The four forces are all unified in this model. The strong force is that basic spring-loop bond.
The weak force is that strong bond letting go, causing the spring to thrash around violently (until
it recombines in some way). The electromagnetic force is the basic spring-spring interaction --
propagating every possible type of "particle" and exchange. Gravity, the subtle yet pervasive child
of the other three forces, is the effect, on the Universal Matrix of springs, when a loop is
introduced -- clamping part of a fish net creates a small effect felt everywhere in that net.
In COASALT 2: Black Holes
From COASALT 3: Einstein's Equation
From COASALT 4: The Ether
Physics needs a working
explanation of gravity as well.
More can and should be said, both in detail and in new areas,
but to "increase receptivity in the target market" we need to
examine the present theory of gravity.
The best way to do this is to critique it.
The wikipedia gravitation page is 6,000 words.
I can see a wikipedia page on war, and one on the "law of war", both
being the same because war is just war. It doesn't appear to follow any law.
Or not any law that we could call good, just, fair, positive, or helpful.
Similarly, since we don't understand gravity, whether we are talking about
gravity in general, or the "law" of gravity, we are saying the same thing:
Our best model of gravity -- the bowling ball on a rubber mat analogy
-- is hopelessly flawed.
We know this. We admit it. And yet we use it constantly.
The winner so far is the
Rydberg constant:
The silver medalist might be the speed of light, since we have
defined it (!) to 8 or so significant figures. Planck's
constant is also known to 8 or 9 digits, as is the vacuum permittivity.
Just don't ask me what that last one is...
Gravity is known to just 5 decimals:
Stopped clocks being right twice a day comes to mind.
Good luck winning in Solitaire when one of the aces is buried.
The wikipedia gravity page
"comes clean" when it lists six "observations that are not adequately accounted for".
The observed difference from theory is nearly total. We say speeds should
drop off with distance, as they do in our solar system, and instead
they stay the same. Stars are kicking sand in gravity's face.
So we fight back with "it is dark matter". The playground equivalent
of saying "I know you are but what am I?!" At least some admit that "dark
matter" is just a fancy word for our ignorance.
Spring-And-Loop Theory says that stars rotating around a galaxy's black
hole can behave differently than planets in our solar system
revolving around our Sun...without breaking any part of Spring-And-Loop Theory.
That there are obviously different forces dominating at different scales.
No big deal, let's investigate and figure it all out.
More specifically, Spring-And-Loop Theory imagines that space expansion
(i.e. springs pushing against springs) is a more dominant force than
"gravity" (i.e. "space" contraction due to spring-loop interaction)
at the galactic scale. And is fine with that.
So, at the planetary scale, the current theory of gravity underestimates
the attractive forces involved.
The dark energy problem illustrates, once again, what the current
theory of gravity does not encompass.
In trying to explain this particular problem, it is theorized
that space is not homogenous. Yet CMB measurements
indicate that space is extraordinarily homogenous, to better
than one part in 100,000. Why do we propose things that are
so obviously wrong?
Spring-And-Loop Theory has no problem at all with the accelerating
expansion, saying it has been this way all along.
So now, at the planetary scale, gravity is overestimating the
attractive forces involved?
This is 21st century physics in a nutshell.
The current gravity equations are wrong in different
ways depending on the problem they are trying to solve.
Spring-And-Loop Theory presents an alternative theory of
gravity, in the sense that Spring-And-Loop Theory actually
has a theory of how gravity works.
It is at the preliminary stage of being a model. It will
need to be embraced, expanded upon and extensively simulated before
it will produce the kind of hard numbers that scientists are
most influenced by.
But why should we continue with the current nonsense?
The "inverse-squared" aspect of our current theory of gravity
is based on what, exactly? Simplification at best.
Oh, sure, I understand what each term in
Spring-And-Loop Theory says 325 years is enough.
The "clamping part of a fish net" analogy of Spring-And-Loop
Theory shows that we aren't just dealing with a
simple plug-in-some-numbers situation. The known Universe is composed
of about 10154 Planck-scale things
and they all work together. How many different things
act on a given chunk of the Universal Matrix (i.e. the fish net)?
And what sort of "edge effects" occur when springs clamp on to a loop?
Even with a good working model, we are a long way from being
able to simulate things within our own solar system, let alone
the Milky Way galaxy.
Going back in time to the "big bang" or wondering if there
are 10500 possible universes are things we can not
possibly work on...until we at least use a better theory of gravity.
We have spoiled ourselves with neat and tidy formulas (that
fail, again and again, in spectacular ways).
