Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Please Define "action At A Distance".

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Duane Eddy on April 11, 2003 03:14:30 UTC

You said:
A t.e. is an idea. I believe you cannot test an idea with an idea. You can use the idea as the basis of an hypothesis, but eventually you have to test it against reality.

-I agree. You do eventually have to test it against reality.

You said:
I believe the flaw was thinking the forces (gravity and acceleration) were indistinguishable, thus the same.

-There is a detectable difference between gravity and acceleration.

You said:
I believe the purpose was to explain gravity.

-I disagree, I believe his goal was to accomplish what he accomplished, which is to prove the velocity of light is a maximum universal velocity.

You said:
I believe it failed.

-I agree that Einstein did not explain gravity.

I favor a nonviable (meaning uncheckable) hypothesis that gravity, like the electromagnetic force, is an attribute of the elemental particles.

-Unfortunately defining gravity as a magic property is not a useful assumption.

You said:
Predictions are proof if there is a cause/effect relationship. Otherwise even partial validity is not demonstrated by the prediction.

-I am sure Einstein did not develop his final presentation on the first try, but shaped it as an artist shapes a statue. There are many “partial validity “ steps before an idea can have cause/effect proof. If we don’t follow the “partial validity” path how can we ever hope to arrive at “cause /effect”.

You said:
The path of light is altered by a gravitational field. Therefore prediction of path deflection, by any hypothesis, would be successful. Both general relativity and materiality of light predict the alteration. I believe space is immaterial, not subject to curvature, so I prefer the materiality of light as the explanation.


Assume space is immaterial and unable to transmit waves.
Assume electromagnetic radiation traverses space.
:.Electromagnetic radiation is substantial.
Observe that electromagnetic radiation exhibits oscillation.
Assume a monad could not oscillate.
:.The unit of electromagnetic radiation is (at least) binary in nature.
Assume the components of this binary system are a positron and an electron mutually orbiting a moving center of gravity, 180 degrees out of phase, the path of motion lying in the orbital plane.
:.The path would be altered by a gravitational field because the system has mass. It would not be altered by an electrical field because the positron and the electron would be pulled in opposite directions, counteracting each other. This opposed attraction would rotate any orbital plane not parallel to the electrical field vector, thus depolarizing some polarized light. Depending on where the particles were in their orbit when passing through a single or double slit, they would experience varying degrees of interference from the fixed particles at the edges of the slits producing the same interference patterns produced by waves. When striking a material surface they would interact with the particles of the surface causing reemission of a pair of particles with the same energy (photoelectric effect). When we see things (other than looking directly at a source of light) we are seeing reemission rather than reflection. The orbiting system would interact with other particles at random positions in their orbit creating 'uncertainty' as to the resultant vectors.

-It would seem that your objective is to remove all “wave” objects and replace them with particles.
I have made similar assumptions.

//There are other observed attributes of light but I can't think of any more now.

-I can think of a few, but for the moment lets assume they can all be accounted for in your model.

As stated above I believe gravity is an attribute of matter. I recognize that action at a distance is not generally accepted, but I believe it exists as gravity and electromagnetism. I believe that these are the two basic forces, the others are derivatives. I believe that is why a magnetic monopole has not been found. It does not exist. Every magnetic field is the result of electric charges in motion. As for gravity it is eternal as is its host particle. Wherever the particle goes there goes the force.

In your model is gravity delayed or instantaneous?
That is does the earth accelerate toward where the sun actually is or toward where the sun appears to be visibly?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins