The simplest model of gravity would be that everything within the sources range is magnetized. eg magnetic field, and is thus attracted to the source. If two source are present and exerting a force on a object then the object goes to the closer source.

What defines a mass object to become known as a source is not clear to me but it may not be at all related to it's volume or density or mass, rather it may be a property or function of a certain element found within such massive objects that is perhaps known to be in a fixed positive or up spin quantum state.

I keep remembering my statement that spin is key, but what I had in mind as its function may not be true.
Perhaps spin is matters logic gate, for example, spin up is positive and spin down is negative. Every atomic particle that has spin, that spin serves as a logic gate for the associated force for which it is known. If we could say that an Electron with a top or up spin is known then we might see that the force such as magnetism is present and it is attractive, the opposite force a push is known when the spin is down.

For every action there is a reaction, for every force there is opposite force?

A Photon is known as the carrier of EMR, yet it is unknown whether such particle has a spin associated with it. If it were found, you could almost be certain of a dual function. If it has spin, it has a spin state. Lets suggest a top spin realizes normal EMR, what force would be associated with a bottom or down spin? And another important question, what causes the change in spin state?

Imagine a solid glass ball. We can say the total downforce aka gravity felt by the glass ball is X. However you get X doesn't matter as long as it's a close representation of the total force felt by the ball and you use that in the next example. Imagine now the glass ball in suspended animation shattered into say 1000 pieces just seconds after incident. What is the sum of the total downforce felt by the glass ball now? Is it equal to, less than, or greater than the glass ball as a whole? Quantum theory might suggest that it is equal to, yet in your own mind you think it would be less than and here's why. Due to the ball's geometry in an unshattered state, every force felt by any coordinate on the sphere adds to the force felt by any other part, that is because it is a fixed solid that if one section moves the other has to also move or the object breaks apart.

This concept is important to know and understand when describing ones own model of gravity. If we say that gravity is a radiation or wavelike force eg. field theory, then the force exerted on the sum of the pieces would be equal to the force felt by the ball as a whole. Now say that gravity is as described by me, an ether attraction, then the total force felt by the ball as a whole would be greater than the sum of the pieces. True or False? The answer would be false. Both theories are equal because the principle of any force exerted on any part of a whole will exert a force on any other part of the whole holds true independent of the model of gravity.

A "field" may not be known as an emmitence of radiation or wavelike at all, it may in fact be known as a coordinated or similar quantum spin state of neighboring particles. Example being a magnetic field could in fact be electrons in a similar spin state thus realizing the asscociated force.

Jan 30 2004

Regarding undetected Hydrogen and an alternative view to cosmic redshift

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html\
(c) Paul Marmet

"Molecular hydrogen is rarely looked for in space. In most papers in astrophysics, the word hydrogen is mentioned without distinguishing whether it is atomic or molecular. Yet it is a well-known fact of basic chemistry that atomic hydrogen is extremely unstable, and that it reacts violently to produce molecular hydrogen, which is extremely stable. Given a bottle of pure atomic hydrogen, one would expect an immediate energetic explosion, producing molecular hydrogen at a very high temperature.

Atomic hydrogen (H), composed of a single proton and electron, is the simplest existing stable atom. Because of the spin structure of the particle, it is easily detectable using a high frequency radio signal at 21-cm wavelength. Atomic hydrogen in galaxies and in intergalactic space can be detected very easily, because the atomic hydrogen can change its spin (which changes its energy).

Electromagnetic radiation is emitted at the wavelength of 21 cm, or an absorption line is observed (in the background radiation) at that wavelength. However, when two atoms of atomic hydrogen combine, forming molecular hydrogen (H2), their spins are coupled and completely cancel each other. The radio-frequency spectral line at 21 cm no longer exists, and the molecular hydrogen becomes totally invisible at that wavelength.

The possible vibrational and rotational states for the two hydrogen nuclei in the diatomic hydrogen molecule are well known (cf. Herzberg 1950). However, the only two electrons are so tightly coupled, that they form a pair in which the electric field and the spin of the electrons are completely cancelled.

