GRAVITY, MASS, AND MOTION: Note: Please refrain from nit picking with regard to observational frames of reference. We should all be able to agree that unless necessary for the sake of this exposition they can be safely ignored.

 

ABSTRACT:

 

For a quick overview of the context of this chapter please refer to the listed assertations below the chapter heading.

The following mind experiment contains concepts which may be difficult to grasp, by even the most brilliant minds. This is because it includes a necessary supposition which is completely foreign to our 'day to day' human experience, (Let alone classical scientific 'knowledge').

This supposition must be retained in your mind at all times during the course of the experiment and (believe me) your mind will most likely continually reject such a concept on a regular basis during the experiment.

To obtain an understanding of the results of the experiment we must absolutely ensure we keep reminding ourselves of this concept: Which is; that the objects in the experiment are deemed to have no intrinsic mass, weight or momentum*.

First of all I will relate the objects and beings in the experiment with their other properties:

Imagine some archers taking aim at a nice fat perfectly round cantaloupe of even density. The cantaloupe has no intrinsic mass but is made of 'stuff' which will offer friction to arrows passing through it, but magically (because we don't understand the phenomenology yet) without sustaining any damage whatsoever.

Arrows: These are also magic arrows which cause friction and a subsequent motion relative force when they pass through said cantaloupe, and they will in consequence lose some velocity in direct proportion to the friction, which is fully determined by the relative velocity between the arrows and the cantaloupe, (which I will now refer to as an object). The arrows do have momentum but they behave according to a priori laws and are deemed to have no effect on each other and can similarly pass right through each other, and in so doing do not lose any velocity (which includes direction).

The friction is deemed to be proportional to the du/dt of the speed of the transition through the cantaloupe. Note: for later analysis, also the volume (with even density) of the cantaloupe.

*We are analyzing the derivation of gravity which is not subject to the inertial laws of physics in its fundamental analysis. This only occurs AFTER gravity has caused motion and it is only then that we apply those laws.


 

  THE G-THEORY GRAVITY MIND EXPERIMENT  

 

The object is said to exist in a perfect vacuum of space and without gravity. A number of archers are gathered at various points around the object, and for simplicity at this stage of the experiment they are (unless otherwise indicated) deemed to exist on a flat (Cartesian) plane.

If one archer shoots an arrow at the object (and we will consider the archers to all be perfect marksmen and on average the velocity of their shots will be even). The arrow strikes the object and because said object has no mass it will remain on the tip of the arrow (if that has mass) and instantly accelerate to the velocity of the arrow which will carry it on its tip ad infinitum and without losing any velocity itself.

However this is not the case in the real world (which is to be explained in due course)* and we will consider that both the arrow and the object are not massless per se but exhibit the stated properties which do not evidence mass until the arrows transit the object and motion is conditionally elicited in the object. We need to understand that the arrows carry kinetic energy of momentum consistent with their velocity but it is not necessary to analyze the inertia of the firing of the arrows. Note: If we don't disregard unnecessary phenomena we'll risk getting lost in the weeds.

*The reason that massless objects can't disobey the third law of the universe is because of some phenomena called AIR and PIR which will be analyzed later. When these are overcome we have conditional losses and/or gains of energy.

 

Now consider two archers; each on opposite sides of the object and they both release an arrow which strikes the object at the same moment with the same impetus* (decelerative force/time value). In this case the object will remain stationary and the arrows will lose some velocity by the friction encountered in passing through it, and they both leave the object with a similar and lower velocity in opposite directions (and in so doing would cause less injury to the opposite archer. Ha ha. (Let just imagine that the archers are magical as well). The energy lost by the velocity component of friction is notionally by E=mv2**. The force acting on the object is note to be equal and opposite so no motion ensues.

*See impetus definition. I am using this word/term to get you used to it as a new and profound function which will soon be shown which will relate 'F,t,m' and 'a' in a non linear manner. What the?

**Another property being announced here is that the arrows gain kinetic energy for release into the object through friction by power law (lets say squared) relative to a double increase in the relative arrow-object velocity and visa versa.

