"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[tinman]

I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also? (I've read and reread the equations of torque and I still can't get it)

Here's most of a structure for a particle.... though since most aren't programmers it might as well be alpha-centurian....


// I use RCOORD for a floating point value, but then can switch to double/float for all computations
struct particle
{
   int frame;  // used for collision resolution.

   RCOORD size;  // this might be extended someday/ but let's start spherical.  default 1.0

   RCOORD mass;  // default of 1.0

   RCOORD location[DIMENSIONS]; // where the mass is; affects other masses.

   RCOORD velocity[DIMENSIONS]; // normalize to get heading

   RCOORD acceleration[DIMENSIONS]; // has to be maintained for magnetic falloff D^3

       RCOORD up[DIMENSIONS];  // up (what spin is relative to when crossed with velocity?)

       RCOORD spin; // a scalar of rotation around the normalized heading.  It is a rate of change.

   void (*gravity_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/d applied as change to velocity which is t^2

   RCOORD charge; // default of 1.0
   void (*charge_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/(d), applied as acceleration, so distance will square


   // location is shared between mass and charge


        RCOORD magnetism; // apply a scalar ... default of 1.0 - the strength of it's field
   RCOORD north[DIMENSIONS];  // north (or south)  separate from velocity direction.  In a digital world it would be possible for north and another particles inverted north could be parallel, and no spin applied...
   void (*magnetic_torque )( RCOORD *result_spin, RCOORD *north1, RCOORD separation, RCOORD *north2 );


   void (*magnetic_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function default to 1/d

        void (*deflection)( RCOORD **result, RCOORD *velocity ); // a computation for when one particle's size overlaps another particle's size, also needs parameters like spin, depth of collision (ie. how hard it hit)
};

started to sketch the idea an ended up with lots of text in an image; very sorry....


which ends with... how do I compute the rotation?  And then.

Does the direction of rotation affect motion in other ways than during colision?  Does a force applied to a direction have to account for the spin and cause a gyroscopic deflection of the axis of spin?

There is a seperate axis of spin from the magnetic moment; so the poles could be rapidly spinning around the equator instead of aligned with their direction.... When attempting to align with other influential particles then.  Since the pole effect is really manifested as a size from the origin, this rotation should cause a linear shift in velocity too?  Or is it a torque relative to the origin?

Oh; but then this is totally classical thinking, allowing for action at a distance as just givens for the system.  Does everything really have to be cause and effect?  or can we just take it that two particles can't occupy the same space etc.

It seems pretty arbitrary that two different objects of different size, composition, and mass would fall at the same rate subject to gravity; seems much more like a 'and that's the way it is'.

While considering initial conditions, I figured I would start all particles at the origin, and allow the collision resolution to displace them; but that's big-bang sort of thinking...

And then there's the idea that a particle isn't a thing but somehow becomes 'energy'.  Energy is thermic?  It just imparts motion on other things what things, why?  is it energy as in watts?, so suddenly without any sort of conductor it would make a light?  no... so what really is E?

does it have a location?  Does it just lose size but maintain charge, et al. ?  does it have infinite size instead, causing displacements of other matters? 

My simulation so far seems to lack enough to model particles, since additionally a StrongForce that is another binding force...

What about vacuum, does the lack of particles provide a influence on the particles; or is it just a higher pressure that drives particles to scatter?  Pressure?  Why because of electrostatics repulsion... well that wouldn't account for neutral overall conglomerate particles like dust... could just be the entropy of the collisions, followed by momentum... so anyway I guess there is no natural suction...

but other than simplifying the complex interactions into expressible equations and quantifications... does all this quantum theory really 'fix' anything broken with the classics?

I guess then there's this stuff called light that's not a particle... but can't we all just live in the dark?    Is this light the result of collision? does it take from the velocity? not really; lasers are pumped energy (again, that word) to make electrons bounce shells, which translates into photons emitted... and like magnet fields..., light causes other particles to receive energy also (something like as it began, so does it end)  (as in, making a current flow, causes other currents to flow in other things, as a result of...)

Masses of particles can themselves be combined as particles; but might better be called cells;

Alright I've rambled enough

The reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass. It is how gravity reacts with atoms.As all things(well not all)that have mass are made from atoms,and gravity reacts on those atoms in the same way,then we know why the feather falls at the same speed as the marble.
There are things that ofcourse dont have atoms that still have mass,and an example would be a neutron star.These have no kind of distinguishable atoms,but this is a clasic example of man not knowing all there is to know !yet!.

Put aside what you have been taught in school about our motion in space,as that is incorrectly described. Remember,we DO NOT orbit the sun as such,infact our motion throughout space just happens to resemble the DNA strand or helical rotation-in more ways than one.

The video below is a close representation of our actual motion throughot our galaxy.
The truth can some times amaze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

[d3x0r]

That IS a good animation: [size=78%]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws[/size][/font]



re the book; having now read it; I did do all of that work and pondering before receveing your mail...


but: if I may an exerpt:


"Here is the enlightening discovery of the stability of the atom: consider the following; the electron, which is electrically attracted to the more massive proton nucleus in a simple hydrogen atom, is moving through the cosmos at 600,000 metres per second with the rest of the atoms of the galaxy (referred to as "cosmic motion"), travelling in the same direction as the atoms' proton nucleus. Therefore the distance and direction of the more massive proton motion is superimposed on the less massive electron, and as such that they must be both considered as moving together through the cosmos in the same physical direction. "


and in opposite charge are repelling fields in all directions...


I started such a discussion on physicsforums.com (?); was quite a mistake, but a hint of other direction to go was electric universe - thunderbolts; which neglects a medium, I objected that the theory really was electric as a secondary; but anyway....


