[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.

Hi Fredrick

I'm trying to get hold of it but your website is not making the download available to me after payment.

Felix

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger I'm trying to get hold of it but your website is not making the download available to me after payment.

Felix,

My apologies for that. You haven't received an automatic connection since they haven't automated their stuff yet, and an actual person makes the connection (often within the day). Let me contact Penta Publishing to ask them to make this an automatic feature. (I sent you a private email, too).


Sorry, Pat and everyone else, this definitively is not part of the thread. Therefore, my apologies to you, too.

[Profpat]

No apologies necessary, you have always shown restaint and respect for the threads and I don't mind a periodic tangent, we always come back to the main theme, TOE.

Best to all,

Pat

[dipayankar]

HI JAK, Just a simple clarification, Do you propose that there is a parallel Anti matter Universe with exactly the same configuration as this Universe? In the sense that there is an antimatter Milky Way and an antimatter earth??

Originally Posted by JAK Hi Dipayanker, The parade is passing us by, but I would envision magnetism as the main ingredient of the barrier. Magnetism already seems to separate and "sort" particles from anti-particles. The other factor to be considered is dleviwing's aether which I am slowly beginning to understand. It may be that particles and anti-particles tend to "pool" together. If photons are oblivious to matter versus anti-matter, then it might be possible that some visible galaxies are anti-matter with any alien matter being annihilated long ago in random collisions which purified the galaxies. The same would be true for the Milky Way. But this, of course, is only speculation and needs the evaluation/input of others. But if it were true, I would expect some cataclysmic galactic collisions somewhere in the universe where a "matter" galaxy and an "anit-matter" galaxy annihilate each other. At the moment, I am not aware of any such spectacular collision, so that tends to temper my beliefs. But then again, it took a while for black holes to be recognized.

[Profpat]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Profpat 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: Both act in a vacuum. Both are central and conservative. Both obey an inverse-square law (both are inversely proportional to square of r). Both propagate with finite speed c. Differences between electrostatic and gravitational forces: Electrostatic forces are much greater than gravitational forces (by about 1036 times). Gravitational forces are attractive for like charges, whereas electrostatic forces are repulsive for like charges. 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. 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