O'Barr: physical gravity.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Jan 2006 12:38:30 -0800
Gravity!
Well, here I am, with only a few days left in my
life, and what do I choose to talk about? I choose
to talk about the least important thing of all. Why
is that? Only Heaven knows.
What is gravity? It is the weakest force of all,
and I want to talk about the least. It fits me as to
what I am.
START OF ARTICLE:
********************************************
Gravity!
The proper understanding of gravity requires the
concept of exchanges in mass between colliding
bodies. And for me, the best way under which
exchanges in mass can occur is by spalls. Spalls are
not the only way. But to me, spalls bring with them
a better ether-like medium, and really do solve a
large number of problems other than just gravity.
In the past, when considering collisions between
two bodies, such as m1 and m2, we have, in general,
automatically assumed that we end up with these exact
same two bodies. But with a spall, we know that
there is no real reason why the spall has to be the
identical mass as any of the original particles. And
thus, we can clearly end up with m3 and m4 particles,
different in mass than either m1 or m2.
With spalls, we find that we can actually end up
using the second set of math solutions to the
collision equations. Mathematically, when anyone
solves a quadratic equation (which one is doing when
they solve the collision equation), there is, in
general, two solution sets. And we have only been
using one solution set. With the at theory, we
begin, for the first time, to use the second solution
set, and by using this second solution set, we begin
to get things that have never been seen or done
before. We now have the complete physics of our
reality presented before us.
When m1 collides with m2, and m3 and m4 are
produced, these two new masses could individually be
equal to their originals. How equal, or how
different, might depend upon a multitude of unknown
functions. One might assume their relative velocity
of impact, the off-set of their center-lines
of motions at their point of contact, the angle of
impact, their individual spins, their geometry, their
surface parameters, the nature of the shock waves
generated in each, might all have different effects.
And all these variables could have some effect on the
spall that would occur or be expected.
But down on the lowest level of reality, some of
these differences disappear. There cannot be normal
shock waves due to restoring forces, since there are
no potential fields at these lowest levels of
reality. All that could be seen would be simple
displacement acts, where one volume of matter might
be able to replace another volume of matter by direct
contact, etc.
The at theory only assumes that it depends upon
their individual masses. The exact size or mass of
m1, and the exact size or mass of m2, will determine,
in general, the size or mass of the spall that will
be produced. And any slight change in the mass of
either particle, will result in a change, in one
direction or the other, of the spall. The at theory,
when it becomes fully developed, does not really
require one to know the exact size of spall to be
produced every time, if at least the effective
average of these sizes can be assumed for any one
precondition that is present.
One needs to be careful in all these areas of
assumptions. In the end, only statistical trends
need to be established. Whether we ever become able
to establish all the factors that might be affecting
these trends is not as important as knowing that
trends are not un-imaginable, and that some trends
are required just to have particles. And many of
these variables might be sufficient, on their own, to
provide the correlations necessary to correctly
describe these trends.
By using mass as the variable, it certainly is a
prime variable, it is always there, and
statistically, the mass should provide to us
correlations with size and geometry, etc. Many of
the other variables will eventually average out to a
null effect. So I have no problems with the use of
mass as the controlling variable, at least when only
statistical trends are seen as the final goal.
But let us, for now, just ignore all these unknown
possibilities, and just consider gravity as given to
us by the at theory.
THE REAL START OF THE ARTICLE:
*************************************************
Gravity (according to the at theory,
under the actions of spalls):
Any object that is a stable object (that is, an
object that holds a constant average mass over any
reasonable period of time) can affect the background
in which it is interacting in several different ways.
1. If a body, hit by hit, produces spalls
identically equal in mass to each and every colliding
particle, there are no changes to the background or
to the object being hit. (This includes no changes
in the statistical sizes or dispersion of sizes of
the ether particles, etc.)
If over general periods of time, the spalls
produced fit the same distribution that originally
existed, then the same effects are also achieved.
This allows each individual hit to produce a
different size spall from time to time, but over a
large enough time base, all these differences can
still add up to the same mix as originally existed.
2. Some bodies could produce spalls that have a
spread in mass more tight than what was previously
existing. (This is a decrease in dispersion or a
reduction in the standard deviation in the mass of
the ether particles.)
3. Some bodies could produce spalls that have a
spread in mass greater than what was previously
existing. (This is an increase in their dispersion.)
Now these are the choices for a non-time-
dependent or steady-state type interaction for stable
bodies. We can of course get many other type of
fields, and time variable fields are something that
has seldom been mentioned. But for completion, let
me mention a few points.
If we allowed the mass of an object to vary
(cycle) over a time period much longer than the
average times between hits, where it continuously
went in one direction only (continuously increase, or
continuously decrease), then this kind of change
would immediately show up in the surrounding ether.
We cannot allow such a situation to last too long,
but if such changes were allowed to cycle back and
forth, we would have strange effects indeed in the
ether around such an object. We could get very
interesting effects in the ether because then we
could have the ether itself become different around
an object: it would be gaining mass, or it would be
losing mass. And these differences could be very
striking.
