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

On Jul 17 2008 4:33 PM, Kyle T. Jones wrote:


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.


Wave-particle duality, allows photons to interact with gravitons. I don't
think it's a big problem, anymore than the rest of gravity is. Newton was
extremely close, and his ideas were very important. His theory is nearly
exactly correct besides in extreme cases. For his time (and quite some
time afterwards, too), he was more right than anybody else.

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>.


Of course. But the NET force, which points to the center of the black
hole, can only be due to the LOSS of the force in that volume where the
black hole is.

Therefore the force per cubic angstrom has to be pretty damned large.

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?


Uh, exactly. You can't! All you can say is that more dense objects
contain less "internal vacuum" which is a concept which has problems I
have already pointed out, especially when the force is this strong.

You're saying the force doesn't come from mass, it comes from the vacuum,
and gravitational fields are the result of the LOSS of vacuum from an area
of space.


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.


Well, you say the force comes from vacuum. Vacuum has no density, no
mass; the amount of vacuum you have can only be measured by volume in
space. I really don't get what you are not understanding about what I
posted.

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.


Sure, and it has nothing to do with a force coming from vacuums. You
can't have it so because this is your entire premise; that there is a
uniform gravitational force that comes from space wherever there is NO
matter.

In your model, the deformation of spacetime should not be based on the
mass of the masses within, but only on the volume of vacuum they displace.
Because all of the force comes from vacuum, we only have two options:
Areas with force (vacuumous) and areas with no force (occupied by mass).
The density of those areas with no force doesn't matter if the mass isn't
providing a force anyways.

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!


I'm trying, really.

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.


You did not manage to point out any such thing.

Your force is pervasive in all space, the conventional one comes from
masses only, so your force is everywhere and much more significant.
Further, your force is based only on volume, such that the loss of a small
amount of volume to a superdense object can cause a gigantic net inward
force on the object. So, we must presume that the amount of force being
pushed out of all vacuumous space is very large, because the subtraction
of just a tiny volume of it can have such massive, net effects.

It really seems so simple to me, but I guess I cannot for the life of me
get you to understand it.

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.


What?

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?


When the star collapsed vacuum filled in where it used to be. The only
place in the system where vacuum is "missing" is where the black hole
physically is. Everywhere else around it is uniform vacuum pushing in all
directions.

Your net force to the center of the system must then be caused by the
missing vacuum where the black hole is.

Think about that, in terms of math.

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.


When it is a full grown star, it actually displaces much, much more
vacuum, which should in your model cause the gravitational push towards
its center to be much larger than it is once it becomes a black hole.

It's just nonsense.

I don't know why you refuse to see that your force depends on volume, and
thus is not workable. To explain why the black hole has a stronger field
surrounding it than a star, even though the black hole displaces probably
less vacuum than a proton, is hard. Your only shot is to say that the
star is less dense and therefore actually contains more vacuum inside it
than the black hole does. Still, the math won't work, the force is just
way, way too large to explain the black hole effects, which I don't even
think it can do anyway.

That paragraph seems pretty simple to me, but I've spent several posts
trying to get you to understand it and it is just not working.


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


Why?


Oh geez. See above.


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.


Because it's just common sense. A vacuum has no density, no
characteristics at all besides its size. If that is where the force comes
from, you must explain all differences in gravitational fields by
differences in the amount of local vacuum present. You just refuse to see
this!

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?


Okay, but then you have utterly no way to explain why objects of different
densities should create different magnetic fields, if they occupy and
displace the exact same amount of vacuum.

Why is that hard to understand?


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.


Old Wolf was wrong. Wronger than Newton.

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... Black Hole), it's about the force other objects feel pulling them towards ... If the "force" of the vacuum interacts much ... This is why A and B have significant movement toward C, and C moves just the tiniest amount toward them. ... 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. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... vacuum that the black hole and golf balls are embedded in; ... a black hole is introduced to your right: ... You are saying that mass ... not from gravitons arising from within the black hole itself. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... vacuum that the black hole and golf balls are embedded in; ... a black hole is introduced to your right: ... You are saying that mass ... and thus alters the amount of force coming from the ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... 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. ... So, yes, I don't see a problem with assuming gravitons are created by vacuum rather than objects with mass. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • the final theory
    ... The universe in the final state is vacuum and nothing but vacuum. ... color and spin are crushed into mass inside a black hole. ... The mass surrounding a black hole prevents the mass in a black hole ...
    (sci.physics.particle)