[Unreal Zelta]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Baud; I think Einstein and his worshipers have that concept well covered. BTW: They are still wrong.

Dave,
Come on, don't be so . Gravity is still a mystery, we cannot say anything for certain at this point. We are only hypothesizing from what other people states and what we think (judgements). So, anyone's theory is just as good as someone elses.

Best regards

Zelta

[humanbydefault]

Since we are talking about gravity [I would say arguing about it] I will go further than that in this:
I believe that the center of the Earth is the point of maximum gravity and it start getting smaller and smaller as we get distant from it following the INVERSE SQUARE LAW. I also believe that our moon and the moons spinning around every single planet if a result of a "COMPENSATION PROCESS" of an imbalance of the overall mass in proportion to the level of gravity for the specific region of space. If the gravity irradiated from the star's energetic process [entropy] is not being perfectly compensated pieces of broken stars in the form of planets WILL RUSH to the scene and become part of the process. The reason behind the spinning of moons around planets is IN MY VIEWS the only way such compensation could be achieveD. It is due to a great instability in that equilibrium of forces that makes our moon rotate around the Earth. If you go to the study done in ocean waves you'll se a pattern of waves that are not entirely sinusoidal [sine shape] they are called trochoidal waves!!!
As the wave passes throught a point in space it makes a rotational pattern to emerge. Just go to the NET and look after the type of wave I've just mentioned to you here and you'll see my point. When the water wave passes, the water mass [eather] do not move from its existent position, instead whatever would be there occupying that space will rotate-spin move around.
Corals in the ocean floor follow that pattern all the time. If on top of that the "water" [eather originated from the stars] was also moving in circles around the sun, we would have a complex pattern of momentum compossed by a rotational and a traslational one... metaphysics right? OK! It's written accordingly with the rules of the forum. You may disagree with me but they are in words for other to read. That's more than enough for me.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

A last note: If Earth were destroyed by a meteorite or another cathastrophe it will be reagrouped into one piece again. It won't be as beatiful as it is right now, but it will be enough for the sun to imposse the compensation process once again. There was a song from BEE GEES in the eighties... It sounded like: "... How could you stop the sun from shinning, what makes the world go round? ..." I believe they have already answer the first question with the second one!!!

[dleviwing]

HBD;
The only merit in your post is your analogy of water waves to ethereal waves. You have basically described the process that produce the electromagnetic properties of an ethereal wave. That in itself is quite impressive!

Unfortunately these concepts of gravity are lacking that same eloquence of understanding.

Zelta;
I could not disagree with you more.

[humanbydefault]

I'm not looking for empty confrontations about "mine is better than yours" type of dialogue... We are not kids anymore are we?
If you had the hypothetical opportunity to ask 100 scientists about a concensus over gravity would you get one? Absolutely no! Each one will have their own views about gravity and its origin and that's a FACT.
Now! The problem is not how gravity expresses itself in our little pathetic solar system alone... The TOE problem is to figure out ways to explain once and for all the true origin of that "force" that is capable of keeping worlds around stars... That's the key question here!

T H E C A U S E!

Neither Newton nor Einstein gave us a cause to gravity in their theories. The first took it for granted and he was smart enough to predict that "one day the cause will be discovered." The second one had the advantage of decades of knowledge and "blamed" mass as the sole responsible for the force. I disagree with both in the cause of gravity... That's all.
I challenged astronomers to show me one single case [example] where you could find a single star without planets spinning around it [The mentioned challenge is written in my self-published book]. I also challenged astronomers to show me a planetarium system where the center is occupied by a big planet instead of one star or sun. I'm a "NOBODY" here so I expected never to be heard nor responded at all... but the writtings are there for the future! That was the only point in writting my book. I see the cause of gravity in the spinning process taking place inside the core of stars. I believe that a quantum mechanical process between the different layers of the star is making the orbits around it. I'm also convinced that gravity and time is also altered [affected] as we go from one planet of the system to the next.
My theory or views [as you wanted to call it] brings the CAUSE of gravity to the table. Since neutral solid objects of the macroworld [a table an apple or a mountain] do not irradiate energy as stars do they are not holders of gravity powers in the cosmos. One day the puzzle will be resolved... We could keep arguing about this for years to come, I just made sure in writting and publishing my views that I had a vision and an opinion about it years before that happen... Now we could keep the empty arguing if you wish...

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

HBD;
We have similar views in that the cause of gravity is spinning. You claim the core of stars and I claim the spinning of every subatomic particle imparting uniform motion onto the ether. To disprove the theory of the stars being the source of gravity is easily done and has been demonstrated in the lab. Two 4 ton metal balls were suspended and the scientist were able to measure the attraction between them. It is quite likely that the spinning of the cores of stars do contribute a small fraction to the overall effective gravity of the star but I do not see any significance to it.

What would finding stars without planets prove? It would not prove you right or wrong. Astronomers already have great problems finding planet around other stars as it is. The technology to detect planets is not near advanced enough to perform such observations as you are suggesting.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing HBD; We have similar views in that the cause of gravity is spinning. You claim the core of stars and I claim the spinning of every subatomic particle imparting uniform motion onto the ether.

