The Mechanism

What makes particles accelerate, either repulsively or attractively, towards gravitating objects or in interactions between charged particles? Even though TOEBI has the law for the acceleration between charged electron based particles I haven’t really understood what is the exact mechanism behind the acceleration. Now I understand it and it’s actually so simple and beautiful than one can think of.

The simplest scenario is the pure gravitational interaction between a larger mass and particle. FTE density generated by the larger mass gradually gets smaller and smaller according the distance between the center of the larger mass and the particle. There is also this minuscule FTE density difference between the side facing the center of the larger mass and the opposite side of the particle.

How FTE density affects the FTEP dynamics surrounding spinning particles? Higher the density then more difficult it’s for particle to suck FTEPs through its spinning vector poles, because surrounding higher FTE density slows down the incoming FTEP flow near the surface of the particle. In case of the gravitating larger mass, the same mechanism is also present, but this time the effect is located on the side facing the larger mass. Particle’s spinning vector orientation doesn’t matter in this phenomenon.

Obviously now the incoming FTEP flux flows and spreads more freely to everywhere else compared to the side facing the gravitating mass and this mechanism pushes the particle towards the larger mass. The same mechanism applies, but in much greater magnitude, when two charged particles interact (because both particles have the huge spinning frequency $f_{e}$).

Particles’ spinning vector orientations are very relevant because the generated FTEP flux handedness. Two electrons with parallel spinning vectors eject FTEPs between them which causes a huge increase (compared to the gravitating case) in local FTE density next to both electrons on the side facing the other electron. Now the incoming FTEP flux flows much more freely to the other side of the particles.

The same mechanism is also in action when electrons’ spinning vectors are antiparallel and particles are pushed away. How come? Antiparallel spinning vectors won’t accumulate FTEPs in between the electrons, quite contrary, meaning that the FTE density is actually decreased between the particles (compared to the other side of the particles). So this time the incoming FTEP flux flows much more freely to the side facing the other particle, hence the repulsive force.

Things are going to get even better… I’ll continue this post later. Berry and Yop, you should sit down while reading the upcoming text…  just to make sure you guys won’t fall on the floor and hurt yourselves.

Here’s a picture (I was drawing with my kids and got an idea) describing how spinning electron generates a bubble of FTEPs around itself. I thought one picture would tell more than thousand words…

19 thoughts on “The Mechanism”

1. Yop takes a little break due to ranting… 1 week.

2. Berry says:

So, how does this handwaving about the “The Mechanism” solve any of the flaws [F1] to [F8]?

3. I thought that for example deriving G would impress you guys.

4. Berry says:

> I thought that for example deriving G would impress you guys.

That would impress me indeed. But you didn’t do such a thing. You neither did derive the value of G nor the 1/r²-behavior from any FTE* properties.

As usual, you just started a new blog post, hoping that it would deflect from the problems in the previous ones.

All this empty handwaving about “The Mechanism” won’t change anything about [F1] or [F2]. You’ll neither write down a tenable, quantitative law for the FTE*, nor will you derive TL2 or gravitation from it. Neither “in couple of days” nor in couple of years. You’ll continue to do, what you can do best: Acting according to your credo “Talk big or go home.”

Lest you forget them, here the some flaws of TOEBI:

[F1] Laws for TOEBI’s fundamental particles (the FTEPs) are non-existing, their claimed properties don’t enter anywhere.

[F2] None of the laws of TOEBI (currently two and a half: TL2, gravitation and a flickering $\vec f(t)$) is derived from its fundamental particles (the FTEPs).

[F3] TOEBI’s predictions all contradict experiments, except for two cases: gravitation (because the corresponding law is directly taken over from mainstream physics) and repulsion of two electrons with fixed, anti-parallel $\vec f$s (because then TL2 reduces to Coulomb’s law with $G_\mathrm{e}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0\,m_\mathrm{e}^2}$)

[F3] TL2 breaks down for more than two electrons: Symmetric electron repulsion is not possible, symmetric electron attraction (!) does occur and switches off TL2 upon collision. The further fate of TL2 after the collision is unknown.

[F4] TL2 needs $\vec f(t)$ to work at least until the next collision, but the state of $\vec f(t)$ is permanently in limbo.

[F5] TL2 is not applicable to composite particles.

[F6] TL2 is incapable of correctly describing an electron’s deflection in a magnetic field.

[F7] TOEBI doesn’t describe the force between two permanent magnets correctly.

[F8] TOEBI’s concept of encoding the property “anti-/particle” in $\vec f$ doesn’t work.

> Berry and Yop, you should sit down while reading the upcoming text…
> just to make sure you guys won’t fall on the floor and hurt yourselves.

Don’t worry, we’re used to your baffling degree of immodesty.

5. yop says:

…will you have the intellectual honesty to recognize you banned me for pointing out the lack of substance of your post rather than some pseudo-ranting?

* Edited by Kimmo

6. Berry, by describing the mechanism I present the way for understanding how gravitational interaction works. Gained understanding is mandatory if one hopes for deriving G, do you agree?

The next step is the actual derivation… You know, with the right idea it’s comfortable to proceed.