Molecular hydrogen possesses no permanent dipole. Such a perfect coupling is unusual among diatomic molecules. For example, in the cases of nitrogen and oxygen, there are seven and eight electrons per atom, so that when combined, it is not possible to fulfill such a perfect coupling of spins (with zero permanent dipole) for all seven or eight pairs of electrons.

When light passes through normal molecular gases, such as oxygen, nitrogen, and others, radiation excites the resulting electric dipole in the molecule, and some energy is scattered or absorbed. However, in the case of molecular hydrogen, there is no dipole moment, so that no radiation can be absorbed or emitted.

Most excited molecules possess an electric or magnetic dipole, and emit photons (light) after about 10-8 seconds. By comparison, the spontaneous emission of light from the first rotational state of molecular hydrogen is practically impossible. A transition from the second rotational state (producing a photon of light) is relatively much more probable, but occurs only once in about every 1,000 years. One must reach the sixth state before the probability of the transition occurring becomes once a year. These so-called forbidden transitions are so improbable that we cannot hope to detect cold molecular hydrogen in space. Because the universe has an average temperature of 3K, the detection of most of the molecular hydrogen still remains unlikely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Marmet, shown with the electron spectrometer that he pioneered, at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics. The spectrometer produces a low-energy, monoenergetic electron beam, which is used to study aspects of the electron structure of atoms and molecules, such as their energy levels.
The electron beam is fired into a beam of atoms or molecules, directed at right angles to it. The number of ions produced in the resulting interactions provides the information about the electron configurations in the atoms and molecules. Marmet has studied atoms of helium and argon and molecules of molecular nitrogen, molecular oxygen, carbon monoxide, and methane, among others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the Surprise?
The extreme transparency of molecular hydrogen in different quantum states may also be examined (Marmet 1992). Compared with all other known gases, molecular hydrogen is the most transparent in the universe. Yet, this well-known fact, should have led to the expectation of finding molecular hydrogen, because atomic hydrogen had already been observed. It is difficult to understand why it was ignored, when so many experimental observations require the presence of missing mass in the universe.
There are many misleading statements concerning the detection of hydrogen in the universe. Without making any distinction between atoms and molecules, most papers in astrophysics state that the amount of hydrogen in the universe is well known because it is easily detectable out to considerable distances. The presence of an enormous amount of molecular hydrogen certainly makes this statement erroneous.

However, it is well known that atomic hydrogen in space was certainly naturally transformed into H2. Over billions of years, dust, three-body interactions, and even photon emission have produced H2. Once molecular hydrogen is formed, it is so stable that it has little probability of dissociation. It cannot be argued that H2 does not exist in space because it could be ionized or dissociated by ultraviolet radiation. If there were enough ultraviolet radiation to ionize H2, that same radiation would also ionize atomic hydrogen. This is not the case, because non-ionized atomic hydrogen is observed, even though it requires less energy to ionize the atomic than the molecular form of hydrogen.

These considerations show, that as a result of the large amount of atomic hydrogen already observed in space, and the extreme stability of molecular hydrogen, the chemical equilibrium giving the relative abundance between atomic hydrogen and molecular hydrogen in space, strongly favors the formation of the diatomic form (H2) over the monoatomic form. We must thus conclude that the recent discovery of H2, is no surprise, and should have been expected from the known facts concerning the natural equilibrium between H2 and H. It is expected that much more colder H2 will also be discovered.

Dark Matter and the Redshift

The presence of H2 also has important consequences regarding the origin of the universe and the interpretation of the cosmological redshift. This author has been arguing for several years that this huge amount of transparent H2 in space is interacting with light received from the cosmos (Marmet 1988, 1990a, b). The essential argument is summarized as follows:

Even when H2 is not excited to specific quantum states, there is another kind of interaction that perturbs and slows down the moving photon. We know that light interacts with a transparent medium, because its velocity is reduced, without scattering, as calculated and observed using the simple index of refraction of gases. Cosmic light, moving across billion of light years, suffers an almost unimaginable number of collisions with those transparent molecules of hydrogen in the universe.

