• #### Re: What is the cause of gravity?

From Alan Folmsbee@21:1/5 to Odd Bodkin on Sat Aug 26 17:07:29 2023
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
What is the cause of gravity?

Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:

1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on >>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why
the interacting objects are attracted to each other.

However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and >>>> described it in terms of a physical field.

2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting >>>>> objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because
spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.

Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a >>>> math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
known for centuries.

If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is >>> not a valid description.

Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come
here. They never have. Books are the only option.

Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.

3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton. >>>>> However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities >>>>> and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.

This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.

Why they are not adopted by physicists?

They ARE! Catch up.

More bull shit.
Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.

4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of >>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:

1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a >>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of >>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.

2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the >>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.

3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.

4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That >>>>> means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a >>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.

Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
theory. So yours is not a theory.

You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
the cause of gravity.

No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.

No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory....look it up idiot.

I HAVE. You have not.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Alan Folmsbee on Sat Aug 26 17:26:02 2023
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:07:32 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
What is the cause of gravity?

Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:

1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on >>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why
the interacting objects are attracted to each other.

However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and
described it in terms of a physical field.

2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting
objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because
spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.

Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a
math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
known for centuries.

If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is
not a valid description.

Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come
here. They never have. Books are the only option.

Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.

3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton.
However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities
and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.

This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.

Why they are not adopted by physicists?

They ARE! Catch up.

More bull shit.
Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.

4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of >>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:

1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a >>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of >>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.

Expanding Earth is found wrong.

2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the >>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.

3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.

What is the strength of the two forces in light?

4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That
means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a >>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.

Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
theory. So yours is not a theory.

You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
the cause of gravity.

What more do you know?

No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.
Go back to your books then...
No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory....look it up idiot.

I HAVE. You have not.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

God creates gravity not mass.
Mass does not always curve space time in theory.
Einstein did not explain that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From whodat@21:1/5 to Alan Folmsbee on Sat Aug 26 21:22:44 2023
On 8/26/2023 7:07 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
What is the cause of gravity?

Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:

1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on >>>>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why >>>>>>> the interacting objects are attracted to each other.

However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and >>>>>> described it in terms of a physical field.

2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting >>>>>>> objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because >>>>>>> spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.

Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a >>>>>> math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
known for centuries.

If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is >>>>> not a valid description.

Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come >>>> here. They never have. Books are the only option.

Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.

3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton. >>>>>>> However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities >>>>>>> and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.

This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.

Why they are not adopted by physicists?

They ARE! Catch up.

More bull shit.
Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.

4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of >>>>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:

1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a >>>>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of >>>>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.

2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the >>>>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.

3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.

4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That >>>>>>> means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a >>>>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.

Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
theory. So yours is not a theory.

You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
the cause of gravity.

No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.

No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory....look it up idiot.

I HAVE. You have not.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

whodat!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From whodat@21:1/5 to Alan Folmsbee on Sat Aug 26 22:24:26 2023
On 8/26/2023 7:07 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
What is the cause of gravity?

Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:

1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on >>>>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why >>>>>>> the interacting objects are attracted to each other.

However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and >>>>>> described it in terms of a physical field.

2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting >>>>>>> objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because >>>>>>> spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.

Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a >>>>>> math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
known for centuries.

If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is >>>>> not a valid description.

Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come >>>> here. They never have. Books are the only option.

Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.

3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton. >>>>>>> However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities >>>>>>> and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.

This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.

Why they are not adopted by physicists?

They ARE! Catch up.

More bull shit.
Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.

4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of >>>>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:

1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a >>>>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of >>>>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.

2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the >>>>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.

3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.

4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That >>>>>>> means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a >>>>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.

Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
theory. So yours is not a theory.

You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
the cause of gravity.

No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.

No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory....look it up idiot.

I HAVE. You have not.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

whodat!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross A. Finlayson on Sat Aug 26 20:58:22 2023
On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 5:18:38 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:05:21 AM UTC-10, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 6:51:40 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:40:52 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 5:57:08 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
What is the cause of gravity?

Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:

1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why the interacting objects are attracted to each other.

2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because spacetime is not a
material medium. It is a math construct.

3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton. However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities and thus they are
not normalizable to give GRT.

4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
A paper on DTG is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:

1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.

2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.

3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.

4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a single attractive
force and that this single attractive force of gravity is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.

The final cause of gravity as from first principles
from our anthropocentric omnipresent origin and
place in the universe and placement of the center
seems to have basically for "an" explanation that
there's a unification of forces then as for gravity reflecting the gradient of the totally and point-wise isotropic and anisotropic, that gravity is both the centering of the local origin and emanation as to
the global origins.

total <-> global <-> local <-> point

Then, for gravity as "a force proportional to
pair-wise masses and inversely proportional to
their distance squared" may have that masses
attract, or here that they don't repel.