 

Now if we now gather a huge number of archers all around the object, all shooting arrow after arrow from inexhaustible quivers, and the average period and velocity of their shots is randomly even. Then although the object might be seen to vibrate, it would generally remain in the same position. However it would see an internal temperature rise because of the energy gained by the velocity loss (hence arrow energy loss) of the arrows by friction. So we can notice that the lack of motion by the object being in equilibrium causes the motive force of the arrows to be converted only to thermal 'energy'. That's another subject to be expanded on.

Now we have the situation that the velocity, and therefore kinetic energy of the arrows entering the object all around is greater than the velocity (and therefore kinetic energy) of the arrows ex-iting the object all around. So the cantaloupe gains the lost arrow energy as heat but the arrow has lost velocity and energy has been conserved.

Now I'm going to place another similar object a short distance away from the first one and the same archers will continue shooting arrows at the same rate and velocities into each object (with every other archer shooting at the alternate object). What happens is that each object is now in an arrow 'velocity (and therefore impetus) deficit shadow' of the other one, this being explained in the case of one arrow losing some 'energy' inside the first object and so having less velocity and kinetic energy and therefore less impetus upon transiting the second object being 'shadowed' by the first. The net result when all archers are involved is that there is a net impetus deficit between the two, and both objects will consequently move towards each other with similar acceleration until they collide with impulse.

If I go back and remove the second object and now place all of the archers into two equally divided groups on opposite sides of the first object and they begin to shoot again, an amazing thing is soon realized. Even though the object vibrates a little it still remains motionless in the spatial displacement sense, and it is still in stationary equilibrium, and similar to the example wherein it was evenly surrounded by archers, it can be declared to contain the same perceivable property as before. If the arrows were continuous, invisible and omnipresent, it would seem to have some internal attractive force to other close-by objects in similar circumstances. This is what we currently refer to as gravity (or the ability to attract and be attracted by other bodies by reason of their density)* and in a similar way we currently perceive it to notionally be an intrinsic quality of a body with 'mass' even though that will be shown to be fallacious.

*As Einstein once said; "This doesn't lead to marriage!"

 

If you have understood the described concepts so far you may by now be confident to continue the experiment; Let's carry it through, and in so doing we should be able to all agree that the object has now also gained an inferred yet observably effective property called mass. (In fact mass was inferred the moment the first two arrows struck in the second supposition). Note: Just like gravity, mass is an inferred property (Neither of those (forces) are virtual or pseudo properties.) of all objects that are observed to posses it. Yes, mass is an inertial force. F=ma is simply discovering the sum of the retroactive inertial forces per nucleon.

This can be realized by arrows being able to cause an observed gaining of momentum after acceleration as follows. Imagine that the object is surrounded by an army of archers and we add say, another 100 archers into the mix and we get them to stand on one side and (with all other firing stopped) fire one arrow each simultaneously. The result is that the object will accelerate in proportion to both the time and the frictional 'drag' force that the arrows induce in traveling through it conditional to the nucleon population (which we can ignore for the moment).

The object will continue to accelerate until the barrage of new arrows has passed right through it, and then it will have reached a maximum terminal velocity of notional momentum. However; even though we might assume that it should be once again in equilibrium and traveling with momentum; because of the balance of arrows continuing to pass through it from all around, it is not, and surprisingly it will not continue to move at a constant velocity. It will slowly decelerate for the following reason.

I.e. because the object is now undergoing spatial displacement with kinetic energy that we usually refer to as momentum but now however it is considered to be slightly out of force equilibrium! The reason can be explained by recognizing that it is still travelling through a hail of omnidirectional arrows and because it is in motion, it is now experiencing a net velocity difference between arrows striking from the front compared to the velocity of those striking from the rear and because of the power law with velocity therefore, it has a minuscule extra force of 'variant velocity induced differential friction force' acting against the direction of travel. It would however in this universe take a very, very long time to slow down because of such relatively insignificant differential force which may be seen to be proportional to the ratio of the velocity of the object with the dis-proportionality of the arrow velocity differential. In other words the faster the object is moving, the greater the force against its continuance of motion will be, by some yet to be discovered power law.

