The Sun's Density Gradient

[Michael V]

Charles,

Glad to see you have discontinued your efforts to build a stellar model with a "Protonium" core.

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

The more I think about this density gradient thing, the most questions I have. For example, I took the standard graph of the Sun's density, and I added a notation for the density of liquid hydrogen and liquid helium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can compress a gas down to a liquid, but past that point, it's not going to compress much more. And at the bottom of the convective zone, we pass the density of liquid helium. So this is telling us that everything below the convective zone cannot possibly be hydrogen or even helium, as the density is too great.

Density_Liquids_wbg.png

It's possible that the convective zone is a mixture of hydrogen and helium, as the convection is going to keep things stirred up. But without any convection in the radiative zone, any hydrogen or helium in the mix would have bubbled up a long time ago.

One of the implications of this is that it puts another nail in the coffin of the "fusion furnace" theory. The heavier elements in the core would take much greater temperatures and pressures than hydrogen for fusion to occur.

How much heavier are those elements?

The density of liquid hydrogen (.07 gm/cm3) is 1/20 the average density of the Sun (1.41 gm/cm3). That means that the elements have to be at least 20 times heavier than hydrogen, right? That means neon (or above) on the periodic table, right?

[Michael V]

Charles,

Any attempt to put atomic hydrogen in the core of the Sun will very quickly be displaced by elements with a greater gravitational preference for that position. At some point in the past the Sun did not exist, by whatever accretional mechanism one may choose to employ, you will not gain sufficient gravitational mass by collecting together hydrogen and placing it at the gravitational centre. A gravitationally-compressed-hydrogen-fusion star would not get past the planning phase, let alone the construction phase. The 75%/25% hydrogen/helium fusion model struggles for credibility with a completed star, never mind the considerable difficulty of getting from a diffuse cloud to an actual shining star.

I realise you will think me the kill-joy, but I assure you that protons are not "positively" charged and electrons are not "negatively" charged. There simply is no such creatures as positive charge and negative charge. There is only kinetic charge. Be it a thrown ball, a bullet from a gun, a rock racing through space or quantum aether particles emitted by electrons and protons, it is only a kinetic property of mass in motion. The entire concept of a property of "electric" charge is erroneous.

The "energy" output of the Sun is a measure of the photons emitted. Photons are emitted by electrons. The question is not, how do we explain mechanisms by which nuclear "energy" is liberated, it is, how do we explain mechanisms by which electrons are able to emit so many photons. A plasma arc does not transfer energy from A to B, it is a process we call electricity. The electrons along the arc path do not emit photons due to "energy" delivered from point A on its way to point B. They emit photons due to a localised (as in localised at the electron) abundance of quantum aether particles. A steady electron emission of quantum aether particles is called charge, which can manifest, singularly as electrostatic charge, or by coherent organised emissions, as electric and magnetic fields. A build-up of quantum aether particles on an electron is relieved by the emission of a photon - the energy and frequency of the photon is defined by its mass at time of emission and by the quantum particles of which it consists. The energy and frequency of the photon are therefore defined by h, Planck's constant, which is the kinetic energy of a quantum aether particle.

Simply by definition, a star does not shine by the release of nuclear "energy", it shines due to the emission of photons. The only way to provide a star's electrons with enough quantum aethereal charge to make the star shine, is to put a sufficiently large amount of charge emitters into a sufficiently small volume. The Sun shines because it is sufficiently massive and sufficiently dense: that is, it contains a sufficiently large number of charge and photon emitters. Gravity provides the proximity and the electromagnetic effects that induce photon emission are inevitable given the proximity of such a large quantity of charge emitters. In effect, the Sun is primarily an electromagnetically induced photon emitter, not a fusion induced photon emitter. Nuclear reactions that liberate additional quantum aether will contribute, but are a side-effect.

This may all sound a little far-fetched, but in due course you will find it to be true.

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

Michael,

No, I'm the kill-joy, if you want to look at it that way. Everybody wants to entertain wild speculation. Everything you know is wrong!!! That's fun. I should know, because I do it all the time. The difference between me and everybody else (mainstream, fringe, and "how are you ever going to get back to reality from there?") is that after the epiphany stage, I sort it all out, and see if there is actually some real value in any of it.

