Butch

Other than the spin issue, the point of conjecture with my model is that my entities are not carriers of the gravitational field, however they are the producers of that field... my model is simple, but consider a universe where my entities are the single primal constituents of all matter... a universe abounding with them in different configurations that result in the less primal constituents that we are aware of. The multitude of gravitational tensors would form for all intents and purposes a continuous gravitational field. I that so far fetched? What about time dilation? No mystery, but if you give it a moment of thought, quite interesting! Remember gravity at these single points is absolute... I hesitate to say infinite, because at the single point there is no relativity and if 2 occupy the same place with equal moments (I know... no mass) they would not be two.

Thank you. Have you investigated my model with regards to the area inside the "ab" pair? It is rather interesting. I wish I knew of a good 3d gravitational modeling app, so I could study my entities in relative motion.

Nvrmnd... up and down spin is what you are referring to?

Some info please? Left and right handed description... what is the perpendicular axis?

Thank you for clarifying... another curious thing about the pair "ab": Within the system "ab" time and gravity have an interesting relationship... such that no matter the eccentricity of the orbits to an outside observer, the shape of the orbits to an inside observer would be perfectly circular. My points are point sources of gravitation, they are individually massless, however in a universe of them they appear massive because of the tensor field that binds them in a cosmic gel, whose density is dependant upon the field strength of the combination of tensors. (Feel free to clarify my language in accepted terms, I apologise for my lack of diction.)

Gravity diminishes with distance, without relativity it is exactly nothing.

You are on the precipice of understanding my model... my entities are single points of gravitational force and nothing else, however they must be relative to exist. Taken alone a simple plot of the inverse square demonstrates that at any distance g falls to zero, however relative to another such entity at any distance g never falls to zero. Forget about the photon thing for a moment and consider "a" alone and then in relation to "b". I agree that it is a very different animal, however consider this... If you wanted to find the most primal constituent entity of our universe, that which lies at the very cusp of existence... what properties might it have.

It was never meant to "explain" gravity, explaining gravity would be akin to explaining the speed of light, light speed might however be explained at some point by investigation of more complex models evolved from this one. Gravity however is in my opinion the most primal of forces and we will have to accept that it just is. This model was created as a result of my thoughts on what the most primal constituent of our universe might be, a view from one end of the micro/macro rather than someplace in between. The current scientific methods of observation, give us good solid evidence of what our universe is, but what is to be done when our tools to observe are exhausted? The Higgs is not the most primal constituent, it has multiple properties, it has multiple states... it has then underlying structure. We could build an accelerator the size of the galaxy(of course none of us would live long enough to execute a single event) and still not find the evidence we can propose with our minds eye. Is this a valid avenue of exploration? Einstein used it very successfuly.

Digital systems for some time have had the ability to map out bad memory, also we are talking about a very dynamic system whose abilities increase constantly and geometrically. That it cannot control its own development yet does not preclude self awarness. Software can and does modify itself.

When I was a youngster, mass was in Latin and the nuns at school, beat the crap out of students. But again, the topic is not religion!

Understood. What I want is to investigate the model to see if it will mesh with the standard model, the purpose being as stated in the very first part of my blog: Science particularly physics, has sought to understand our universe via the micro and macro from our station within it. The "observable" universe has grown as we find tools with which to observe it, however no matter how sophisticated our tools, they are limited and will never successfully observe all that is the universe, that is with the exception of one tool... the mind. We can envision things with the mind that can never be observed otherwise, it was Albert Einsteins mind experiments that brought us "Special Relativity" and released the energy of the atom. We are at the point of atom smashing to investigate Higgs... how much further can our tools take us? Going to extremes via the minds eye and building back to see if the spans meet, may be the only tools we have in the near future, thus at least at some point it is a valid tool for exploration.

Tell that to the Pope, or the Taliban. Religion, so good at getting us off topic.

Let us not forget escaping disease, corrupt governance and persecution. Also, as on our planet, no place left to run.

I am in need of a gravitational modeling tool, one that allows the entry of position and velocity, also 3 dimensional... I had written one using directx, but no longer have ready access to those tools as I am on the water most of the time, so a phone app is most suitable. Any suggestions?