Now the drag caused by the passage of arrows exhibiting friction within the object can actually be called a force, and if the flights (not feathers) of the arrows are continuous and equal then so is the force.

If now we were to supply a different external force with sufficient impetus to accelerate the object to the average velocity of the arrows, we would notice that the arrows behind would be hardly even striking at any significant velocity (consider not at all) and the ones in front would be striking at twice the velocity*. The force against the front in such a case is now almost infinitely greater than the force of the now severely weakened (zero) force from behind, which by mathematical logic we can consider such a phenomenon to occur by an inverse square law of force versus velocity. (Actually an inverse 'other' law when the object is a sphere and the striking of arrows is transitionally random. Mind the weeds at this juncture)

*The forces of all other arrows round the object when angularly vectored would maintain a net sidewise force of zero. This means that there will be no effect observed as any vectored directional change.

 

Now (back tracking a little), the continuance of velocit with kinetic energy ( which became  appreciated after the application of the force of 100 extra arrows) we call momentum, and at 'everyday' velocities the subtractive differential force acting against the momentum is so insignificant that we can confidently confer this property of momentum on the object as though we consider it to be an absolute invariable constant even though I intend to show that to not be the case at hyper velocities

 The local momentum energy is conserved but not the universal stress energy because of the second law of TD. There is energy loss over time for all, including momentum energy. Note: The solar wind gradually slows to a stop at the heliosheath! This is proof that momentum is just a subjective but useful real world notion and that space consists of 'stuff'.

Keeping in mind that the object has no inherent or actual mass or weight; we can now do several things to it to demonstrate some a-priori laws of motion (non Newtonian). First we will investigate methods of slowing it down, completely stopping it, reversing its travel, and lastly changing its vectored direction of travel.

In order to do this we can either arrange another group of archers in the opposite direction to shoot a simultaneous volley of 100 arrows of equal impetus against the direction of travel of the object and it will be seen to decelerate at a similar rate to the original acceleration and come to a complete stop. Either that or we can get one archer to fire 100 arrows (once again against the direction of motion), but this time one after another and the object will be observed to decelerate at a slower rate until we notice it to finally be stopped by the last arrow and we note that the same impetus was realized even though the time was greater. Note: Weeds again! Impetus and energy are only notionally the same.

Going even further with this, we’ll give the object the same momentum at equal velocity again, but now let's get a thousand (or any number over 100) archers to fire at once, and then one after the other. In the first instance we would observe the object to, decelerate to a stop at a particular determinable faster rate, but then we would notice that after stopping it would accelerate back the other way at a rate determined by the rate of shooting (whether all at once, or one after another) and also reach a velocity determined by the 900 extra shots. In this part of the experiment, by noticing that an object with momentum requires an opposing force to reduce it’s velocity at all, we have discovered gravitational inertia and kinetic 'energy'. Note: The term 'energy' could be used instead of impetus except that conceptually, 'energy' has no time component.

This all explains how (without intrinsic mass or attractive forces residing in bodies) such properties as gravity, mass, momentum, kinetic energy and inertia can be effectively attributed to an object or body, and that the arrows must continue to be fired in a constant and multilaterally even manner to maintain any constancy of gravity*. This would be  very profound should such a phenomenon actually be imagined to be occurring somewhere. I suppose that up until now, this might all seem to be a futile exercise that proves nothing because such phenomenology is not a feature of our experience of physics. 

Good news folks; it most likely is! It's been hidden in plain sight. What's really amazing about this is the existence of a similar and constant occurrence of such an effect operating throughout the whole universe. It is probably the single most continuous and widespread phenomenon that we can observe; that is If we adhere to the Occam's razor principle. This phenomenon of gravity can be explained by the theorizing of infinitesimally small and extremely hyper-velocity invisible-'arrows' called gravitons but please don't jump to conclusions yet, because while this mechanics applies to the ultimate extent to replace a previously magical/mathemagical phenomenology called gravity; with regard to the laws of motion it supersedes but that preeminence  only  applies to moving objects that are traveling at hyper speed and there is another quite different cause of classical inertial mass at all velocities which is still power law proportional to varying rates of spatial displacement, which of course also applies at real world speeds and which is yet to be explained even if it is insignificant at low speeds, because even if not detectable because of its low value, it is still there.