7. Berry says:

> Berry, by describing the mechanism I present the way for
> understanding how gravitational interaction works.

No. By describing the mechanism you present the way you think how gravitational interaction works.

> Gained understanding is mandatory if one hopes for deriving G, do you agree?

But by presenting your very own ideas about how gravitational interaction should work, you haven’t gained any understanding, yet. Only when you prove that these ideas actually lead to G and the 1/r²-law, you can claim to have gained understanding. But proving is not your strong suit, only claiming is.

> The next step is the actual derivation…

… which you’ll never deliver. Just like you didn’t deliver any solutions for the flaws [F1] to [F8].

> You know, with the right idea it’s comfortable to proceed.

You just think it was the right idea. You’d have to prove that, by really arriving at G and the 1/r²-law. But proving is not your strong suit, only claiming is.

8. You’d have to prove that, by really arriving at G and the 1/r²-law.

Isn’t 1/r²-law pretty obvious? I mean, the FTE density provided by the gravitating object obeys that just because the geometry. So when the excess amount of FTEPs flow to the particle’s surface away from the gravitating object those FTEPs experience resistance according to the surrounding FTE density. Higher the density, greater the acceleration pushing the particle towards the gravitating object. Do you agree?

9. @Yop

It’s not about honesty or dishonesty. Try to behave like a decent human being, that’s all I’m asking for. Obviously my “modest” way of self-expression rises your blood pressure, but I don’t attack on people, neither should you.

10. Berry says:

> Isn’t 1/r²-law pretty obvious?

No. If it was obvious, you should be able to prove it. But you can’t. Sure, it’s not that difficult to arrive at something 1/r² via geometry. The obsolete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation is an example. And don’t forget: 1/r² is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

> I mean, the FTE density provided by the gravitating object obeys that just because the geometry.

What’s that supposed to mean, a “gravitating object provides a FTE density”? Each gravitating object is surrounded by a cloud of FETPs? How does this density depend on the distance from the gravitating object?

And, despite this question, don’t think it went unnoticed that you still didn’t come forward with any solution to TOEBI’s flaws [F1] to [F8].

11. asd says:

> FTE density generated by the larger mass gradually gets smaller and smaller according the distance between the center of the larger mass and the particle. There is also this minuscule FTE density difference between the side facing the center of the larger mass and the opposite side of the particle.
Pure handwaving.

> Higher the density then more difficult it’s for particle to suck FTEPs through its spinning vector poles, because surrounding higher FTE density slows down the incoming FTEP flow near the surface of the particle.
Pure handwaving.

> Obviously now the incoming FTEP flux flows and spreads more freely to everywhere else compared to the side facing the gravitating mass and this mechanism pushes the particle towards the larger mass.
Pure handwaving.

The rest: pure handwaving. All in all, completely worthless post. Before you start claiming anything about 1/r²-law for gravitation or anything else, provide at least something about dynamics of the ether. You should’ve done that before even starting to write this post.

12. Before you start claiming anything about 1/r²-law for gravitation or anything else, provide at least something about dynamics of the ether. You should’ve done that before even starting to write this post.

Maybe so, but writing things in this order crystalize my own thoughts on the dynamics.

> provide at least something about dynamics of the ether.

He can’t

I will.

13. Berry says:

> I will.

You won’t. You’re promising that since the beginning of December, but naturally you didn’t deliver anything (“I’ll try to deliver it within a week or so.” FAILED), just as you didn’t deliver any solution to TOEBI’s flaws [F1] to [F8] despite some of them being “more or less already solved.”

Empty promises, that’s what you deliver.

Also unanswered: What’s that supposed to mean, a “gravitating object provides an FTE density”? Each gravitating object is surrounded by a cloud of FETPs? How does this density depend on the distance from the gravitating object?

14. Hefty to do list… I’ll start with the FTE dynamics, or at least I’ll try to stick with it.

15. Berry says:

> Hefty to do list…

It was you who started yet another topic when being faced with the flaws [F1] to [F8], some of which were allegedly “more or less already solved” (which obviously was a lie). Well, we recognize that your boasting “I’ll handle all those items in Berry’s list.” was just another one of your empty promises.

Furthermore, I infer that you haven’t got a clue about the r-dependency of your FTE*-stuff. What a surprise! Well, so much for the obviousness of 1/r².

> I’ll start with the FTE dynamics, or at least I’ll try to stick with it.

I reckon your sticking duration will be “couple of days”. Then you’ll tell us that FTE dynamics isn’t actually needed after all, because you’ve made yet another fantastic discovery, even more fantastic than “The Mechanism”, which will blow all our minds, etc., etc.

16. Jumping from topic to topic is my nature… I get an idea, it usually leads to a chain of ideas and suddenly I’m working on something totally different than I was originally intended to. Anyway, I keep a list about the things I should do, so eventually everything gets done. Surely I understand that it might be a bit annoying for other people, therefore I have allowed this behaviour only with my free time activities.

At the moment I spend my free time by reading book Pay Any Price. It contains kind of sad stories about obsessed individuals involved with the war on terror.

17. @dwarf

I’ll do that (kind of status report).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.