Light is a wave-train of electromagnetic radiation. As a result of its coherence, which is maintained during a time span (known as the time or length of coherence), the phase of the electromagnetic field progresses regularly in time. Using the Fourier transform, we can calculate that an electromagnetic wave train (which never can last an infinite time), always possesses two frequency components: the usual high-frequency component, but also a very low frequency component, which depends on the time of coherence.

From the electron-proton structure of hydrogen, it can be calculated that some energy is lost (scattered) during the interaction of light with hydrogen, which depends on that low-frequency component (time of coherence). We have shown that the passage of light through hydrogen, either atomic or molecular, is always (slightly) inelastic. It is also known that the energy loss is compatible with the relationship "" Consequently, the redshift following the collision of a photon with H2 is indistinguishable from the phenomenon caused by the Doppler effect.

Only the warmest molecular hydrogen (involving higher vibration and rotation quantum numbers) is detectable now. When the technology develops to the point that we can detect the colder H2 in the universe, a larger quantity of H2, coming from colder molecular hydrogen in galaxies, will certainly be discovered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know that the H2 molecule produces about the same (non-Doppler) redshift as monoatomic hydrogen, but the number of H2 molecules is much larger. Because atomic and molecular hydrogen have an approximately homogenous distribution in the universe, this induces a non-Doppler redshift, which is proportional to the distance of the light source (just as for an apparently expanding universe, assumed with a Doppler interpretation).
The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.

With the new discovery, science can now have a logical and realistic description of nature, because we no longer have to speculate with such exotic hypotheses as WIMPs and "quark nuggets" to explain the missing matter in the universe."

Feb 19 2004

On the expanding accelerating Universe

Everyone knows the Universe is expanding but few know it is actually accelerating also. Proof is suggested by observation of type 1A Supernovae . A type 1A Supernovae star is a class of star that is similar in mass to all other type 1A Supernovae . We know this similarity of size and mass is accurate when we compare the spectrum of light radiation emitted by such, therefore a Supernovae star with mass greater than type 1A will have a different spectrum than that of a type 1A. Knowing this we can observe 2 Supernovae at different distances and if we see the spectrum is similar then we know we are looking at a similar in size star. Now with that in mind, we have a guide to make some insites into the motion of expansion based on locations of these two Supernovae . When all is said and done, evidence suggests that all galaxies in the Universe are not only expanding but accelerating with time. Of course that is a brute summary of the proof, but nontheless lets explore why in the heck the galaxies would be accelerating, as is no-one really knows.

Question: What is the one thing that absolutly pervades "empty space"?
Answer: Light or Electromagnectic radiation.

Question: What is the source of EMR?
Answer: Stars

Question: What else pervades emtpy space besides EMR?
Answer: Near every element found on the periodic table is created withing the core of stars and when those stars end there life, in the case of Red giants or Supernovae, they spread those elements accross space in something similar to a nebula so that the next generation of stars can be born. Some of that "star dust" is blown into empty space and may or may not become a part of anything greater.

Question: Do magnetic fields or "gravity" pervade space?
Answer: Locally only. That is, magnetic fields being realtively weak and short perimeter around any given celestial object, while the same can also be said about gravity. Neither have a travel or exsistence similar to light, yet while all three can become magnified and measured as a net output of several objects, light is the only one to exsist and travel infinatly beyond its original source. To be absolutly clear, gravity from any far distant galaxy has almostly certainly no presence near our galaxy, its light however does.

And that's the interesting thing. The only thing that could create a force by a force is light from each and every galaxy. Ask yourself what of the possibility that when light photons are absorbed by mass a force, no matter how rediculously small, exsists? Now ask yourself what would that force be? A push, pull? A push. Now consider the net effect of every photon and its push across the surface area of any given large celestial object. Now ask yourself is that force constant? Yes, we receive light from galaxies at a constant rate, photons are constantly coming into contact/absorbed by any surface mass. Now consider the speed of light and you realize why an acceleration would exsist if such is the case. That being the case, We have a long ways to go before we stop accelerating according to the speed of light.