Here the idea is that the same classical model
results, but that it's a super-classical model
that contains and explains it.

(This is basically for a duality of point and
space pretty much just like a duality of
particle and wave, then also about a framework
of super-classical particle and wave models here
as absolute and light as flux.)

Whither unification?

For unification of all the forces (including gravity) please read Chapter 3 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

"I developed an interest to develop a unify theory
of our Universe in the early 1980s."

[Typo]

"As the name implies, the Pyramid Techniques
assumes that there is only one physical description
of the current state of the universe that is capable
of explaining all the processes of nature. This
description is at the apex of the pyramid. "

"The assumed physical model must be capable of
explaining all the forces and processes of nature.
In addition, the mathematics of the current theories
must be derivable from this physical model."

"Use this physical model to develop a new theory
of gravity that is compatible with the other forces of
nature and derive a complete theory of relativity from this physical model that is compatible with quantum field theories"

I see how you're talking requirements for one physical theory, but where is unification of all the forces.

"The combination of the physical model of
Model Mechanics with the math of Quantum Field
Theory (QFT) and the math of General Relativity
Theory (GRT) eliminates the incompatibility problem
exists between QFT and GRT. In addition,
it provide a foundation for a valid Theory of Everything."

Ambitious! Though, besides the grammatical errors,
a theory of everything has a model of all mathematics
in it, too, so you'd have to address Goedel after Einstein.
Also I don't see here where you've established that, except abstractly in the action of "Model Mechanics" and space-time.

My question "whither unification" is about unifying all
the forces to one force, not just pasting together theories
with mutually incompatible or noncompatible objects.

If you read Chapter 3 of my book, you will note that all the forces (including gravity) of nature are the result of absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix.

My question (and for a unified field theory) is
how is gravity unified with the other forces?

What model of the particles has the nuclei in
their charge "wells" with the nuclear force same
as gravity and mediated by charge?

How can "the geometry" of "the continuous medium"
result that mathematical properties of the geometry
and continuous medium see the relevant models of
the atomic and quantum, and charge, then surfaces,
up through the stoichiometric and chemical, observing
the flux of light, with conservation of charge, ...
or CPT symmetry, up through kinetics and gravity
then all through the cosmological and solar, ...?

There are many models of physics. What all
understanding of the models of mathematics
and the mathematical continuity throughout
an infinite space need to be in place to
equip a unified model of parallel transport
or events in space-time?

Charge is a flawed concept. The standard positive and negative
charges are replaced by "paired particles" called
electron and proton. The old lumped functional models
using algebra are now replaced by geometric detailing.

https://impuremath.wordpress.com/contraspline/

Euh, the periodic table of elements is pretty
clear the nuclear composition and the electrons
and their orbitals as predicting chemical reactions.

We're probably all familiar with at least
electrons as holes and the fluid model of
electricity and deriving Leinard-Wiechart
and that, test charges and such, induced
voltage and what, electrical flow and the
skin effect versus fluid flow and the core
effect. (There was an interesting novel
derivation of Leinard-Wiechart posted here
some time ago.)

This also includes Maxwell and the E & M
fields, or B & H, pretty clearly determined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

Probably familiar with various configurations
of the anode and cathode and triodes and
gates and such, usual solutions in circuits,
active and passive and current devices.

There's a modern geometric algebra approach
with neat, slick transformation tricks for
powerful coordinate-free approaches and with
a great apparatus for relativistic computations,
eg about Hestenes and Baylis and then Pezzaglia.

ultraviolet catastrophe, ..., Sagnac,
"slowing light" and Cerenkov, ..., ....

Then as far as I'm concerned the nucleus
is kind of like Dalton's or the pudding,
then with quarks, QCD, asymptotic freedom,
Technicolour, .., all surrounded by a sea
of electrons probabilistically around their
"orbits" and with "larger nuclei" in the
conducting materials.

Then, what's the point there?

It's like: photons are massless
when they're going at c.

Bending their paths at all imbues them?

