Force of Sub-Atomic Particles with Des Chamberlain

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP...How will a push force, from space, pressurize the interior? Higher at the center, then at the outsides...

please refer to my post placed 03-19-2004 02:12 PM

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If your talking about the second one down on this page, well, that is why I recomended that you get some information of the Earth's interior as clearly you have some misconceptions from what is currently studied, and understood as "known"...Fe core etc.

Apparently this

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain(SNIP)"The force caused by gravity on a non massive object points to the middle. That's why the pressaure is at the highest in the middle." (SNoP)

is your answer...Humm attraction to a (common) center is exactly what has been stated, so all vectors would point to the center, that proves Nothing repsective of a pushing force getting to the center and pressurizing it to such a degree, greater, that all of the surrounding matter above it...

It is a non-answer answer

 

[Des Chamberlain]

MRM
It's the expansion cause by trapped heat that in turn is born of elementry mollecules being bombarded by cosmic radiation that is causing the preasure.
When was the last time you journeyed to the centre of the Earth with a preasure gauge?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
MRM
It's the expansion cause by trapped heat that in turn is born of elementry mollecules being bombarded by cosmic radiation that is causing the preasure.
When was the last time you journeyed to the centre of the Earth with a preasure gauge?

Please It is MRP not MRM..."to the center of the Earth with a pressure gauge" NEVER, but I do understand how seismic works, seismic studies, and (all of the?) evidence that affords all of us...
aside from that, how does a "Push force from space" cause attraction between bodies?

PS have you ever been to the center of the Earth with a pressure Gauge cuase usually when people start with comments like that their arguments, well, they show that they are kinda lost...

 

[Gara]

wow i can't believe you are unable to follow his simple post.

im not saying i agree or disagree with it, I am just saying stop going around and around, he's already asnwered your questions.

 

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP.
how does a "Push force from space" cause attraction between bodies?

I'm Sorry to annoy you, I'm detecting some tension.

If you go to the first post there I have laid out the basic premise of the 'FIRESTAR EFFECT'.
To save you the bother it's all about mass acting as particle shields rarther than having some mythological power of gravity keeping things together.

It's a simple yet seemingly offensive concept.
Still, at least the Earth's not flat any more.

The psychology here is interesting though.
It seems that historically concepts have been built around ego based assumptions.
Earth is the centre of the universe!
Big is more attractive!

For heavens sake don't break the LAW!

Oh no! If someone susses it we'll all be out of a job!

I've not lost my way, it's just that you keep on trying to impress me with your education which I challenge as flawed;
I'm not saying you are flawed in anyway and respect the points you raise as it helps me to evisage ever more clearly how the universe is operating.
Sometimes to much education can be a blind alley if you can't take a step back and view this with your opened mind.
The points you raise are based on the gravity myth.

Exit night, enter light!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

well, see, I've read of the push from space theories and they cannot accommodate both of those needs, the need for the pressurizaion of the center higher, then the outer shell, and retain the ability to be attractive...especially since the present concepts of gravity give a metric that seems to be working just fine

So you had said it became heat, as it went in, right?...isn't heat expansive? not contractive, or something that would hold matter together, tends to make it want to fly apart...expand, right?

that would appear incongruent...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Gara
wow i can't believe you are unable to follow his simple post.

im not saying i agree or disagree with it, I am just saying stop going around and around, he's already asnwered your questions.

if that is in reference to me...answered my questions??...not even close

Wait, it will show...please, Des Chamberlain, Keep going, but it would be nice if you could refrain from 'pulping' gravity, as a theory, as it has served humanity, very well, so far...so let's just stick to the facts please...and pulping it is just a waste of space...

 

[Sariaht]

Pull is weird, push is better. Older to, I think.

 

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP.
well, see, I've read of the push from space theories and they cannot accommodate both of those needs, the need for the pressurisation of the centre higher, then the outer shell, and retain the ability to be attractive...especially since the present concepts of gravity give a metric that seems to be working just fine

MRP
I apologise for not being able to state this point with the required clarity.
I’ll try once more to elucidate the 'FIRESTAR EFFECT'

As there are very high temps and liquid states at the planets core level the elements are able to have some free movement.
The more effective particle absorbers (bearing in mind that the core is uniformly bombarded being shielded to the same degree in all aspects) will congregate at the centre with progressively less efficient particle absorbers forming distinct layers around the core.
The onion analogy.
The elements at the core are reacting more with the cosmic energy that is passing through the planet and is therefore at a higher pressure or is pressed harder.
At first you could imagine that the Earth would just keep attaining higher and higher pressures but if we bear in mind that cosmic energy will be passing through the core and interacting with elements as it exits the planets mass their will be an off setting of the push force, as the push force is now pushing out but not after giving up some of it's energy on its path to the core the net effect is that there is more push in than out.