The resource, they would be looking for is square footage... does not bode well for the natives.

I must disagree, religion was(is?) a way of controlling the masses, focusing the people on common goals, not only advancing civilization, but perhaps even making civilization a possibility.

It is missing because it is a part of physics that we can detect and measure, its nature is understood... however it is not a relative entity when isolated. Let me clarify, EM is self relating, positive is relative to negative, north relative to South etc. Mass and gravity are not self relating, (I cover this in my blog). Why is the speed of light what it is? We can say it has to be something... but that is not exactly true, why couldn't it have instantaneous transmission. The answers lie in what we can never observe, with the exception of what we observe with the minds eye. For my hypothesis I traveled to the most primal spot the mind can conceive of, the very threshold of existence. Read my blog, perhaps rather than critiquing my hypothesis, critique my thoughts. I do greatly appreciate such. I try not to agree or disagree with such critique, but rather I let it prod me on. Check this, if a non interfering observer were to measure the orbital paths of "ab" from inside the system, what shape would the orbits take? My friend, this dialog is not very complicated at all. As to the end thesis, the model simply shows that 2 interacting point sources of gravitation in a system of appropriate size could generate a gravitational wave at light frequencies.

You are absolutely correct... fatigue is in charge now... time for rest. "abc" are points of equal gravitation, the model is scalar until I can match systems to observed entities. If you have any ideas on direction, I would appreciate your input. My thinking at this point is that I need to relate this first model to another entity to "flesh out" the tensors and observe how frame shift affects the phase of "ab", EM might be evident there. I know the math to use, but do not have a great deal of practice with it(vector transforms) especially in regards to Desmos. "abc" are points of equal gravitation, the model is scalar until I can match systems to observed entities. If you have any ideas on direction, I would appreciate your input. My thinking at this point is that I need to relate this first model to another entity to "flesh out" the tensors and observe how frame shift affects the phase of "ab", EM might be evident there. I know the math to use, but do not have a great deal of practice with it(vector transforms) especially in regards to Desmos. All my model shows at this point is that if "ab" are other than 180 degrees out of phase a gravitational wave is felt by "c", if the entities are ultimately primal, the gravitational waves would be extremely high frequency, hence a photon might be a very high frequency gravitational wave.

I can appreciate your statement after playing with my model... as it is, it has no torque, to demonstrate torque I will need to build a model in 3d. Hopefully I can find an app that has sliders as in desmos... Swan has asked for a written tensor, however to have any meaning it will have to be dynamic, I need to be able to manipulate the model to observe the effect on the torque also the effect on phase. My starting point is not arbitrary. It is not a model of gravity, rather it is an application of gravity. I am not trying to redefine physics, I am just exploring from a different point of origin than our station in the universe.

That is why I am so thankful for the help I receive on this forum. If you read my blog you will see that I clearly state that my hypothesis is an excursion of abstraction. The abstract mind opens doors, the math of physics brings understanding of what lies within... or closes the door.

We are up against, really all my hypothesis is, reduces to a different starting point for exploration... If I am wrong I will very quickly reach a dead end. (Please do not jump to the conclusion that you know what that dead end is). If that happens... fine, I can rest... We can rest. I am not looking to change physics, it is my hope that my hypothesis at some point finds a meshing point and we will have the micro end of physics solved.

Thanks, I know it is a huge task... my hope is that I will not be alone and the work will outlive me. You see, this hypothesis begins at the threshold of existence and the work extends to the limits of physics...

True, but I can create a mathematical model in 2d, curve stitching in 2d or a 3d charting app after that. I am excited that it should provide charge relatable to real world units, with that I can start to build the standard model via my "point sources of gravitation" (If I live that long). The vector will change with "ab" that is the 3rd dimension. I can be more succinct once I do some work on the model. Could be the coffee talking right now. Lol.

Wow, very interesting Swan! I am working on the torsion model, it occurs to me that with that, a transformation in frame is possible that results in a constant phase imbalance... EM! Thank you sir! With a quantum charge unit the rest fall in place! Gonna be a lot of work though...

I can include a torsion vector in my model relative to "i", it will of course be a scalar.