GRAVITY EXPLAINED

Because the mass corresponds the energy. The physics is too difficult science for you, try to found aan easier job.

It does.

Also stars grow or shrink in size due to changes in their energy production and effects the balance of pressures they have, not due to mass increase or decrease.

Zephir,

I am finding it difficult to understand how "because the mass corresponds the energy" is a proof of fact that suns do not create mass from energy. Could you explain a little better. You are correct, understanding or even getting to facts with you is difficult. I have an easy job I just do this for relaxation. Was this your fact?

mmax,

Suns have a life cycle they grow until the iron giants smother the atomic reactions to the point of explosion. They start out with just the lightest of molecules H2 and end up with iron red giants. Iron is allot more dense than H2 and red giants grow to enormous sizes. Even if you are correct and some suns lose mass (I do not believe that without an explosion) others grow. How do they grow? If they were not producing their own H2, the H2 would all be consumed. This is being ignored because it does not fit with current theory.

BUT THE MASSENERGY GENERATING THE FIELD FOR THE MOST PART IS MADE UP OF PINPOINT MATTER. ONLY A LIGHT WAVES MASSENERGY CAN BE SAID TO BE SPREAD OUT. MATTER IS CONCENTRATED ENERGY.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

Nick,

I am going to have to ask you where is your proof?

Mass is entropy not energy. If mass were energy perpetual motion would be possible and the laws of thermodynamics could be broken.

The density gradients of Aether foam can be really considered as composed from zero dimensional particles, the only problem is, these particles can be always considered as the highly compactifed density fluctuations of the another inertial environment. Here's no apparent lower limit for the size of such particles, just the speed of energy spreading, which limits their direct observations and force interactions.



The AWT "solves" this conceptual problem by assumption, the inertia density of Aether is infinite and the phase transformation are shielding this infinite mass/energy density from us. It's relatively more simple to hide huge inertia by using of huge energy, then to asume it's creation from nothing. Therefore, the Aether existence cannot be observed, just considered by causality requirement, until we found some other mechanism how to derive the inertial environment from scratch.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Mar 17 2007, 10:29 PM

I just posted before reading this, my comment about the possibility of matter entering the sun and becoming part of its process. I do not see where I am at any odds with Zephir and his model, and in fact I must concur. I have not studied this in any detail, but I think we closely agree on this issue. I dont know why my attention was called to this, except to point out that I am not alone in this approach to these emerging concepts. Although I concur on this, I have not yet been able to complete my comments on the high temperature particle absorption by a hot cosmic body like the sun. I have, however, only openly commented on the possibility of the black body accretion and the possibility of absorption of energy and or mass by bodies like planets. There, I lack proof, but the point was that there is necessarily, either an increase in temperature, or the increase of mass by the Compton et. al. relations. I think these are possibly co-joint with the probablity going into more mass. I have with held comments in this area and have tried to extend the mass synthesis to particle physics; an endless task..
Zephir's comments are not now in front of me but I hope I hit the right mark. wbw

Well I'd assume mass would be lost due to the fact that that it emits radiation, but that amount of loss would be miniscule at best. To be honest I'm not sure what the total change in mass would be over time. Off the top of my head, stars "grow" in size because they mainly go through different stages of "burning", or more specifically other types of fusion take over while former ones fall to the backseat. These secondary sources of fuel (He, CNO cycle, etc) are less efficient and the star's outer layers have to expand in order to keep the forces in equilibrium.

With more massive stars, it was possible for them to keep undergoing fusion until it's byproduct was iron, and since iron atoms are not "fusable" there was no more energy source at the core, setting the forces on the star into permanent imbalance and they either exploded, imploded, exploded then imploded, imploded then exploded, or whatever (I can't remember the different deaths of different sized stars).

The missing hydrogen is not being ignored at all, because there is no missing hydrogen. Stars, much like the universe, is something like 90% hydrogen, so there's plenty enough H2 in the star to last it for billions of years, through fusion.

This post has been edited by mmax on Mar 18 2007, 07:19 AM

mmax,

I saw a study questioning the same thing I am now. It suggested that if the sun were made up of coal that the fuel would only last for 20 million years at the current rate of energy production. Generally people do not dwell on facts that do not fit their beliefs or they are willing to believe there is an explanation that someone came up with. How much do you know about the life cycle of a star? How much do our top scientists know? We see a snap shot and have to make it up from there.

