Erasing concepts of gravity

[Armagdn03]

If this is still in reference to aether = potential energy, Then we should define potential because I believe there was already a definition given.

However, for a potential energy to exist, there must be two energy conditions of unequal state (potentials). When this occurs, there is the capacity, or potential to do work.

Agree?

If the aether IS potential energy, then that means fundamentally, for the aether to exist, there is must first be be created by two unequal states of energy, which want to nullify into each other, giving us the potential energy, or aether. It is a round robin definition which does not make sense!

Aether cannot be potential, it is lack of potential more accurately. The Imagine if all the universes energy were to collapse into itself, all positives negating in all equal and opposite negatives. What are you left with? If there is anything technically there, it would be uniform over all that exists. Uniform potentials everywhere, no gradients. At this point there can be no force, no measure of what is supposedly there, the aether, because there is no second measurement to reference, no ground, because everything is equal, therefore you have NOTHING, not potential.

This is why I cannot subscribe to your model, It is partially correct but fails to capture the true essence of what that fulcrum is from which equal and opposites can spring, instead endowing it with properties held by the things which come from it, or causes, when we want to know the source.

[sucahyo]

1 - pos charge moving from pos terminal to neg terminal.

2 - neg charge moving from neg terminal to pos terminal.

That is very similar to modern science view on antimatter:
EURYI award project to store antimatter in box like ‘office bin’: European Science Foundation

Physicists want to study antimatter much more closely and confirm beyond all doubt that it really is the exact opposite of the matter we observe in everyday existence, but there is a problem. Antimatter is very difficult to make, and even harder to store afterwards, making it more precious to scientists than gold. The moment it comes into contact with the normal matter surrounding us it annihilates within a trillionth of second, so it has to be isolated and manipulated indirectly. Until now this has only been possible in large expensive apparatus using electric or magnetic fields to contain the antimatter.
...
Hori then plans to exploit this new device to create new complete atoms comprising anti-matter and then conduct experiments that prove these really do behave exactly as physicists have predicted on the basis of being the exact opposite of matter. “Scientists believe that nature, at a very fundamental level, possesses a symmetry called "CPT" (Charge, Parity, and Time-reversal): this means, if we were to imagine an "antiworld", where all the matter in the universe were replaced with antimatter, the left and right directions inverted as if in a mirror, and the flow of time reversed, it would be completely indistinguishable from our real matter world,” said Hori. “Since this symmetry is of such crucial importance in our understanding of the world, it is of the first importance to test it at the highest possible precision.”

Hori has already laid the ground for this project in his previous research on the antiproton. “What I have done up till now has been to measure the mass and electric charge of the antiproton with a very high level of precision of several parts per billion,” said Hori. “We found that the antiproton did in fact have EXACTLY the same mass as the proton, and equal but opposite charge.”

To achieve this, Hori manufactured a special type of atom, called "antiprotonic helium", which is made of half matter and half antimatter. “I then measured this artificial atom's spectra using a laser beam, which yielded the above information on the antiproton,” said Hori, showing that antimatter obeys all the predictions about its symmetry up to this higher level of accuracy.

I would personally call the rotational force inertia as well since is the active moving mass that experiences the force (actively) and gravity is the one of the three that has mass being passively acted upon by the stronger force.

What do you mean by stronger force?

this experiment is analogous to your rocket, because gravity is an inverse square field. Meaning that as you raise up, you are feeling less and less G force, or acceleration seems to decrease.

, found the explanation:
Earth's gravity

The strength of Earth's apparent gravity varies with latitude, altitude, local topography and geology:

Latitude: Apparent gravity is weaker nearer the equator because the Earth's rotation produces an apparent centrifugal force.

Altitude: Gravity decreases with altitude, since greater altitude means greater distance from the Earth's centre. All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to the top of Mount Everest (8,850 metres) causes a weight decrease of about 0.28%. (An additional factor affecting apparent weight is the decrease in air density at altitude, which lessens an object's buoyancy.[5]) It is a common misconception that astronauts in orbit are weightless because they have flown high enough to "escape" the Earth's gravity. In fact, at an altitude of 400 kilometres (250 miles), equivalent to a typical orbit of the Space Shuttle, gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface, and weightlessness actually occurs because orbiting objects are in free-fall.