Now this is all wild speculation, but it is interesting to consider the possibility. It is more reasonable than say Dark matter or energy of which we cant even prove exsists. And to those that would ask wether the big bang is still going I dont know what to say other than I think not and that still would only explain expansion not acceleration.
So what if its not light? What if its something else emitted by stars? So be it, and it would not surprise me, however the idea that the stars are the source of acceleration I find quite interesting. The truth is there are many particles of matter and energy that pervade space yet none seem to come to mind more clear as the fact that light radiation or photons do.

Given the idea that empty space excerts little to no friction or drag on massive bodies I find that any push no matter how small would over time become noticeable and become known as an acceleration of said body if that push is constant. Correct? Even if there is friction we compensate by suggesting a greater push. It turns out that empty space does have little to no friction associated with it that is why nasa spacecraft can accelerate over time as it travels. Ironically the power source of these spacecraft, nuclear energy aside for electronics power, is light absorbed by the sun via solar panels. Of course that light energy is converted to mechanical energy but lets therorize for a second. If an object is set into space would it gradually over who knows how many years begin to move forward? Now wait a minute, this all depends on where in space you put it according to our little theory. Remember gravity still exsists around massive bodies, so putting it near any solar system or galaxy forget it because gravity would cancel out and yes overcome any push by light. BUT if you put it in empty space, now ask yourself the question would it move? Forget space winds ect. theres virtually no gravity field ect. Could or would it move given X amount of time and the only thing we know that comes into contact with it is light from galaxies?

I dont know. Like I said it's interesting to think so. If it does move are we going to explain it by dark energy or what? Another important concept is the surface area, mass and whatnot of our object because the greater the surface area, the greater the effect. eg. the more photons that hit it, in essence the greater the push. Net effect, Net push.

About now your thinking great, neat theory. Let me just kill it right now with this simple yet true fact. Galaxies are global, how can one push from one side while another pushes from the other side? Any push is effectively canceled out no matter how you look at it by an equal and opposite push from the other side.

All that aside there is one interesting thing to think about. The more distance between galaxies, the less gravity between them, the less gravity between them, the more they drift outwards and expand, or the less at least they would be slowing down. Now where the acceleration comes in again I dont know but it may be mistaken as this.

If that last part didnt make sense let me give another example. When you throw a ball up in the air it has a constant negative acceleration varible associated with it because the varible G gravity is constant on it. Imagine though the farther the ball from the ground, the less G became, what would it look like? The ball would continue to go up forever until finally G nears zero, after that who knows, positive acceleration? Now take our example and apply it to galaxies. We know G is not constant between galaxies because they are moving away from each other, so G is incrementally getting less. While G gets less, negative acceleration becomes less or in other words, it appears to be positive acceleration.

Mar 6 2004

An interesting point is made by Louis Nielsen http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_16.html regarding acceleration

"As our knowledge about the physical conditions of objects in the Universe are mainly obtained by analysis of the light emitted by the objects, it is also necessary to take into account the gravitational conditions when this light was emitted. For instance the gravitational shift of wavelength is dependent on the strength of the gravitational field in the area from which the light is emitted."

Basically what hes saying is this with my own interpretation, if you can say that light is effected by gravity as is the case with blackholes for instance, you must also agree that the region or size of galaxy where these so called identical supernova are located will affect the wavelenghths of these supernova as seen by us. In essence what we think we are seeing as identical supernova, may not at all be identical and the reason is given by a difference in local gravitational fields. To further clarify, suppose we have 2 identical sized supernova in actuallity, but now suppose and is likely the case, they are in substantially different gravitational fields therefore affecting what we see and the end result being, they look different in size and wavelength, but the truth being they are the same after all. Now the question remains of whether this is known and accounted for in such observations and reports.

