[Physics] Viscosity .. Explanation please
Tom Hollings
carmam at tiscali.co.uk
Mon May 4 13:20:00 CEST 2020
Hi James. I have been following this thread with interest, as it is within my area of expertise. First of all, I disagree with your use of spacetime (others have mentioned it, so I am not picking you out deliberately, it applies to all). Spacetime is a fiction, assuming time to be a dimension - which it is not, spacetime was invented by Einstein, and used in Minkowski diagrams etc, which I fundamentally disagree with. I was a relativist once, but then saw the light (pun intended).
You may have seen a previous post of mine, saying that space is full of gas, at varying temperatures and pressures, and moving in differing directions. When I said that I agreed with Mike to some extent (or words to that effect), this is one area where we differ (sorry Mike), because this gas explains a lot of what is going on in the universe. There is no need for esoteric particles, loops and strings etc, plain old gas does the job. It explains light bending around stars, red shift correlated to distance etc.
There is a very interesting theory that black holes cannot exist (well there are a few, but I like this one) because as matter gets compressed and becomes denser, the atoms can move about less and less, and eventually will stop moving simply because there is no room for movement.
Taken from : - http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm
"As the nucleons begin to collapse the quark orbital structures come apart. Since the orbital motion of quarks is what causes gravity, at this point gravity ceases to exist. Instead the entire structure blows itself apart… a supernova perhaps? In reality this explosion would probably occur at the earlier point where the nucleons come into contact with each other since it seems unlikely that quarks could orbit under such conditions. This would also mean a ‘neutron star’ is not a valid state for matter either."
This also explains gravity, which you mentioned is never explained.
Tom Hollings.
> On 04 May 2020 at 04:28 James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> To all participants in this topic 'Viscosity' (of spacetime),
>
> This is the very first venue I have read of such a property of ... I am assuming: 'spacetime' .. considered.
>
> Though in the brief depiction by Mike Lawrence, apparently it is a behavioral effect .. (on -all- particles of matter?) .. coming out of some new 'particles' or 'particle pairs' .. and certain action~association properties -of- those proposed particles.
>
> Is that an accurate description of the entities -and- their interactions -and- their secondary effects on -other- particles?
>
> Why (what internal property/ies of these proposed entities) do they behave in such ways: de-merge and then re-merge?
> Why can they not only pair-orient affective interactions .. but -also- .. -else- orient with neighboring pairs in all n-dimensional proximities around them? ... collectively?
>
> Do you imagine them similar to the Higgs -field-? As a collective 'friction space'?
> What controls or induces the strength or rate of 'viscousness'? Can viscosity .. 'vary'? If so .. what internal properties of the 'zerons' or 'loops' .. produce the effects you are looking to justify?
>
> I have been looking into a similar general-property of -all- fields, for quite some time now.. Your depiction and version strikes a chord with me -- because certain actions and behaviors in the fundamental scales of existence have not been satisfyingly modeled or collectively coordinated yet -- and even if my model does not directly map or mesh with your particular model -- I am really intrigued and interested in understanding what-how-why .. you came to yours.
>
> To be open and candid .. I have taken a different tack to justify observations .. such as light bending near masses ; ..and even to reason-through the strange (avoided to address) phenomena of: in the territory -outside- the event horizon of a blackhole ... if 'not even light escapes' ... then .. and this is how I started describing the problem 30 years ago .. "How is it that gravity capriciously and unfetteredly exists out beyond the event-horizon? If gravity were made of particlea, shouldn't it/they be as conditionally affected and constrained .. as -all- other "particles" in the universe??" ---- In other words, maybe, as useful and powerful as particulate models in math are for describing the -behaviors- of ... masses in "fields" .. is it possible that "forces fields" might be something else? Something 'continua' in nature rather than 'quanta' in nature? Where the gradients of varying intensities of forces .. is -not- mapped .. 1:1 with hypothesized 'force carrier particles' .."densities" .. but some -other- gradient-able architecture of ... spacetime and associated -collections- of spacetime?
>
> AND .. are we possibly missing an important additional interpretation of the mathematics for these things ..which we already have?
>
> What I proposed in the early 1990's was a fresh analysis-interpretation of the essential Einstein equation for mass~energy.
