You have found a result that lies on the E/M scale. If it is found on the E/M scale then it must be Electricity or Magnetic. Your rules define this.

The rules of gravity create the problems that point out that gravity as a concept cannot exist.

1) Hydrogen and Helium are not affected by gravity. Thus their masses push against larger masses.

2) Data about mass exceeds the speed of light. The speed of gravity must be instantaneous to exist.

3) Gravity has no provisions for E/M. Equations of gravity do not involve E/M.

About the process. Something happens at 7tv that may support an anomalous event. But it is important to note that this event does not occur on all tests at 7tv. The hunt for the glue that bind mass to gravity would be everywhere since it is the most important concept of current physics. Every result would show events at 7tv.

Peer Review. People. If the model does not change it is either correct or being funded.

The rules of gravity create the problems that point out that gravity as a concept cannot exist.

1) Hydrogen and Helium are not affected by gravity. Thus their masses push against larger masses.

2) Data about mass exceeds the speed of light. The speed of gravity must be instantaneous to exist.

3) Gravity has no provisions for E/M. Equations of gravity do not involve E/M.

About the process. Something happens at 7tv that may support an anomalous event. But it is important to note that this event does not occur on all tests at 7tv. The hunt for the glue that bind mass to gravity would be everywhere since it is the most important concept of current physics. Every result would show events at 7tv.

Peer Review. People. If the model does not change it is either correct or being funded.

## 8 comments:

a) Hydrogen and Helium are absolutely affected by gravity. Where did you hear otherwise? And don't tell me it's because of balloons...

b) That gravity must act instantaneously is a very out-dated concept. It's unclear what your "data about mass exceeds the speed of light" reference means.

c) They did not find a result that "lies on the E/M scale". They found an increased number of events that correspond to a particle at a particular point on the MASS scale. I'm confused about your E/M reference. Are you saying this because mass is measured in electron-volts? That's just a way to provide a point of reference for a unit of energy... nothing more. That's like arguing that things that have horsepower must have the properties of horses.

Hi,

Thanks for reading my work. I want to take some time to respond to each of your points.

I made a mistake in discussing other models. At this point in the life cycle of this model I should be consolidating information that shows how data travels in and through each boson and how magnetic data affects dark matter.

Now I must disprove gravity again. Using observation we can look at the perfection of orbital dynamics which uses at it's base, gravity. Orbital dynamics requires error correction. Why, because we don't understand motion better. We are just more capable of error correction.

If you have the time I wrote a note called Disproof of Gravity. It is linked on the right side of the blog. An overall picture of the model is described in the abstract.

When you read the papers and the abstract you can see why gravity is not a necessary concept.

Thanks again and I will respond to each point.

Aaron

I've read the paper, and don't find it to make any compelling arguments.

---

To point (1) in the paper, helium balloons do experience the downward pull of gravity, but it is only one contribution. The other comes from the pressures of the atmosphere, and the combination results in a net upward force. Gravity is contributing, but it's only part of the puzzle.

Point (2) in the paper is a mix of arguments...

First, density is not 3-dimensional, nor is mass 0-dimensional. Both are single dimensional scalar quantities. They're just real numbers, and all real numbers are single-dimensional. To think otherwise is a misuse of the term "dimension", which was the subject of a response to your previous post. This has been raised by commenters several times on your blog, and I haven't seen a thorough response.

You also bring up [f=ma] and its dimensionality. Force and acceleration are vectors of equal dimension. Mass is a scalar. A scalar times a vector is a well-defined mathematical operation, and results in another vector of the same dimensionality, and so the equation is well behaved. Maybe your theory redefines the meaning of those terms (not sure, just playing what if), but that wouldn't matter. The equation wasn't defined for use in your theory, so that doesn't invalidate it. As mainstream physics defines f, m, and a, it is a valid equation.

You mention that constants are arbitrary corrections to make equations fit, which is absolutely not so. Equations model the relationships among variables of a system. The constants are only there to correct units... they, by their very definition, can not affect relationships. For example, if x = c z^2, then we say that x varies with the square of z. No value of the constant c can alter that relationship, and if we choose "natural" units of x and z such that c == 1, then we can eliminate c entirely... it's only there to translate units.

Yes... quantum-scale gravity and the standard model are at war. This changes nothing about macro gravity. Two slow objects of large size relative to the Plank length will obey Newton to a rediculous level of accuracy. To fast objects of large size relative to the Plank length will obey Einstein to a rediculous level of accuracy.

Point (3) is invalid and you actually accepted this in a comment on your blog. Gravity is well defined for an arbitrary number of objects, as forces obey superposition. What is hard to do is predict the stability of an N-body system, due to gravitational systems having the properties of chaotic systems (meaning small changes in initial condition results in large deviations how the system evolves). This doesn't invalidate anything... it just is.

Point (4) merely states that large systems have more contributions than gravity alone. Yes. That doesn't invalidate gravity any more than it invalidates electromagnetism or the nuclear forces. Everything has a part in large systems and modelling/prediction is hard.

Points (5) and especially (6), which just lists a bunch of topics without explanation, aren't focused enough to respond to here.