The stars cannot generate the matter, face it... It's unbelievable, which nonsenses can some people advocate to substantiate their claims. The fact, the stars are expanding periodically during their lifetime is just given by the lost of their mass.

The matter is formed by "spongy" particles in dynamic equilibrium of attractive and repulsive forces. If you'll remove some particles from pile compressed by theirs weight, you can experience the expansion of this pile or even explosion due the releasing of the pressure and rearrangement of particle geometry. The explosions of supernovas are the consequence of quantum mechanic effects, in fact.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Mar 18 2007, 12:40 PM

Zephir wrote:

OK I think I see what you are getting at now for the first time you have made it clear.

Correct me if I am not understanding what you mean.

Lets say you fill a large auditorium with restaurant plates, stacked as high as possible one on top of the other.

Some of the plates have a magnetic N and some a South pole. Maybe some have both.

If each plate can move by some force, the system may react in organized chaos.In other words the confusion is caused by reactions from physical and magnetic reasons. (it looks Chaotic to us because we can not follow the patterns by our viewing it.

So according to your images of spongy motion, the plates will have interactions that cause change and the change will cause more change, and so the motion will continue the move and change places.

How can this change of weight and particles relate to what you are saying about the sun?

The pile should compress if you remove plates and let them freely move about the flexible space between other moving plates.

If the action of removal of particles is able to cause expansion, how do you explain what happens when a coal mine caves in?

My reason to try and follow this is because at some point I would like to introduce my theory of the sun and how it creates heat. I first need to understand what everyone understands about the Big Guy in the sky.

Fortunately, this process can be modeled easily even on the weak computer. Here's a "2D sphere" formed by mutually attracting and repulsing particles.



If you remove some particles from the "sphere", the sphere will expand, because it's in metastable state, when the attractive force are prevailing the repulsive one. It demonstrates clearly, all the observable matter is just metastable state of Aether. We aren't supposed to be here at all! The existence of the particles of matter is the result of head to head collisions and subsequent fast radiative cooling of the spherical zones of Aether matter, colliding mutually during inflation. This is why the LHEC experiments planned are so dangerous. We are sitting on the pile of metastable explosive, which just waits to its opportunity to explode into radiation again.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Mar 18 2007, 02:13 PM

Dear Zephir,

You don't know what a DeBroglie wave is. Here, look at Wikipedia on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis

Also look at group velocity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity

These are both superluminal situations.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

Look before you leap, dear Zephir.

Neil

Dear Zephir,

You are completely wrong about your supposed "hazards" deriving from your interpretations of the physics involved with the LHEC experiment. That is because your basis is wrong; your foundational views regarding aether physics are wrong. There are innumerable considerations which you haven't even touched on during your explorations. Your model is wrong, and your imagined LHEC "catastrophy" will only occur in your head, out of all the heads on the planet.

What's wrong with your model? I don't know where to start. You've gotten a lot of things right, but just as many things wrong. You MUST consider all the possible alternative explanations for each and every case, AND you must develop or obtain existing experimental evidence when developing your hypothesis, which you haven't done. The LHEC will NOT surpass any of the critical vacuum thresholds for dv/dt, so there is no particular hazard, as long as you don't stick your face into the colliding beam volume. I assure you, that would be most unpleasant.

I like many aspects of your model, but many important and relevant discoveries have not yet been made by you. You must be very discerning and be VERY careful to distinguish your personal mental fantasies from actual facts.

Just because some logical construction makes sense to you, that does not make that construction a fact, nor do logics in general, ever deserve to be treated as facts. Remember, Logic can be used to prove, or disprove, absolutely any position, on any topic. LOGICAL proof does NOT represent physical evidence, nor can it EVER be considered as fact.

Neil

Zephir,

I know you believe in the big bang and have to consider the ramifications of expansion and the amount of mass is finite. I am not burdened with that belief. I have my beliefs based more on observation.

I have never observed this in fact I have observed just the opposite. Suns expand and since you cannot believe suns make their own H2 you have to believe when you remove particles the sphere will expand.

You told me I should find some other job if physics was too hard for me. If removing particles will make a sphere expand you may be correct but you could tell me there were witches and warlocks that would not make me believe in them. You could show me pictures of witches and warlocks but I would not believe in them. Show me the mechanics of how taking particles away from a sphere will make it expand? I am at a loss here.