There are significant differences between being an explorer versus sitting in a dockside bar telling fantastic sea stories. First, gathering up the where-with-all to actually make a real voyage is tedious, and requires a great deal of attention to detail, a practical attitude, and a lot of hard work -- sea stories do not. Second, making a real voyage requires actually putting your carcass in harm's way -- sea stories do not. Third, successful voyages of discovery yield true and lasting value -- sea stories do not.

So I'm as willing as anybody to listen to people speculate on the possibilities. You have to spend some time in dockside bars, soaking up the attitude. There are brave new worlds out there just begging to be explored. That's great! But what you guys don't seem to realize is that these discoveries can actually be made. In your minds, you can claim bragging rights to all new territories found. Meanwhile, I'm at the store buying supplies. When this is all over, you'll get to say that you were as much of an explorer as me. But I'll be the one who actually went there.

Case in point -- we've been hearing about Iron Sun models for years. We've heard the arguments for, and the arguments against. But when I started thinking about it, and when confronted with Aspden's work for the first time, I then took a graph of the Sun's density gradient and added notations for the densities of liquid hydrogen and helium, and then I stared at the new graph for an hour or so, thinking about the implications. I quickly realized the obvious, but which had never occurred to me before because I had never seen it laid out like that -- compressing plasma down to a liquid is easy enough, but further compression will take way, way more force. If the Sun was all hydrogen and helium, we might see an increase in density up to the liquid state, but then the density would flat-line until a lot more pressure was available. Even then, you're not going to get that much more compression until you start fusing atoms together, and that kind of pressure just isn't there. And if it was, the fusion products wouldn't be just helium -- the mass of the Sun requires the presence of elements at least 20x heavier. On all of those points we agree. But I'm the one who did the graph and made the points in a straightforward manner. So now I'm thinking back over all of the discussions that I've heard on the issue, and I'm scratching my head, wondering why nobody else did the graph and laid it out like that? Every discussion on the topic should be like this. Is it really this easy to be a true pioneer? Just take the known principles of physics, apply them to the data, and then draw your conclusions? Why am I the only one who is thinking like this?

The answer is that a lot of people like coming up with epiphanies, but far fewer are trying to build something real. That's actually almost axiomatic. For most people, reality is the 9~5 grind. The rest is all just entertainment. For intellectuals, epiphanies are entertaining. Injecting some reality into it would defeat the purpose. Nothing kills a good sea story like somebody saying, "Hello... a ship like that would have sunk when it was first launched!" So I'm the one who doesn't understand what's going on here. None of this is real, and that's the point.

But that's not how I see it. We're on the threshold of a new age. Major breakthroughs are within reach. We have gained a lot of data since the last time anybody actually tried to extend the paved road. These are all solvable problems, with common sense and attention to detail. But if you think that you have to toss everything that you already know in order to make the next discovery, your ship will sink in the harbor in which it was launched.

I'm not saying that aether definitely does not exist. Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. Frankly, I don't even understand most of the arguments. Sometimes that's because the arguments are obtuse, and sometimes it's because I just don't have the educational background to understand the questions. But there are bigger discoveries, closer at hand than that -- of this I am sure. You have to give rigorous physics a chance before tossing it aside. The mainstream isn't doing this, and inspired by the liberties that the mainstream is taking, the fringe theorists are just as brave, but each in their own way. Everybody is just competing to see who can be the craziest. That can actually look legitimate, until somebody like me comes along and starts making real advances.

So take note. There is real value to be gained on these frontiers. I don't have a right to all of it, but if you insist...

Charles

[Michael V]

Charles,

Just take the known principles of physics, apply them to the data, and then draw your conclusions? Why am I the only one who is thinking like this?

Nice selection of metaphors. I'm not to bad with analogies, but I'm crap with metaphors.

These "known principles of physics" are a major part of the problem:

SR including E=mc2 = total nonsense, mass energy equivalence has destroyed real physics. SR is not the root of ALL evil, just most of it.

Light as an "electromagnetic" wave = total nonsense, there is no such thing and can be no such thing as an electromagnetic wave. Electric and Magnetic fields are emitted by electrons, so any such wave must have electrons at its centre. Not to mention that light has absolutely no electromagnetic components of any sort whatsoever at all in any way.

Electricity is the flow of electrons = total nonsense, what utter garbage.

