[Physics] Viscosity

[Tom Hollings]

Yes I agree with all that (I think) Mike. A couple of points - the viscosity accounts for the red shift with distance (I think Halton Arp was villified for equating (some) redshift with distance. I like what you say about the bending of light around the sun (and other large objects) being attributable to the denser viscosity, and not being directly caused by gravity. See :- http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings06.htm

Tom.



> On 03 May 2020 at 13:46 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Yes, very much so. I have not gone into detail in the emails here 
> because it can put people off. In the 'background' as I call it, I 
> include not just the original merged pairs of particle and 
> anti-particle, but also the short stack of contra-rotating loop and 
> anti-loop. This latter, which I call as zeron, is the basis of all 'pair 
> creation' events. When a particle hits such a zeron (typically electron 
> and positron) with the correct energy, it breaks the zeron into its 
> separate electron and positron loops, which then try to recombine. The 
> zerons exist at every point in space at every integer Planck radius. 
> They are the source of the pressure that drives plates together when the 
> plates do not allow the smaller ones to remain between them, giving a 
> net lack of pressure - the Casimir effect. They are also the source of 
> zero point energy since each loop has an energy of 1/2 hw, where w is 
> the frequency/size of the loop.
> 
> In addition to the background are all the separate particles. So the 
> masses of planets, atoms, photons etc. This is the local environment. 
> Where there are lots of masses, the local environment is denser than 
> where there are fewer masses.
> 
> What this means is that the viscosity at any point will depend on how 
> much there is of the background and how much of the local environment. 
> In 'empty' space there will be the same viscosity on average as, for 
> example, a photon travels across a volume. So the photon will experience 
> a loss of energy in overcoming the viscosity as it moves that is 
> proportional to the distance it has travelled (very nearly). As the 
> photon gets close to a denser local environment, it will have a lower 
> number for its velocity (since there is more viscosity present), but 
> that number will still be the local light speed. It will also be bent in 
> its travels, for instance past the Sun, towards the greater density 
> volume because of the differential effect of the viscosity density 
> across each loop - which is maybe the source of gravity.
> 
> So you are right that the viscosity will be different in different 
> circumstances.
> 
> Cheers
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2020-05-02 17:40, Tom Hollings wrote:
> > Mike, as space is not empty, but full of gas at varying temperatures
> > and densities, and moving in differing directions, would that not
> > cause the viscosity to vary?
> > Tom Hollings
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On 02 May 2020 at 15:47 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Arend,
> >> 
> >> In my earlier response I forgot to mention that E and (shear) vicosity
> >> both have the same dimensions, being Y^9. So it could be considered 
> >> that
> >> mechanically an electric field is like having viscosity through which
> >> waves must travel. Equally, from my point of view, adjusting Maxwell 
> >> to
> >> include the effects of background viscosity would be equivalent to
> >> simply adjusting the value of E in any equation - although it could
> >> equally well be argued that the value of E already contains the
> >> viscosity effect because we have not yet recognised it.
> >> 
> >> Cheers
> >> Mike
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 2020-04-30 16:30, Arend Lammertink wrote:
> >> > Hi Mike,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 6:08 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The paper shows that SI units actually hide that the strength of mass
> >> >> and charge fields are the same at the fundamental level.
> >> >
> >> > That's very interesting, because I believe the electric field is one
> >> > and the same as the field causing the gravitational force (as
> >> > experienced on the surface of a planetary body) via the pushing/shadow
> >> > gravity principle Paul proposed.   Will take a look at your paper.
> >> >
> >> > Greetz,
> >> >
> >> > Arend.
> >> 
>