Dave, have you come across this idea? Gravity is the force velocity differences of incoming and outgoing waves/particles. Gravity is created by the velocity forces of the entire energy/matter universe's wave/particle differences, as the trillions to the power of trillions, pass in toward our planet, and the lesser number that pass out of our planet. The difference in the number of incoming wave/particles and outgoing wave/particles has already been proven by the world's recent discovery of nutrino differences, of nutrinos collected in the four collectors around the world. The experiments showed a larger number of incoming through the atmosphere, as those passing completely through the earth, and out. Transferring this information and mathematics to the universe's entire wave energy/matter structure sending energy waves in all directions infinitely and equally, yet some annialating as passing through the earth, gives a possible deffinition and mathematics of a new gravity theory and possible reality, does it not? What do you think?

regards

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
Yes; I have read many papers on this concept and have provided links in some of posts to these papers. The most interesting is Richard Feynman's lectures on this view of the fluidic nature of waves and gravity. I don't remember off hand what lecture it was but it was a major influence on my current views and philosophy of physical reality. It is also why terminology junkies do not impress me.

Unlike the interpretations of inflow and outflow wave functions, my concepts are quite a bit simpler to understand and also more rational to the behavior of EM waves. In open space, EM interference is randomized with many different frequencies. As I mentioned in many other posts, uniform motion allows the bonding property of matter to increase and thus condenses the matter. As this inflow condensing continues, a level is reached that only a primary wavelength an its limited harmonics become the wave function of the matter. At this point we have the electro weak force phenomena (charge and magnetism) and the inflow that produced gravity ceases to be realized. As the condensing (increased uniform motion) of the matter continues, the wave function become that of wave symmetry and thus only odd or even harmonics within the localized region and become the next level or weak nuclear force. The next level of condensing produces the point particle phenomena of perfect wave symmetry of interference that is confined to a localize region of high angular uniform motion and thus the particle and the strong nuclear force. How EM waves interact (constructive or destructive) is what determines whether we have gravity or expansion (universe); repulsion or attraction (particles). Unless you have a sound comprehension of wave theory, it may require more detailed explanations to create the full picture.

The topic is well worth your time. I'm sure you will feel a new view of reality if you get into it.

[humanbydefault]

Originally Posted by dleviwing "How EM waves interact (constructive or destructive) is what determines whether we have gravity or expansion (universe); repulsion or attraction (particles)."

That's the point in my views about the reason why is so disturbing for today's experimentalists to understand the complex and puzzling "electronic" reality in the atomic orbits. Those orbits where today physics arrange according to certain rules can't be determined automatically from "outside." Those orbits do follow a logical structure [a build up scale] but just because the internal structure of the nucleus also follows the same "ladder." If you read a book in the subject you'll find the absurd idea that whatever happens in the outermost orbits of the atom [where electrons spin] has nothing to do what the process inside the nucleus. That's wrong! It is precisely what happens outside the atom what reflects the changes [bonds and interactions] inside the nucleus at deeper levels of energy.
I called it REALITY and I think it fits perfectly. If reality is what we are able to measure [understanding measurements as intervention-collapsing-distorsion process] then we may conclude the fact that reality is borne inside deeper conexions between energy levels. Since it is a fact that in the quantum realm energy is QUANTIZED then there is no other way to explain the core of the atom but to admit that only specks of an energy we will never ever be able to see "in its naked state' is responsible for the standing wave pattern that make the harmonics.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault That's the point in my views about the reason why is so disturbing for today's experimentalists to understand the complex and puzzling "electronic" reality in the atomic orbits. Those orbits where today physics arrange according to certain rules can't be determined automatically from "outside." Those orbits do follow a logical structure [a build up scale] but just because the internal structure of the nucleus also follows the same "ladder." If you read a book in the subject you'll find the absurd idea that whatever happens in the outermost orbits of the atom [where electrons spin] has nothing to do what the process inside the nucleus. That's wrong! It is precisely what happens outside the atom what reflects the changes [bonds and interactions] inside the nucleus at deeper levels of energy. I called it REALITY and I think it fits perfectly. If reality is what we are able to measure [understanding measurements as intervention-collapsing-distorsion process] then we may conclude the fact that reality is borne inside deeper conexions between energy levels. Since it is a fact that in the quantum realm energy is QUANTIZED then there is no other way to explain the core of the atom but to admit that only specks of an energy we will never ever be able to see "in its naked state' is responsible for the standing wave pattern that make the harmonics. HUMANBYDEFAULT

Sorry Dave, but I agree much more with HBD's, Christiaan Huygens, Milo Wolff's, Carver Meade's, Christopher Hawkings' and other physicists' real world quantum mechanical views.[by real world I mean true scientific experiments, evidence and uses, not theory] I do not agree with Richard Feynman's views, especially since he's the one responsible for renormalization hocus-pocus math, that has contributed most to quantum mechanics confusions. I do especially agree with this statement of HBD's; ::"Since it is a fact that in the quantum realm energy is QUANTIZED then there is no other way to explain the core of the atom but to admit that only specks of an energy we will never ever be able to see "in its naked state' is responsible for the standing wave pattern that make the harmonics. ":: We still have much macro study in this wave/particle area, to even begin to thoroughly understand the micro level of wave/particle mechanics. And Dave, I have studied physics, and its many fields of related mathematics, for over forty years, I just don't find much to accept as truth, as of this date, except the older classical physics, then some of that only with reservations.