And as a second effect, we could have a body that
would oscillate between reducing or expanding the
dispersion, rather than just do the one or the other.
And an object that did all these things, constantly
changing the dispersion as one separate variable, and
then changing their average mass as a second
variable, could produce some very interesting field
effects around it. And how these two different
variables interacted, their phasing between these
effects, the deepness of their variableness, would
produce many more variances than what we see in our
reality.
But this is no place to start anything so
complicated as this. We will stay, for gravity, with
only one of all the above effects:
Bodies interacting in the ether can cause an
increase in the dispersion of sizes of the ether
particles.
And if all particles were of this one nature,
they would all attract each other directly
proportional to the gradient of this dispersion.
Now how do I know all this? As some might be
able to see, gravity is not a simple math equation.
It is not due to a single interaction or to a single
effect. It requires several interactions. Gravity
is the net effect of having some established stable
background, and one object changing that background,
and another object then reacting to that change in
background. And thus, to get to the effects of
gravity, requires first a system of mechanical
interactions in which some form of stability is able
to be maintained, and then have this stability
changed by a body present in this system, and then
seeing what these changes in the stability of this
system does to another body that is present in this
system. And thus, none of this is easy.
Now I know all this because I have ran a large
number of computer programs, using backgrounds of
various selections. And I know how to form stable
backgrounds. It is vital that equal potential of
kinetic energy is present. And I have put different
particles into these different backgrounds, seeing
the changes they could make to these backgrounds.
And then seeing what these changes in backgrounds can
do to other particles that are then interjected into
these changed backgrounds. In all these acts, there
are no math results, only physical results. There
is no math trail to follow, there are only physical
events, and whether or not certain events occur. An
attraction is an event, whether there is any math
present or not.
Now of course the math is not really difficult to
obtain. Especially if one wants to use
approximations. If one wants only first order
effects, or first order approximations, one can sure
do this. When I first tried this, I found that I
had to go further than just first order effects, but
this was no problem, mathematically, one can go to
any order one might need to go, as long as one wants
to take the time to do it. And so I have done it.
And the math confirms the computer result (or maybe
the computer is confirming the math approximation?)
But after it is all over, one still only has an
approximation, and one still has all the assumptions
that were involved. And so I personally do not see
any advantage in having either the math or the
computer results. They are all useful and both
support each other. Therefore, choose your own
weapon, if you have a choice.
But the physical cause of gravity is now firmly
established in my mind, and it is important to have
this physical understanding. The day has to come
when such an approach will be of value.
At this point, we can now state the nature of
gravity in a summary.
THE REAL REAL START OF ARTICLE:
********************************************
Let there be a system of particles (an ether)
mechanically interacting with each other in such a
way that they are in equilibrium in terms of the
mixed of sizes that are present in the system. When
this is stated, we mean that if anything came along,
and changed the mix of sizes, the system would begin
to restore itself to the original mix as collisions
within the ether occurred.
Now if other particles (very large particles) are
placed in this system, and these other particles
cause a slight increase in the mix of sizes of the
ether particles, these other larger particles will
appear to be attracted to each other, proportional to
the gradient of these changes in the dispersions
within the ether.
If we assume that the mean free path between the
particles that make up the ether system is on the
order of the distances between many galaxies, then
every thing is in order for a correspondence with
gravity. The only thing that has to be stated is
that the ability of any one mass to establish its own
dispersion is not affected by any pre-established
dispersion. In other words, there is no limit to the
amount of dispersion that can be created, at least
for the amount of mass that we have so far observed.
This maintains the non-saturation characteristics of
gravity, and the 1/r^2 is naturally obtained due to
normal geometry effects.
For those who are more particular, please note
that what I have presented is mainly for a Newtonian
gravity approach. To get to the more fine points as
might be seen with GR, it is there. The rate at
which these dispersions progress out, and the
velocity components of fast moving bodies, will give
us added parameters that will be useful to tie it
into GR. But having the correct physical start is
absolutely important. And the at theory provides to
us a physical understanding of the origin of these
forces.
Now of course none of this can just be accepted to
be true. Someone has to actually do it. So who here
is going to do it? So far, that someone is no one.
Why is it that no one wants to do such a simple test?
Any computer can be programmed to set up a test
where a series of interactions are being performed,
establishing a stable system. Then an external
particle is introduced where its interactions
result in it remaining at some fixed average mass,
but it results in an increase in the dispersion of
the stable system. Then you introduce a second
external particle, just like the first one, and see
what results occur!
Surely someone knows how to verify that an
initially stable system is in place. Surely someone
knows how to keep the average mass a constant. And
surely anyone can understand how to cause an increase
in the dispersion. And with these simple
accomplishments, you will have attraction occurring.
This attraction is being accomplished with no loss of
energy, with no gain in mass, with none of the
problems that we often have with a LeSage like
approach. And no one cares?
Come on people, this is important!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O'Barr: physical gravity.
- From: Hexenmeister
- Re: O'Barr: physical gravity.
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: O'Barr: physical gravity.
- Prev by Date: Re: Time question
- Next by Date: Re: The falsity of Einstein's continuum
- Previous by thread: Time question
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr: physical gravity.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
