Ethereal Discontinuity Blog
A Blog about a Theory of Everything!
J. P. Perezchica
June 2009
A Hylopathic Interpretation of Electric Field Interaction
Sat, 4th February, 2012
What I'm suggesting is that particles, like humans, use a sensory language to perform the physics that they do, which I believe is BINARY (pleasure/pain) and regulates force-matter interaction depending on the mass and charge of the particle type. (I also believe the language has mechanical origins dealing with the stress components in an aether-like medium [space-time medium; whatever term you prefer], but the explanation for this will have to wait until I have it listed on its own post.)
Humans and their individual, intricate pieces always seem to obey physical laws, without exception. But, consciously, when humans interact with their environment, or "know" something is going on inside of them, they do so through sentience. We feel it (the environment or the event in our body), we taste it, smell it, see it or hear it. And these sensations are biased and motivational. That is to say, when we feel something very hot pressing against our leg, we pull the leg back. When we feel something enjoyable on our arm, we may keep it there to continue experiencing the sensation. When we taste something great and our stomaches are hungry, we are encouraged to eat it. When we taste something disgusting, we stop eating it and may even gag. When we listen to a charming sound, we may continue listening to it. When we hear a horrifically loud noise, we are encouraged to get away from it or find the source to turn it off. The same is true of sight or sound. There are pleasurable sensations and unpleasurable sensations (and also what appear to be neutral sensations) with each type of sense! Our senses are biased and motivate us to do something!
In the context of evolution, we say that the "bias" associated with these sensations is intended to keep us alive and somewhat healthy, as well as the other people in our living groups we care about. But this doesn't explain the origin of the sensations, only how they cooperate to keep us alive! (You see, the origin of the sensations would be physical and chemical; how and why they cooperate is a consequence of natural selection and evolution in an organism's historical evolutionary pathway.) But these sensations, when we experience them, make us respond a certain way.
HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART:
Humans use the sensations they experience (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell) to interact with the environment. When they respond to physical and chemical stimuli (from the environment) humans experience it as a sentient experience (sensation) and respond accordingly, which is totally consistent with what is permitted in physical law. Thus the CAUSE AND EFFECT each AWARE human action participates in is associated with sensation.
Well then, if humans are matter and an orchestra of forces working on it (and I'm assuming nothing more) then particles, too, operate according to the biased and motivational nature of sentient language . . . pleasure and displeasure, or "pleasure and pain"!
As we know from our own sentient human experiences, PLEASURE motivates the behaivor to continue, while PAIN encourages it not to.
THIS IS IT:
If humans are matter with an orchestra of forces working on it, and matter, like humans, uses a sentient pain and pleasure dichotomic language to perform physics, then:
WHEN TWO PARTICLES OF THE SAME ELECTRIC CHARGE (BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME ELECTRIC MAGNITUDE) APPROACH EACH OTHER, THEIR INCREASING REPULSION IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASING SENSATION OF PAIN (A DISCOURAGING SENSATION), WHICH MOTIVATE THE TWO PARTICLES TO ACCELERATE IN THE NET OPPOSITE VECTOR DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO ONE ANOTHER.
and WHEN TWO PARTICLES OF OPPOSITE ELECTRIC CHARGES (BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME ELECTRIC MAGNITUDE) APPROACH EACH OTHER, THEIR INCREASING ACCELERATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASING SENSATION OF PLEASURE (AN ENCOURAGING SENSATION), WHICH MOTIVATE THE TWO PARTICLES TO CONTINUE TO ACCELERATE TOWARD EACH OTHER.
This is the way a pain/pleasure dichotomic language would operate with charged particles in an electric field (Electric force interactions); it would also help explain some (if not all) of the biased and motivating nature observed with sentient experiences among organisms and why they're linked with physical and chemical activity. (Sentiency and force-interactions as inseperately coupled.)
My thinking is that a pain/pleasure dichotomic language should be associated with all force-interactions, for whatever force may be involved (with the possible exception of gravity, which may not be dichotomic), and that the magnitude of the force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the pleasure/plain sensation at the location in the field. Also, near-zero force magnitude in any field is associated with near-zero sensation (thus a preservation in inertia; [sensation, and thus consciousness, is only associated with changes in inertia. Sensation is associated with active forces]). Gravity, being the weakest force, would have the weakest sensation associated with it, and any fields of force experiencing near-zero-magnitudes would experience near-zero sensations.
I'm also suggesting that the known 5 human senses (and all the senses that exist in organisms) are reducible and can be unified into a single universal sense, that saturates the cosmos in all matter-force interactions, which, in this post, I'm refering to as a pain/pleasure dichotomic (or binary) language. (Though sight is associated with electro-magnetic radiation and not a field of force encompassing matter, and specifically deals with waves in an aether [spacetime] medium directly striking matter and creating a turbulent apparition on the particle being struck. [COLOR has already been shown to be associated with the frequency of electro-magnetic radiation with visible light, whereas BRIGHTNESS is associated with wave amplitude.] Nevertheless, the impact electro-magnetic radiation has on individual particles should still be experienced as either pleasure/pain, because of radiation's capacity to accelerate particles.)
This is my hylopathic hypothesis for matter-force interactions.
Particles interact with the world and speak a language that is the basis for all sentient experiences in complex biological organisms, as biological organisms ARE the particles that constitute them--and the language is PHYSICALLY EXPRESSED, without knowledge to the particles, as matter-force interactivity!
This is the way collective consciousness works I think
Sat, 4th February, 2012
I posted this some time ago in a science forum:
Particles are literally sensing their environments and each other. Greater sensation indicates greater awareness, and in this way two distant particles with forces acting on each other behave as a single-sensing system. (To sense is to be made aware of environment, thus one with it). Obviously increased distance reduces the sentient magnitude a particle has on another (calculatable by how much force is acting on the particle!). It would also be true that all matter in the universe is in apparent sentient communication with each other (as long as an applicable force exist between the material bodies), but sentient magnitude between specific bits of matter would be dependent on physical components that govern force interaction (e.g. distance, mass, charge, the speed of force interaction, c, etc.), so that closer conglomerates of matter would experience greater sensation (and thus greater physical effect) than matter situated at relatively larger distances (unless the force between the respective matter was smaller) thus relieving the apparent conflict between collective consciousness and single consciousness.
The evolution of a branched, corded nervous system would have allowed for more effective sentient communication between different parts of a large, multi-cellular organism, though a rock should be able to do it too (though nowhere near as elaborate [no signaling cells and no specialized neurotransmitters]).
. . . . Rocks have chemistry, and at the heart of chemistry is electric interactions (primarily between valence electrons and the positive charges of the nucleons of atoms). And, as I've suggested before, our [human] sentient experiences are inseperably tied to electro-magnetic interactions.
The possibility remains that rocks can feel a basic and primitive kind of pleasure and pain, and respond accordingly (thus performing physics and chemistry).
. . . . I've already dealt with the gravity issue. It's true that we do not appear to "feel" gravity--except when we're on the Earth's surface (we feel the conflict between gravity and the normal force [the counter-force pushing up] as weight). But then again gravity is the weakest of the known forces (and a very weak force it is). If we are to feel any of the forces, my reasoning has been that it should be the forces that are the strongest--and, in fact, we do! We feel the electro-magnetic force in the form of the senses common to our sense organs. After all, it is electro-chemical signals that course between the neurons in our nervous system that are directly associated with all sensory reception familiar to us!
My reasoning is that the GREATER the MAGNITUDE of the FORCE, the GREATER the MAGNITUDE of SENSATION (the greater the stress on matter). And gravity, compared to the other forces, is pathetically weak.
Much of this hypothesis isn't completed, but it is currently under development. Nevertheless, there should also be some sentient experience associated with gravity as well, though it is very tiny, I reason. Very, very, very tiny! (Neglible compared to the electro-magnetic sensations we're more familiar with.)
As for "biological organisms" being the only things capable of sensory experience . . . that's only a hypothesis at this point. No experiment has ever been performed to deny that rocks have sensory experience or indicate that they do. The current paradigm logically suggest that organisms with sensory organs like ours (or animals similar to us) must have sensory experiences similiar to ours. However, there is no validation anywhere that the lack of biological sensory organs is equivalent to the lack of sensory experience. It's only an assumption and isn't even remotely provable except by making assumptions in logic chains.
Particles are literally sensing their environments and each other. Greater sensation indicates greater awareness, and in this way two distant particles with forces acting on each other behave as a single-sensing system. (To sense is to be made aware of environment, thus one with it). Obviously increased distance reduces the sentient magnitude a particle has on another (calculatable by how much force is acting on the particle!). It would also be true that all matter in the universe is in apparent sentient communication with each other (as long as an applicable force exist between the material bodies), but sentient magnitude between specific bits of matter would be dependent on physical components that govern force interaction (e.g. distance, mass, charge, the speed of force interaction, c, etc.), so that closer conglomerates of matter would experience greater sensation (and thus greater physical effect) than matter situated at relatively larger distances (unless the force between the respective matter was smaller) thus relieving the apparent conflict between collective consciousness and single consciousness.
The evolution of a branched, corded nervous system would have allowed for more effective sentient communication between different parts of a large, multi-cellular organism, though a rock should be able to do it too (though nowhere near as elaborate [no signaling cells and no specialized neurotransmitters]).
. . . . Rocks have chemistry, and at the heart of chemistry is electric interactions (primarily between valence electrons and the positive charges of the nucleons of atoms). And, as I've suggested before, our [human] sentient experiences are inseperably tied to electro-magnetic interactions.
The possibility remains that rocks can feel a basic and primitive kind of pleasure and pain, and respond accordingly (thus performing physics and chemistry).
. . . . I've already dealt with the gravity issue. It's true that we do not appear to "feel" gravity--except when we're on the Earth's surface (we feel the conflict between gravity and the normal force [the counter-force pushing up] as weight). But then again gravity is the weakest of the known forces (and a very weak force it is). If we are to feel any of the forces, my reasoning has been that it should be the forces that are the strongest--and, in fact, we do! We feel the electro-magnetic force in the form of the senses common to our sense organs. After all, it is electro-chemical signals that course between the neurons in our nervous system that are directly associated with all sensory reception familiar to us!
My reasoning is that the GREATER the MAGNITUDE of the FORCE, the GREATER the MAGNITUDE of SENSATION (the greater the stress on matter). And gravity, compared to the other forces, is pathetically weak.
Much of this hypothesis isn't completed, but it is currently under development. Nevertheless, there should also be some sentient experience associated with gravity as well, though it is very tiny, I reason. Very, very, very tiny! (Neglible compared to the electro-magnetic sensations we're more familiar with.)
As for "biological organisms" being the only things capable of sensory experience . . . that's only a hypothesis at this point. No experiment has ever been performed to deny that rocks have sensory experience or indicate that they do. The current paradigm logically suggest that organisms with sensory organs like ours (or animals similar to us) must have sensory experiences similiar to ours. However, there is no validation anywhere that the lack of biological sensory organs is equivalent to the lack of sensory experience. It's only an assumption and isn't even remotely provable except by making assumptions in logic chains.
Sentiency as a function of matter-force Interactivity
Sat, 4th February, 2012
We [humans] use sensory input and feedback from the environment to interact with it, we have no other available means of doing so. I have no doubt that this is true of the rest of the material world as well! Physics and sentiency may be inseperably coupled in the universe so that one is always associated with the other, with sensation being the driving language of all physical changes and transformational phenomena. Just as we humans and similar organisms use sensation to 'consciously' interact with the environment, all matter probably does too!