Again, the location of the supernova as it relates to its host galaxy is important also. Example being, say we view one at near the edge of a galaxy facing us and compare it to one on the opposite side or near the middle of a galaxy, regardless if the supernova are identical in actualality, the light will travel through different gravitational fields and thus it's wavelengths affected and will appear different as seen by us. Quite the problem as the only thing we can judge a supernovas size is by its spectrum.

But in my opionion however it may be, I do believe acceleration is real, yet I reach that conclusion based on a different idea and that being an ever increasing distance between galaxies realizes a ever decreasing gravitational slowdown between them, in essence a positive acceleration. In other words, A decreasing negative acceleration can be looked at as a positive acceleration.

This next part may sound strange but once we can get a visual interpretation of a gravitational field which would be years and years away if at all possible, we can combine that data with the visual spectrum of light emmited from the same region and get an accurate representation of the actual size of object we are looking at. All you are doing then is subtracting the effects of gravity out to get the "true spectrum". And of course we still need to factor in the motion of said objects which by way of doppler effect also effects spectrum. The question of is dust or some other thing perhaps "tired light" involved also. There are many questions to be addressed so don't be too quick to agree with what you hear with regards to acceleration and expansion and even the exsistence of dark energy. You never know what they know or have thought of and what that means to what they are saying.

There is yet again one other thing to consider. The light more often than not will travel past or through 1 or several galaxies in the foreground thus affecting it in more than one way, one being its gravitational field. You may have heard of something called "gravitational lensing" this is similar to what you can expect.

Mar 17 2004

How light (the photon) maintains its original state through deep space travel

You ask yourself how light from distant galaxies reaches us and the answer is quite simple. The photon's origin is matter, matter is the only thing that can create, modify, and absorb other photons. A photon when created has a specific frequency that it maintains throughout it's exsistence but with a special point to be made, in the absense of matter. Empty space is of course what we define as absense of matter, therefore it is impossible for that photon to change its charateristics. It travels for infinity unchanged until it is absorbed by matter. What about a gravitational field? A gravitational field is what we will understand as the presence of matter, therefore it is known to be able to affect the charateristics of that photon eg. stretch its wavelength. Its easy to understand, imagine it how you will, the photon is created with X properties them being energy, wavelength ect. That is what it is and will forever be until absorbed or modified by matter.

Can photons alter other photons? This is interesting because I would immediatly say no, but then remember that a photon has mass and energy, mass and energy being exchangeable, and as I just pointed out the one thing that can alter a photon is matter. So the question is now, is the photon considered matter? And to answer that I would say no not really, mass != matter in this case. When I say the word "matter", what I'm really saying is stuff that is able to create a photon, and you'll quickly make the connection that "of course, because a photon cannot create another photon." In other words, anything that can create a photon is the only thing that can affect a photon.

How is the speed of EMR (the photon) constant no matter is frequency and wavelength?

This one has puzzled me, but I came up with a good question to ask and it's this. Why would the speed of a particle be dependent on the information it carries. And logically I'd have to say good point, I dont see why it would I guess that settles that. But WHY is it independent, what design feature is given by such a law? You could just as easily design the photon - the information it carries eg. its charateristics, wavelength ect. to be dependent on the speed at which it travels. For example, a radio wave known to be of a higher wavelength ( less energentic) could travel slower than a gamma ray which has a shorter wavelength ( more energentic). That would make sense wouldn't it? Sure, Until you remember what we previously stated, once a photon is created it retains its original state. To do it this way, information will be lost and everything will be messed up because what was supposed to be visible light, now slowed down and by slowing down its now a radio wave. Thats no good. Or, what was originally sent out as a radio wave was speed up and is now visible light. Information is lost and confused. That is why the speed of EMR is independent of what it is, if it wasn't, we wouldnt be here. It's kind of like asking why you are still you, walking or running, the answer is obvious- If you morphed into something else when you ran that would be scary.

But you can see where conservation of energy and mass is maintained now by realizing that matter - the creater of mass and energy, exchanges photons with other matter.

To say that a photon loses energy while in travel through deep space would violate this law. Therefore we answer the question of how light maintains its state over billions of light years.

