# Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)

ruylopez wrote:
Okay. Can't post in that thread anymore, but damnit, I'm not done, as
Kyle still seems to think this force is reasonable. To recap: KTJones
contends that gravitational effects can just as easily be explained by
postulating a repulsive force coming from a vacuum, as by an attractive
force coming from mass. He's jumped through hoops to defend this model. Anyway, let's continue:

Kyle T. Jones wrote:
ruylopez wrote:
This doesn't solve the problem.

It's not about a force interacting with the matter in the object (Sun or
Black Hole), it's about the force other objects feel pulling them towards
the black hole, in all directions. I guess you want to imagine this force
simply warping space time, but that's not how it works - the "force" is
the observed effect from space time being warped by matter.

I don't think so, Ruy. There is no "pulling" in the current theory. The "force" is simply warping space time. Objects like planets, stars, etc., are moving on straight lines through curved space.

Okay, this is actually what I meant. But that is just a model. It can be
understood also as a force pouring out of mass that affects nearby masses.
Anyway, to the point:

Let's say I have three objects, in a straight line:

A ----------------- B ---------------- C

A and B are golf balls, while C is a black hole. Let's call the distance
between them X. Of course, we would find if we set this system loose that
A and B fall nearly all the way to point C, while C moves towards them
only by a negligible amount. If the "force" of the vacuum interacts much
more strongly with C, then why isn't C moving?
Those three objects are embedded in a larger system; the "repulsive" force acting upon them is generated by the larger, majority vacuum region that the objects exist within.

To put it back into convenient <if not correct> newtonian terms, C blocks much more repulsive force coming in from the right of that diagram than A and B block coming in from the left. This is why A and B have significant movement toward C, and C moves just the tiniest amount toward them. In this case, absorbing "repulsive" force from all directions works just like putting out an "attractive" force in all directions; objects that approach the black hole are hit by repulsive force coming at them from every direction *except* toward the black hole; the denser the object (in this case, maximum density), the more force is blocked/absorbed, and the steeper the gravity well around that object.

What are you talking about, this force being "blocked"? If I put object D
to the right of the black hole, it gets sucked in to, are you suggesting
that the force to the left is then being blocked?

Ahh, see, I think this may be the crux... I don't believe I'm saying what you think I'm saying.

I'm suggesting that the repulsive force arises from the vast amount of vacuum that the black hole and golf balls are embedded in; remembering that I'm not being literal when I say "repulsive" force. Look, you're in a spacesuit, suspended out in the middle of space, not near any significant mass. You seem to remain stationary because the vast volume of vacuum around you is influencing you from each direction in equal fashion.

Now, a black hole is introduced to your right:

Me BH

At this distance, the BH is absorbing force from the right of the BH before it can influence you; it doesn't absorb coming from all the vacuum to the left of you until it has already passed through you; you are now being hit by more force from the vacuum to the right of the black hole than from the vacuum to the left of you; ergo, you start falling toward the black hole (and the black hole, in a much less significant fashion, starts falling towards you).

I know what you're suggesting, so let's have a real look at it.

The problem is that you have no representation for density, vacuum is
vacuum with no variation by definition. Therefore, you are proposing an
absolutely uniform force, the magnitude of which can only depend on one
thing: the volume of space occupied by the vacuum in question.

That sounds very similar to the force driving universal expansion, Ruy. Perhaps it does both.

A supermassive black hole occupies essentially no space. If you want to
change it to something more understandable we can make it a small, super
dense neutron star. But let's consider the black hole first because the
field it creates is of a larger magnitude. You're suggesting that this
vacuum force permeates space and is coming from all directions. You're
suggesting the the removal of a tiny amount of vacuum - say the amount of
space occupied by a black hole (basically zero), can explain these effects.

No, not at all! I'm suggesting that mass explains the effects. A black hole has a huge amount of mass, which is why it is able to absorb *all* the "repulsive force" coming from each direction; however, as you move slightly further away from the black hole, some of the energy coming from the vacuum above and to the right of the BH (on the earlier diagram) and below and to the right (since we are stuck in 2d, I'll leave it at that) starts getting past the BH just outside the event horizon and striking you. This is why you fall into the BH faster and faster the closer you get to it.

Do you have any freaking idea how much power you're giving this force?

In terms of warping space, I'm giving it exactly the amount of power current theory gives the "attractive" force.

You're saying that the loss of a tiny bit of space provides enough of an
imbalance in this force that it can keep an entire galaxy in orbit!

Not at all! I'm not suggesting that the energy arises from the fact that the black hole displaces vacuum. I'm suggesting that mass is a measure of the amount of vacuum energy an object absorbs. That vacuum energy is coming from the vast amounts of vacuum that all mass is surrounded by, on solar-, galaxy-, and universe-scales.

Really, think about that. If the loss of the tiny amount of space that is
now occupied by a black hole, or a neutron star, can create such a massive
imbalance in the "repulsive" force balance, you must be talking about an
absolutely gigantic force, per cubic meter. Not even light can escape the
gravitational field of a black hole. So now you're granting this force the
power to bend light into a hole based on the loss of an immeasurable
amount of vacuum.