Electrostatic charge is a property of matter = total nonsense, the first, the last and the only principle of physics is "NO ACTION AT A DISTANCE".

Gravity is caused by curved empty space = total nonsense. Anyone who has ever stopped to consider the physical universe knows for certain that this is an insult to all intelligence everywhere in the universe. Yet, this has been accepted as a "known principle of physics".

Your attempts to build a ship that will float and then sail faster than all the other existing ships requires that you use a ship-building technique that does not rely on the worn-out methods that you are, by definition of you attempts, opposed to.

Your post describes my own thoughts and feelings on the subject, I have been there, I am there every day. I share your pain, I really do. For every word I have written in posts on these forums I have thought another thousand and more (this thread included). Do not mistake brevity for lack of rigorous consideration, based on the only principles of physics that are known to us with any degree of certainty (see: What Do We Know For Certain?).

A lot of your theorising, and much of the EU approach in general, centres on the concept of positive and negative. Yet, as far as I can tell, no attempt has been made to understand this phenomenon. I am presently attempting to gather evidence that may support this unproven conjecture, but have been astounded by the lack of response, particularly from those that we may consider to be EU authorities. It is as if "of course it exists, why should I even bother replying", yet I guarantee, that no-one on these forums has any explanation (save circular reasoning) for the the mechanism of these processes.

Basically, you started with the hardest problem first. The structure and operation of a star is perhaps one of the most difficult, complex and speculative questions to be answered, if for no other reason than it lacks useful data - we can only detect the outside of one of these huge mysterious objects. In taking the Sun's density gradient as given by mainstream theories, you have almost immediately doomed your effort. Although, by an iterative process, you now seem to have reached the conclusion that squashed hydrogen is a fallacy, so the true density gradient must follow from am alternative line of reasoning - like I said, gravitation demands that stars must have formed with a significant planetary core and a deep atmosphere - the centre out hydrogen-helium fusion model is not a theory, it is an agenda.

Michael

[Lloyd]

Explanations and Hardest Problem?

Michael said: I guarantee, that no-one on these forums has any explanation (save circular reasoning) for the the mechanism of these processes. - Basically, you started with the hardest problem first. The structure and operation of a star....

* I believe that Miles Mathis' explanations are not circular reasoning. And I think his explanation of star formation and galaxy formation is largely plausible. And you seem to have largely the same ideas that he has about charge etc, but he may be a bit farther along than you. You've stated before that his idea of an expanding universe is nonsense, but he recently found what he thinks is a better model than that, involving a spinning universe. That's the reason I started paying closer attention to him lately. When his theory seemed to be based on universal expansion, it didn't make sense to me, but now that that aspect is no longer part of it, everything else seems very plausible. And his route has taken him to similar conclusions as those of some of our maverick researchers, such as Kanarev, Brant, the EU team et al.
Circumnavigating the Globe
* I agree that the EU team aren't yet exploring far enough, but they're letting us do so, and, if we can find answers that we can agree on, we're liable to convince them of the same. Charles, another metaphor for this could be attempting to circumnavigate the globe. We've found the new world, but we haven't found how to go around it to get back to the old world. We explored up and down the coast to no avail. We've searched for a northwest passage. But we were blocked by ice. Now we're looking for other ways to get to a solution of our problem.
Graph of Sun's Density Gradient
* Your graph of the Sun's density gradient doesn't seem to take into account Mathis' findings about gravity being much stronger than believed at the quantum level. Mathis has said that the Sun's radiated energy cannot come exclusively from the charge field, because the galaxy has areas that the charge field is too weak or reversed. (He considers spinning photons to be the charge field. Photons with reversed spin he calls antiphotons, which produce reverse charge and antimatter.) He said the Sun cannot store charge long enough to get us through periods of low or reversed charge conditions. Therefore, fusion is the likely answer to how the energy supply is maintained during such periods. He said fusion likely accounts for 85% of the Sun's radiated energy, while the charge field accounts for 15%, although the charge field was solely responsible for the Sun's initial energy, until the fusion process was able to initiate.
Fusion or Antenna?
* I don't know yet if he considers hydrogen fusion the only possibility. Thornhill says megalightning produces fusion on the surface of the Sun. Is Lerner's Focus Fusion based on hydrogen? Isn't it cold fusion they're doing? I don't know if fusion would work with Brant's iron Sun model. He says the Sun acts as an antenna forming electrons from the aether (which aether Mathis considers to be spinning photons and electrons to be made from photons, similar to Kanarev's view), so maybe Brant's idea would be an alternative to the energy problems that Mathis has stated.