If a state arises where the core matter of a body becomes so pressurised and dense that cosmic energy cannot pass through it, then it will lose the counter outward push force and the body will collapse into a black hole.

We need a model that works at all levels unless you believe that there are different sets of rules at quantum levels which I strongly refute.
The Gravity concept is misleading and erroneous.
Gravity is dead long live the ‘FIRESTAR EFFECT’

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
MRP
I apologise for not being able to state this point with the required clarity.
I’ll try once more to elucidate the 'FIRESTAR EFFECT'

As there are very high temps and liquid states at the planets core level the elements are able to have some free movement.
The more effective particle absorbers (bearing in mind that the core is uniformly bombarded being shielded to the same degree in all aspects) will congregate at the centre with progressively less efficient particle absorbers forming distinct layers around the core.
The onion analogy.
The elements at the core are reacting more with the cosmic energy that is passing through the planet and is therefore at a higher pressure or is pressed harder.
At first you could imagine that the Earth would just keep attaining higher and higher pressures but if we bear in mind that cosmic energy will be passing through the core and interacting with elements as it exits the planets mass their will be an off setting of the push force, as the push force is now pushing out but not after giving up some of it's energy on its path to the core the net effect is that there is more push in than out.

If a state arises where the core matter of a body becomes so pressurised and dense that cosmic energy cannot pass through it, then it will lose the counter outward push force and the body will collapse into a black hole.

We need a model that works at all levels unless you believe that there are different sets of rules at quantum levels which I strongly refute.
The Gravity concept is misleading and erroneous.
Gravity is dead long live the ‘FIRESTAR EFFECT’

So, the blue is your Non answer, as all it says it is is pressurized by 'passing cosmic energy', (actually explains about, well, nothing) the rest of the post is back to the 'pulping' gravity, without justification...

Please explain how the center is pressurized HIHGER then the surrounding areas...or stop posting, in responce to me...

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain

We need a model that works at all levels unless you believe that there are different sets of rules at quantum levels which I strongly refute.
The Gravity concept is misleading and erroneous.
Gravity is dead long live the ‘FIRESTAR EFFECT’

I have offered such a model:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15712

 

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP
You are teasing me!
read it again.
My reasons are clear.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
MRP
You are teasing me!
read it again.
My reasons are clear.

Not a chance bud, do you know what a cloud chamber is, if there was that much "particulate" activity it would have been found, by now, aside from that, you haven't explained how it occurs differentially, meaning increasing as it descends, you simply state "it pressurizes" without telling us how it pressurizes, even greater, further down...no M.O.

How do the particles pressurize half way down, and yet enough seem to get by that, to go even further down, and pressurize further down, even more, right to the Center where there needs be LOTs and LOTS of your particles, acting to pressurize the core to it's, reasonably measured, Near 4 Mbars?? (Really high Flux required...really high, ergo detectable!)

Wouldn't be Neutrinos, either, as there are several detectors looking at neutrino flux densities, and it simply isn't high enough...one here in Canada, in Sudbury, SNO...keep talking...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Cheese buddy...from your first page

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Push! Not pull.
Des Chamberlain
The Idea that I want to set out here is so beautifully simple, it just feels right it fits with how we see our physical universe, read on and you’ll see what I mean.
A mass (lump of rock) is floating in the vacuum of space far far away from any other masses. Sub-atomic particles that are moving through space pass through our mass as they are so teeny weenie that they can pass through atoms with no problem at all. But, some particles do collide with atoms occasionally and there are a lot of sub-atomic particles whizzing about so it all adds up.
Our mass is unaffected as the colliding sub-atomic particles are quite uniform at least in this part of creation. Let us give our mass a trajectory and velocity and call it an asteroid for example. As our asteroid moves through space it eventually approaches another mass, say The Earth. The Earth is bigger and so our asteroid is attracted to this much larger mass...
Hmmm. Let’s stop here for a moment and take a 180 degree conceptual shift and try again!
As our asteroid moves closer to the Earth it is shielded from the effects of sub-atomic particles that were destined to hit it but were absorbed by the mass of Earth. Our asteroid is also shielding the Earth in the same fashion but to a lesser degree as it’s not a particularly large asteroid and the Earth is much bigger. There exists a dearth of sub-atomic particles in the space that separates our asteroid from the Earth. The asteroid wants to move closer to the Earth to regain equilibrium, balance. Like a balloon being pushed through the air by a breeze.
As the distance between the asteroid and the Earth decreases the Earth grows larger on the horizon of the approaching asteroid. Its also Shields it from even more particles, the sub-atomic pressure decreases on the shielded side but remains constant on the side open to unimpeded space. They try harder to balance the forces of sub-atomic pressure acting on them. They are pushed towards each other or even sucked if you like; they both feel good to me!
The asteroids initial trajectory and velocity is such that its course is changed just the right amount to move into an orbit around the Earth where the centrifugal force equals the dearth of sub-atomic pressure that exists between them. Phew that was close;
I thought it was ‘Independence Day’ for a minute!
Now as you read this imagine that the Earth beneath you is shielding you from the same amount of sub-atomic pressure as your weight! Yes! We are simply pressed to the Earth and not pulled by this stuff that we call gravity which doesn’t exists and is just an ego based concept of big attracting small.
Don’t worry it won’t change a thing apart from making more sense.
Oh by the way, Gold is a heavier than you because it has a structure that can block more sub-atomic particles and is therefore a more affective shield.
We are acted upon in the same way as in the observed physical world it’s just that the forces are too small for our bulky atom based instruments to measure. They say you weigh less at night is that the effect of the moon blocking particles?
It’s not rocket science, it’s quantum physics.
Push! Not pull.