We need to try more intuitive models that become progressively closer
to the real world.
Unless we truly have no shame.
The fact that anomalies 5 & 6 create opposite problems gives
some idea of how flawed our gravity theories are. Even more
alarming is the way "dark flow" is tossed in there, given
that it is about as speculative as the speculative field of
physics gets.
To which Spring-And-Loop Theory would reply that the quantum
'vacuum' has "little effect" because it has zero mass, by
the definition of Spring-And-Loop Theory. The "quantum vacuum"
is nothing but springs, that are massless.
So they are stuck
on the wrong problem, from Spring-And-Loop Theory's point of
view. Their theory is the problem, not the observed
discrepancies.
Right. Searching for gravity waves.
Yes there can be a gravity "wave", but how are you going to detect
a wave created by the weakest force? That would be like going to an NFL football
game and then trying to hear the heartbeat of a player, from your
seat.
Also, gravitons (i.e. loops), do not mass-appear or mass-disappear
very often. So, that game you need to go to is only played once
every hundred years.
And on "finding it", what have you found? What understanding of gravity
have you gained?
How about, instead of trying to explain "everything" with 10 miraculous
particles, we just try to explain (i.e. model) gravity?
Can we settle for that, for now?
Spring-And-Loop Theory says "Gravitation is EXACTLY like people
falling in love." And that this messed up world is EXACTLY like
the state of physics today.
The weak force, present when things break apart, is the force of war.
Pity they never called it the "unenlightened" force instead.
The electro-magnetic force is the myriad means we use to communicate -- TV,
radio, internet, voice, eye-contact, smoke signals and innuendo.
Used primarily to passively watch as our world falls apart.
All because we don't understand the fourth force -- love. A force
that brings us together...but only weakly compared to the selfish,
destructive and ambivalent other three forces.
Conventionally, we talk about electrons orbiting a nucleus, and "explain"
this with "electromagnetic attraction".
Check out either
this
or this page for
a good non-explanation laugh.
Summary? "We can't know where the electron is."
COASALT_g says that electrons, having mass, are a small
(perhaps the smallest) spring-loop system. And that the
atomic nucleus is at the other extreme -- one of the largest
spring-loop systems.
Then, using the same theory that has been applied at larger scales,
COASALT says that electron spring-loop systems attract nucleus
spring-loop systems by contracting spring "space". And really,
it must be the other way around.
So that, not "positive attracts negative", is how
electrons are attracted to a nucleus. But what keeps
them from hitting the nucleus?
The two spring-loop systems still "attract" each other (by
contracting spring space) but
do not stay together because there is too much "fluff" (i.e. springs)
stuck to them, to the point where they have no sticky left.
In fact, this is the most powerfully repellant "fluff" in the Universe.
Hence the reason that the electron-nuclear repulsion goes
toward infinite strength as the two get closer together.
Thanks to a working theory of gravity.
We will return to Big G, the least understood of all
physics subjects, in the future...
The Speed Of Light
Black Holes
Einstein's Equation
The Ether
Gravity
Gravity
Spring-And-Loop Theory refresher
From COASALT 1: The Speed Of Light
Spring-And-Loop Theory says that the entire universe is filled with ultra high energy springs and that mass is
a special form of that energy, one that is stabilized into an enclosed loop. The vibrations of atoms
are what happens when these ultra high energy springs become bound to lower energy loops -- a rambunctuous
child holding on to a calm parental hand.
COASALT used this better theory of loop-spring interaction to show that when there are enough
loops, light bumps can completely stop.
We observed that the COASALT kitchen has just 3 ingredients: e (springs),
m (loops) and c (spring bump speed), and left it as an exercise for
the reader to create their own e=mc2 cake.
We point out that the future of physics requires the ether.
We need it and Newton knew it.
From the 16th until the late 19th century, gravitational phenomena
had also been modelled utilizing an aether. The most well-known
formulation is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, although other models
were proposed by Isaac Newton, Bernhard Riemann, and Lord Kelvin.
None of those concepts is considered to be viable by the scientific community today.
- wiki
Chewing our own cud
Spring-And-Loop Theory has already said what gravity is, explaining
it in the original paper.
With apologies to Edward de Vere
I come here to bury our current theories of gravity,
not to praise them.
The wikipedia "Law of gravity" page is also 6,000 words
...because it is the same! There is near total duplication.
Why?!
"Ah...this is all we've got so far..."
Bowling, anyone?
Our understanding of gravity is non-existent.
Yes, but how accurately do we err?
