fundamental since we cannot talk about gravity at the size of human beings (since it depends on density). This something more fundamental is the electrostatic force ========>Therefore, gravity is just a macroscopic version of electrostatics.

[tony_fleming]

Aswin

if you look at self-field theory (SFT), in particular, gravitational SFT, you find that the gravitational forces is put down as a dielectric PLUS a corresponding magnetic force that is set up between electric dipoles (i.e. atoms). so this includes not an electrostatic force, but a 'dynamic' dielectric force which is balanced by the negative energy (relative to the dielectric energy). what this involves is a balance that can 'flip' because of what i call 'photonic chemistry'

[AntonioLao]

in contradistinction to the title of this thread, gravity is a force. This force is known by numerous experiments to be equivalent to the inertial force. This force is dependent on the existence of mass. Newton discovered both of these forces in the 17th century. The universal law of gravitation (gravity) and the 2nd law of motion (inertia). Therefore, gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass. These laws were used in science and technology that made the progress of modern industry from cars to rockets possible.

in contrast, it was Coulomb who discovered the law of electrostatic force. This law is the same in form as the gravity force with the exception that mass is replaced by the electric charge. The laws have different proportionality constants, which basically imply that gravity is a much weaker force than Coulomb's force.
Coulomb's law for electrostatic charges together with Ampere's law for electric current and magnetism and Faraday's concept of field of force were used by Maxwell to formulate the mathematics for the theory of electromagnetism. This heralded the advent of electrical power and the telecommunication industries, which no doubt included the internet (a computer has more to do with quantum mechanics and solid state physics).

the connection between these two forces gives a constant known as the charge to mass ratio. This constant is more widely known for the electron since it was easier for experimentalist to detect. Millikan was able to independently measure the charge of the electron, which indirectly measure the mass of an electron.

[tony_fleming]

.......
The fact that we see clusters of galaxies would lead us to believe that there is some sort of a gravitional force present that keeps these galaxies together. However, this is not because of gravity, which is influenced by density. What I mean by that is where we see clusters of galaxy, there is a high density of atoms and where it is just space, there is a low density of atoms.
To give a more mundane example, we could say that the 'gravitational force' between the Earth and you can be increased if your mass increases. To do that we can include the mass of the air, atmosphere as part of your mass. But we don't do that because there is a great change in density at the interface between you and the atmosphere.
What this means is that gravity can be dissected to something more fundamental since we cannot talk about gravity at the size of human beings (since it depends on density). This something more fundamental is the electrostatic force ========>Therefore, gravity is just a macroscopic version of electrostatics.

the galaxy is held together by SOMETHING like gravity as we know it; what gravitational self-field theory sees is not mass-mass (long range distorted dipole-dipole) two-way interactions, but nucleon-nucleon-nucleon (long-range distortioned tripole-tripole-tripole) three-way interactions. each of these forms of gravitation have two or more orthogonal streams of field particles flowing between the two (or three) clumps of matter. in the case of both mass-mass and nucleon-nucleon-nucleon these streams flow in complex spirals of helical motions which we see at the galactic and the supergalactic levels, plus we do know of photon-bending via relativity at the solar system level. in the case of the galaxy the field would presumably convert down to photons in the reaches of deep-space, and recombine into gluons near the nucleon matter at the end of it journey.

the prediction is that we will find that the photon streams from the N-S poles of the sun in our own solar system will bend over to join up with ALL the other N-S poles of the planets. if we followed the field away from earth or if we began at the sun, although this would be somewhat harder because of the merging of the streams as they approch the sun, we would presumeably find that they join together.

[AntonioLao]

The fact that we see clusters of galaxies would lead us to believe that there is some sort of a gravitional force present that keeps these galaxies together.

the measured radial velocities of galaxies cannot be accounted for by just the visible mass. From this anomaly, cosmologists theorize the existence of dark matter.

[tony_fleming]

the measured radial velocities of galaxies cannot be accounted for by just the visible mass. From this anomaly, cosmologists theorize the existence of dark matter.

Antonio,

think about it from the self-field theory viewpoint: the mass of the photon fills the skys (discrete small solid angle streams rather than continuous flows out over all solid angles-see jackson "clasical electrodynamics" latest edition) with streams between all matter, including a subphotonic 'field' that lies below the photon which may also have an incredibly small mass, may make up the missing 'dark matter'. this mass of the photon may also account for the redshift so the universe only appears to expand; the phenomenon of vacuum energy may be the result of collisions between photons and other particles of varying state etc occurring in space; the far outreaches of our own universe may have strings of bose-einstein condensates at its 'edges', away from all other energy. in this rare state, the photon has 'collapsed' down into 'chains' or 'strings' of its sub-photonic particles that i term the ephectron and the phroton, 'frozen light'

[tony_fleming]

Our theories and science, in general, are tainted by our way of sensing the Universe. The way we see things influences our description of reality.
The way we see things is by separating them as particular objects. We see the Earth and human beings as separate entities. Hence, we are able to say that there is a force, the gravitational force, between these two entities. The problem with this is that this is completely arbitrary. It could have just as well have been the case that our ability to resolve different entities was at the level of the atom. What this means is that the Universe is a stream of atoms that all attract each other electrostatically (since it is electrostatics that prevails at the atomic level).
The fact that we see clusters of galaxies would lead us to believe that there is some sort of a gravitional force present that keeps these galaxies together. However, this is not because of gravity, which is influenced by density. What I mean by that is where we see clusters of galaxy, there is a high density of atoms and where it is just space, there is a low density of atoms.
To give a more mundane example, we could say that the 'gravitational force' between the Earth and you can be increased if your mass increases. To do that we can include the mass of the air, atmosphere as part of your mass. But we don't do that because there is a great change in density at the interface between you and the atmosphere.
What this means is that gravity can be dissected to something more fundamental since we cannot talk about gravity at the size of human beings (since it depends on density). This something more fundamental is the electrostatic force ========>Therefore, gravity is just a macroscopic version of electrostatics.

actually aswin, i agree with the main thrust of what you're saying, except for the electrostatics. make it dielectrodynamics in conjunction with 'dimagnetodynamics' (the magnetic analogy of dielectrodynamics) and you.re beginning to talk turkey!!