Sensation is probably the language of the universe . . . the pain/pleasure dichtomy and binary code that one piece of the universe uses to communicate with another piece and get it to do something. Sensation is consciousness. It's what allows one thing to be AWARE of the immediate environment around it. And sensation probably directly corresponds with physics, so that the MAGNITUDE OF SENSATION is probably DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the MAGNITUDE OF FORCE for whatever force being described, thus sensation invokes accelerative transformation on matter--a CHANGE!
Sensation is probably the language of the universe . . . the pain/pleasure dichtomy and binary code that one piece of the universe uses to communicate with another piece and get it to do something. Sensation is consciousness. It's what allows one thing to be AWARE of the immediate environment around it. And sensation probably directly corresponds with physics, so that the MAGNITUDE OF SENSATION is probably DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the MAGNITUDE OF FORCE for whatever force being described, thus sensation invokes accelerative transformation on matter--a CHANGE!
The Developing Synoptic Ethereal Paradigm!
Sat, 4th February, 2012
I posted this more than a year ago in an active thread in a science forum:
Tension and compression of the Ether medium around a particle may give rise to sentiency--or more specifically a pain/pleasure dichotomy and continuum. In other words, CONSCIOUSNESS may arise because of distressed states of the Ether! Thus all things in the universe may lie along a continuum of different degress of "aliveness" and sentiency, which we collectively call "consciousness"--and which can be reduced to nothing more than PAIN/PLEASURE sensory experience!
REDUCING tension and compression (stress) around matter particles may produce the sensory phenomenon of pleasure, while INCREASING tension and compression (stress) around matter particles may produce the sensory phenomenon of pain. This would be a pecuilarity belonging to the Field surrounding particles and produced by them, so these sensations would be experienced by the universe itself and specifically at the geographic locations that these stress events are occuring. If this conclusion is true, then sensory experience is COSMOLOGICAL and basic to the universe--not just neurological, as current scientific hypothesis suggest!
Tension and compression of the Ether medium around a particle may give rise to sentiency--or more specifically a pain/pleasure dichotomy and continuum. In other words, CONSCIOUSNESS may arise because of distressed states of the Ether! Thus all things in the universe may lie along a continuum of different degress of "aliveness" and sentiency, which we collectively call "consciousness"--and which can be reduced to nothing more than PAIN/PLEASURE sensory experience!
REDUCING tension and compression (stress) around matter particles may produce the sensory phenomenon of pleasure, while INCREASING tension and compression (stress) around matter particles may produce the sensory phenomenon of pain. This would be a pecuilarity belonging to the Field surrounding particles and produced by them, so these sensations would be experienced by the universe itself and specifically at the geographic locations that these stress events are occuring. If this conclusion is true, then sensory experience is COSMOLOGICAL and basic to the universe--not just neurological, as current scientific hypothesis suggest!
A Daring Prediction
Tue, 14th July, 2009
I recently posted this daring prediction on an active thread in a science forum:
I'll make a prediction.
I'm betting that the final Theory of Everything will look a lot like the Ether Models of the late 19th Century, except with Special and General Relativity incorporated.
We'll see the revival of an elastic, 'rubbery' Ether composed of astonishingly tiny particle grains that tightly pack the universe. This Ether will display mechanical properties like compression and tension from being COMPRESSED and STRETCHED, and we'll find that the mechanism responsible for motion, velocity, and acceleration will be uneven distribution of compressed or tense field around a particle of matter; in other words, particles are pushed or pulled along by a compressed and tense field trying to become 'relaxed' and uniform.
We'll also find that particles are composed entirely of Aether, and that, at their borders, a DENSITY DISCONTINUITY will exist that will distinguish particle from field (or the "empty space" around it). Even more, physicists will discover that particles, too, become STRETCHED and COMPRESSED, depending on the local density of the field, allowing RELATIVITY to fit snuggly into the picture. And because both the field and particles exhibit elastic properties, we'll find that particles are harmonic oscillators that contract and expand cyclically, distorting their local field by producing the phenomenon of undulating waves -- hence the particle/wave duality of matter.