Many areas of physics are super accurately understood. To the
point where all that is left is to try to increase the number of
decimals in the answers.
Playing with a 39 card deck
There are 13 cards per suit, and four suits per deck, for a total of 52 cards.
Gravity problem 2 - Gravity Assist
Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration
than expected during gravity assist maneuvers.
Gravity problem 3 - Accelerating expansion
"The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up.
Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent
alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is
not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that
when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account,
the expansion is not speeding up after all, however this
conclusion is disputed."
Gravity problem 4 - Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit
"Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are
widening faster than if this were solely through the sun
losing mass by radiating energy."
Gravity problem 5 - Extra energetic photons
"Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain
energy and then lose it again on the way out. The
accelerating expansion of the universe should stop
the photons returning all the energy, but even taking
this into account photons from the cosmic microwave
background radiation gain twice as much energy as
expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off
faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales."
The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model
were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years.
- Wiki
Gravity problem 6 - Extra massive hydrogen clouds
"The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that
hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales
than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity
falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales."
Final score?
Honestly, I'm shocked Wikipedia only list six problems on the gravity
page. I can certainly think of others. Searching for the first
"gravity" hit on the "list of unsolved problems in physics" (my
favorite wikipedia page),
produces this:
"Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum
have little effect on the expansion of the universe?"
Higgs
Then there is the Higgs...the miserable Higgs. Check out this
page, especially the answer to the question:
"In the simplest, easiest, most rudimentary terms,
what is the Higgs boson?"
It is a truly hopeless theory ...except that it makes the
"inflation" theory look even worse.
For that, I thank it.
Mom, have you seen my gravity waves?
Pop quiz: what is the most pointless activity in physics?
"Yes, that player does have a heartbeat, by golly!"
10 particles, gravity;
This page
details the "10 theoretical particles that could explain everything".
It mentions gravity 18 times, lol.
Gravity, 10 particlesLoop Quantum Gravity
As mentioned in the last COASALT, LQG seemed to hold some promise
of describing gravity, at least going by the name of the theory, but
fails, both in scope and model accuracy.
Another card analogy, please
Let's card analogize the four forces:
The Strong force?
- the Ace of Spades
- the most powerful card, of the most powerful suit
The weak force?
- the two of clubs
- the weakest card, of the weakest suit
The electromagnetic force?
- the six of diamonds
- the electromagnetic force is the life blood of the four forces
- carbon, the life blood of chemistry, has Atomic Number of 6
Gravity?
- the queen of hearts
- gravity is exactly like love
- the queen of hearts is the most loving card of the most loving suit
That Einstein gravity quote
"Gravitation is not responsible for two people falling in love"
Einstein spent 30 years trying to figure out what gravity was,
and never got it. Interesting that he never got what love was
either -- he was a womanizer, unfaithful in marriage, and
abandoned his first child.
- Albert Einstein
One more analogy, for the road?
The strong force is our selfishness. We steal spend
billions on useless physics experiments because what we really want
is a house and a nice car.
And now for something...
Ok, now for something more revolutionary.
Boy, wouldn't that save a lot of teenage
car accidents if we could just say that
we don't know where our teenagers are?
How does COASALT explain it?
"Consequences Of A Spring-And-Loop Theory 5: Gravity" says that
gravity is involved in the electron-nucleus interaction.
Wait, so we can all get along?
Prior to quantum theory, it was explained that electrons don't collide
with the nucleus because "opposite charges repel".
"We charge you with burglary."
COASALT_g says that collisions do not occur because each spring-loop
system is saturated. Think of each like a ball of duct tape that
has been used as a soccer ball for a week -- it ain't got no stickum
left in it.
"I charge you with gifting. Can I go now?"
One with everything
So, COASALT finds unification of the four forces...in the nucleus.
Just as it does in a black hole. Spring-And-Loop Theory works
from the smallest to the largest scales.
COASALT
Introduction
222 Answers
The Atom
Quantum World
Neutrino
Black Holes Revisited
The Comedy Of Science
et=mc3
Comparing Physics Theories
Diffuse Interstellar Bands
Einstein's Ether Talk
No Strong Force
The Electron
Relativity
Unification
Assumptions
Modeling
The Greatest Story
Physics Quotes & Thoughts
Big Bang
Dark Matter/Dark Energy
Dogma
Forget The Fields
Math Sucks
Particle Physics
Peer Review
Standard Model
Star Gazing
String Theory
tEmP Theories/Theorists
The Control System
Trolls
Spring-And-Loop Theory by Floyd Maxwell is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Click here to access the 40k Quote Archive)