An Idea

[dipayankar]

We are made to believe that the second option is true, since there is no reason why two electrically neutral masses would attract each other. However that would bring me to an even fundamental question, how would you define the physical properties of spacetime fabric so that it would be able to achieve spatial wraping.

A great question Dipayankar ( I've missed your penetrating question BTW )

I've seen it described both ways, i.e. as a force between two massive objects, but also ( which is more to my liking ) as an effect. This I vision, as the spatial warping, that large objects cause in the fabric of space.

What do you think?

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. Negative gravity, such as a quasar being spewed out by a black hole may be a force, due to negative pressure.

[Profpat]

We are made to believe that the second option is true, since there is no reason why two electrically neutral masses would attract each other. However that would bring me to an even fundamental question, how would you define the physical properties of spacetime fabric so that it would be able to achieve spatial wraping.

You have a lot of good questions today Dipayankar.

I assume you are talking about the ether.

It would be my guess that space is filled with EMR, if nothing else. They ( some physicists ) do talk about quantum foam, strings and other such stuff that may be out there, neutrinos for instance. One thing for sure space is not void.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Main article: Luminiferous aether
The basic idea of the æther as a physical transmission medium is simple, and like all media, if it exists, must have fundamental properties including a pressure, mass density, and temperature. Further, if compressible, it will also exhibit a characteristic finite propagation speed, c, at which all transfer of momentum and energy through it can be carried from one physical location to another. Compressibility also means that there will also be a distinct coefficient of compressibility (and its inverse, a distinct modulus), a characteristic impedance, and the ability to create and sustain wave activity. Any other properties, including ponderable matter and the specific characteristics of waves are solely dependent upon specifics arising from these basics.

Further Einstein whose theory didn't require an ether revisited it:

Such a view, however, contradicts the continuum concept of space-time and fields and Einstein's statements in "Aether and the Theory of Relativity", May 5th, 1920:
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether." and "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever".

[Profpat]

Given the above post, we do have temperature (3 degrees K, CBR ), The effect of gravity does propagate through space at c, it is a transmission medium etc.

[dipayankar]

If we consider ether, I guess it answers every question, but we have not proven ether yet.

You have a lot of good questions today Dipayankar.

I assume you are talking about the ether.

It would be my guess that space is filled with EMR, if nothing else. They ( some physicists ) do talk about quantum foam, strings and other such stuff that may be out there, neutrinos for instance. One thing for sure space is not void.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (Hendrik Lorentz, 1906)

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)

[Profpat]

Lee Smolin is a professor of physics in the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University. He is the author of The Life of the Cosmos (Oxford University Press and Wiedenfeld and Nickelson, 1997). He provides some further information:
"The first thing to say is that we don't know. So let me put forward some things we do know. There are various pieces of evidence that space is quantized, in the sense that there is a smallest possible unit of the area of a surface, the volume of a region or the distance between two points in space. This limit comes from applying the rules of quantum theory to Einstein's theory of general relativity. The discrete units are about the size of the Planck scale, which is 10 -33 centimeter, or about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than an atomic nucleus.
"There is more than one approach to combining quantum theory with general relativity that gives evidence for the quantization of spatial geometry. One of these approaches is called string theory; there are several different arguments within string theory that lead to the conclusion that space is quantized. Another line of argument derives simply from the application of quantum mechanics to general relativity. This approach was worked out first by Carlo Rovelli of the University of Pittsburgh and myself, although later many other people have confirmed this result by different methods. "It must be mentioned that none of these predictions has so far been confirmed experimentally. But this is" just a problem of technology. It is hard to believe that there will not come a time when we can make measurements with sufficient accuracy that these predictions can be used to test the theories on which they are founded.

[Felix Schrodinger]

We need to define Gravitational force properly. is it a real force or a pseudo force?

Dear Profpat and Dippy

I postulate that none of the four 'forces of nature' are actually forces and that bosons do not exist as the force carriers. To envisage this we have to view all matter as travelling through space at a very high velocity; thus the deviation of massive particles by an apparent force is an adjustment to a straight line by the warping of space (the Gravitational Field or GF). General Relativity already uses this description for gravity and it is accepted as an effect rather than a force. The graviton - as a carrier of the force is, therefore, a simple misconception.

The strong force is simply a binding of the quarks which make up ordinary matter; the bosons which are observed when the SF is broken are just the debris left over from the break up and can be calculated to represent the strength of the binding.

The weak force is an effect due to over-loading of a particle and hence its probability function due to the nature of the massive particles that make up a radioactive substance. The decay effect also needs a 'chronon', the particle of time which explains its time-related statistical behaviour (half-life).

It's all there in my article:http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html

I am still working on magnetism but expect this to relate to the spin of particles which would move away from or towards eachother due to distortion of the GF in a similar (but slightly different) manner to gravity.

regards
Felix

PS - Lee Smolin believes that gravitons are little (as yet undiscovered) particles flying back and forth between each and every massive particle in the universe! Nuff said?

[Profpat]

Hi Felix;

Thanks for your input. I think we have much agreement regarding the strong and weak force. As I recall you believe the binding is due to gluons and I believe it to be EM Force.

Also I have no problems with you eliminating gravitons, ( is that what you are doing? ), in that I eliminated gluons, from my An Idea, as being unnecessary.

Additionally, your description of gravity, and it being an effect as stated in Einstein's GR is OK. If there is an ether moving at light speed, (which would explain the speed limit at c, and why photons move at that speed,) this would account for why the gravitational effect and EMR are both at that speed, and have infinite range.( However we would perhaps have to rethink Einstein's GR.)

So any thoughts about gravity and light? Again I believe them to be the same, but opposite.

Best to you,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Thanks for your input. I think we have much agreement regarding the strong and weak force.
(1) As I recall you believe the binding is due to gluons and I believe it to be EM Force. Also I have no problems with you eliminating gravitons, (is that what you are doing? ), in that I eliminated gluons, from my An Idea, as being unnecessary.

(2) Additionally, your description of gravity, and it being an effect as stated in Einstein's GR is OK. If there is an ether moving at light speed, (which would explain the speed limit at c, and why photons move at that speed,) this would account for why the gravitational effect and EMR are both at that speed, and have infinite range.( However we would perhaps have to rethink Einstein's GR.)

(3) So any thoughts about gravity and light? Again I believe them to be the same, but opposite.

Hi Profpat

(1) No - gluons are the bosons of the strong force and I don't find them necessary. The strong force is due to the quarks coming from the same place (a mason) and a force is necessary to break them appart. The 'gluon' is just the measure of that force. I haven't eliminated gravitons - just adapted them to do the job described in GR.

(2) The aether is the gravitational field and therefore does not move - it is static. The action of gravity is a function of the aether (the fabric of spacetime) and is not, therefore, subject to any restriction in its speed of action.

(3) I have no clear idea how light works at present, other than what I have already posted about W/P duality, but I don't see it as the opposite of gravity - perhaps you can convince me otherwise???

regards
Felix

PS - I'm reading 'The Final Theory' by Mark McCutcheon and very interesting it is too. I don't subscribe to his expansion theory at all but his detailed expositions on the problems with current scientific explanations are fascinating. Thanks for the link.