Mass Distortions

[dleviwing]

General Relativity implies that the mass of a body distorts the spacetime continuum such that it distorts the nature of space itself. This is quite proper if you are referring to the plotting of the spacetime geometry coordinates of moving objects as they are observed, but quite improper if you are insinuating that this mathematical method is an entity of existence that is distorting. Fortunate for the mathematicians, nature provided a form of fundamental matter who's behavior is describe by the same mathematical functions that describes objects in relative motion. The confusion comes when we view the entity as if it were the spacetime term of the mathematics.

Space is made up of fundamental matter in a state of near total randomized motion that can be viewed as the chaotic vibrations of the interior of our universe. This is not however, the only state of fundamental matter within the universe's interior. We have fundamental matter that has congealed into dense objects in the form of subatomic particles that have also formed greater structures of elements. Matter in this structured form has its motions primarily in the state of uniform motion and thus interacts with spatial ether as it attempts to impose uniform motion upon it. This process results in the ether condensing as it is collapsed about the structures. The first phase of this condensing is called "Gravity"; The second phase is called electroweak force, the third phase is called the strong nuclear force, and the fourth phase is the formation of a fundamental quantum unit of structure often referred to as the Quantum Unity Particle.

[Guille]

Dave,

The mathematicians would like to see some math to this, I guess. Now, if spacetime is matter, shouldn't it have mass, therefor make gravity itself? And as gravity is the curve of spacetime, ti would be stupid: spacetime would be causing the curve of spacetime. No.... Unless this matter state which is spacetime is massless... But then it's hard to visualize. What are exactly the particles that make up spacetime, for you? Is it atoms like matter, or is it the neutrons (as they have charge), or is it thre electrons?....

[michellemfry]

Would this Quantum Unity Particle be like the ideal gas was for pressure and volume and temperature? Would it have one ideal particle of each(i.e.one proton, one neutron, one photon, one nuetrino) that does not warp the space it is in, or have any gravitational effect whatsoever, being an ideal. We could use it to compare with those particles that are under the influence of curvature and gravity, etc.

[dleviwing]

Dave,

The mathematicians would like to see some math to this, I guess. Now, if spacetime is matter, shouldn't it have mass, therefor make gravity itself? And as gravity is the curve of spacetime, ti would be stupid: spacetime would be causing the curve of spacetime. No.... Unless this matter state which is spacetime is massless... But then it's hard to visualize. What are exactly the particles that make up spacetime, for you? Is it atoms like matter, or is it the neutrons (as they have charge), or is it thre electrons?....

Guille;
I tend to view space as the fundamental substance of the universe in a state of randomized vibrational motion. In this state the only detectable condensing (mass) of this substance is in the form of electromagnetic waves that are the vibration of the substance. Spacetime is a mathematical geometry that defines the behavior of this substance in a randomized state relative to objects in a state of uniform motion. Curvature is the change of spatial density of this substance as it acquires uniform motion (gravity). Uniform motion produces the property of inertia and thus "Mass". Subatomic particles are already in states of high uniform motion and thus interact with the spatial matter to condense it. Though this process is simple, it manifests itself as being electromagnetic in nature and thus interpreted as a property of substance rather than an interaction of substance.

We already have the math Guille; we need a proper interpretation of the math terms to provide a proper philosophy of physics. The only new math to be added is that all systems have absolute motion and thus the sum of randomized motion and uniform motion of a system is equivalent to this quantity. As I stated before, in Relativity this quantity is seen as "2c" and in QM the value is about 2x10^20 m/s.

BTW: You are using the word stupid too often; try asinine; it’s a good synonym for stupid in English.

Best wishes;
Dave

[dleviwing]

Would this Quantum Unity Particle be like the ideal gas was for pressure and volume and temperature? Would it have one ideal particle of each(i.e.one proton, one neutron, one photon, one nuetrino) that does not warp the space it is in, or have any gravitational effect whatsoever, being an ideal. We could use it to compare with those particles that are under the influence of curvature and gravity, etc.

Michelle;
The QUP (pronounced cup) is a fundamental unit structure of fundamental matter. With low levels of uniform angular motion the unit would be similar to how we view the electron cloud or a zone of standing waves and would easily be converted back to the randomize state of spatial density. With high levels of uniform angular motion the unit becomes more like a particle unit of matter to form shells, clusters, and complex subatomic particles structures.
Regards;
Dave

[Guille]

Guille;
I tend to view space as the fundamental substance of the universe in a state of randomized vibrational motion. In this state the only detectable condensing (mass) of this substance is in the form of electromagnetic waves that are the vibration of the substance. Spacetime is a mathematical geometry that defines the behavior of this substance in a randomized state relative to objects in a state of uniform motion. Curvature is the change of spatial density of this substance as it acquires uniform motion (gravity). Uniform motion produces the property of inertia and thus "Mass". Subatomic particles are already in states of high uniform motion and thus interact with the spatial matter to condense it. Though this process is simple, it manifests itself as being electromagnetic in nature and thus interpreted as a property of substance rather than an interaction of substance.

We already have the math Guille; we need a proper interpretation of the math terms to provide a proper philosophy of physics. The only new math to be added is that all systems have absolute motion and thus the sum of randomized motion and uniform motion of a system is equivalent to this quantity. As I stated before, in Relativity this quantity is seen as "2c" and in QM the value is about 2x10^20 m/s.