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

Fusion or Antenna?
I don't know yet if he considers hydrogen fusion the only possibility. Thornhill says megalightning produces fusion on the surface of the Sun. Is Lerner's Focus Fusion based on hydrogen? Isn't it cold fusion they're doing?

I like the term "mega-lightning" as it is very much in line with my on line of reasoning - see my post from yesterday.
Plasma arc's (i.e. electricity) on a large enough scale can surely provide the photon emission required. A squashed hydrogen fusion star can only work mathematically. Gravity will not build and contain such an unphysical beast - you can pinch all you like, but gravity will not co-operate in the formation of a hydrogen core body. It requires substantial quantities of heavier elements (heavier than Neon and preferably iron and heavier) and a significant planetary core.

Lerner is looking to do "proton-boron to alpha particle (i.e. helium nucleus)" fusion. He is using electrically initiated plasma. In effect he is still using magnetic confinement to increase the required densities, but he is taking advantage of the plasma's own tendency to form a pinch and plasmoid, to do so - his magnetic confinement is provided by the plasma itself. Tokamaks, that use external magnetic field confinement, will not be able to reach net energy, since the fusion energy released serves only to feed plasma instabilities that ruin the confinement by arcing - they will not succeed.

I have often wondered how many others have considered how this nuclear energy release is achieved - the consensus opinion is that it is "binding energy" (cue belly-laugh) freed-up via E=mc2, but they are wrong.

Am I right in saying that Mathis is now try to put the entire universe inside a stacked spin system? Quite frankly, I think the expansion field sprinkled with pixie dust was more credible. Replacing one physical impossibility with another, so as to maintain gravity as an outward acceleration, is a rather odd approach, since the acceleration is quite plainly inwards. It might fix his maths, but it is not answer.

Michael

[Lloyd]

Mathis' Gravity

Michael said: Am I right in saying that Mathis is now try[ing] to put the entire universe inside a stacked spin system? Quite frankly, I think the expansion field sprinkled with pixie dust was more credible. Replacing one physical impossibility with another, so as to maintain gravity as an outward acceleration, is a rather odd approach, since the acceleration is quite plainly inwards. It might fix his maths, but it is not answer.

* Yes, he has mentioned briefly that the universe inside a stacked spin seems to work. Basically, I think he's trying to make gravity a push instead of a pull. I tend to agree with the view that no physical force can be attractive, but can only be repulsive. I'm not totally confident in that, but, so far, I can't imagine a pulling or attractive force being anything but "magic".
No Attractive Forces?
* If you agree that there is no real attractive force, do you have a clear explanation of gravity? If there is an aether, it would make sense that gravity could be pressure from the aether. Mathis considers photons to be the aether. He thinks all matter consists of photons (with stacked spins) and all matter sprays out photons mostly equatorially. That would suggest that all bodies of matter, i.e. meteors, planets, stars etc, spray out photons as well. That would result in lower aether pressure within such bodies, so the pushing force of aether or photons in motion would tend to fill in such low pressure regions of material bodies. And that force could be the cause of gravity, it seems to me.
Particle Spin & Mathis' Math
* What causes matter particles to spray out photons in the first place is each particle's spin. I gather that they behave like fast spinning turbines. Photons or aether enters the turbines at the poles and exits mostly equatorially.
* Do you agree with Mathis' idea that Newton's law of gravitation actually includes the E/M force as well as gravitational force? Do you fault his math or reasoning in that matter?
Plasma Arcs

Plasma arc's (i.e. electricity) on a large enough scale can surely provide the photon emission required.

* Do you suggest that plasma arcs in galactic cores emit enough photons to power the stars? Do you consider that galactic cores also eject quasars, which evolve into galaxies, as Thornhill and Arp contend? Do you agree with Kanarev(?), Brant and Mathis that the aether or photons from galactic cores power the objects in galaxies?

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

Gravity is a push - accept no alternatives.

Plasma Arcs

Michael V: Plasma arc's (i.e. electricity) on a large enough scale can surely provide the photon emission required.

