Physics on the lowest level of our reality!

Physics on the lowest level of our reality!

Our reality, on the lowest level, must be simple.
It has to be simple. It has to be the simplest of
all possible simplicity, because it has to be able to
explain the simplest things we know, as well as the
most complicated things we know. And just how simple
must it be? Our reality is just a simple, two
element existence, just simple space and simple
matter existing in that space.
Matter exists in individual particles distributed
throughout this space, basically having random
distributions in positions, orientations, shapes,
sizes and motions. The most basic (only?) property
present is inertia found in matter.
If anyone is paying attention, we have just
presented the ultimate simplicity of our reality,
being just a simple compound of opposites, a
something versus nothing compound of mass and space.
Nothing can be simpler than a dual existence. And
part of that dual existence is itself nothing. And
nothing can be simpler than nothing. And nothing can
exist as nothing unless there is something that makes
the nothing to be seeable or noticeable, etc.
At the same time, we just made it the most
complicated reality possible, in that there are
almost an infinite number of different particles in
our reality. In fact, you might even say that every
particle that exists is unique. Now nothing could be
more complicated than this! But what we can do, is
begin to class these particles into specific
classifications that will allow us to better handle
them.

The basic physics of our reality involves the
simplest of collisions. Let us first consider just a
one dimensional problem: Let there be an inertial
line upon which there are two objects, A and B.
Let object A, of mass A and velocity of Va
(positive velocity being to the right), hit object B,
of mass B and velocity of Vb. Let Vb initially equal
zero.

Using the simplest of physics, we can easily write
the following relationships:

1) Ma1 + Mb1 = Ma2 + Mb2
2) Ma1*Va1 + Mb1*Vb1 = Ma2*Va2 + Mb2*Vb2
3) Ma1*Va1^2 + Mb1*Vb1^2 = Ma2*Va2^2 + Mb2*Vb2^2

Where:
Ma1 = mass of object A before the collision.
Mb1 = mass of object B before the collision.
Va1 = velocity of object A before the collision.
Vb1 = velocity of object B before the collision.

Ma2 = mass of object A after the collision.
Mb2 = mass of object B after the collision.
Va2 = velocity of object A after the collision.
Vb2 = velocity of object B after the collision.

Equation 1) comes from conservation of mass.
Equation 2) comes from conservation of momentum.
Equation 3) comes from conservation of kinetic energy
(It is two times the kinetic energy.)

From these concepts I believe that all of
reality can be explained. But to explain all of
reality, one has to do some very strange things. Let
us number these strange things!

Number 1: One strange thing is seen in what was
written above: The objects are affected by their
collisions such that they leave the collision with a
different amount of mass than what they had before
they collided. Therefore, the mass of object A might
have started with some fixed mass, Ma1, but after the
collision, it ended up with a mass Ma2. And object B
might have started with Mb1, but it ends up with a
mass of Mb2.
Now even though these individual masses might
change, an application of conservation of mass means
that their total mass, in any collision of two
particles, must always remain the same. But note
that these differences in mass are compatible with
the statement above, that all particles are really
unique. We must come to understand how real this
uniqueness is. But at the same time, there are rules
and guides that prevent some particles from changing
their basic classifications.

But there are other strange things that also occur.

Number 2 strange event:
Object A ends up being on the opposite side of
Object B after the collision. Now it doesn't really
do this, but we are going to say it does this. And
we can get away with such an assumption since we
have, under Number 1 above, allowed their masses to
change. What we really do is allow the mass that was
on the right to become the same (or very close to the
same mass) as the mass that was on the left, and the
mass that was on the left to become the same, or
nearly the same, as the mass that was on the right.
Thus we can allow ourselves to say that Ma1 ends up
being Ma2 on the right side of the hit, and Mb1
becomes Mb2, but on the left side of the hit.
Thus, these two objects, as far as identification
goes, have switched sides. And if the exchanges in
mass is perfect in making a perfect match with the
other, as they were at the start, there is no
effective change in their velocities. It is as if
they had not even collided.

Now some more strange things have to exist:

Strange thing number 3:
The actual cause of forces have to reside in the
fact that although exact duplications in mass do
occur (where Ma2 = Ma1 and Mb2 = Mb1), there really
are expected to be many deviations in these masses.
Therefore, the use of this approach will require the
application of principles or controls on what
deviations will be allowed or experienced.

Strange thing number 4:
Now if there are real deviations, then there must
also be rules or principles that maintain some kind
of stability in these deviations so that all stable
particles remain within some limits of mass
variability.

Strange thing number 5:
And the last strange thing, there are no energy
losses associated with these interactions, as
indicated by the conservation of kinetic energy shown
in equation 3). That is, even though there are
collisions where changes in mass occurs, there are no
kinetic energy that is lost in the particles that
existed after the collision, compared with what
existed before the collision.