Yeah, but that's really, really not what I'm saying, Ruy. The energy doesn't arise in the black hole; the energy to warp space gets "caught" by the black hole, or the mass that makes up the black hole; the energy comes from the vacuum surrounding the black hole.

This is what I meant in the latter part of my post. I'll get to that.

You seem to want to get around this problem by contending that there is a
lot less "vacuum" inside the black hole) or we could make it a neutron
star), than there is in the golf ball.
Oh, no, not at all. I simply contend that more massive objects absorb more of the "repulsive" force coming at them from all directions. In fact, I would say that mass is just that: a measure of the amount of repulsive force an object absorbs.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Gravitational
force doesn't get "absorbed", or "blocked". It might interact with
matter, but matter absorbing it? You're going to have to explain what the
heck that means, or how it might work.

Why, though? You already subscribe to the idea that mass puts out some kind of mysterious graviton particle that warps space. Why do you think it's such a giant leap to propose that the graviton comes from non-mass, instead? It does exactly the same thing (warps space), taking exactly the same amount of "energy" (where does space warping energy come from, again?)

Everything is identical except the agent producing those gravitons, and the fact that in one interpretation, they warp by digging down, in the other they warp by elevating up. I just don't see how that proposed change has all this baggage that you and Rob have been claiming.

I don't think this is accurate
anyway, as real objects are not mostly vacuum, really. But even if it is..

You propose no theoretical limit on how much space time can be warped, how
much "force" is pouring out of the vacuum.
Sure I do. Create a region of space with no matter/energy (a perfect vacuum); that region is generating the maximum "repulsive force", and doing the most warping.

Now, create a region so densely packed with matter that a singularity results: that's your other limit; the singularity, interestingly, represents a region of the minimal possible warping of space-time.

But the singularity knows no mass limit, so your model is already making
no sense here.

Why? You'll have to flesh that out a little more for me.

But even if it did, you have to again consider the size of
this force.

Actually, if you want to be exact, I think that the opposite might be true. We are both talking about a universe with the same amount of gravitational space-warping, right? So, let's just start with that. Now, I look at the Universe, and say "all that warping is a result of energy produced by vacuum/non-mass", and you look at it and say "all that warping is a result of energy produced by mass".

Considering the vacuum/mass ratio of our universe, it seems clear that *you* are the one proposing the more forceful graviton, right?

You're talking about something unbelievably powerful. If
removal of a singularity's worth of vacuum can result in a dip the size of
a black hole's gravitational field, you're talking about an unbelievably
powerful force, which is what I meant here:

See above.

which suggests that the uniform
force of a vacuum is absurdly large - large enough to likely overpower all
of the other forces and make our universe inviable.
Why would it suggest that?

Because there is no other way to explain how such massive, black holeish
accelerations can be understood by a uniform, repulsive vacuum force if
only such a tiny amount of vacuum has been lost. Vacuum has no density,
it MUST be uniform.

The incredible influence of the black hole comes from it's incredible mass/volume ratio, Ruy. I never suggested otherwise.

I suggested merely that the effect was secondary, and a result of the interaction of that mass with gravitons arising from the surrounding vacuum, not from gravitons arising from within the black hole itself.

Which leads to another interesting question... in your interpretation, the black hole is curving space in quite a large region by generating it's own gravitons. I assume, then, that gravitons can escape the nearly unescapable? Hawking's radiation too, I know.

Your only way to explain objects of different densities is to say that
objects of low density have lots of vacuum still packed within them, which
allows the external repulsive vacuum field to affect them differently.

No, no. Density is density; it's mass/volume. I explain it the way anyone else explains it. You are really caught up on the idea that I'm claiming this is all contingent on the amount of vacuum *inside* the objects we are describing, and that's not true at all. I'm not discounting that there is *some* influence from that, but the energy/force/gravitons that is shaping space comes from the vast regions of vacuum that the object is embedded within, not the tiny vacuous regions within the object itself (or the nonvacuum of a black hole).

But, since we now understand this force is extraordinarily powerful, if
indeed it did exist inside objects and atoms, I think it would likely blow
them apart. No other force in the universe would be able to stand up to
this supervacuumforce, and in fact it would be so powerful and pervasive
that I doubt even distant black holes would have any effect - the loss of
a point of vacuum half a galaxy away would be completely overpowered by
the massive vacuum force everywhere on all sides.

It's really time to give the dream up!

I think we may have been talking past each other. I obviously haven't been clear.

Cheers!

Plus, a black hole
occupies no "space" at all. No vacuum has been "removed" from the system,
and I do not feel, considering this, that the topography of spacetime can
possibly be determined by the vacuum.

I must not be following this last paragraph at all.

Black holes are certainly interesting boundary cases to examine. Do you know how our current, standard physical models treat them? In other words, is it assumed that the same physics we are used to here on Earth are in effect inside a black hole?

Probably not, I don't know. That's not the point. The black hole is just
a convenient model to show how strong your force must be, and what serious
problems it has explaining density of objects. The points could be made
as easily considering a conventional object like a superdense neutron star.
Cheers.

____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

.