Finally, as for gravity, we'll find that it can be fitted with the other three forces because of a discovery regarding a LACK of symmetry. The proton and the electron charges will be found to be off by a VERY TINY increment -- and physicists will slap themselves on the head for not realizing it earlier, acknowledging that the proton and electron never were natural particle/anti-particle partners to begin with. This will be a major breakthrough for lingering questions regarding the stability and history of the universe -- and its future.
And humanity will, by this point, have entered a new age.
I'll make a prediction.
I'm betting that the final Theory of Everything will look a lot like the Ether Models of the late 19th Century, except with Special and General Relativity incorporated.
We'll see the revival of an elastic, 'rubbery' Ether composed of astonishingly tiny particle grains that tightly pack the universe. This Ether will display mechanical properties like compression and tension from being COMPRESSED and STRETCHED, and we'll find that the mechanism responsible for motion, velocity, and acceleration will be uneven distribution of compressed or tense field around a particle of matter; in other words, particles are pushed or pulled along by a compressed and tense field trying to become 'relaxed' and uniform.
We'll also find that particles are composed entirely of Aether, and that, at their borders, a DENSITY DISCONTINUITY will exist that will distinguish particle from field (or the "empty space" around it). Even more, physicists will discover that particles, too, become STRETCHED and COMPRESSED, depending on the local density of the field, allowing RELATIVITY to fit snuggly into the picture. And because both the field and particles exhibit elastic properties, we'll find that particles are harmonic oscillators that contract and expand cyclically, distorting their local field by producing the phenomenon of undulating waves -- hence the particle/wave duality of matter.
Finally, as for gravity, we'll find that it can be fitted with the other three forces because of a discovery regarding a LACK of symmetry. The proton and the electron charges will be found to be off by a VERY TINY increment -- and physicists will slap themselves on the head for not realizing it earlier, acknowledging that the proton and electron never were natural particle/anti-particle partners to begin with. This will be a major breakthrough for lingering questions regarding the stability and history of the universe -- and its future.
And humanity will, by this point, have entered a new age.
The Lorentz Ether, Dirac's "Ocean" and Relativity
Tue, 14th July, 2009
I posted this on an active thread on thescienceforum.com, in defense of an Aether interpretation of the universe:
Isn't "DIRAC'S OCEAN" a kind of new and improved Aether?
According P.A.M. Dirac, "empty space" is tightly packed with electrons we cannot see. When the conditions are right, an electron in this tight packing will be freed, leaving behind a hole of opposite charge--a 'positron'. It's only when an electron plops out from this uniform 'electron sea' that we can observe it and the hole it leaves behind. Dirac predicted the existence of the positron on this mechanism and his corresponding equation.
And besides, Special and General Relativity do not disprove the existence of an Aether, they simply make it irrelevant. The elastic aether proposed by Hendrick Lorentz, which is completely consistent with Special Relativity, simply fell to Occam's Razor. Physicists found it unnecessary to contemplate an Aether that could escape detection, so they abandoned it. Nevertheless, to this day there are proponents of the LORENTZ ETHER THEORY in the Physics community that tout it as a more complete explanation to the mathematical abstraction of Relativity.
Isn't "DIRAC'S OCEAN" a kind of new and improved Aether?
According P.A.M. Dirac, "empty space" is tightly packed with electrons we cannot see. When the conditions are right, an electron in this tight packing will be freed, leaving behind a hole of opposite charge--a 'positron'. It's only when an electron plops out from this uniform 'electron sea' that we can observe it and the hole it leaves behind. Dirac predicted the existence of the positron on this mechanism and his corresponding equation.
And besides, Special and General Relativity do not disprove the existence of an Aether, they simply make it irrelevant. The elastic aether proposed by Hendrick Lorentz, which is completely consistent with Special Relativity, simply fell to Occam's Razor. Physicists found it unnecessary to contemplate an Aether that could escape detection, so they abandoned it. Nevertheless, to this day there are proponents of the LORENTZ ETHER THEORY in the Physics community that tout it as a more complete explanation to the mathematical abstraction of Relativity.