*Acceleration, deceleration and elastic rebound are functions of the vector laws of other forces so involved: TBE.

 

Side-acting-inertia on an object with velocity can simply be described in a similar manner, with equivalent side ways vector forces being required to cause the same vector adjusted results of any vector shift in its motion.

Now for the hard yards: This following part of the mind experiment is where the greatest difficulties of comprehension may arise in analysis of the associated real world phenomena, and in the past this may have caused rejection of other transitional boson theories (as being responsible for any cause of mass) by majority consensus. This is because; apart from the nagging idea of intrinsic mass (which by it's superglue like simplicity whereby 'no known cause' can be declared to be an acceptable scientific conclusion until of course a magical solution from metaphisicism comes along*! Other real world observations or interpretations to do with physical properties of matter also enter the mix).

In conducting the theoretical mind experiment it must be quite clear that not only does the object have no mass residing within it by some sort of metaphysical magic, neither does it have any physical properties expect for friction.

*When has science ever been about settling for unknown causes? So why then do I suspect that this explanation of actual causation of mass of any physical kind lead to probable opposition? One word: Einstein! OK; Newton as well to a lesser extent.

 

Having made the likelihood of contentious arguments quite clear, let's shrug that off for the moment and continue to carry out the experiment and discover explanations of how physical properties of natural objects are better able to explain the outcomes of such occurrences.

On with the experiment then: In observing collisions between objects, effects can be realized by the fact that when an object strikes say another ‘solid and immovable’ object there can be two theoretical extremes of reaction. It can theoretically exhibit perfect elastic*, rebound or conditionally respond progressively through to a fully inelastic collision. The latter is an impulse (splat) collision.  In this latter case it is exactly similar to the simultaneous striking of many to a theoretical infinite number of times the normal quantity of arrows in one direction.

*A perfectly elastic collision means that the object rebounds without loss of 'energy' or vector related reverse momentum/velocity. Pure collisions of both of these extreme types are never observed in the real world of AMOs.

 

The previously mentioned unilateral arrow assault is similar to the penultimate example except that at the same time as the extra arrows struck on one side. The arrows stopped striking for the exact same moment, and then they continued as per normal. Note: In the real world other more powerful forces such as nuclear strong binding force (SBF) and atomic bonds are the forces which take the place of the extra arrows to give objects inertial mass, which at this stage is fundamentally explanatory by this simplistic statement.

So we notice that during normally observed collisions in nature, internal binding properties of objects supercede the far weaker effects of the arrows, and in actual fact the preemptive fundamental atomic level forces combine to translate to the force laws of impulse, rebound, ac/deceleration and inertia and also the conservation of 'energy' and/or momentum. I.e. 'mass'... and laws including Newtons laws of motion; these are the stated laws involved in this case. These laws remain true REGARDLESS of whether the mass is deemed to be intrinsic or caused! In fact this transitional scalar boson representation, while fully applicable and causative of gravity, only applies 'velocity specifically and proportionally' to cause part of the overall mass of AMOs (atomic matter objects) and that part is (GTD) or G-mass (gravitational) which will be shown to have both a GD/GS component as well as a GTD component. Note: Anyone who contends that the objects must have intrinsic mass because there is a transposition of such inherent 'mass' of the colliding objects to 'energy' as heat, are simply proving their own perspective from their own perspective, without showing any causation at all! And this would likely be because they don't factually know what gravity is. This as well as not knowing what strong nuclear force or even for that matter, the force that causes atomic bonds is, they find themselves futilely arguing from both ends of unknown paradigms.

How can any reasonable argument then ensue when they attempt to disprove a logical model of causation with counter arguments derived from assumptions and unsubstantiated 'facts' or pre-learned opinions? One such 'fact' is mass 'energy' (M-E) equivalence** which I will strongly refute*. This refutation is actually an adjustment which will be duly explained, and as well as that the just mentioned atomic forces will be later explained by this theory.