[AntonioLao]

the mass of the photon...

i still believe the photons should have no mass otherwise they would not be travelling at the speed of light in vacuum. the redshift of photon is a consequence of the expansion of space.

[tony_fleming]

i still believe the photons should have no mass otherwise they would not be travelling at the speed of light in vacuum. the redshift of photon is a consequence of the expansion of space.

hmmmm. ok, this is the conventional, mainstream view, nothing wrong with that at all, except that in the case of self-field theory it doesn't fit the SFT theory and the facts can be viewed contra to the mainstream including much that can be explained by SFT. so currently SFT is on the outer UNLESS i can argue the case otherwise. so we should look at these issues you raise at length to see if we can zero in on the differences. the following is maybe an intro to these differences

(1) this concept of a massless photon is a matter of definition to fit the theory (gauge symmetry) after the facts rather than being an experimentally validated measurement before the facts. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ight_mass.html

it actually results from a time when explosions and not biology where to the forefront in physics. there was an imperative to understand nuclear (explosive) physics first, a war race. it is at its heart an approximation.

many phenomena can be explained by massive photon with a spectroscopy incuding DNA function, ionospheric layers, snowflake patterns, homeopathics, for example

(2) the mainstream position on constancy is: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html

but we know that light can vary from experiments on Bose-Einstein Condensates in the laboratory.
http://www.spie.org/app/publications...99/cover2.html

constancy is more about setting a standard and not based on ALL phenomena
apart from so-called 'free-space', there is no such beast as an inertial frame. it doesn't exist it's only a mathematical 'special case'. in reality the speed of light varies from space-time point to space-time point. for instance inside biological tissues.

(3) the tired light hypothesis is thought to fail as explained below.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

we must be careful here because there is 'tired light' and there is 'tired light' .
if we have a classical field distribution which covers ALL solid angles, then ok, the link is correct. and don't forget, all quantum field theories are premiced on a classical field distribution (note that the fields are discrete but the distribution is over all solid anlges out to infinity; these are the 'usual' integrand limits).

self-field theory on the other hand, is a discrete field distribution !!
in EM self-field theory, the field does NOT radiate over all solid angles out to infinity but only between discrete masses (or nucleon matter etc) of finite cross section so this is a DISCRETE form of radiation. in EMSFT the photon mediates the E- and H-field forces of the charged particles by transiting between them in two directions

so inside atoms between (monopole) charges, and outside atoms between (dielectric) atoms, radiation can slow down, speed up, in fact it's not constant because it MUST slow as it leaves the first atom and as it reaches its destination i.e. a charged particle, or (dielectric) atomic mass of some kind of matter. this is a complex situation because the radiation will go into an atom, say,where it will cause the state of the atom to rise. but actually it still goes at c INSIDE the atom following along some spiral path, racing say between nucleon and electron but relatively speaking the photon has STOPPED relative to the world outside the atom. and radiation does the same kind of thing when it reaches a blackhole.

so E=mc^2 still works but the photon has 'slowed down' relative to the outside world. same if radiation doesn't get trapped inside the blackhole but gets attracted to it. it slows down FOR A WHILE. if we measured its speed over the vector distance that includes the blackhole region then the light has slowed down. so when we say 'tired light' we need to be aware that light can vary speed. the constancy demanded by deep space is for a homogeneous and isotropic uniform universe but there's no such thing, as the universe MUST vary (be inhomogeneous) towards its edges unless you want to talk about so-called infinite universe, which is a mathematical fiction and not real-world.

now imagine a radiated photon is aimed at another universe; when it reaches the outer limits of OUR universe, there is very little energy nearby, so the temperature is almost zero, so the light slows right down, like a BCE, it may well become string like.

now whether this EMSFT form of tired light, is still discarded by an expanding cosmology, i don't know, but it's a lot different to the classical ratiation model of mainstream coismology!!

[AntonioLao]

tony_fleming,

Can we agree on the idea that there are concepts of force and particle in physics. force is energy applied thru a distance (work) and the applyeer and applyee are particles. But in modern field theories, the forces are also particles, the bosons. So if the fermions acted like bosons, we get Bose-Einstein condensations. This ability of fermions changing into bosons is as close to the idea of a self-field theory. Yet during the development of the Standard Model of quarks and leptons, the self-field caused a lot of headaches (infinities) for theorists until the genius of Gerard 't Hooft solved the problem of renormalization.

Now, after the facts: electroweak theory tells us that if the photon boson from U(1) force, has mass, it has now a separate identity, which is now called the weak boson, the W+ and W- particles together with the neutral Z0 boson of SU(2) comprising the detectable effect of charged and neutral currents in the Standard Model. Together with the ideas of quarks, SU(3) forces, many of the theorists received Nobel Prizes for their discoveries.