Local variations in topography (such as the presence of mountains) and geology (such as the density of rocks in the vicinity) cause fluctuations in the Earth's gravitational field, known as gravitational anomalies. Some of these anomalies can be very extensive, resulting in bulges in sea level, and throwing pendulum clocks out of synchronisation.

Other factors

In air, objects experience a supporting buoyancy force which reduces the apparent strength of gravity (as measured by an object's weight). The magnitude of the effect depends on air density (and hence air pressure); see Apparent weight for details.

The gravitational effects of the Moon and the Sun (also the cause of the tides) have a very small effect on the apparent strength of Earth's gravity, depending on their relative positions; typical variations are 2 µm/s˛ (0.2 mGal) over the course of a day.

It mention gravity constant of cities and the gravity of other planet related to earth value.

If the aether IS potential energy, then that means fundamentally, for the aether to exist, there is must first be be created by two unequal states of energy, which want to nullify into each other, giving us the potential energy, or aether. It is a round robin definition which does not make sense!

Modern Scientist believe that our universe is once antimatter and then become matter, but there are still anti matter left.

Also the scientific proof that antimatter will annihilate in normal condition instantly mentioned in Dr Masaki Hiro article above. And yet antimatter still exist on top of our galaxy. I see this as sign that there is something that can shift the balance between aether and our world.

And treating aether as a single type of thing is wrong. Aether should exist ni different state as well, just like is solid, liquid and gas; or O2 and H20; or fire and light.

I believe that with enough energy level, matter can transform not just to it's compatible molecule but to other atom as well. This is proven on cold fusion or other plasma experiment result, where rare earth material is produced. I think this caused by a disturbance of aether vs world which cause the anomaly. I believe that matter in our world can have 7 state, not just solid, liquid and gas. Where the last state is when transition between aether and our world happen.

I believe that light and heat are part of aether because we can't find what atomic shape they have. When matter release light or heat I consider it as transferring energy between our world to aether. When this light and heat received by another matter, this energy materialized.


I use aether word for anything that do not have atom/electron or not matter. And I strongly believe that aether is not ONE THING.

[Aaron]

no claims made on perfect equality

Aether cannot be potential, it is lack of potential more accurately. The Imagine if all the universes energy were to collapse into itself, all positives negating in all equal and opposite negatives. What are you left with? If there is anything technically there, it would be uniform over all that exists. Uniform potentials everywhere, no gradients. At this point there can be no force, no measure of what is supposedly there, the aether, because there is no second measurement to reference, no ground, because everything is equal, therefore you have NOTHING, not potential.

It is assumed the pos and neg are equals in this "aether". There is more
pos than negative. If they were equal, there would be no physical universe
to touch.

I gave the yin/yang analogy. They are not opposites but compliments and
are not equals. The are constantly in motion SEEKING balance, but
never attaining it because they are out of balance. If Light and Dark were
balanced, there would be no life or energy in the Universe.

Overall, yes the nature is symmetrical and in an equilibrium of sorts.
This does not mean that they each exacting perfectly equals but close
enough to have a general balance.

[Aaron]

stronger force

What do you mean by stronger force?

There is nothing wrong with calling gravity gravity because that is in
fact what it is when a mass is being kept on the surface of a larger mass.

Inertia and the rotational concepts are simply terms to place the EFFECT
of NET FORCE in context.

But the effect of all are the same net force and I agree with Armagdn03
100% on that because it is all the same effects. I say aether and he
has his perspective and I'm sure others have theirs.

With Gravity, the stronger force is the downward centripetal inward
pushing and the weaker force is the outward centrifugal force. Centripetal
force is stronger for the fact that the object clings to the surface. If the
centrifugal force was stronger, it wouldn't be possible for mass to hold
itself together as anything tangible and an object wouldn't sit on the
surface of the planet.