BTW: You are using the word stupid too often; try asinine; it’s a good synonym for stupid in English.

Best wishes;
Dave

Thanks for the synonym: It's that although my english gramatic is better than my spanish gramatic, my spanish vocabulary is much better than my english vocabulary.

Now, I see, ok, no or very little math is needed: at least to explain the fundamental principles. Definatelly since Husserl, physics has used phenomenology to develop, and thsi has made it become the such an asinine that it is now.

For me, spacetime is made of photons with a particular difference I'm still trying to discover, than when it is electromagnetic specturm. I believe the photon is made up of two gravitons, and an electron or a magnetic monopole. In that way, when two gravitons collide, they unify and also make a spacetime quanta (an electron and a magnetic monopole) get out from the state of spacetime into the state of electormagnetism, when they unite, they make up a photon. There is some math for it, but not enough, so I'm working on it. But the concep tis clear.

By the way, congratulations for your 500 posts.

[dleviwing]

Guille;
I have come to a realization of the pure physical nature of our universe. It is somewhat difficult for me to go back to using the terms that suggest a nature that I no longer can justify as reality. To me these are only terms of measurement (dimensions) and that is as it should be, for science is based completely on our ability to measure. Science performs many types of measurements and then they assign terms and definitions to interpret them. This should not be interpreted that reality is made up of many entities, but only as an entity with many measurable interactions and states of form and structure.

You concept sounds a great deal like the way Velantis views space. You may wish to study his math, it is quite interesting if you are viewing space as a particulate form with electromagnetic properties. I don't see space as particulate state of matter.

[Guille]

Guille;
I have come to a realization of the pure physical nature of our universe. It is somewhat difficult for me to go back to using the terms that suggest a nature that I no longer can justify as reality. To me these are only terms of measurement (dimensions) and that is as it should be, for science is based completely on our ability to measure. Science performs many types of measurements and then they assign terms and definitions to interpret them. This should not be interpreted that reality is made up of many entities, but only as an entity with many measurable interactions and states of form and structure.

You concept sounds a great deal like the way Velantis views space. You may wish to study his math, it is quite interesting if you are viewing space as a particulate form with electromagnetic properties. I don't see space as particulate state of matter.

Yes, I know, I'll be around his pages in the near future. I don't believe spacetime is a state of matter, what I think is that spacetime is made of bosons.

[baudrunner]

Lee Smolin is a contemporary physicist attached to the Perimeter Institute at Guelph University and author of numerous articles published in scientific journals, most notably "The Holographic Universe" from the Scientific American Archives. Herein he states that the smallest unit of space that can be ocuppied by a volume is 10^-43 of a cubic metre. I haven't a clue as to how he derived the number but it's fun to play with.

Now, about bosons. For the purpose of this dicussion I will temporarily ignore the notion of bosons displacing space ala my theory of gravity and move up a notch.

The idea that space is comprised of bosons is a fascinating one and can be extended to suggest that gravity, which in my mind is the result of spatial displacement, is the result of the displacement of a special type of boson. Insomuch as bosons are force transmitters gravity then becomes a force which results from the high density of bosons displaced by an object which convention asserts exerts the gravity force but then of course doesn't any more by our redefinition. Were there no objects in space the bosons would establish a uniform density but the presence of objects prevents that. The more dense the boson field, the greater the gravity they exert. Naturally the field of displacement on the surface of a planet is the greatest because it is the most dense with boson particles.

We could prove this by literally mining bosons from space by sucking space into a perfect vacuum chamber and stuffing it to the bursting point, then bringing it back to earth and stuffing large hollow flat panels with them. The panels should then exert their own gravity because of the high density of bosons. Real gravity in a box! Then these panels could tile the floors of the ISS!

I am quite willing to be lured now by the theory of a gravity particle since it is now these special bosons which are our gravitons.

Bejeezus my friend, I think we're on to something!

Seriously.

[baudrunner]

Gravity theory expanded,

In my theory of gravity post I discussed the attractive force of two gravity fields around two objects in space as analogous to two overiding sine waves 180 degrees out of phase effectively cancelling each other out. It sounded ridiculous but I believe that I am on to something, and that's why I write. Einstein said that imagination was his greatest gift, greater than his gift of acquiring new knowledge. I'm about to exercise my imagination a little more.

On the subject of bosons, i believe that it is possible that their characteristic properties, as in the characteristic properties of the other particles, are largely determined by their shape. And possibly more so for the gravity boson than for the subnuclear particles.

food for thought: does electric current flow in the direction of positive or negative charges, ie. is it electrons or holes?

The sine wave analogy would still hold to some degree if we assume that the gravity boson has the shape of a cone, for instance. If the orientation of these gravity boson cones around an object in space is such that they point inward toward the centre of gravity of the object, then their relationship with the gravity boson cones around another object in space when they meet would cause them to tend to cancel their respective shapes. The net effect would then force each with another toward the shape of two flattened hemispheres and together they would occupy a smaller volume, and since space is only comprised of these gravity bosons we have a net compacting of the total volume occupied by the two objects in space, resulting in the attractive force. This ultimately leads to each object developing momentum and kinetic energy and they begin to fall into each other.

What is anomalous is that physical objects have a static relationship with space, which now has an explicable mutable relationship with them. To a gravity boson it takes just as long for a physical object to traverse its length whether it is a purely symmetrical boson or a distorted compacted boson, hence the mutable space-time continuum.