* Do you suggest that plasma arcs in galactic cores emit enough photons to power the stars? Do you consider that galactic cores also eject quasars, which evolve into galaxies, as Thornhill and Arp contend? Do you agree with Kanarev(?), Brant and Mathis that the aether or photons from galactic cores power the objects in galaxies?

No, I am stating that the electrons in stars emit photons - as one might expect. The process that makes this possible to the magnitude observed is called electricity and it occurs naturally as an lightning "arc" in a plasma.
My reference to plasma arcs was, as in megalightning in the atmosphere of stars. Electricity is not a transfer of energy from A to B and is not a circuit based phenomenon. The idea behind Birkeland current transmission lines is flawed at the fundamental physics level. To make a star shine on an ongoing basis, there is no requirement for nuclear reactions or for an illogical and pointless in-flow of electrons. This hunt for power stations, be it nuclear or electromagnetic, is missing the point.

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

I have been astounded by the lack of response.

Just remember that silence can mean many things. Sometimes it means "I agree" or "I don't see anything wrong with that", and sometimes it means "I'll have to think about that a bit". It doesn't necessarily mean apathy. Don't expect people to cheer. If you're right, they'll hate you. If you're wrong, they'll have a lot of fun criticizing you. They'll only agree and participate if there is something in it for them. And there is nothing wrong with that. We're all just trying to add value. If we can't, we'll just sit back and watch. Look at the response rate to Michael Gmirkin's posts. Right, what response rate? The reason is that few people have much to contribute to his well-researched, well-written posts. People might read them, re-read them, and then bookmark them so they can read them again later. But they won't respond unless they can think of something to add. It doesn't mean that he isn't creating value -- everybody is very aware of how much value he is creating. Likewise, you should carry on. If you produce lasting value, you will be remembered.

The structure and operation of a star is perhaps one of the most difficult, complex and speculative questions to be answered, if for no other reason than it lacks useful data - we can only detect the outside of one of these huge mysterious objects. In taking the Sun's density gradient as given by mainstream theories, you have almost immediately doomed your effort. Although, by an iterative process, you now seem to have reached the conclusion that squashed hydrogen is a fallacy, so the true density gradient must follow from an alternative line of reasoning - like I said, gravitation demands that stars must have formed with a significant planetary core and a deep atmosphere - the centre out hydrogen-helium fusion model is not a theory, it is an agenda.

I'm not taking as much for granted as you think -- eventually, I get around to checking all of my assumptions, and yes, it's an iterative process. There are some things that we know with a fairly high degree of certainty (at least by my standards, if not yours). My process involves distilling out what we actually know that is usable, and seeing how it constrains the solution domain. I agree that the Dalsgaard model of the density gradient in the Sun is just that -- it's a model. One of these days, I'd like to see the raw data (if I have reason to think that I'll even understand it). But we do know that the density falls off abruptly at the surface of the Sun, which is not allowed by hydrostatic laws in the presence of a gravity source. This necessitates an EM construct, and more specifically, one with some sort of primary charge separation that can instantiate electrostatic layering. (We might not know what EM is, but whatever it is, it's there.) We also know the volume and mass of the Sun, and from that we get the average density. We also know that the photosphere is 74% hydrogen and 25% helium. We "suspect" that the entire convective zone is thoroughly mixed, so it's reasonable to think that the mixture we see at the surface is present all of the way down to the tachocline.

On the basis of that, I calculated the average density below the convective zone to be 52 times greater than liquid hydrogen. I also calculated the force necessary to compact hydrogen 1% beyond its liquid density to be 1.13 x 1022 N/m3. Additional compression will take exponentially more force. Gravity will not supply such force, and compacting to 52x doesn't produce squashed hydrogen -- it produces fusion, and it isn't hydrogen anymore. I "think" that the helioseismic data rule out a sharp transition at the tachocline, from liquid helium to liquid iron (with an atomic mass 55 times greater than liquid hydrogen). This suggests a transition from lighter to heavier elements descending toward the center, though without additional information, I don't think we can proceed any further. But I'm satisfied that a primary charge separation, initially from opposing magnetic fields and then assisted by compression ionization, establishes the mechanism that supports the electrostatic layering, and which is the only physical explanation for the distinct surface of the Sun. So from a little bit of data constraining the solution domain, we sometimes can deduce a lot, but you're right -- you have to pay close attention to what you know and to what degree of certainty, or there's no telling how far off track you can get.