> Hard-wired conventional interpretation of the mass~energy correlation of E=mc^2 .. holds that the speed of light, 'c' .. squared value .. is strictly the "how much" ...'conversion' ... quantities~measures are. All well and good. -Not- disputed.
>
> But that equation informs us of -something else- that is critically important! (and not even Einstein recognized it!).
>
> It has to to with 'time'. His companion equations gave us three "orthogonal" spatial -dimensions- and an added extra-orthogonal 'temporal' dimension. Which conventional matrices~domains math gave us Euclidian and Reimannian .. Pythagorean geometry relations: f(k)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + x^2 - t^2 .. et al. [x,y,z,t] being the traditional Four Dimensions of modern non-QM physics .. (setting aside the supersymmetry and M-brane and string models for a moment .. with all sorts of extra n-number of 'compacted dimensions' proposed).
>
> If we are to be -consistent- in mathematical -definitions- .. and in particular .. the symbols~notation 'definition' of:
> "A whole positive integer .. in the exponent location .. is tantamount to the 'dimensions' of the variable or number to which the exponent is associated." [parenthetically .. this definition is adequate and interesting, but it undervalues the full qualia of what exponent location 'numbers' may or may not -fully- be capable of expressing, and the forms the exponents take or represent].
>
> For right now though .. (thanks for sticking with this long email ..it will be worth it ...) ...
>
>
> Gravity .. in all of science and physics .. is never really 'explained'. The several versions of "relativity" .. and even EM and strong and weak forces, and quark interactions .. are never 'explained'. What has been established are mathematical mappings of the secondary ... -produced- ... behaviors that we observe. The 'behaviors' are tracked and made predictable.
>
> "Why(?)" -fields- .. do what they do .. has yet to be proposed. !!!!!
>
> Now, if the basics interpretation~definition of 'exponent' ... holds .. then explicitly and -exactly- the Einstein mass~energy conversion equation tells us that 'c' is not just a measured 'speed' .. it is a "time factor" ... aka .. time -dimension-. .. such that 'c^2' is properly interpreted -as- .... TWO ORTHOGONAL TEMPORAL 'DIMENSIONS'.
>
> In companion conversion terms .. this indicates that -gravity- .. or more accurately .. the observed and measured ... -produced- forces of gravitational -fields- ... are effectively the "felt cross product -interactions-" of -two- ... -orthogonal- ... temporal "dimensions". From which interpretation .. it is incumbent to examine and explore .. "What are the aspects of 'interacting dimensions' such that real -forces- and pressure phenomena (continua) -gradients- are produced as a result of any dimensional interactions~correlations?"
>
> This model -also- produces 'differential pressures~gradients~viscosities' .. across the domains where present. "Forces fields" are potentially -not- sourced from particles (as 'carriers' of an extra property labelled 'force') .. but are intrinsic products of "dimensions interacting". (JNRose (c) 1992,1995)
>
> As it turns out .. the central relations can be isomorphically applied-to and found-in other phenomena and complexities that grow out of and develop from fundamental physics interactions conventions and models. Hierarchies of complexity (and emergence) produce different combinants and forms and presentations, but very nicely, the drivers and action potentials born from the essential formation of the universe ... "dimensions before energy before mass" .. can be identified on all scales and orders of magnitude. AND .. it turns out .. that a similar review and interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ..harbors within it .. the specifications for QM~Relativity conversion mapping. [with one minor revision in equation .. which -also- illuminates 'dimensions' as present ; the natural association of QM measures with relativity measures ..and how to navigate and value~map back and forth. The key is recognizing within the HUP the presence of polar coordinates values]
>
> James (Jamie) Rose
>
> ps.
>
> This is an 'information' email only. I care not who agrees with me or disagrees with me or challenges the notions you just read. I provided it only as a courtesy of information.
>
> I -DO- care about Mike's proposal of 'viscosity' as a dynamics phenomena and a property of fundamental systemic behavings. I -would- like to know more details of it, along the lines of the considerations you read expressed above.
>
> With my respect to all on this list, jnr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ========
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020, 9:16:02 AM PDT, Tom Hollings <carmam at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> 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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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.
> > >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl mailto:Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200504/1a516516/attachment.html>
More information about the Physics
mailing list