An Idea

[Profpat]

It was Einstein himself who attempted to unify gravity with EMR. Recently with string theory it appears EMR may have been caused by gravity in the big bang ( negative gravity causing repulsion when everything gets compressed to the size of strings ) Quasars may be caused by black hole negative gravity. Additionally black hole radiation is caused by black holes.

From Dr. Strominger of Harvard University:

But the contradiction between gravity and electromagnetism has complicated any discourse on black holes for years now. As Stephen Hawking showed in the early 1970s, when you throw quantum mechanics into the equation, particles and light can "boil off" the surface of the black hole. This continues until the hole itself actually disappears, leaving no trace of what was inside. This concept, Strominger says, was "extremely disturbing" to physicists who believe in the principle of determinism - the idea that the laws of physics allow scientists to work backwards and reconstruct the past. Could string theory help explain away this problem?

Best to all,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Since my thread has hit a lag, I thought I would once again reintroduce my current endeavor of an attempt to reconcile gravity with light. I really would appreciate any comments or suggestions regarding this process. So let me post the similiarities and differences once again.

[edit] Parallels between electrostatics and gravity

Coulomb's law, which describes the interaction of electric charges:
is similar to the Newtonian gravitation law:
This suggests similarities between the electric field E and the gravitational field g, so sometimes mass is called "gravitational charge".
Similarities between electrostatic and gravitational forces:

1. Both act in a vacuum.
2. Both are central and conservative.
3. Both obey an inverse-square law (both are inversely proportional to square of r).
4. Both propagate with finite speed c.

Differences between electrostatic and gravitational forces:

1. Electrostatic forces are much greater than gravitational forces (by about 1036 times).
2. Gravitational forces are attractive for like charges, whereas electrostatic forces are repulsive for like charges.
3. There are no negative gravitational charges (no negative mass) while there are both positive and negative electric charges. This difference combined with previous implies that gravitational forces are always attractive, while electrostatic forces may be either attractive or repulsive.
4. Electric charge is invariant while relativistic mass isn't

Pat,

I have been trying to not get myself involved in your gravity discourse too much because I want to follow the discussion between you and others. However, since I am partly to blame for the lag, and I do have some 'different' views than I believe others have, here is my view on gravity.

Gravity is a force that I consider an internal force. It does not exist by itself, but is the byproduct of the other forces. Without the other forces, gravity does not exist, according to me, and should therefore be fully explainable by the other forces. However, it is important to note here that it is a collective force, so the quest to relate it to just one other force seems improbable to me. The other forces exist within a specific framework of play, and it can get rather complex.

Before I'll explain the simple set-up of the complex situation, I want you to know that I prefer to write in ordinary language, so all can understand. Apologies if the discussion muddies therefore to some extent. In a previous post on the pyramid of four forces, E, M, S, and W (but not G), I portrayed them as the four colors: red, blue, yellow & green as 'corners' of the pyramid.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post30727
(this link shows a beautiful visualization of it created by Austin). Where these colors get together and form gray, that's where gravity plays its role. As it happens to be, the gray area is an internal cone in the pentaist pyramid. And as a concept, the cone happens to be the single concept that describes all the gravitational aspects in our universe. I see that as a confirmation that the pyramid is a correct concept.

Thank you for creating this excellent thread. I hope I can contribute in keeping it interesting.

Best to you, too.

P.S. One more post with two excellent visuals, also by our creative artist Austin, on the pyramid viewed from the bottom and viewed from the top:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post30671

[Profpat]

G.E.R.M.

G.E.R.M. is an acronym for what started at the beginning. GRAVITY, ENERGY, RADIATION, MASS. I usually put it into this order:

Gravity…………………………………………………Energy







Mass…………………………………………………….Radiation

The items which are diagonal are the same but opposites. ( i.e. mass and energy are the same, just different sides of the same coin. Attraction/repulsion being the operant force. Opposites attract, like kind repel.)

In the same vein I view gravity and radiation as opposites, just two sides of the same coin. Gravity attracts and radiation is what is repelled.

Now I believe all 4 of these divisions make up the ONE GERM, and that they were all unified at the beginning. After the “Big Bang” they were manifested into what appeared as 4 different forces. Gravity, Electro/Magnetic, Strong Force and Weak Force.

My An Idea eliminates the strong and the weak force, and explains it as part of the electro/magnetic force, of positive and negative charges. The standard model also has these forces as the same at the very beginning of creation. It is called a G.U.T. standing for Grand Unifying Theory.

The problem is that Einstein and science wanted a T.O.E. a Theory Of Everything which would also reconcile gravity with the EM Force to have ONE FORCE to account for everything.