Ethereal Discontinuity and "Dirac's Ocean"
Sun, 12th July, 2009
An Ethereal Component graph appears a lot like illustrations depicting "Dirac's Ocean", first postulated by the brilliant physicist Dr. P.A.M. Dirac in 1929. According to Dirac, every little bit of "empty space" is packed tightly with little electrons. However, when conditions unfold to 'lift' an electron from out of it's place, it leaves a hole in its place equivalent to what we define today as a 'positron' -- an electron of positive charge. It is only when an electron is lifted from out of its tightly packed place that we can observe it and the hole it leaves behind.
Might a positron be a particle MORE DENSE than the average density of the field and an electron be a particle LESS DENSE than this average (or vice-versa)? Interpreting "Dirac's Ocean" this way has a lot of advantages. Should the more dense particle ever encounter its less dess particle counterpart, it would fall 'into' it and vanish, just like in Dirac's Ocean.
Might a positron be a particle MORE DENSE than the average density of the field and an electron be a particle LESS DENSE than this average (or vice-versa)? Interpreting "Dirac's Ocean" this way has a lot of advantages. Should the more dense particle ever encounter its less dess particle counterpart, it would fall 'into' it and vanish, just like in Dirac's Ocean.
My Explanation of Gravity. I posted this on an online physics forum
Sat, 4th July, 2009
Why does gravity exist?
Excellent question! Unfortuneatly no one knows.
As of late, I've come the the conclusion that maybe gravity exist NOT because it's a force all its own, but because it's the left-over residual effect of another force--the electro-mangetic one. I'm of the opinion that the charges of the two primary electric players in our universe (the proton and the electron) are not equivalent though opposite in sign. Perhaps the charges of the proton and the electron are SLIGHTLY off by a very tiny value -- and one is winning. This left-over charge effect SHAPES the field around it, but very weakly. However, when you accumulate enough 'neutral' matter into a concentrated region that weak residual charge effect adds up and gives rise to the phenomenon of gravity.
This is a plausible answer to me for several reasons. (1) As of now, contemporary physics is having a hard time unifying gravity with quantum mechanics. Perhaps gravity isn't a force all its own with a symmetrical nature like the EM, weak and strong nuclear force, but a residual effect from slightly unbalanced (and I mean tiny!) charge magnitudes. (2) Protons and electrons are not natural particle/anti-particle partners, which means their charges MIGHT be off, even though our best instruments indicate their charges are identical to several significant digits. (3) Gravity is astonishingly weak compared to the other forces, which indicates that the difference in charge would have to be very, very tiny, which is in line with empirical evidence
If we followed this line of reasoning, we would have to assume that this residual charge effect would certainly be a detriment to particles of the same sign of the charge that's out-performing the other, and when two such particles encounter each other, even when in the company of the neutralizing partner (of slightly smaller charge), the two would repel each other great distances. But it turns out there's a way around this, too. If the mass of the particle with left-over residual charge is significantly greater than the mass of the particle of slightly smaller charge, the inertia of the first particle would prevent it from being repelled great distances upon encountering a particle of identical kind, when in the company of the neutralizing partner.
And it just so happens that the mass of one of the universe's primary electric players--the proton--is disproportionately greater than the mass of it's electric counterpart, the electron. Could the proton, then, have a slightly greater charge than the electron, yielding a residual postive charge effect on the surrounding field which materializes itself as space-time curvature and gravity?
If this is indeed the case, then our understanding of gravity is way off. What we usually attribute to being responsible for gravity--mass--would no longer be correct. In a world of unbalanced charged partners, the residual positive charge of the proton would be the culprit. Nevertheless, this RESIDUAL CHARGE should still be proportional to the mass of 'nuetrally charged' arrangements of matter it emanates from, so that would explain how mass was identified as the instigator from early on, and still is. And at the level of the very small, where gravity is unverifiable anyways, the force would simply translate into the property of charge.
It's an idea I've been promoting for a while, but unfortuneatly there's a lot of those floating around right now.