Mathematically, yes, there is a net force you're looking at but in my opinion,
the context for which something fits in can't be ignored.

[Armagdn03]

It is assumed the pos and neg are equals in this "aether". There is more
pos than negative. If they were equal, there would be no physical universe
to touch.

I gave the yin/yang analogy. They are not opposites but compliments and
are not equals. The are constantly in motion SEEKING balance, but
never attaining it because they are out of balance. If Light and Dark were
balanced, there would be no life or energy in the Universe.

Overall, yes the nature is symmetrical and in an equilibrium of sorts.
This does not mean that they each exacting perfectly equals but close
enough to have a general balance.

I dont know where to even start with the contradictions in this statement.

What do other people think? this seems to be a little to dominated by two opinions.

[Aaron]

contradictions

Contradictions?

The snow or static on a tv screen off channel is very chatoic.
However, it is ordered...very symmetrical and homogeneous.
Reality is a paradox that makes perfect sense.

There are many contradictions in your past posts in this thread.

According to what you said, if someone is traveling in a car around a turn,
the door is PULLING the person to it instead of it being the mass (person)
trying to maintain its trajectory. Just because the math shows a net force,
the person's mass moving is trying to continue on its journey and is therefore
thrown towards their door around a turn because it is moving in that direction
and NOT because the door is attracting it any more than the centeripetal
force you say is a pulling force from the center of mass.

Sorry, but if you think I'm contradicting myself, you haven't understood
what I am relaying. There are no contradictions in "my model", which
actually explains a source of potential.

Anyway,

[Armagdn03]

Contradictions?

The snow or static on a tv screen off channel is very chatoic.
However, it is ordered...very symmetrical and homogeneous.
Reality is a paradox that makes perfect sense.

There are many contradictions in your past posts in this thread.

According to what you said, if someone is traveling in a car around a turn,
the door is PULLING the person to it instead of it being the mass (person)
trying to maintain its trajectory. Just because the math shows a net force,
the person's mass moving is trying to continue on its journey and is therefore
thrown towards their door around a turn because it is moving in that direction
and NOT because the door is attracting it any more than the centeripetal
force you say is a pulling force from the center of mass.

Sorry, but if you think I'm contradicting myself, you haven't understood
what I am relaying. There are no contradictions in "my model", which
actually explains a source of potential.

Anyway,

Again, I have never stated the door pulled anything towards it. Here is the origional statement.

You misunderstand what I mean. Say you are in a vehicle on the right hand side, going a good speed and then begins to bank to the left, you now feel an acceleratory force outward and you push against the door of the car. However the force experienced by you is the same for every particle of your body, you cannot say that you are being pulled towards the door, or pushed towards the door and mathematically it does not matter all you know is that you want to go that direction with X force...the very definition of a vector. With your with your frame of reference you CAN say that you are pushing or pulling against the car door. I will expand upon that point as we go.

Again,

The FORCE pushes you towards the door. Or... The FORCE pulls you towards the door. I never stated the door pulled anything, this is your own misunderstanding.

If ever particle of your being is moved to the left, with uniform acceleration, are you being pulled to the left or pushed? how could you prove either? More importantly does it matter?

I agree that something is lost in translation. However, personally, I never divorce math from the concept, they must be one and the same so that these logical problems do not arise. There is a rather big difference between what I am explaining however and your example. Pushing an object gives it a force in one direction FROM one direction The entire body is not uniformly accelerated. A supposed acceleratory field like gravity, acts on all particles in the body uniformly, meaning if your eyes were closed and you started to accelerate, you could not tell whether you were pushed or pulled.

If someone could explain how identification of pushing or pulling in a uniform acceleratory field solves the problems of modern unified field theory? If there is a difference, then this realization alone should "change the game". But all I see is a argument over perspective that in reality does not matter.

[Aaron]

math

The FORCE pushes you towards the door. Or... The FORCE pulls you towards the door. I never stated the door pulled anything, this is your own misunderstanding.

