>
>
> Mauro Lacy wrote:
>
>> By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: "We
know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand
clapping?" We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: "We know the
interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what is the
interference pattern of one stream of light?"
>
> A diffraction pattern.
A diffraction pattern in a medium, and depending on that medium. That is,
the effect is the result of an interaction.
>
>
>> Or better yet:
>> "We know the gravitational effect between two material bodies, but what
is the gravitational effect of one material body?"
>
> Curves the metric.
>
> But without any other body in the universe there's nobody there to
measure it.
So, an effect again arises as a result of an interaction.
>
> If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it
make a sound?
>
> Same question wearing different clothes. In both cases it's just
semantic games with an undefined term. In the question regarding the
tree, the phrase "make a sound" was never defined and so the issue
appears debatable. In your example, the word "effect" was never
defined, and so the question appears debatable.
The question is debatable. Although only semantically, if you like. If you
define sound as "something audible" then it only occurs when someone hears
it, by definition. But if you define "sound" as something that has the
possibility of being audible, then there's sound even when nobody hears
it, again by definition. And this is the right way to define it, IMO,
because if not, you're left in the dark regarding the real nature of
things. The specific phenomena of sound manifests when somebody hears it,
but while nobody is hearing it, there's something there that, when someone
heards it, manifests itself as sound.
But I was pointing to another direction: trying to show that the specific
form of things we perceive or phenomena that occurs in the world, are the
result of an interaction.
In the same venue, gravity only makes sense as a result of the interaction
of two or more massive bodies. In a sense, gravity phenomenologically IS
the result of that interaction, that is, gravity is different when there's
an interaction, to when there's none, and that difference depends also on
the interacting bodies, in the same way as a diffraction pattern depends
on the medium, and an interference pattern depends on the specific
encounter of two beams.
So, to the point. Here are my reflections:
Gravity is a form of interference pattern between two or more bodies.
Gravity is a standing wave formed by the superposition of two (or more)
waves, and from this superposition the effects of gravity arise.
This way of seeing gravity has some advantages to the classical one(point
forces) and to the relativistic one (curved metric):
- gravity has now a mediator(a gravitational wave).
- gravity is a specific property of matter(a 3D pulsation, equivalent to a
4D rotation).
- gravity is dynamical, i.e. can be defined as a flux, which has a local
intensity.
- gravity acts on all levels, but that action depends on the interaction
of two or more things. So, this model of gravitation can explain why the
electron does not collapse into the nucleus, and why the Moon does not
collapse on the Earth. It can also explain how momentum is
mediated("transferred") between celestial bodies.
- finally, this model of gravity has also a repulsive aspect, not only an
attractive one. When the bodies are equilibrated, the standing wave formed
prevents both the escape of the small body from the influence of the
bigger one(i.e. an attractive "force"), AND its collapse into the bigger
one(i.e. a "repulsive" force).
Collapse is the result of the bodies being out of equilibrium, that is,
mass differences being too big to be "resolved" or equilibrated at any
point (except cero) at that distance.
In equilibrium, the bodies are "locked in" into a resonating standing
wave. This explain the different electronic orbits as being no more than
different instances where wave equilibrium is produced between the waves
of electrons and protons.
Finally: what's the specific form of these gravitational waves?
As we've seen in the past, a 4D rotation is "proyected into" 3D space as a
pulsation. And the propagation of a pulsation into 3D space is a
longitudinal wave. So gravity as a mediator is a longitudinal wave, of a
specific frequency and intensity, which is assimilable to a scalar field,
but it is not (not only, at least) a scalar field. The interaction of
different longitudinal waves of this kind, produces the effects of gravity
we all know, and many other effects, some of which are known to a certain
extent, and some of which are ignored to another, much greater, extent.
I'm attempting now a mathematical formulation of all this, although the
issue is clearly beyond my actual knowledge. And also beyond my time
schedules :-)
A specific understanding of inertia, and particularly, its specific
interaction or relation with gravity, is also still lacking, or better
said, it's not completely visualized or modelled at the moment.
Best regards, commenst are welcomed as usual. If you think or feel you can
come up with a mathematical formalism contact me in private for more
details or questions.
Mauro
