jacques wrote:
What about the inverse square law ?
That's next on my "to do" list, since the Reciprocal System never really had an acceptable explanation for the inverse square law, in my opinion. Larson has more of an excuse than a solid theory behind why the units are so inconsistent, to wit:
F = m
1m
2 / r
2
t/s
2 = t
3/s
3 t
3/s
3 / s
2
Which results in this space-time unit relation:
t/s
2 = t
6/s
8
Which obviously doesn't equate, so they invent units for a "universal constant", G. In the RS, there should be no "universal constants" outside of unity. If there are, then we missed something, which is obvious in this case.
Right now, I don't have a definitive answer, but I'll post my research and thoughts on the subject. Please feel free to contribute any ideas you may have.
The origin of the gravitational constant comes from the "Method of Jolly":
Introductory College Physics, Blackwood, 1939 wrote:
A spherical vessel containing 5 kb. of mercury was attached to one pan of a sensitive balance, and it was counterpoised by suitable bodies in the other pan. Next a lead sphere of mass 5,775 kg. (more than 5 tons) was placed below the flask of mercury, their centers being 56.86 cm. apart. The attraction of the lead for the mercury pulled the pan down slightly, and a small mass (0.589 mg.) places in the other pan was found to be sufficient to raise the mercury to its initial position.
From this, the gravitational constant was derived, and then used to compute the mass of the Earth. One of the problems of this system is that the geology of the Earth is assumed to be all in the "low speed" range of Larson; it is all regular matter.
In my 1996 paper, "At the Earth's Core", I introduced the idea that the inner and outer cores of planets (and all bodies that exhibit stable orbits) were actually a fragment from a white dwarf star, being ultra-high and intermediate speed matter, respectively. This fixed a number of problems with the current orbital models, because the ultra-high speed matter would act as an "anti-gravity" engine, actually holding the bodies (like the Earth and the moon) apart, and in a stable orbit. You couldn't force them together if you wanted to.
If this conclusion is true, then the "G" measured for the Earth is the NET motion of all three speed ranges, the pull of the low speed motion of the mantle, the neutral motion of the intermediate speed outer core, and the push of the high speed motion of the inner core. When "G", as determined from Earth, is applied to other bodies, it will be WRONG because each body has a unique distribution of these three speed ranges of matter. It is far from being a universal constant!
Second problem is that we seem to have "mass" and "gravity" backwards. Larson defines mass from Einstein's equation, E=mc
2, giving it the space-time units of t
3/s
3. Gravity is its inverse, s
3/t
3. Now look at the other common fields, electricity (t/s) and magnetism (t
2/s
2)--both counterspatial "force fields" (Larson's
distributed scalar motion). Look at the space-time units for mass--they also indicate a t/s relationship, a FIELD, not a body. It is the MASS that is nonlocal to space, what we actually see as the "mass" is actually the "gravity" (the local, spatial presence). This is why electric, magnetic and MASS (not gravitation) share the same inverse square equation.
Going back to the "Forces" topic, we know that "force" is NOT some magical, mystical power that comes out of nowhere to move things. It is just a measurement of the net motion going on at a particular point between interacting motions. So what we are actually trying to find is how to explicitly measure the motion between COUNTERSPACE (polar) fields, whether it be the dielectric field, the magnetic field, or the mass field and how that is projected into extension space (3d, coordinate space).
Consider the differences between the three fields in question:
- Dimensionality: electric = 1d, magnetic = 2d, mass = 3d
- Motion: electric and magnetic are ROTATIONAL VIBRATIONS, mass is a ROTATION only (no vibratory component).
- Electric, being 1d, can be fully expressed in the reference system (since, per Larson, only 1 of the 3 scalar motions can be fully expressed; the other 2 just act to modify the motion). Magnetic, being 2d, can have one dimension expressed and one modifying. Mass, being 3d, can have one dimension expressed and two modifying.
Our spatial coordinate reference frame will thus only express vectorial motion of the field in question in ONE SCALAR DIMENSION. From this, it is probably worthwhile to examine the inverse square relation for the dielectric field, since it can be fully expressed. I believe the origin of the magnetic and gravitational constants in the inverse square law is to compensate for the "modification" that the other 1 or 2 scalar dimensions supply.
The 1d version of the inverse square law is:
F = k E
1 E
2 / r
2
which in space/time units is:
t / s
2 = t/s t/s / s
2 = t
2/s
4
which, if you look at it, is nothing more than F= F
2. Indeed, if you split out the s
2 into 2 "s", one for each field t/s, you get F = t/s
2 t/s
2, which is far closer to Newton, but doubled up: F = (ma) (ma)
What does this mean? I don't know... I am now considering the possibility that the inverse square law is nothing but an approximation to the actual equation, that happens to work close enough for our range of measurements. There are so many unstated assumptions built into conventional physics and astronomy regarding mass and the assumed gravitational "constant" that it might not even be close, should we ever get out and explore other worlds. We've built up the masses of planets and stars to fit the "constant" and the equation, but that might not be the reality of the situation.
So, my approach is to try to determine, from the descriptions in the "Force and Force Fields topic", just how the "force" can be determined for any point within the interacting fields, be they electric, magnetic or mass. And that means dealing with polar spaces (counterspace) and not ignoring the temporal components.
Any opinions or thoughts on the subject are greatly appreciated!
[/]