Your graph of the Sun's density gradient doesn't seem to take into account Mathis' findings about gravity being much stronger than believed at the quantum level.

"Mathis' findings" might just be an artifact of Mathis' maths. That doesn't make them facts that have to be taken into account.

Thornhill says megalightning produces fusion on the surface of the Sun.

I agree with this, though I'm thinking that it might occur deeper in the convective zone, and might, in fact, be responsible for the thermal bubbles that become granules at the surface.

[Star formation] requires substantial quantities of heavier elements (heavier than Neon and preferably iron and heavier) and a significant planetary core.

My model proposes the mechanisms for the formation of the planetary core. The "like-likes-like" principle aggregates the matter. Then, condensed angular momentum accomplishes partial charge separation (due to opposing magnetic fields). The electric field does a much better job at compacting the matter, further increasing the gravity field density. If the matter is compacted to its liquid density, we then start to see compression ionization, which increases the E-field density, which further compacts the matter. If somewhere in there the pressure necessary for fusion is achieved, it heats up enough to become a star, though the EM radiation is from surface effects, not fusion.

[Lloyd]

"Mathis' findings" might just be an artifact of Mathis' maths. That doesn't make them facts that have to be taken into account.

* If his analysis is correct, then the findings are facts. Can you tell us which part of his analysis below or in his paper is incorrect? I posted this below before on page 4.

Newton's Law Includes EM
* This might be the best Mathis paper to read for his explanation of Newton's Law containing equations for both gravity and EM: The Unified Field Theory: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html.
Newton’s equation: F = GMm/R^2; F is actually the combined force due to gravity and electromagnetism.
Call H the force due to gravity. Call E the electromagnetic force.
E = F – H; H = m(A + a); A = acceleration of M; a = acceleration of m.
E = [GMm/R^2 ] – [m(A + a)]
E = [m/R^2] [GM – AR^2 – aR^2]

That is the E/M field equation that was buried in Newton’s equation. ... Notice that we don’t need the larger mass to calculate a gravitational force, but we do need it to calculate an electromagnetic force. This is logical since we assume that both masses are creating a real bombarding field with subparticles, in order to mechanically express the E/M repulsion. We do not assume this with the gravitational field, since we are expressing the gravitational field with motion only. ... [Also] gravitational acceleration is dependent only upon radius....

* Which parts of his analysis are wrong and why?
* Do you agree with him, me, Michael V, Brant and others that there is likely no force of attraction, thus no electric force of attraction, thus no opposite charges?
* Have you considered that, instead of opposite charges, since attractive force is mechanically inexplicable, it may be a matter of high pressure and low pressure, and motion is from high pressure to low pressure areas?

[CharlesChandler]

Newton’s equation: F = GMm/R^2; F is actually the combined force due to gravity and electromagnetism.
Call H the force due to gravity. Call E the electromagnetic force.
E = F – H; H = m(A + a); A = acceleration of M; a = acceleration of m.
E = [GMm/R^2 ] – [m(A + a)]
E = [m/R^2] [GM – AR^2 – aR^2]
Which parts of he analysis are wrong and why?

To the extent that I understand it, it looks to me like he's doing simple variable substitution that just happens to work because G and E both obey the inverse square law. That doesn't prove that they emanate from the same underlying force. Pressure gradients in gases radiating outward from a low or high pressure obey the same law. So does heat dispersion. Does this mean that the inertial forces responsible for hydrostatics, and for thermodynamics, all reduce to the same unified charge field? Does any energy source with radial effects reduce to his charge field, because they're radial?

It is certainly true that if there was an underlying unified force, it would make a lot of sense that all of the manifestations would obey laws in the same general form. But the corollary is not true, that all things of the same general form must stem from the same underlying cause.

More significantly, "unifying" gravity and EM (and hydrostatics, and thermodynamics) is a lossy reduction. You might be able to use the same universal formula for all of these things. But that doesn't actually mean that you have a unified field theory. How do you split this unified charge field back into coupled EM forces that are decoupled from gravity? For example, why do protons and electrons have the same amount of charge, though of opposite sign, and why do they have very different masses? And don't say, "just 'cuz", and don't throw in ad hoc constants to set these values. We already had an answer that was that good. If your model doesn't predict the split of these forces at these values, you haven't accomplished anything.

