[General] Gravity

Wed Aug 24 00:27:39 PDT 2016

Grahame:

Sorry I haven't got back to you on your paper yet, I've been busy. But note
that Einstein never said light curves because spacetime was curved. He said
light curves because the speed of light varies with position. 

Light curves for the same reason sonar waves curve.

Regards

JohnD

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: 23 August 2016 14:38
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity

Dear Chandra, John D, John H, Wolf and others,

Thanks, Chandra, for your response.  I totally agree that the answer to the
gravitation issue (as to so many others) involves reverse engineering the
system we refer to as reality.  More on that below.  (I also find myself in
strong agreement with your views on 'the spacetime continuum'.)

John D, I agree also the the 'curvature' of spacetime is in fact
inhomogeneity of the electromagnetic field density - which also appears to
concur with Hammond's view.  More on this also below.

Wolf, I understand your preference for considering the interplay of
electricity and gravity/inertia; however, given that gravitation is an
effect wholly engendered by particles of matter, it seems most unlikely that
we're going to understand gravity without getting a clear grip on those
particles.

The SR 'explanation' of gravitation as 'curvature of spacetime' is in fact
no explanation at all - it says nothing about WHAT is being curved, HOW it's
being curved, WHAT it is about matter that causes that curvature or WHY
light and material objects move in accordance with that 'curvature'.  It's a
useful picture, certainly, but in terms of explanation it appears to add
little to Newton's action-at-a-distance (other than relativistic effects).

So let's try a bit of that reverse systems engineering:

Fact (1): It's known (and has been since at least 1934) that particles of
matter are (time-varying) electromagnetic constructs.

Fact (2): Given fact (1), and given that electromagnetic field effects drop
off inverse-quadratically in relation to the distance from their source, it
follows that material particles will have a presence that likewise drops off
as the inverse square of distance; that presence is detectable - we refer to
it by two names: gravitation and electrical charge.

Fact (3): In this very real sense every particle of matter is in fact
unlimited spatially in its extent; the limitations that we attribute to such
particles are in fact limitations of our own perception, which is only
capable of detecting them through 'virtual photon' interactions, which are
interactions between the central 'cores' (loops) of particles being sensed
and particles doing the sensing.

Fact (4):  Given facts (1) - (3), it follows that the whole of space will be
permeated by the totality of (time-varying) electromagnetic field effects
from all the particles in the universe, each contributing in accordance with
the inverse square law; given also the evening out of 'positive' and
'negative' charge effects on a macroscopic scale, these field effects
constitute what we refer to as 'the universal gravitational field'.

Fact (5):  That field will vary in intensity in accordance with distance
from the various massive bodies that form it; this varying intensity of
electromagnetic field effects will influence the behaviour of other
electromagnetic constructs passing through that field, i.e. ensembles of
particles that form massive bodies; (it is implicit in this, of course, that
the principle of coherent superposition of linear photons won't apply to
these non-linear time-varying electromagnetic field effects - i.e.they will
influence each other through a complex process of mutual interference).

Fact (6):  This varying density of field effects will give this continuum a
'shape' defined by the surfaces of equal intensity of those effects; these
3-D contours will effectively determine the motion of electromagnetic
constructs - light, particles - through that medium; (any scuba diver who
has seen or felt a thermocline in water will have a good analogy to work
from here).

Fact (7): It's implicit, and would necessarily be the case, that, although
electrostatic charge 'cancel out' if they are equal and opposite, the
electromagnetic field effects giving rise to those charges will in fact be
additive across the cosmos; likewise, though gravitational 'pull' from
opposing directions may appear to cancel out, there may still be a strong
gravitational field in that location - think of a plateau high on a great
mountain, with a small hillock on that platea.

Fact (8):  Substantial supporting detail for this perspective on gravitation
can be found in my paper 'Cosmic System Dynamics', posted with my email of
20th August.

A couple of points as a postscript:

(a)  This means that we ourselves, being ensembles of material particles,
actually extend across the whole cosmos; this may prove relevant;

(b)  The entire cosmos is in fact one electromagnetic entity; from the QM
point of view there is just ONE wavefunction, spanning the whole universe:
wavefunctions for single particles or ensembles of particles are in fact
local approximations to this universal wavefunction, in which terms for more
distant influences have been ignored as being insignificant; this could well
have something to say about 'quantum randomness', which may in fact be those
other influences tipping the balance (this is also expanded upon in my
book).

Best regards to all,

Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Roychoudhuri, Chandra <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>  

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  ; Roychoudhuri,
Chandra <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>  ; Chandra UConn
<mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>  

Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 3:54 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Grahame: I like your spirit, the mode of thinking. I call it ergently needed
"Evolution Process Congruent Thinking", which I sometimes express as,
"Reverse System Engineering Thinking".

My papers can be downloaded from the web: phy.ucon.edu -- faculty --
research; the link is below my image.

Keep up the good spirit.