"Physics; lot of theory, little truth." me

regards

[humanbydefault]

We know for sure today that hydrogen is the simplest stable atom in the universe. It is also referred to as "one proton." I recall reading that there was a scientist [if my memory does not betray me I think he was a chemist] that proposed an interesting hypothesis. He said that every single atom in the universe was a combination of a number of hydrogen atoms in a sort of fusion. His theory was put to rest with the new standard model for the particle catalogue. Now we have quarks and since they are 1/3 the size of protons we should not talk about protons as elementary particles anymore. The second objection to his theory was that neutrons are said to be "different" than protons and therefore "pure " hydrogen with no neutrons [isotopes] do not fit the requirements for a type of "universal building block" any longer. I think he was right and his image of the building up of elements starting from simple hydrogen was nonetheless perfect!
Here's how I see it:
The first "amendment" to the "standard model theory" will be my opposition to admit NEUTRONS as elemental particles, or to anything elemental at all! Neutrons are [according to my image of reality] the "expression" of a BOND or an earlier FUSION between protons or hydrogen atoms. We have seen that a neutron inside the nucleus of a decaying atom is converted into one proton, one electron-mass and the emission of an electron anti-neutrino. Somehow it is heavier than a single proton, right? That conclusion is derived from pure logic. Now, and follow me in this line of thoughts, please. IF a protons were in fact the combination of three quarks [two up and one down] while neutrons are the same thing [only two down and one up] why is it that we observe one electron-mass scattering from as a result of the decay process if we all know that one electron is equal to one lepton [a quark is a lepton too remember?] math don't add this time.
Before you plan lecturing me about the implications of Einstein's E=MC2 and the "transformation" of mass into energy etc. Let me finish my point... please. Wouldn't it simpler and logical to assume that a NEUTRON were some sort of bonding rearrangement between two protons that coexist inside a fusion [just as two atoms inside a molecule] and during decay the bond is broken to "uncover" the second proton and the scattering of the bonding energy and the excess of mass? [***not needed anymore]
***My views of mass is different than Einstein's and it is according to my theory the element [substance of dust] existing inside every single pattern of standing nuclear waves with the sole roll of avoiding the possible violation of a perfect vacuum= the NULL, nothingness the VOID.
Mass is indeed proportional to the energy involved in the "interference." Once the total number of specks of energy making protons diminish in the overall structure the corresponding amount of mass [inert ash] will also be expelled or push out of the patterns. This way I explain the scattering of one electron-mass as a result of neutron decay.
Back to the main argument:
Protons do not decay... Not yet! Wait to the end of times and you'll se something different... Anyway! However atoms do and the heavier the atom the shorter the half-time for it. The process of decay is an interesting one. Imagine that PROTONS were able to occupy different rungs of the ladder as their harmonics extend on inter-atomic space. Do not think of them as particles but in terms of spinning harmonics of energy whose origin goes back to the very core of the atom itself.
The theory I comment in one of may articles with the name of "Shell Theory" was a closer approach to explain this phenomenon. Instead of particles Shell theory should have see this structure as what they were: energy harmonics spinning in a standing wave pattern. As the "universal clock" ticks ahead in the entropy process across the cosmos more and more atoms [specially heavy ones] keep a non-stop pattern of a decay process. Those complex BONDING or FUSIONS between harmonics [what we see as quarks and protons] are subject to a process of disassociation from one another and that is the reason why atoms lose PROTONS inside their nucleus. The more [heavier] complex atoms the universe is going toward a simpler and lighter structure creating billions of new hydrogen atoms at a time.
Hydrogen is therefore the true building block of every atom in the universe... But there is a compound that is much more stable than hydrogen although it is heavier than "his younger cousin" It is Helium!
The perfect symmetrical structure of Helium makes it a highly stable FUSION of 4 (four) PROTONS [two of them we see it as NEUTRONS]. That's why the Alpha Particle [Helium] escapes from the nucleus of decaying atoms! It had nothing to do [in my views] with Mr. Gamow's conclusions of an alleged "tunneling" of Helium across the barrier. Helium was scattered from the nucleus because the last "link" with the complex FUSION was broken up and its perfect symmetrical structure sort of "SHIELD" it from any possible influence from the rest of the other harmonics spinning around the nucleus. It is impenetrable when it comes to others in a sense.

More in my next post... Thanks for reading me sometimes.
HUMANBYDEFAULT

I've just posted a very intriguing thought experiment of mine in the thread "Controversial..." I'd like to know your PERSONAL opinion about that important matter.