And if you're going to tell me that G changes at the quantum level, you'll have to give me a reason. Eating formulaic inaccuracies is not a reason.

Do you agree with him, me, Michael V, Brant and others that there is likely no force of attraction, thus no electric force of attraction, thus no opposite charges? Have you considered that, instead of opposite charges, which are mechanically inexplicable, it may be a matter of high pressure and low pressure, and motion is from high pressure to low pressure areas?

People have been wrestling with aether theories since ancient times, and I understand why. "Action at a distance" is counter-intuitive. So are vacuums (as negative spaces), and likewise, "negative charges". So people search for the lower level at which there are only repulsive forces. But I would advise anybody venturing into such territory to make an intensive study of logic before they start, and to pay extremely close attention to the way in which they formulate ideas, or they just might spend a lot of time shuffling the problem around until they get it into a configuration that doesn't look like a problem to them, still without having accomplished anything.

For example, "action at a distance" doesn't make sense. Cool. So what does? Action by direct contact? We have an intuitive sense for that, but that proves nothing. What exactly is action by direct contact? Think about it. A moving billiard ball impacts a stationary one, and transfers all of its inertia. Now the stationary ball is moving, and the other is stopped. Cool. So what is the force of inertia? It's mass times speed. What is mass? There's no way to define mass. You can describe it, but you can't define it. So you refused to accept action at a distance because you can't get there intuitively, but you are willing to accept mass as a given?

The fact of the matter is that in physics, as in geometry, at the lowest level you don't have definitions -- you have axioms. These do not reduce to any lower level, and you just have to accept them, and see whether or not you can solve real-world problems with them. The test of a framework is not whether or not it seems cleaner at the lowest levels. Rather, the one and only test is whether or not it can predict real-world phenomena. If you ever forget that fact, you're just operating in an artificial environment of your own creation that is fully detached from the real world.

Now, I'm not saying that any of you are wrong, or that you're guilty of any of these charges, and I fully appreciate that a new physics model would invalidate all of the work that I'm doing. At the extremely large and extremely small scales, there are major paradoxes. Maybe these will require all new physics. But I've got my money on more conventional methods. By that I don't mean modern mainstream physics, which is a bit of an oxymoron. I mean mechanistic physics. Sure, astronomers say some crazy things. But we put a man on the moon. I'm convinced that the people saying the crazy things on the Discovery Channel (about black holes, CDM, etc.) are not the same people who calculate the trajectories for space missions. I would like to know what those people have to say about the crazy people who get all of the publicity. Anyway, I'm taking the stable principles of physics, including Newtonian mechanics + EM + nuclear forces, and I'm attempting to chase the nonphysical constructs out of astrophysics.

Note that to whatever extent I might succeed, that will leave less to explain. For example, if you've got aether accounting for the missing mass in galaxies, invalidating CDM, and if I can prove that the "like-likes-like" principle is real, and that it fully accounts for the anomalous orbits of stars in a galaxy, then we'll have too much force, and you'll have to quickly retract your statements about the mass of aether.

In the end, we're all gambling here. And the stakes are high. Look at the amount of time and effort we put into these ponderings. And look at the value to society that hangs in the balance. I would never spend a dollar on a lottery ticket, but I'll devote my life to philosophy and theoretical science. I'd have better chances with the lottery. But theory is more fulfilling...

[Lloyd]

* Charles, are you commenting on the short excerpt of Mathis' paper that I quoted and described above, or on the entire paper (at http://milesmathis.com/uft.html)? If you want to understand things mechanically, that's what Mathis does. He explains each step of his analysis mechanically. He finds that charge is simply mass, which I take to mean force and pressure. That the aether is photons, which can slow down or come to rest, still having mass, and get reboosted by electrons, protons etc. They can also have layers of spin that can give them more volume. Electrons are photons with more layers of spin and protons have more layers than electrons. His analysis of atoms makes great sense in great detail and explains the properties of each atom and isotope.
* Mathis doesn't change Newtons' equation; he just analyzes it and explains what each part of it does. He doesn't just substitute variables. I don't mind if you prove that he's wrong, but I'd like to see explicit proof, rather than vague criticisms. Can you go through the main steps of his UFT paper above and show which parts of the analysis are wrong specifically? Or would you do that if I post each major step of it here?