*With M-E equivalence we end up with the contradictory phenomenon whereby nuclei are considered to have energy contained in them as some sort of mass equivalent binding energy which can somehow be released by both fission and fusion in the same breath. This is patently absurd! How can anyone possibly imagine that you can have 'energy' emission by forcing a nucleus apart and also have an 'energy' emission by forcing them together? For such to be the case would require the existence of some sort of 'toggle' applicable to fully stripped ions which was equal in both directions and not extremely unequal as is the actual case observed between the coulombic and strong binding forces.

The only substantive sounding but still specious answer that can be reasonably presented by the current paradigm is if the 'energy' is exactly relatable to the active forces in the two instances which can only then theoretically result in E out equals E in, which is definitely not what we observe in the real world of the laws of thermodynamics. That not being the case then, the idea of binding 'energy' being released in both cases is still ridiculous, so there must be other reasons for the 'energy' output. Visit my answer to this problem in chapter 17.

  **No this has not been proven at all it is just a 'shoehorned' assumption. There is a toggle: They simply disassociate thermal energy from other 'energy' at a whim. That's because they don't have a clue what energy actually is.  

Now leaving this seemingly off topic footnote behind, let's analyze the forces on a smaller object existing within the 'arrow velocity deficit' region of a much larger object: The smaller object may be considered to have fewer arrows passing through it in sum analysis. However it can be seen to have an equivalent number of lower velocity arrows passing through it from the direction of the larger object than it does faster arrows which pass through it directly from the archers shooting from the opposite direction with unaffected velocity.

We can now agree that the velocity differential still causes the same continuing force on the smaller object in inverse proportion to the density of the larger object, (similar to the second example), and it will accelerate towards the larger object at a greater rate than the rate at which the larger object will move in proportion to the size (density) difference of the two objects. By simple explanation: This is because the smaller velocity defect shadow of the small object has a proportionally smaller force affect on the large object than visa versa. If the density difference is massive then the force exerted on the large object by the small will be insignificant, but the accelerative force applied to the small object will be far greater than its size would seem to allow. This is because of the large velocity differential of the arrows passing through it being caused by the greater velocity defect shadow of the larger body which has much slower arrows coming out of it that strike the smaller object in that relative direction. Note: This is all in line with Newton ' s big G law of gravitational 'attraction' and dare I say it; Einstein's field equations. These equations are all conditional. Refer to Newton's errors and hack tabs.

If we suppose there are many different smaller objects existing in the 'arrow velocity defect shadow' of the much more massive object, then the force applied to the smaller objects will be seen to be proportional to their individual densities and therefore deriving their individual effective gravities and G masses, but because of their individual density proportional GSs (graviton flux density), they will all accelerate towards the large object at the same rate. I.e. they will all appear to 'fall' and land at the same time in accordance with the weak equivalence principle. Note: It will be shown later that there is in fact a very small but most likely insignificant difference.

Next we will analyze the mechanics that occurs when the object is of such a large volume (or density) that the arrows decelerate and come to a complete stop within the object. That's actually very simple to comprehend. I.e. The object will have an absolute unilateral arrow velocity density which is acting in towards the direction of the center of the object and any object placed in close proximity will be forced to accelerate into the object at the fastest possible rate. If such a phenomenon were to occur in space, we would call it a black hole. Tadah!

This whole experiment shows that gravity and some* of the laws of motion can be attributed to an effect called inferred or effective gravitational mass (G mass) by the affect of 'arrows' in the experiment but other substantive particles which possess the same properties to a limited but similarly effective extent in the real universe.

*Not observably at real world object velocities: TBE.

 

The laws that affect planetary motion etc. etc. all remain unchanged. The only difference is that actual 'mass' by G-theory includes G mass which is caused by light scalar perturbative bosons taking the place of the arrows and as we are about to consider this is theorized to be actually occurring in the cosmo-universe. This is deemed to be by gravitons transitioning objects and bodies at hyper-hyper velocities. N mass (Newtonian) will be shown to (case specifically) be G mass acting in collusion with another mass eliciting phenomenon which is soon to be described!


neuvophysics.com