Excuse me, that's an aside, I am quite
interested in UFT/GUT/ToE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Cerenkov radiation <-> Shapiro photon delay

matter metric / electromagnetic metric / gravitational metric <-> Schwarzschild metric

flux -> Bremsstrahlung

"The speed of light c_s, given by Eq. (2.11),
is smaller than the bare speed of light c
if the field evolves in time, i.e. if
̇φ is non-vanishing. A charged particle
can then move faster than c_s and this
is the situation which we will now study. "
bremsstrahlung from disformal couplings", https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.03567.pdf

From the abstract:

"The most general metric that can be built
in such a theory includes disformal terms,
so that standard model fields move on a
metric which is the sum of the space time
metric and a tensor constructed from first
derivatives of the scalar. In such a theory
gravitational waves and photons can propagate
at different speeds, and these can in turn be
different from the maximum speed limit for matter particles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

Well, whatever it is, the "mechanism" or cause of gravity, it should be according to
the "principle of least action" and "conservation of conserved quantities", so it's
quite a conundrum and confounding the usual model of gravitational attraction by massy bodies, because that would mean they were working all the time, which would be a violation of conservation (of mass, and energy) and least action.

Then, a usual idea like Fatio / Le Sage or these days sometimes "shadow gravity"
or what I call it "fall gravity", is that the background just has a tiny gradient,
or why the cosmological constant in the gravitational field equations is a non-zero,
though vanishing, then that it works out just like inverse square in the classical,
though at larger scales and independently rotating frames it's looking more like
MOND as independent rotating frames are different inertial-systems, that it drops off down to what appears linear, or why the formulas replacing dark matter
with an explanation and mechanism get sorted this way.

At the gravitational singularity is a sort of "cube wall", where the linear and inverse
cube come together.

So anyways this notion that it's a theory of real potentials, replacing the classical
mechanism with a higher-order mechanism or the superfluid and a model of real fields of potential, it's pretty old since Fatio / Le Sage, then these days gets into
for example the "quantum spin foam" and various sorts of superstring theory models,
but it could be much simpler since it would be elementary in fields of gravitational
potential, about explaining why physics has a theory of gravity that isn't entirely
incongruous with the rest of the enterprise, as above, then that also it unifies quite
neatly with the strong nuclear force, making directly for a unified field theory,
while relativistically is also include a General Relativiy's space contraction.

The gravityresearchfoundation has an essay contest so you might consult its previous entries.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Aug 28 11:11:48 2023
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:58:24 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 5:18:38 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:05:21 AM UTC-10, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 6:51:40 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:40:52 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 5:57:08 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
What is the cause of gravity?

Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:

1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why the interacting objects are attracted to each other.

2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because spacetime is not
a material medium. It is a math construct.

3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton. However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities and thus they are
not normalizable to give GRT.

4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
A paper on DTG is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:

1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.

2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.

3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.

4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a single attractive
force and that this single attractive force of gravity is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.

The final cause of gravity as from first principles
from our anthropocentric omnipresent origin and
place in the universe and placement of the center
seems to have basically for "an" explanation that
there's a unification of forces then as for gravity reflecting the gradient of the totally and point-wise isotropic and anisotropic, that gravity is both the centering of the local origin and emanation as to
the global origins.

total <-> global <-> local <-> point

Then, for gravity as "a force proportional to
pair-wise masses and inversely proportional to
their distance squared" may have that masses
attract, or here that they don't repel.

Here the idea is that the same classical model
results, but that it's a super-classical model
that contains and explains it.

(This is basically for a duality of point and
space pretty much just like a duality of
particle and wave, then also about a framework
of super-classical particle and wave models here
as absolute and light as flux.)

Whither unification?

For unification of all the forces (including gravity) please read Chapter 3 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

"I developed an interest to develop a unify theory
of our Universe in the early 1980s."

[Typo]

"As the name implies, the Pyramid Techniques
assumes that there is only one physical description
of the current state of the universe that is capable
of explaining all the processes of nature. This
description is at the apex of the pyramid. "

"The assumed physical model must be capable of
explaining all the forces and processes of nature.
In addition, the mathematics of the current theories
must be derivable from this physical model."

"Use this physical model to develop a new theory
of gravity that is compatible with the other forces of
nature and derive a complete theory of relativity from this physical model that is compatible with quantum field theories"

I see how you're talking requirements for one physical theory, but where is unification of all the forces.

"The combination of the physical model of
Model Mechanics with the math of Quantum Field
Theory (QFT) and the math of General Relativity
Theory (GRT) eliminates the incompatibility problem
exists between QFT and GRT. In addition,
it provide a foundation for a valid Theory of Everything."

Ambitious! Though, besides the grammatical errors,
a theory of everything has a model of all mathematics
in it, too, so you'd have to address Goedel after Einstein. Also I don't see here where you've established that, except abstractly in the action of "Model Mechanics" and space-time.

My question "whither unification" is about unifying all
the forces to one force, not just pasting together theories with mutually incompatible or noncompatible objects.

If you read Chapter 3 of my book, you will note that all the forces (including gravity) of nature are the result of absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix.

My question (and for a unified field theory) is
how is gravity unified with the other forces?

What model of the particles has the nuclei in
their charge "wells" with the nuclear force same
as gravity and mediated by charge?