You have contradicted yourself, does that feel good to you too?

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
it would be nice if you could refrain from 'pulping' gravity, as a theory, as it has served humanity, very well, so far...so let's just stick to the facts please...and pulping it is just a waste of space...

That is just ridiculous. A few centuries ago people were executed for even suggesting that Earth is not the center of the solar system. Everyone believed the sun revolves around Earth, because that is what they were led to believe and no one could prove otherwise. Once the necessary tools were available we realized we were wrong.

Every generation of physicists wants to believe that their ideas and theories are the ultimate truth. It's the nature of man. But in 500 years, when we find the tools to really investigate gravity (or any other property of our world that currently cannot be examined), who knows what we might find?

I'm sorry but it is you that needs to be careful. Narrow mindedness is advancement's worst enemy. Do you think anyone would have dared to suggest 200 years ago that our world is made of tiny vibrating strings? How can you know for certain that in 200 years scientists will not look back and say "HAH! Pulling gravity... those fools"?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Push or pull? Is it a main question?
Result of action of any force it is a change (decrease or increase) of interval between objects.
More precisely, change of space is perceived as action of force.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Also, what is the maximum strength of a gravitational field? (unless you are saying there is an infinite density of these unobserved particles, gravity must have a finite upper limit)

Why must it have a finite limit? The strength of the gravitational field, according to this theory, depends on the mass of the shielding object (and the distance from that object). The larger the mass, the more "pushing particles" it absorbs. As long as there is no finite limit to mass, there is no finite limit to the amount of such particles that can be absorbed, and therefore no finite limit to the strength of the gravitational field.

(By the way, I am not trying to argue that the theory proposed by the thread author is indeed correct nor am I trying to support it. I am merely pointing out that the field still doesn't have to have a finite upper limit even by this theory.)

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Hi Buddy
The reason we don't float in a building is because the particles blocked by the matter in the building is very small compared with the particles absorbed by earth. It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large particle shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve! experiments are being carried out in deep mines in the north of England away from interferance on the planets surface which might help support this idea

Actually, even if the experiments show that your weight does decrease under Fort Knox, it wouldn't mean your theory is correct. The current theory of gravity also predicts, to the best of my knowledge, the same results. If you are beneath Fort Knox, the building will also pull you (or shield you, by your theory) with the force of $$G\frac{Mm}{d^2}$$, therefore decreasing your apparent weight.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
A mass (lump of rock) is floating in the vacuum of space far far away from any other masses. Sub-atomic particles that are moving through space pass through our mass as they are so teeny weenie that they can pass through atoms with no problem at all. But, some particles do collide with atoms occasionally and there are a lot of sub-atomic particles whizzing about so it all adds up.

I do have a question about your proposed theory. You seem to be describing the movement of such sub-atomic particles through the mass as random - some of them go through with no problems, and some of them collide with the atoms. But this cannot be true, since the force of gravity is constant and doesn't account for such random happenings (and while on average the difference would not be enormous, it would still exist), and modern experiements support this claim.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Chen the post directly above this one is back on track, (and asking the right question, in my opinion) as for my accusations of a pulping of gravity, read back somewhat and he is trying to, on the other hand I am not trying to force him to believe anything, yet he is the one 'denouncing' something fairly well established...I'd rather just rad the arguements/facts/ideas (as explained/expressed)...theories...I suppose, I have time restrictions, still, soooo...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be traveling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be traveling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?