[Michael V]

Charles,

If you ever forget that fact, you're just operating in an artificial environment of your own creation that is fully detached from the real world.

Beautifully put. This fully describes "Modern Physics" and also describes your favourite magic: "charge separation".

For example, "action at a distance" doesn't make sense. Cool. So what does? Action by direct contact? We have an intuitive sense for that, but that proves nothing. What exactly is action by direct contact? Think about it. A moving billiard ball impacts a stationary one, and transfers all of its inertia. Now the stationary ball is moving, and the other is stopped. Cool. So what is the force of inertia? It's mass times speed. What is mass? There's no way to define mass. You can describe it, but you can't define it. So you refused to accept action at a distance because you can't get there intuitively, but you are willing to accept mass as a given?

I will allow you the obvious indiscretion: that should be "momentum", not inertia. There is no force of momentum - force is the process of collision. I absolutely refuse to accept action at a distance. As soon as you include action at a distance, then there is no physics, no science any sort whatsoever - all hope of logic is completely abandoned.

Mass is easily and irrefutably defined:
Mass is directly equivalent to matter; that is, when we measure the mass of an object we are measuring the amount of matter that it contains. In order to have momentum and energy, mass must first exist, in order for gravity to operate, mass must first exist. You might try to argue that mass is emergent as a result of an object's resistance to an aethereal field. But resistance implies force and force implies mass via F=ma, so both the object and the field must first have mass. You may try to sidestep F=ma and scurry off further down the same dark tunnel of reasoning to say that resistance produces mass and force at the same time. This may seem impregnable to disproof and reside clearly in the realm of opinion, but transfer of momentum suggests that the momentum existed before the collisional transfer, and that therefore momentum is in part a function of velocity. Mass, on the other hand, appears to be both acceleration and velocity agnostic. Also, an emergent mass due to resistance to an aethereal force field, implies resistance across a surface, but density suggests that the amount of resistance is dependant on the amount of matter, in which case we are back to my original assertion that mass is a measure of the amount of matter. You could philosophise further that mass is non-existent, or at least irrelevant, without the aethereal field and so both brute matter (electrons, protons and neutrons) and the field particles, produce the emergent mass mutually in each other via collisional interaction. This may or may not be the case, but from an operational point of view, it is irrelevant. Since the field must be everywhere and certainly brute matter cannot escape to a place of no aether field, then whatever point of view you take, we return inexorably to: mass is a measure of the amount of matter that an object contains.

The fact of the matter is that in physics, there is an absolute definition: ALL EFFECTS MUST HAVE A CAUSE.
This simple definition of attitude demands the obeyance of another simple rule: NO ACTION AT A DISTANCE.

"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact"...."That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws"

I confess that I first came to this same conclusion and then later discovered this quote that was entirely in agreement with my own sentiments. Certainly I would associate the concept of action at a distance with of words "inconceivable" and "absurdity". Physics is defined by mechanical motion and the transfer of momentum by direct collision.
All that is presently defined as electro-magnetism and nuclear forces and quantum hocus-pocus, must be defined, operated and ruled by the laws of motion and the transfer of momentum by direct collision. All other methods of enquiry are a distraction to understanding.

I'm attempting to chase the nonphysical constructs out of astrophysics.

The fusion powered star, complete with its squashed hydrogen core, radiative and convective zones is a prime example of a non-physical construct. Employing nuclear reactions to the service of energy production is a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning. To do so by the gravitational compression of hydrogen to helium at the centre of a star is at best delusional. The entire agenda is based on the premise that fusion releases prodigious amounts of "energy" therefore it must be the process by which stars operate. The problem that has arisen, is that the stellar model invented to fulfil this prophecy is an unbuildable, unworkable, non-physical construct.

In the end, we're all gambling here. And the stakes are high. Look at the amount of time and effort we put into these ponderings. And look at the value to society that hangs in the balance. I would never spend a dollar on a lottery ticket, but I'll devote my life to philosophy and theoretical science. I'd have better chances with the lottery. But theory is more fulfilling...

Agreed to the Nth degree.

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

Here's as far as I can get into Mathis' Unified Field Theory:

Maxwell showed in one of his papers* that mass can be expressed as length3/time2 ( L3/T2).

Can somebody explain that to me?