How can "the geometry" of "the continuous medium"
result that mathematical properties of the geometry
and continuous medium see the relevant models of
the atomic and quantum, and charge, then surfaces,
up through the stoichiometric and chemical, observing
the flux of light, with conservation of charge, ...
or CPT symmetry, up through kinetics and gravity
then all through the cosmological and solar, ...?

There are many models of physics. What all
understanding of the models of mathematics
and the mathematical continuity throughout
an infinite space need to be in place to
equip a unified model of parallel transport
or events in space-time?

Charge is a flawed concept. The standard positive and negative charges are replaced by "paired particles" called
electron and proton. The old lumped functional models
using algebra are now replaced by geometric detailing.

https://impuremath.wordpress.com/contraspline/

Euh, the periodic table of elements is pretty
clear the nuclear composition and the electrons
and their orbitals as predicting chemical reactions.

We're probably all familiar with at least
electrons as holes and the fluid model of
electricity and deriving Leinard-Wiechart
and that, test charges and such, induced
voltage and what, electrical flow and the
skin effect versus fluid flow and the core
effect. (There was an interesting novel
derivation of Leinard-Wiechart posted here
some time ago.)

This also includes Maxwell and the E & M
fields, or B & H, pretty clearly determined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

Probably familiar with various configurations
of the anode and cathode and triodes and
gates and such, usual solutions in circuits,
active and passive and current devices.

There's a modern geometric algebra approach
with neat, slick transformation tricks for
powerful coordinate-free approaches and with
a great apparatus for relativistic computations,
eg about Hestenes and Baylis and then Pezzaglia.

ultraviolet catastrophe, ..., Sagnac,
"slowing light" and Cerenkov, ..., ....

Then as far as I'm concerned the nucleus
is kind of like Dalton's or the pudding,
then with quarks, QCD, asymptotic freedom,
Technicolour, .., all surrounded by a sea
of electrons probabilistically around their
"orbits" and with "larger nuclei" in the
conducting materials.

Then, what's the point there?

It's like: photons are massless
when they're going at c.

Bending their paths at all imbues them?

Excuse me, that's an aside, I am quite
interested in UFT/GUT/ToE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Cerenkov radiation <-> Shapiro photon delay

matter metric / electromagnetic metric / gravitational metric <-> Schwarzschild metric

flux -> Bremsstrahlung

"The speed of light c_s, given by Eq. (2.11),
is smaller than the bare speed of light c
if the field evolves in time, i.e. if
̇φ is non-vanishing. A charged particle
can then move faster than c_s and this
is the situation which we will now study. "
bremsstrahlung from disformal couplings", https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.03567.pdf

From the abstract:

"The most general metric that can be built
in such a theory includes disformal terms,
so that standard model fields move on a
metric which is the sum of the space time
metric and a tensor constructed from first
derivatives of the scalar. In such a theory
gravitational waves and photons can propagate
at different speeds, and these can in turn be
different from the maximum speed limit for matter particles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

Well, whatever it is, the "mechanism" or cause of gravity, it should be according to
the "principle of least action" and "conservation of conserved quantities", so it's
quite a conundrum and confounding the usual model of gravitational attraction
by massy bodies, because that would mean they were working all the time, which
would be a violation of conservation (of mass, and energy) and least action.

Then, a usual idea like Fatio / Le Sage or these days sometimes "shadow gravity"
or what I call it "fall gravity", is that the background just has a tiny gradient,
or why the cosmological constant in the gravitational field equations is a non-zero,
though vanishing, then that it works out just like inverse square in the classical,
though at larger scales and independently rotating frames it's looking more like
MOND as independent rotating frames are different inertial-systems, that it drops off down to what appears linear, or why the formulas replacing dark matter
with an explanation and mechanism get sorted this way.

At the gravitational singularity is a sort of "cube wall", where the linear and inverse
cube come together.

So anyways this notion that it's a theory of real potentials, replacing the classical
mechanism with a higher-order mechanism or the superfluid and a model of real
fields of potential, it's pretty old since Fatio / Le Sage, then these days gets into
for example the "quantum spin foam" and various sorts of superstring theory models,
but it could be much simpler since it would be elementary in fields of gravitational
potential, about explaining why physics has a theory of gravity that isn't entirely
incongruous with the rest of the enterprise, as above, then that also it unifies quite
neatly with the strong nuclear force, making directly for a unified field theory,
while relativistically is also include a General Relativiy's space contraction.

The gravityresearchfoundation has an essay contest so you might consult its previous entries.

Gravity can't create the universal Big Bang black hole.
How could a universe emerge from that original BH?
Gravity would be in the way instead of the quantum
universe expanding.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)