Specifically, I'm talking about the frame of reference of being pushed to
the door or being pulled to from the doors direction. Whether the door
is doing it or not isn't what I'm getting at, you spelled out it doesn't make
a difference if pushing or pulling.

Here is the problem with the net force MATH. I don't see a problem with
the net force CONCEPT, but looking at only the bottom line of net force
math...

If someone pushes another person with their hand with a force of 10
and that person being pushed gives way and with losses, lets say there
is a 9 net force.

The MATH says net force of 9.

We can engineer that forward from one person pushing another, then
what is the net force?

We originally know the facts of one person pushing another and the
push is a net force of 9.

HOWEVER, if we start with the math and look at the result and see that
there is a net force of 9, it is impossible to reverse engineer that
math back to reality to see who did the pushing if we have nothing but
the mathematical answer.

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla

[Allcanadian]

@Aaron

It is assumed the pos and neg are equals in this "aether". There is more pos than negative. If they were equal, there would be no physical universe to touch.

We are given many reasons to believe that one thing can be divided into two seemingly equal and opposite parts. Throwing a rock into a pond will produce a wave with a crest and trough which are equal and opposite conditions but they cannot negate each others condition because one condition has led to the other in a cyclic manner. If one condition fails to exist the other must as well as they are not seperate but a function or reflection of each other.

I gave the yin/yang analogy. They are not opposites but compliments and are not equals. The are constantly in motion SEEKING balance, but never attaining it because they are out of balance. If Light and Dark were balanced, there would be no life or energy in the Universe

I would think yin/yan could simply be a reflection of one another in which case they are opposites but compliment each other as well. We could also conceive that everything we know are effects of other forces. Light/dark, up/down or positive/negative are not things they are effects of something else, they are a condition of something.

Overall, yes the nature is symmetrical and in an equilibrium of sorts.
This does not mean that they each exacting perfectly equals but close
enough to have a general balance.

I tend to see everything as relative to something else which does not come naturally, as we by nature tend to seperate and isolate things in order to understand them. I cannot say who is right or who is wrong on this subject but I cannot help but think we are being deceived by our senses and measurements and that we have never seen the true cause of anything we know.
Regards
AC

[Aaron]

opposing vs complementary

I would think yin/yan could simply be a reflection of one another in which case they are opposites but compliment each other as well. We could also conceive that everything we know are effects of other forces. Light/dark, up/down or positive/negative are not things they are effects of something else, they are a condition of something.

But they're not opposites, that isn't the nature of yin/yang.

The compliment each other. Here's the difference...

You take a wheel on an axle and have the wheel so it is perpendicular to the ground, like most wheels are that are in use.

If you bring your hand down and hit it at top dead center, the wheel
won't turn. You get your opposing force that dissipates your input on
the spot. This is not yin/yang.

But, hit it a little to the left or right of center and it will spin in that
direction. This IS yin/yang. When you hit down on one side, the other
side has an upward push. The upward and downward are not opposing.
They compliment each other because each one helps the other move
instead of opposing it and bringing it to a standstill asap.

[Armagdn03]

Specifically, I'm talking about the frame of reference of being pushed to
the door or being pulled to from the doors direction. Whether the door
is doing it or not isn't what I'm getting at, you spelled out it doesn't make
a difference if pushing or pulling.

Here is the problem with the net force MATH. I don't see a problem with
the net force CONCEPT, but looking at only the bottom line of net force
math...

If someone pushes another person with their hand with a force of 10
and that person being pushed gives way and with losses, lets say there
is a 9 net force.

The MATH says net force of 9.

We can engineer that forward from one person pushing another, then
what is the net force?

We originally know the facts of one person pushing another and the
push is a net force of 9.

HOWEVER, if we start with the math and look at the result and see that
there is a net force of 9, it is impossible to reverse engineer that
math back to reality to see who did the pushing if we have nothing but
the mathematical answer.

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla

You are picking and choosing what you pay attention to in your example above.

You are saying that you cannot reverse engineer looking only at the "resultant" but the answer alone is not the entire problem. If you were to look at them math you would see a positive vector with magnitude 10, and a negative vector with magnitude 1, and you would see that on the other half of the equal sine, you have the resultant nine. That entire equation, plus the equal sine and resultant is the math, and from this you can deduce what is happening.

I can use the same logic you used to say that "reality" has the same problem as math. One guy is heading backwards on rollescates with magnitude 9.

That's all we know! We cannot reverse engineer what happened from this information alone! since we have only looked at the result, we don't know that he pushed for one, and was pushed for 10, and that resulted in his backwards movement for a total of 9, because all we have chosen to look at is the 9 like in your example above.

Also I agree with your Tesla quote 100%, and this is why I satetd earlier

I agree that something is lost in translation. However, personally, I never divorce math from the concept, they must be one and the same so that these logical problems do not arise.

Also, there is a lot of terminology being thrown around to describe "equal and opposite". Primarily with respect to this thread, what I am saying when I use words similar to this is: The inverse Sine Cosine relationship of the unit circle. This describes oscillation, interchange between inverse conditions etc. Like it was stated before by Allcanadian (I love that guy) One does not negate into the other (which was a misunderstanding earlier people had) but rather one is the cause of the next in alternation.

[bboj]

I propose to continue from beggining. I think Armagedn03 put forwaqrd an interesting problem, also based on his experiments.

Regarding the maths and Tesla. Tesla was a very good matematician and all his work is firmly supported by mathematics. His statements mentioned here are taken out of context and have no relation to this thread.

Unfortunately this thread is turning out in a pointles intelectualising as it is the case with most of the threads here.

[Armagdn03]

I propose to continue from beggining. I think Armagedn03 put forwaqrd an interesting problem, also based on his experiments.

Regarding the maths and Tesla. Tesla was a very good matematician and all his work is firmly supported by mathematics. His statements mentioned here are taken out of context and have no relation to this thread.

Unfortunately this thread is turning out in a pointles intelectualising as it is the case with most of the threads here.

I agree completely, let me reformulate my thoughts, and re post.

[Allcanadian]

@bboj

Unfortunately this thread is turning out in a pointles intelectualising as it is the case with most of the threads here.

I would agree, all these endless examples, concepts and theories only distract from the topic of this thread which was presented by Armagdn03.

From my understanding Armagdn03 presented a simple arguement that gravity could be expressed as a gradient of force similar to buoyancy based on charge density which can be expressed mathmatically. Personally I like it because it is easy to understand, I do not think we need any more complexity than is needed.
Regards
AC

[Armagdn03]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...0EAjZcgHZJliqg

The above link is to a document I found online which conveniently contrasts gravity and mass, with charge and surface area. If we can reconcile the differences between these two sides, then we would be a great leap closer to understanding. I will post on each of these ideas individually, and go through the list.

Lets start with Definition:

for the electric field:
"A region in space where an electric force is felt by a charge."

For a gravitational field
"A region in space where a gravitational force is felt by a mass."


It would seem that both deal with a region of space which is under the influence of these fields.

A "region" describes a volume

It would seem then that both of these fields should have very similar equations. If they differ, perhaps work should be done on bringing them into alignment.

So far we are on track and things seem to align well.

Next we have the "Nature of the field"

For the Electric field we have:
"Depends on physical quantity of electric charge"

For the Gravitational field we have:
"Depends on physical quantity of mass"

If I am correct, and mass is a product of charge density, then these two align very well with each other. This should logically deduced from the mass energy equivalency theory. If mass = energy, then the fields created by "mass" should have electrical qualities. We all kind of take for granted that greater density = more accumulated space, however this gets to the very heart of that.

Are we going to draw a line in the sand and say mass is here, and has this field, and charge is here and has this field?

Or are we going to note that all of our science has pointed to mass and energy being equal, so mass, being an electric entity, should have fields that correlate electrically.

If you agree with mass energy equivalence, then you probably see that these two statements are in fact in agreement, if you do not agree with mass energy equivalence, then this may not be the thread for you, because it will be a major foundation.