I guess I was mixing some ideas in my equations; the falloff of magnetic force is 1/d^3, or the volume of the area of sphere of radius distance... electrostatic and (I dunno I still think gravitation is a basic field itself) gravity falloff at 1/d^2, or the surface of the area of the sphere of radius distance... which is a wonderful balancing mechanism. given that one gets stronger faster, and the other gets weaker slower. 

back to reading   Oh wasn't much mroe.


That makes it somewhat disheartenting... if travelling... fairly fast, to a system that is backwards in the rotation of the galaxy will be very hard as particles begin to unravel.... taking a bad left turn at albequeque could be really bad; or something

[d3x0r]

I will share a criticism though.  A lot of the numerical math ratios are composed of simple numbers that are just a number decimal 0's to shift, and a simple integer... 600000 = 6 and 5 decimal shifts; etc
7000, 12000, 3000...


a lot of it could line up as coincidence; but proving that hydrogen is different on venus or mars from what it is on earth could be an interesting thing

[verpies]

re: the question you didn't understand; doesn't matter.  Just a suggestion that putting a magnet near the wire modifies the expected path;

It does. It is called the Hall Effect.

But isn't abstracting the behavior of particles to an external particle still making that external particle react to force at a distance? It just pushes the bump in the rug down in one spot, but it pops up in another? 

I am delighted that you have noticed that.  Formally it is called "adding another level of indirection" - a phrase you should be familiar with if you are programming in real computer languages (not some uncompilable pseudocode like Java).

I had you read Mathis' papers because he is mostly correct and all of his interactions are mechanical and he is not a proponent of action at a distance other than bombardment or collisions of his B-photons (which he sometimes calls "the charge field").

Where Mathis is deficient at, is that he does not delve into the nature of his photons and B-photons (bombarding photons) he just stops his logical breakdown of the universe there.  He can go up from them but not down, e.g he shows how adding orthogonal spins to photons converts them into electrons, and adding even more spins converts electrons into protons and neutrons - the very building blocks of matter.

In a way it is understandable because every theory must start from some axiom - a simple fundamental entity or entities that can define all the other observable entities, through different relationships between them.  In other words something that just is.

For example the CGS system starts from the centimeter, gram and second and proceeds do define all the other measurable quantities (e.g. volt) from them.
The SI system defines the following as base units: metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, mole.
Furthermore each of these systems defines some fundamental entities such as quarks or electrons or photons and asking any question about their compositions as an axiomatic no, no.

Mathis, starts by placing his axiom at the photon and goes up from there, I on the other hand place my axiom much lower and go up from there.
Read this and guess what my axioms are.

It makes the point of observation a mechanical byproduct, but the virtuals still go towards a mass... or clear out electrostatic and allow gravity to attract... Or otherwise experience force at distance...

To me virtual particles and intrinsic spins are just crutches for simple minds and belong in the same basket of wrong ideas as big-bang.
However, I agree that the "point of observation" is very important and makes a great difference, but it is not a "point" of the Cartesian coordinate system that most people are so blindly attached to.  That system is emergent of something much more fundamental.

but if the electrostatic was increased between N-N poles, wouldn't you get a sensation of a charge field? (like a van degraff) which generates a large electrostatic field

No, because Van de Graaf generator produces a gradient of electric potential (like a pressure in the "charge field").  Gradients can be felt, pressure alone - not.

I'll throw  this out too, if gravity is driven by these virtual particles, how do they escape the gravity and get back out and around to continue pushing a mass?

Gravity is not driven by any particles. If anything, bombardment by such particles opposes gravity (subtracts from it)

Or is every gravity source essentially a black hole? 

Gravity does not have a source.  Gravity is a 3D pseudoscalar motion of every atom (I'll get back to it later).  It is this motion that creates the 3D Euclidean geometric reference system of our daily lives.  You can attach the origin of a Cartesian XYZ coordinate system to each atom, but they will still be a part of one big Euclidean reference system, since the only difference between them will be in translation (or rotation) - both Euclidean transforms.
Now pay attention:  Just because something is not moving in that Cartesian XYZ coordinate system does not mean that is not moving in a reference system of a different type.

(Added) I see.  Gravity isn't a virtual photon force.  It's an impossibility. 

Correct.  Anything that is called "virtual" might as well be called imaginary and unreal.

If bodies are expanding to keep pushing against you, and to... no actually the theory makes no sense what so ever. 

It does make sense but not in the way you imagine.
If all matter was expanding, then you'd never know it because your eyes and your ruler that you use to measure distances would be expanding too and the proportions would remain the same. 
Now the puenta:  Your perception of 1D distance, 2D areas and 3D volume (measures of space as you view it) is not only related to the distance between your eyes, but also to interval (a.k.a. distance in time).

You should always consider how distance in space is effected by the motion between the observer and observed and not limit your consideration to motion in space only but also to their motion in time too.[/quote]

[verpies]

OK, I get what you state. Looks to me we have a rather similar concept of space. Except that for me this space could be filled uniformly of "something".

An this "something" is made of what?

More precisely and to go all the way along in my present paradigme, I start with METAPHYSICS, and specifically ONTOLOGY:
As I see it:
• SPACE IS A METAPHYSICAL CONSIDERATION, AS TIME IS ALSO.
As in eastern very old concept,
• REALITY IS AN CONSIDERATION OF EXISTENCE. THINGS EXIST BECAUSE WE AGREE THEY EXIST.

I do not want to discuss metaphysics, but only physics.

If you are considering time and space as metaphysical and you predicate their existence on ontological belief or consentual agreement, then we have noting left to discuss.

If you meant that the same space and time can appear differently to different observers than we have a lot to discuss.