( To Be Continued

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

Thank you for your post. As you can see from my previous post I do tend to agree with your statement of:
Gravity is a force that I consider an internal force. It does not exist by itself, but is the byproduct of the other forces. Without the other forces, gravity does not exist, according to me, and should therefore be fully explainable by the other forces. However, it is important to note here that it is a collective force, so the quest to relate it to just one other force seems improbable to me. The other forces exist within a specific framework of play, and it can get rather complex.

I made a copy of the two links you provided and will comment on them once I purused those posts.

I too have used Austin's awsome graphics talent for some of my posts also. Thank you Austin and also a thank you to KiGs and others who have aided me.

Again thank you for your input Fredrick.

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I took a cursory look at your links but stopped when I saw you mention 5 forces, rather than 4. It seems you look at the electro weak as a seperate force. Isn't that an interaction or unification of the weak force with the electro/magnetic force, and therefore not a seperate force in it's own right?

Fundamental Forces

[Fredrick]

Good question, Pat, and I would say 'yes,' but I would also say 'no.'

Let me explain how I see the five forces, including a separation of E and M, using a different concept to quickly show what I want to say this way:
In nature we discovered the following forces: father, mother, son, daughter, and family. These five forces are all that's out there, and everything can be brought back to these five forces.

We agree that gravity may be seen as 'family,' a force that is clearly noticeable, but a force that is hard(er) to explain within the whole set of forces than the other four forces.

If needed, and if I want to state that there are only 4 forces in total, then I can put both 'son' and 'daughter' in a single force called 'child.' Or, if I were to use the same set-up language-wise, I'd call it 'sondaughter force.' Either way, we end up with four forces: father, mother, family, and child.

Whether we consider E and M as separate forces or put them together as a unified force is truly not that important, as long as we understand what we are really addressing here. Yet seeing that this is a man-made distinction helps us understand why many people do not see the theory of everything, because they want to make a choice where making a choice is very distractive in our understanding the whole picture. Both ways to view E and M are correct, because they both capture the actual reality of E and M, and do not change anything about E and M. The danger, for us, is that we can get lost in a discussion which format is the only or the best format, or make ourselves one-eye blind when we overlook the complexity of EM and consider it simply a single force.

The title of my book In Search of a Cyclops is based on this phenomenon that we want to see things as cyclops, unified, and not as the two separate eyes they really are. Naturally, two eyes see one view, and if you wish you can call it 'vision.' But as a concept 'vision' is murky, while using the term 'two eyes' provides immediate and clear information.

A problem with using a different concept to explain the set-up of the forces is that we may then see something else as well, again based on specific concept-thinking contained within the words. For instance, when seeing the name 'son' we may think that the 'son' may become 'father' one day, and consider E (or M) to become S (or W) one day. It is important to know that the 'son' always stays the 'son' in respect to his own father, no matter if he turns out to be a father one day himself. Possibly, QM can provide the answer on how this all works, with an outcome always being a relative and never an absolute phenomenon, but nevertheless a phenomenon always occurring as a specifically declared result within the whole set of forces.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

It's interesting how both of our theories have color and family incorporated in them.

Mine at the particle level yours at the universal level.

Your suggestion that gravity is inside the forces is certainly true for it being a characteristic of mass.

I'm still reviewing your post for other insights. Please keep helping me in my search, the best you can.

Very best to you sir,

Pat

[JamesANicholson]

It was Einstein himself who attempted to unify gravity with EMR. Recently with string theory it appears EMR may have been caused by gravity in the big bang ( negative gravity causing repulsion when everything gets compressed to the size of strings ) Quasars may be caused by black hole negative gravity. Additionally black hole radiation is caused by black holes.

From Dr. Strominger of Harvard University:

But the contradiction between gravity and electromagnetism has complicated any discourse on black holes for years now. As Stephen Hawking showed in the early 1970s, when you throw quantum mechanics into the equation, particles and light can "boil off" the surface of the black hole. This continues until the hole itself actually disappears, leaving no trace of what was inside. This concept, Strominger says, was "extremely disturbing" to physicists who believe in the principle of determinism - the idea that the laws of physics allow scientists to work backwards and reconstruct the past. Could string theory help explain away this problem?

Best to all,

Pat

----------------------------------

Hello, All,

I just wanted to jump in here with a couple of thoughts.

One, I don't know why Stephen Hawking and others assume that information is necessarily shredded and "destroyed" upon entering a black hole. Why isn't it just as possible that it all (the matter/energy/information/images/patterns etc) is neatly laid down in very dense film-like layers on the outer surface of the spinning mass just inside the event horizon and maintains its integrity by the same Newtonian geometric relationships of vectors interacting and conservation of momentum with relativity considerations from the point of view of the "particles" themselves taken into account? Similar to the way that data is stored on your hard drive.