Of course a question now would be why is there such a law, the law of conservation of energy? Or is there really such a law and can it be broken in certain cases? What about a blackhole? Does a blackhole obey the law? Of course there is such a law that much is already proven, a blackhole's say on the issue although is up for debate.

And one other thing to think about. If gravity is able to slow down a photon in travel, changing its wavelength, is that not a violatation of some law? Does that not contradict what we just said when we say that a photon retains its state? Technically the photon is not in contact with matter, it's not being absorbed or lost, how can it be modified? What happens to the lost energy? The only thing we can conclude then is that the frequency or wavelength of a photon is not an energy state. That can't be can it? Of course not, that is the only way energy can be quantified and accounted for unless some other bizarre way is known such as the size of a photon is it's energy level, that doesnt sound good at all. No the truth is, it's energy is measured by the level of excitation eg. velocity of motion or oscillation within it's self structure. In a arbitrary reference frame, is the photon "vibrating" from "side to side"
fast or slow? This is its energy state, and this is what is passed on when absorbed by matter. Its classical mechanics defined... or is it? Hit a cueball to another ball and energy is transfered. Ahah! hmm interesting here now in that analagy we see that the speed of the object is it's energy because it unlike the photon does not have an internal energy or oscillating motion by which to define its energy, all the cueball has is its mass and motion and potential. I never said that quantum mechanics were similar, light energy and mass energy are two different things not to be confused and they can't be compared in the case of quantum laws. There is no observable phenomenon in the macro physical world to compare to the constant speed of motion of a photon. And you kind of get the feeling that either the two realms are just different all together or that the photon is not a massive particle to begin with, in which case we wouldn't have anything to compare it with anyway just the same, so how would we know at what speed it should travel that would make sense to us? But one wonders why the speed of the photon has no relation to its energy as in the case of the cueball.

Back to gravity and how and why it affects these light photons. The answer is not known I would say, but now lets try to assume for the moment that however gravity works, it can work on behalf of mass to act as mass would and absorb some quanta of energy from said photon. Hmm ok, sounds alright, how then does that work? Well lets just suppose there is such a thing as a graviton and whenever a graviton passes through a photon or vice versa a quanta of energy is carried with the graviton... Ok forget that. Switching to my theory of gravity based on ether particles. If anyone particular particle (finestate matter) that composes the ether is capable of energy absorbtion like normal matter, then we could have a system by which a photon passing through the downstream of ether attraction would be altered by this ether material due to its matter state and have a small quanta of energy withdrawn and then continue on its journey. This ether matter and the energy associated with it, that absorbed the photons quanta of energy will eventually in turn be absorbed by the source of the gravity ( planet, star). Hey that sounds pretty good, I think we may have something. As I said before the whole ether gravity model is still in the works and questionable yet I favor it over any other. In any case, we definately need a contact based transfer of energy, in other words, we can't say that gravity works by magnetic attraction on the photons quanta of energy and is magically drawn energy to it through empty space. No, and as I said before, the only thing that can absorb or alter a photon is matter and by the same token is the only thing that can create a photon. So we kill two birds with one stone, obviously getting closer to realizing gravity must work by means of a finestate matter attraction.

And to the argument that gravity does not affect light, theres just "dust" in the vicinity of massive objects that light travels through confusing it as gravity, well that certainly is possible. It would make sense, I would imagine this dust is being attracted to the planets and stars, and really this is kinda similar to ether attraction now isn't it? Something to think about but not to confuse afterall. And of course dust being matter would yes, absorb a photon or two perhaps alter its state, so the argument is valid. What about though deep space? Can we say for certain that it is devoid of any dust? It certainly could be and even in the presence of it( altering light), would we still confuse it as gravity from a nearby galaxy? But what then in the case of blackholes are we saying? As far as I know, current theory holds that light, the actual photons, are pulled into the hole. Again, is dust just all around in that case absorbing light left and right? I would imagine so, but is that the sole reason the light is pulled in and disappears all together? Who knows...