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

ruylopez wrote:

Just a couple quick comments:

On Jul 17 2008 2:02 PM, Kyle T. Jones wrote:

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).


Gravitational force does not get "absorbed". You are saying that mass
"displaces" vacuum, and thus alters the amount of force coming from the
direction of the displacement, correct?

Nope. That seems to be what you keep wanting me to say, but it never was what I was saying.

That is the only way your model
makes any sense to me at all. My point is that you explain the massive
gravitational fields that surround superdense objects in this way,
requires some really large numbers for the uniform force that must be
pouring out of all vacuums.

I'm pretty sure your concept of the black hole "absorbing force" from the
right makes no sense, and has nothing to do with anything that really
happens in gravitational fields. They don't get absorbed, the force acts
and passes through and continues to act. That's easy to show.

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.


But you speak of a force so powerful it would rocket all galaxies apart,
while simultaneously collapsing them all on themselves into black holes. (I think) You keep saying the math will work out the same, I say no way,
if you really wanted to try and put some numbers to it.

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;

Again, mass does not "absorb" the force of gravity. What the ***.

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.


Warping space ... let's leave the 3D metaphor alone for now. None of us
can think in four dimensions. Gravity can be understood as a force that
comes from mass, and we can put numbers on this force that match
observations. Your model should be able to do the same thing.


Yeah, but that's the problem. We can't understand it in terms of mass to mass attraction. Go ahead and deal with the light bending phenomena under that interpretation.

Newton is convenient, and wrong. Just, wrong.

It can't. If the displacement of such a tiny amount of space can cause
such a massive force, to explain the field around black holes you have to
put a gigantic number on this force which must permeate space. Such that
the loss of such a tiny volume of vacuum can result in such huge force.


You keep repeating this point. I think I've made it clear that the force is coming from the huge regions of vacuum around the black hole, not the fact that the black hole has "displaced vacuum". <also, I know I adopted this phrase, but I don't know exactly that that even means>.

Stop talking about mass. Mass is what gravity does. Your model says mass
is NOT responsible for this force. Your model depends only on VOLUME. I
don't think I'm misunderstanding you at all, I think you're not seeing
what I am saying and sometimes you are just not making sense.


No, my model depends on mass. How could it be otherwise? How could I deal with, for instance, a planet that is mostly iron, and a planet that is mostly rock, being the same size (volume) but warping space is significantly different fashions?


All you have to work with to explain your force is volume. That's it. Finito.


Says you. Not sure, for the life of me, why you think that.

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.

Exactly.

I'm suggesting that mass is a measure of the amount of vacuum energy an object absorbs.

Now you're lost. Vacuum energy.. huh? All you have to work with is
VOLUME. Mass is not relevant. Whatever "displaces vacuum" is what is
responsible for your force and this is volume.


You keep saying that. You are, apparently, not aware of the Casimir effect?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Note the section on "Vacuum energy... huh?"

So, yes, I don't see a problem with assuming gravitons are created by vacuum rather than objects with mass. Of course mass IS relevant; I simply do not understand why you think I can't have it so; relevant in that the interaction between graviton and the fabric of spacetime is contingent on the amount of mass in that region.

That's true in both interpretations. It isn't contingent on the graviton coming from the object; if you think it is, please tell me why!

All you can do from here, I think, is equate volume with mass on some
subatomic level. Still, to explain the upper bound gravitational fields
around such small volume objects as black holes and neutron stars, you
must give this force an unworkable power.

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.


Yup, and that is some freaking huge amount of energy. I know what you
mean. I don't think you know what I mean.


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?)


This wasn't the question, I say mass doesn't "absorb" the force, nothing
does that I know of. The force keeps going no matter what is in the way. This is known like anything else in science - through observation.

Your force cannot do the same thing.

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.


Again, volume vs. mass. It's a big difference.

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?


But in a very limited quantity, with an elegant model derived in its basic
form hundreds of years ago.

Wow, that's a huge sidestep, Ruy. You have harped and harped on me that my force is simply too powerful, or energetic, or whatever, because it has to do so much with so little; but I point out that it's actually the opposite, and this is the response?

Wow. Seriously.

I disagree with what I said earlier, anyway. The amount of work each individual graviton has to do under either interpretation is identical. That should have been clear to me early on. My interpretation generates many more gravitons, but there is much more warping going on.

One with real numbers that really works.
Your force permeates all space, yet is powerful enough that removing a pin
drop of it can cause the surrounding force to push so hard that light
cannot even escape.

You *aren't* removing a pin drop of it, Ruy. The difference between a deep space region of near-total vacuum and a black hole is the difference between a black hole and a near-total vacuum.

It doesn't change based on the interpretation.

Why do you keep saying the black hole is just removing a pin drop, when it's clear that the star, for instance, that spawned said hole was already a region of close-to-no vacuum?

In other words, at the moment before a black hole collapses (when it's still just a potential black hole), it's already bending light really strongly. It isn't a sudden thing, as you seem to indicate.


If that force is everywhere, the mere displacement of
a proton would wreak havoc on any collection of matter.


Why?

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


Oh, but you did. If the force comes solely from the vacuum, this ratio
DOES NOT MATTER. All that matters is the volume. Period.


That's simply not true, Ruy. You are saying that a magnet should be able to pick up any object, regardless of the size of that object.

Just because my force isn't generated by mass, IN NO WAY indicates that mass DOES NOT MATTER in the interactions between that force and mass. Jeez, why do you keep saying "Period" and "Finito"? I doubt either of us are technically qualified to be as certain as you pretend to be.

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).


I'm just saying that if you claim there is more vacuum inside less dense
objects (and apparently, you must), and you ascribe this vacuum such a
huge force, the displacements of a proton or neutron's volume would create
such an imbalance that everything would collapse on itself perhaps only
limited by fermion exclusion.


Did you just skip over the part where I said, repeatedly, that I am not claiming the force warping space time around a black hole or other massive object comes from the vacuum "inside" those objects?

Cuz, I thought I said it, like, twenty times. THE FORCE IS COMING FROM THE VAST TRACTS OF VACUUM WITHIN WHICH SAID OBJECTS ARE EMBEDDED. THE APPARENT ATTRACTION BETWEEN OBJECTS IS SIMPLE A SIDE EFFECT OF THE WAY MASS AND THAT FORCE INTERACT, AND HOW THOSE INTERACTIONS AFFECT SAID FORCES ABILITY TO WARP SPACETIME.

Sheesh!

I personally don't think there is vacuum inside objects, really, but
that's a necessary part of your model.

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


I'm trying.


Me too!

It's not as if I've ever tried to really flesh out the idea, Ruy. So, this is fun, but I do reserve the right to adjust things on the fly! Call it jumping through hoops if you want. Essentially, though, in the end, I think you could make something like this work just fine, but it would amount to being as Old Wolf said in the original thread: you'd simply be saying the cup is half empty rather than half full.

Cheers. To satisfy you and Rob, I might relearn some calc this weekend so I can express the theory mathematically.

Here are my early efforts. Take any currently used gravitational equations, and add (-)(-) to the front! Ha! I joke, I kid.


-------- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com


.