My second point is about negative gravity.
What do you think solar winds are? Aren't they forces leaving a central mass with a reverse--inverse square law effect of getting weaker and weaker with the square of the radius from the source. No one has yet really identified this "force" of solar winds as another basic force, even though it is so obviously similar to the opposite side of gravity in strength and in directional orientation as gravity's inverse--going out from a central "mass" instead of concentrating into a mass point in a balanced way going into a central mass point.

If you read my hypothesis on gravity, it (Gravity)could easily be the geometric result of where solar winds meet each other in any balanced configuration of opposing directions.

One other point I am almost reluctant to mention, because I am an artist, also. It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Forgive me, if this comes across as a harsh criticism of the three pyramid drawings--this is a big pet peeve of mine with metaphor that is passed off as scientific "proof" in general.

Respectfully submitted, Aaron

[Profpat]

----------------------------------

Hello, All,

I just wanted to jump in here with a couple of thoughts.

One, I don't know why Stephen Hawking and others assume that information is necessarily shredded and "destroyed" upon entering a black hole. Why isn't it just as possible that it all (the matter/energy/information/images/patterns etc) is neatly laid down in very dense film-like layers on the outer surface of the spinning mass just inside the event horizon and maintains its integrity by the same Newtonian geometric relationships of vectors interacting and conservation of momentum with relativity considerations from the point of view of the "particles" themselves taken into account? Similar to the way that data is stored on your hard drive.Good point Aaron. I believe Hawkings solution is to posit storage in an alternate universe. Some other physicist propose exactly what you are stating regarding the rims as storage rings. In my An Idea I suggested that the quarks may serve as a 3 dimensional storage rings. This could than preserve all information. If the entire black hole evaporates into Hawkings black hole radiation the storage rings you proposed may also evaporate into radiation.

My second point is about negative gravity.
What do you think solar winds are? Aren't they forces leaving a central mass with a reverse--inverse square law effect of getting weaker and weaker with the square of the radius from the source. No one has yet really identified this "force" of solar winds as another basic force, even though it is so obviously similar to the opposite side of gravity in strength and in directional orientation as gravity's inverse--going out from a central "mass" instead of concentrating into a mass point in a balanced way going into a central mass point.

If you read my hypothesis on gravity, it (Gravity)could easily be the geometric result of where solar winds meet each other in any balanced configuration of opposing directions.

Another good point. Quite honestly I didn't consider our sun producing negative gravity but it sure does produce light. I have to think more on this enLIGHTenment.



Respectfully submitted, Aaron

Thank you for your input and very intelligent thoughts.

Pat

[Fredrick]

One point I am almost reluctant to mention, because I am an artist, also. It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Forgive me, if this comes across as a harsh criticism of the three pyramid drawings--this is a big pet peeve of mine with metaphor that is passed off as scientific "proof" in general.

Harsh criticism has its place, Aaron, so don't worry too much about delivering it. Your respect is met with my respect. However, when delivering criticism it must be accompanied by good reasoning, otherwise it is only harsh and has no constructive meaning.

I have three points to undermine your comment, the first one being the mathematical information that supports the lack of singularity (based on the ever-occurrence of the number zero in any numeral system, except for the concept containing only one number (that of containing 1, and only 1; not even 0). You can find this information at http://pentapublishing.com/Math.html

The second argument I have is that any concept delivered is one-removed from reality, including any scientific concept. I will ask you to look at Austin's artful deliveries again, and focus just on the pyramid. It contains three pairs of opposition: top-down (singular vs. diversity), Strong-Weak nuclear forces (as forces that in no way belong to the other force, similar to yes and no being each others opposite), and lastly electric force-magnetic force (that show many similarities of each other, but not being one and the same). I personally would have left out the words: 'evolution,' 'unknowable,' 'materialization,' 'matter,' and 'motion,' yet its Austin's freedom to insert them and they should not prevent you from getting the general set-up of how the forces relate to each other in abstract positions.

Ultimately, the toe needs to be understood not just as having properties, but as a structure, too, and all that we do know needs to fit inside that structure. The pyramid is that structure. It is a concept, and concepts don't walk around in our streets, they exists in our heads; they take time to be understood. Austin's artist rendering is only a tool to view the positions (because that's what the pyramid ultimately delivers) of the forces and how they relate to each other. Gravity exists within the pyramid, is part of the pyramid, but is not an external force in the pyramid.

The last point I have to undermine your criticism is that your delivery to undermine the pyramidal concept as only art is itself also only words; words refer to something, they are not the actual something. So, if your words are true then you can also not use your words yourself, since each word is itself an image of reality, and not the real thing. But also no worries here; I am not going to have you eat your words, because I understand exactly what you want to convey. But please research the provided link plus the pyramidal display, so you can understand the scientific ramifications of the display. If you still feel the same about the display of information then substantiate your reasoning to the extent it contains a critique that can be validated.