--J. Perezchica
Excellent question! Unfortuneatly no one knows.
As of late, I've come the the conclusion that maybe gravity exist NOT because it's a force all its own, but because it's the left-over residual effect of another force--the electro-mangetic one. I'm of the opinion that the charges of the two primary electric players in our universe (the proton and the electron) are not equivalent though opposite in sign. Perhaps the charges of the proton and the electron are SLIGHTLY off by a very tiny value -- and one is winning. This left-over charge effect SHAPES the field around it, but very weakly. However, when you accumulate enough 'neutral' matter into a concentrated region that weak residual charge effect adds up and gives rise to the phenomenon of gravity.
This is a plausible answer to me for several reasons. (1) As of now, contemporary physics is having a hard time unifying gravity with quantum mechanics. Perhaps gravity isn't a force all its own with a symmetrical nature like the EM, weak and strong nuclear force, but a residual effect from slightly unbalanced (and I mean tiny!) charge magnitudes. (2) Protons and electrons are not natural particle/anti-particle partners, which means their charges MIGHT be off, even though our best instruments indicate their charges are identical to several significant digits. (3) Gravity is astonishingly weak compared to the other forces, which indicates that the difference in charge would have to be very, very tiny, which is in line with empirical evidence
If we followed this line of reasoning, we would have to assume that this residual charge effect would certainly be a detriment to particles of the same sign of the charge that's out-performing the other, and when two such particles encounter each other, even when in the company of the neutralizing partner (of slightly smaller charge), the two would repel each other great distances. But it turns out there's a way around this, too. If the mass of the particle with left-over residual charge is significantly greater than the mass of the particle of slightly smaller charge, the inertia of the first particle would prevent it from being repelled great distances upon encountering a particle of identical kind, when in the company of the neutralizing partner.
And it just so happens that the mass of one of the universe's primary electric players--the proton--is disproportionately greater than the mass of it's electric counterpart, the electron. Could the proton, then, have a slightly greater charge than the electron, yielding a residual postive charge effect on the surrounding field which materializes itself as space-time curvature and gravity?
If this is indeed the case, then our understanding of gravity is way off. What we usually attribute to being responsible for gravity--mass--would no longer be correct. In a world of unbalanced charged partners, the residual positive charge of the proton would be the culprit. Nevertheless, this RESIDUAL CHARGE should still be proportional to the mass of 'nuetrally charged' arrangements of matter it emanates from, so that would explain how mass was identified as the instigator from early on, and still is. And at the level of the very small, where gravity is unverifiable anyways, the force would simply translate into the property of charge.
It's an idea I've been promoting for a while, but unfortuneatly there's a lot of those floating around right now.
--J. Perezchica
Discontinuities Oscillate! This would explain the particle-wave duality of matter!
Wed, 24th June, 2009
Strike the previous blog posting. Discontinuities ARE NOT temporary. Instead they oscillate at any point along the interface of a particle so that, at one moment the field density may be GREATER THAN the particle density. The particle would be forced to contract in this situation. And after tiny fractions of a second later the field density will be LESS THAN the particle density, in which case the particle would be forced to expand. This would make particles harmonic oscillators in respect to their expansion and contraction as they try to reach equilibrium with the field density at their interfaces, and a consequence of this is that, as they oscillate between expanding and contracting, they will effect the density of the field, causing waves in the field that propogate outwards as if they were the source!
Temporary Discontinuities?
Wed, 24th June, 2009
I'm beginning to believe that a discontinuity between the particle density and the field density at the matter-space interface of a particle only exist temporarily, and that's when a particle changes its length and shape to reshuffle the field around it. When a particle ceases to distort its shape, the discontinuities at its interface may close until the particle once again distorts its shape, reshuffles the field around it, and is forced to open up short-lived discontinuities. This actually makes sense if one considers the condition that the density (or pressure)of the field and the particle at the interface must always remain the same when static. (In thermodynamics, the density of a medium and its pressure are proportional.)
More on this soon!