Now before we leave these strange things, let us
really be serious. I have called these things
strange, not because they are strange, but only
because we do not normally let ourselves think of
things doing these things. Let us look at each of
these things more carefully:
How strange is it that a mass does not remain the
same mass? Why today, in QM, it is required that
there is uncertainty in mass. What is being done
here is going to actually provide to us the
explanation as to why there is uncertainty in mass.
What is going on here is a simple spall. When object
A hits object B, a spall out of B continues on in the
same direction as A, and A and the remainder of B
join as one mass. The spall can of course often
deviate from being exactly the same mass as A, but
most of the time, it could be close enough to the
mass of A to be called object A.
And so it is not strange at all that these two
particles change sides! We should be well acquainted
with spalls, and how spalls act as if they went
through a wall. In World War II we designed
projectiles that could not penetrate a tank wall, but
they could knock out a spall off of the inside wall,
and this spall could fly around inside the tank and
destroy everything inside, just as if it had been the
projectile.
And how strange is it that there might be, in
general, some spalls larger or smaller than others?
The production of spalls can depend upon a multitude
of variables, to include the velocity of the hit, the
size and shape of the concussion waves being carried
through the material and reflected off the far
surface, the thickness of the bodies colliding, the
directness or angle of the impact, the spins being
experienced, the surface roughness, the weaknesses
that might exist due to previous hits, there really
is almost no end to the variables that could be
involved.
And yet, some stable particles must be expected
to exist, and if a particle is stable, then that
might simply mean that it is a body that shows
different characteristics in spalls depending upon
its size. If it gets too big, it begins to spall
bigger sizes. If it gets too small, it begins to
spall smaller sizes. Such acts certainly might be
expected to exist, at least in terms of some average
effects.

If all these strange things can be accepted,
can be found to be compatible all at the same time,
in the same set of acts, then some very important
relationships can be established. We can obtain
stable particles, with certain fixed relationships,
with the existence or the effects of force fields.
We will be able to explain the mysteries of an ether,
that has no direct first order effect of objects
moving through it. In fact, with these five strange
actions, we now have everything we need to explain
all of reality.

For another example of the explanation power of
this approach, consider this: with all particles
having the same type of matter, in fact, they are
constantly exchanging their matter between one
another, then such laws as E = mc^2 is logical. Any
mass, from any particle, is mixed within the same
dynamics, and thus the loss or gain of this matter to
any particle has to result in the same gain or loss
of kinetic energy. And as we get into spall
dynamics, we will find that the exchange of momentum
and energy in these types of collisions are different
than for the equations where bounces occur. We will
eventually all have to become experts in what some of
these differences are.

To get started in some of this, let us solve the
equations for one of these collisions. We see we
have three equations, 1, 2 and 3. We will assume
that we have all the variables at the start: Ma1,
Mb1, Va1 and Vb1. This leaves us four unknowns: Ma2,
Mb2, Va2 and Vb2. Since you can not obtain a unique
solution unless you have as many equations as you
have variables, what can we do? Since we only have
two mass variables, we can see that the change in one
mass must be the exact opposite change in the other.
Thus, we really only have one mass variable, not two.

Let us represent the mass variable as d. Thus we
have the mass unknowns as:
Ma2 = Ma1 + d
Mb2 = Mb1 - d

This reduces the unknown variables to three,
Va2, Vb2 and d. And thus, we can now solve for the
collision equations.

***********************************************
(Actually, what we really have is the following:
In a real collision, Ma1 + Mb1 = M(total)
Then M(total) breaks apart into Mb2 and Ma2. The
exchange of mass was thus Mb2 - Ma1, or Mb1 - Ma2.
Can we prove that Mb2 - Ma1 = Mb1 - Ma2? Yes, if
we put the Ma's on one side, and the MB's on the
other side, we get: Mb2 - Mb1 = Ma1 - Ma2 = -d.
Thus, d can be used to obtain the exchange of mass,
and it is Mb1 - Ma1 - d. In the development of this
theory, I general just use d as the exchange of mass
variable. It is the factor upon which all the
relationships can be established, and it is the
easiest variable for us to follow.
************************************************

So let us solve for Va2 and for Vb2 using an assumed
variable d.

If we solve for these equations, we find that they
are not linear equations. We will find that they
will be exactly what is need if we want to have
forces. And this is the start to explaining our
reality. Is there anyone who wants to play this
game? I have tried to get others to get interested
in this, but as far as is publicly known, I have
never had any takers. How come? Don't any of you
want to know how our ultimate reality works?

Please let us have some takers on this problem!

Be sure that you see these things that O'Barr is
doing to you! Yes, collision is basically simple.
But when one becomes forced to allow a change in the
masses of the colliding particles, we end up with
tons of problems. We face total loss of stability in
almost everything. Yet the blessings begin to flow.
We get non-linear equations. And from this, we get
forces. We can get a real LeSage gravity. We get
everything that is needed.

Thanks for reading.
More thanks if you try to solve these equations.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>



P.S. You do not really have to mathematically
understand these equations. If you can properly
apply them to a computer program, you can have the
computer tell you what they can do. We will use a
computer to tell us that they will produce forces
under conditions of symmetry and full conservation of
energy and momentum.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
    ... the exchange is dissimilar than the collision ... mass m1 on the left moving towards ... We will assume a velocity is ... ether, and these are the equations needed for forces, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The simplest possible collision.
    ... The simplest possible collision involving a spall. ... Take two objects of mass Ma1 and Mb1 moving on an ... least two new bodies if full conservation is to hold. ... In these perfect spalls, the object that leaves ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Unbalanced (action/reaction) elastic vs inelastic collisions the secret behind inertial propuls
    ... You have a 1 g mass at rest, and a 1 g mass approaching it from the ... left at 2 m/s. ... What is the initial momentum of this system? ... What is the velocity of this mass after the collision? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Conservation of angular momentum
    ... If you observe an object transferring all of itsmomentumto ... another object of different mass, then it is not an elastic collision, ... and in that case you do not *expect* that kinetic energy will be ... If you have a collision that you *know* to be elastic, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mechanics: problem of falling stick by I. E. Irodov
    ... then its velocity is not altered. ... here's the geometry just before the collision: ... So the collision can be treated for each mass ... by its total momentum and the angular momentum about the center of mass. ...
    (sci.physics.research)