It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.

Gravity is not instantaneous. If there are two massive objects far away from each other, and suddenly one of them begins to disappear, the other object will only notice a difference in the gravitational force after some time.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
Gravity is not instantaneous. If there are two massive objects far away from each other, and suddenly one of them begins to disappear, the other object will only notice a difference in the gravitational force after some time.

What do you mean under " begins to disappear"?
The massive object cannot simply disappear or suddenly appear.
What an experiment proves a delay of gravity action?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.

I think you have missed my stance on this one, I am not argueing this...try explaining it along the lines of Des Chamberlain's postulate of 'Push not pull', that is the responce I was looking for...God's Grace I knew the other part...

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
What do you mean under " begins to disappear"?
The massive object cannot simply disappear or suddenly appear.
What an experiment proves a delay of gravity action?

I cannot explain this well enough myself, so why don't you just read this:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
I cannot explain this well enough myself, so why don't you just read this:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

You also can find many other links on a theme “ speed of gravity” in the WEB . Most of these articles asserts the speed of gravity exceeds speed of light.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
You also can find many other links on a theme “ speed of gravity” in the WEB . Most of these articles asserts the speed of gravity exceeds speed of light.

Most? Have you read each and every single article and determined what most of them assert?

If the gravitational field did propagate faster than the speed of light, you could feel the effects of a mass at a certain point before you could see it at that point. And this contradicts general relativity according to which no information can travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity was indeed instantaneous, you could use it to transfer information over large distances with no delay whatsoever.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
Most? Have you read each and every single article and determined what most of them assert?

Did you do it?

If the gravitational field did propagate faster than the speed of light, you could feel the effects of a mass at a certain point before you could see it at that point.

Certainly!

And this contradicts general relativity according to which no information can travel faster than the speed of light.

General relativity deal with information? It is new. Gravity does not propagate. So this not contradicts GR.

If gravity was indeed instantaneous, you could use it to transfer information over large distances with no delay whatsoever.

Why no? Try out.
Only think up the corresponding gravitational detector.

 

[Chen]

General relativity deal with information? It is new. Gravity does not propagate. So this not contradicts GR.

"Gravity" does propagate. There is this thing called a gravitational field that every mass creates. This field, like the magnetic and electric fields, propagates through space at the speed of light.

http://www.essentialresults.com/article/Speed_of_gravity

In general relativity (GR), the field is elevated to the only real concern. The gravitational field is equated with the curvature of space-time, and propagations (including gravity waves) can be shown, according to this theory, to travel at a single speed, cg.

Measurements of various sorts, notably orbiting neutron stars, have shown that cg must be very close to c, the speed of light.

I repeat. $$c_g$$ must be very close to[, but not above,] $$c$$.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Newton's formulation of gravity is quite accurate for most practical purposes. It has a few problems with it though:

1. It assumes that changes in the gravitational force are transmitted instantaneously when positions of gravitating bodies change. However, this contradicts the fact that there exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted (speed of light in vacuum).

I repeat. [T]here exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummm, what was that I just read in a recent (older) copy of Discover magazine...Oh Yea, Pioneer has slowed down...is slowing down, has slowed down, the other one too, Voyager was it...seems as the are exiting(?) the Sun's influence, they are slowing down...gravity could be very different on galactic scale...

And the neutrino detector planted in the polar ice, recorded 1000 events in a year, even if off by several orders of magnitude that is not enough to pressurize this planet, not that I am aware of...and they are currently looking for the WIMPS...soooo, not to worry your assertions will be (dis?)proven(?) soon enough...

 

[Chen]

Sure, and Opportunity will also find little green Martians on Mars next week.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Chen
Sure, and Opportunity will also find little green Martians on Mars next week.

I thought that was last week...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW Chen it was the Oct 2003 issue of Discover Magazine, the cover story, on page 34, written by Tim Folger, in which it is mentioned about the Cold Dark Matter Search, (CDMS II) a detector in a (ballast) lead (+) lined room, in a mineshaft...looking for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) and mentioned the Physicist Moti Milgrom and his Idea of MOND which is MOdified Newtonian Dynamics which postulates that gravity, outside of our solar system, (ergo galactic) might just behave in a manner that we had never thought of...heck why would we have thought that? we have never tested it...well, now we do have that lovely piece(s) of accidental happiness (that is discovery) that are the two probes sent out looooong ago that are noticed to be slowing down (for no apparent/obvious/known/thought of/tested and checked for by the systems operators/ reason(s)...OK?

But I would love to know more about why they are green, the Martians...