Why do they gravitate?

[bperet]

I created a plot of the temporal displacements involved in gravitating masses (the 3-body problem), see attached. In the image, the vertical (Y) axis is the temporal displacement, the higher up, the larger the displacement (and hence the stronger the resultant force). The X-Z plane is a coordinate space plane where the masses are positioned in space.

To find the temporal displacement, just pick an X-Z point and read the Y coordinate of the contour.

The center of gravity of the 3 masses in the plot would be in the center of the vertical pillars; the width of the pillars is the relative magnitude.

If you notice that there is a higher displacement between bodies, which accounts for the "attractive" force of gravity between them, and the further you get from the bodies, the more circular the force field becomes.

From doing this plot, I learned something important regarding mass--mass is a motion in THREE scalar dimensions, yet ONLY ONE dimension can be represented in the coordinate reference system of extension space (see Larson's distributed scalar motions). Hence, electric, magnetic and gravitational forces are a ONE DIMENSIONAL interaction--ONLY the dimension that can be expressed in extension space can take part in the equations of force, since force is a VECTOR in extension space, not a scalar speed.

I believe the Gravitational Constant is a "fudge factor" to account for the magnitudes in the other two scalar dimensions that CANNOT be represented by the reference system in the force equation. I am going to do some more research on this to see if it pans out as expected.

Temporal displacement versus X-Z coordinate location mass/gravity plot

[img]/files/gravity_209.jpg[/img]

[Horace]

Bruce,

Thanks for the plot. I still do not understand how the time displacement moves when a mass moves in extension space.

How would such plot differ if you had substituted the 3 masses with 3 electrical charges? In other words, how would the plot of motion in 3 scalar dimensions differ from the plot of motion in 1 scalar dimension ?

Also, are the values in your plot discrete? Do they degenerate into a circular staircase at the periphery, just like in the paper below?

http://www.glendeen.com/npa2007/Deen_20 ... nomaly.pdf

[bperet]

Horace wrote:

Thanks for the plot. I still do not understand how the time displacement moves when a mass moves in extension space.

We can only see and measure space. Time is invisible to us. We can see the effects that time has on space by using a counterspatial projection, which we measure as a "force field" (Larson's "distributed scalar motion").

Each mass is located at an absolute location in the natural reference system. A projection of that absolute location into extension space gives us a "center" of the atom, a zero in which we can measure.

Distance is calculated by two factors: the spatial separation in the natural reference system, and the temporal displacement of the atoms involved. The more they are separated in time, the closer they APPEAR in space.

Remember that mass is NOT fixed at an absolute location--it is moving inward at a rate determined by its internal motions.

In the case of gravitation, the "mass fields" of the temporal motions intersect, thus increasing the net temporal motion of the masses involved. That makes the masses move "inward" at a greater rate, changing their absolute locations in the natural reference system. With the spatial difference less, the mass fields increase the temporal displacements for each mass even more, making them move together even more with each increment. We see this as gravitational attraction.

Horace wrote:

How would such plot differ if you had substituted the 3 masses with 3 electrical charges? In other words, how would the plot of motion in 3 scalar dimensions differ from the plot of motion in 1 scalar dimension ?

You could substitute 3 charges or 3 poles, providing they are all the same polarity, and the only difference would be the magnitude on the vertical axis.

Horace wrote:

Also, are the values in your plot discrete?

They are "quasi-discrete"; I didn't rewrite the math functions to be discrete (which would be needed for an accurate plot), I just used a threshold value for truncation.

Horace wrote:

Do they degenerate into a circular staircase at the periphery, just like in the paper below?

Yes, they did degenerate. You can see it if you look at a top view of the plot. Near the center of mass, the increment between contour lines is very small, and becomes quite large when you get near the edge of the plot. The white contour lines are at "integer" breaks in the plot. Given the discrete unit hypothesis of the RS, the temporal speed between the lines would be the same value regarding interactions.

Thanks for the link to that paper... very interesting. I actually know Glen Deen; we used to chat about the RS and other things back around the turn of the millennium. Haven't heard from him in a long time.

Top View of gravity plot showing discrete steps in temporal displacement (grey contours)

[img]/files/gravity_topview_132.gif[/img]

[Horace]

Here is a nice summary of legacy's science explantaion why they gravitate.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C040 ... vukula.pdf

Horace

[RMohan]

Permit me to piggyback on your post with

another theory I just read at PhysOrg

tonight:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8631

I just skimmed, folks, but I really perked up when

I read a key part of the theory was that gravity

acts differently in different "regions" in space.

Very Larson-esque!

-Ross

Horace (email removed) wrote:

Quote:

Here is a nice summary of legacy's science explantaion why they gravitate.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C040 ... vukula.pdf

Horace

[RMohan]

folks studying superconductivity are noticing

that "electrons get much heavier" near absolute

zero where all "motion" ceases.

http://www.physorg.com/news113146663.html

Again, I found myself wondering: since we have

so many types of motion (linear, rotational, transverse, etc.)

in Larson, are we really stopping *all* motion?

Perhaps some of the extra "mass" (a derived quantity

for Larson) coming from these experiments is that

the scientists are not considering other types of

motion in these fluids.

Did Larson have anything direct to say about superconductivity?

[bperet]

RMohan wrote:

Again, I found myself wondering: since we have so many types of motion (linear, rotational, transverse, etc.) in Larson, are we really stopping *all* motion?

Stopped is "zero"; in the RS, you cannot have an aspect of motion less than one, so the minimum quantity of motion is unity. It is therefore not possible to stop all motion.

I think what they are referring to is secondary motions, such as heat and ionization, thus leaving only the rotational component of the electron.

In the RS, the concept of "mass" is the net, temporal displacement. In normal atoms, the less the rotational time displacement, the lighter the atom. But recall that the electron is spatially displaced... not temporally. So the less spatial displacement, the higher the apparent mass (inverse relationship).

RMohan wrote:

Did Larson have anything direct to say about superconductivity?

Very little; Nehru did an article or two on it. Turns out that superconductivity is a property of the electron, not the matter!