---

In the end, if you have a theory that replaces gravity, great. I support you in exploring it. But I don't believe you have any ground to claim that existing gravitational theories such as Newton's or GR is invalid in their domain of applicability (read: macro interactions).

And you didn't respond to points (b) or (c).

Thank you for commenting on my blog. I never wish to argue, I only wish to show a new method.

Gravity is a concept. One that was devised in a environment that was so horribly defiant to change that Kepler published his books after he died. So gravity is attractive. It fills the God dynamic. It fills those earth-centric demands of the time.

The purpose of the blog is to explore the model describing an information/vibration based system. I did need to show why I thought the current systems did not sufficiently explain physics. Gravity and Particles are dismissed in this model for vibration and information.

Mass is a scalar, density is an equation that shows all the information in an area. Density cannot be expressed as a scalar. In physics the density of an object is reduced to a mass to just make it easier. All that vital information is lost to reduction. Now the user has no idea what the object was. It was just a mass. Salt or lead, don't know, it is just 64.

A vector cannot pass through a matrix. Only a field or a force can pass through a matrix. This is defined by Maxwell and others. Using vectors in matrices fails in real matrix algebra world problems. You get a bunch of lines around a bulge instead of a flowing field.

Constants are arbitrary and change when there is a need.

The problem with gravity is that I cannot propose new problems because of the complete refusal to set aside current belief to examine a new one. Here is a problem that has troubled me since I was a child. I read in the book "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator" that the moon might not orbit the earth. It may follow the earth. The author gave a series of equations and a calculator series solution so the reader could follow along. A lunar calendar based on an elliptical orbit following the earth. Big problem. This model explains the theory of how that works.

This model is able to concurrently use and produce results for all systems. This model is capable of transforming all bosonic information at the same time regardless of types of interactions across all of dark energy. This model requires subatomic information to change atomic information and upwards.

This model explains how a comet can have two tails; one a junk tail in the direction opposite of the direction of travel, and one a charged junk tail in the direction opposite the direction of the sun's electrical discharge.

I do not wish to make gravity any part of the discussion on this site. I would rather discuss why and at what ratios gluons of elements expand or contract at a certain temperature will allow mixtures to form.

I want gravity to be a part of history and scientist expand their thinking to cover the observations of their amazing new tools not the theory of their predecessors beliefs.

Thanks

Aaron

> I never wish to argue, I only wish to show a new method.

Argument is a pillar of reason... no sense in avoiding it.

> Mass is a scalar, density is an equation that shows all the information in an area ...

If your definition of density is anything other than "mass divided by volume", then it isn't density... it's something new you've created, and you might want to coin a new term for it (likewise for your use of "dimension"). Density is already defined to mean exactly mass per unit volume.

> A vector cannot pass through a matrix. Only a field or a force can pass through a matrix. This is defined by Maxwell and others. Using vectors in matrices fails in real matrix algebra world problems. You get a bunch of lines around a bulge instead of a flowing field.

I assume this is in response to my [f=ma] comments, which came from your paper. In that equation, there are no matrices, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning them. [f] and [a] are both vectors, and because of that, the argument posed in that section of your paper on gravity does not hold.

> Constants are arbitrary and change when there is a need.

While constants can indeed be assigned any value (absent empirical evidence), they can NOT have arbitrary affects on the equations they're contained in.

Basically, Newton's equation says three things...

1) Gravity is proportional to the product of the masses.

2) Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses.

3) Gravity acts along the vector between the masses.

It is mathematically impossible for the value of the gravitational constant can affect these statements. For that, you'd need a whole new theory.

> The problem with gravity ...

If gravity is a diversion, feel free to set it aside. But you are actively claiming to be able to "disprove" it, which is why it keeps coming up in conversation.

> This model is able to concurrently use and produce results for all systems ...

It would be interesting to see an actual formal derivation of some result in the context of your theory.

> I do not wish to make gravity any part of the discussion on this site.

No problem. Either remove your paper, correct it, or at least stop referring people to it.

Thanks for commenting. It is nice to have a modest conversation about these topics.

We need to agree with a simple beginning. The universe is a matrix. This means information can travel in x,y,z directions over time.

Mass is the reduction of all the information about an object to a number of measure. This is a simplification of the real process which is an enhanced density equation. Which now you have me working on. Thanks?

Those two things are why I think physics has such difficulties.

Aaron

> We need to agree with a simple beginning. The universe is a matrix.

In what way is the Universe a matrix? Mathematically, spaces are not matrices. Maybe you're suggesting that space is 3D matrix with infinite indices x, y, and z; but matrices have countably many cells, while space can have uncountably many points... it doesn't work.

Unless you're suggesting that space is discrete, and x/y/z are Integers.

Can you clarify?

Hi, Thanks for responding.

Yes, space is discrete. This is described in my paper on Dark Energy.

It is required to time for bosons. Each boson increments from each Dark Energy Ruleset it passes through.

It is required to explain observations like the Zeeman Effect. Photons slow or stop their rotation in the presence of a magnetic field. This explains gravitational lensing.

Thanks,

Aaron

Post a Comment