Chandra. 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SR 5 ACTIVET, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com
<mailto:grahame at starweave.com> > 
Date: 8/21/2016 8:04 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission 

Thanks John,

I'm more than ever convinced that unless we can get a better grasp of what
'space-time' actually IS - which fundamentally means a proper understanding
of gravitation - then our species is at very serious risk of imploding and
taking much (most?) of life on this planet with us.  For the past century or
more we've been looking inward rather than outward; humankind is essentally
an outward-looking race (the very word 'race' implies that!), and without
somewhere to look outward TO we tend to flounder and bicker - just look
around the planet today!  The world is so vastly overcrowded now, and set to
be increasingly more so, with numerous environmental issues to compound the
problem.  We need new horizons, new frontiers, more than we ever did in the
time of Vasco de Gama and Columbus!

[As an aside, I hope we'd also be rather more considerate of any indigenous
lifeforms that those who followed Columbus!]

That's a major reason why I've offered my proposal on gravitation for
consideration.  If we don't crack this one, VERY soon, we may run out of
time, lebensraum AND the ability to deal with the pressure-cooker
environment we've created for ourselves.  David Attenborough is proposing
that we seriously limit population growth; the Chinese have tried that and
it didn't work - and it never will; the 'prime directive' built into our
makeup by evolution is procreation.  Our planet is like a dandelion head
full of seeds ready to fly - we've even been exploring the heavens around us
for places to fly TO!  What we need now is the way to do it; I earnestly
believe that the way to do it is there in a greater understanding of matter,
space-time and gravitation - but not as long as the established scientific
community insists on hanging on to outdated paradigms and doggedly refuses
to even look at things from a new perspective.

Ok, off my soap-box now.  But I do really hope that a few of you out there
will take a look at my paper posted with my last email; if there's something
clearly wrong with it, please tell me - if not, please tell others! Thanks.

Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

From: John Duffield <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:04 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Grahame:

I share your general sentiment. I'll read through your paper and get back to
you. Meanwhile I rather think the "shake the rug" waves are light waves. A
gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous, not curved. See
what Percy Hammond says here
<http://www.compumag.org/jsite/images/stories/newsletter/ICS-99-06-2-Hammond
.pdf> : "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that
characterizes the electromagnetic interaction". 

Regards

John D

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: 20 August 2016 16:37
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Hi Wolfgang, John M, John D, Hubert, Vladimir, Beverly et al.,

There appear to be very strong reasons to believe that gravitation is in
fact an EM effect.  If one starts from the premise that elementary particles
are themselves electromagnetic constructs then it's almost a foregone
conclusion.  That premise was strongly evidenced by Landau & Lifshits in
Sov. Phys., 1934, reinforced by Breit & Wheeler later that same year and
proved beyond all reasonable doubt at SLAC in 1997 by Burke et al. (Phys Rev
Lett 79, pp1626-9).

It's at times somewhat paradoxical to me that physicists (present company
excepted!) all too often go looking for complicated explanations when
there's a simple one staring them in the face.  If one simply sees the force
of attraction between unlike unit charges as being minutely greater than the
force of repulsion between like charges - and there's no known reason why
they should be identical (in fact it's likely that they won't) - then
gravitation drops out totally naturally as the difference between those two
effects.  This would seem to sit well with Occam's razor since it eliminates
the need for one otherwise totally unexplained cosmic force at a stroke.  We
know that every nucleon is made up of a mix of particles of opposing charge
(quarks) to give an overall charge; it seems eminently likely that even
those quarks are formed from energies that, taken separately, would give
rise to either positive or negative charge elements to give the overall
charge for a quark - this links the gravitational effect of a particle
directly to its total energy content and so to its total mass.

I've attached a copy of my paper, published in 'Kybernetes' five years ago,
that details this proposal for gravitation.  You'll see that it posits the
notion that space(-time) has a 'texture' (also explaining its 'stiffness'
and the 'curvature of spacetime') given by the summation of all time-varying
EM field effects emanating from all of the material particles in the
universe - this of course draws on the fact that electromagnetic fields are
unlimited in their reach (and electromagnetic potential is unblockable -
Aharonov-Bohm Effect), i.e. that what we experience as a localised particle
is just the 'core', so to speak, of an electromagnetic field effect
unlimited in its extent.  The (-time) in brackets above reflects the fact
that this 'texture' of this 'neo-aether' is continually varying as celestial
bodies (and groups of celestial bodies) are themselves in continuous motion,
so also is their contribution to this 'textured' continuum.

I'd be most interested in any feedback on this proposal, including of course
any clear reasons (if any such exist) why it may not be a feasible
proposition.  You'll note that this concept includes a pretty thorough
explanation for every aspect of the Equivalence Principle as included in GR.
There's also the strong implication that the gravity waves recently detected
are themselves electromagnetic constructs (since the fabric of spacetime is
itself EM in nature, and so susceptible to being 'shaken like a rug' by such
waves); this may have something to say to Beverly's field of interest, since
tidal forces are themselves in a sense a pale shadow of gravity waves.

Thanks all,

Grahame

  _____  

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<mailto:grahame at starweave.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160824/7a967768/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 93453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160824/7a967768/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160824/7a967768/attachment.gif>