If I am reading this correctly it does not sound analogous to the
relativistic view but more so with the preceding view of the "Ether" which
Michelson-Morley disproved. It seems to be the same kind of arguement that
there must be a medium to explain what light travel's through, or in this
case, a medium for action at a distance.
But Henry's original question was if gravity could be considered a strange
attractor. Perhaps this works in a relativistic view, where gravity is
viewed as a result of curved space-time geometry. In that view, a
concentration of matter is in fact a warping of space-time and it is the
curvature that accounts for the motions of bodies about the mass. Of course
the result (except at relativistic speeds) is the same as explaining the
motions in terms of Newtonian forces (which are not formulated in terms of
a medium of transmission). I believe the same phenomena can also be viewed
as an exchange of energy between particles, but here my physics is weak (no
pun with strong and weak forces intended).
I really am speculating here, so hopefully a more competent authority will
join in; but it seems to me that a point singularity in some geometry -
i.e., a gravitational well in relativistic four-space, is a simple case of
an attractor if formulated in that space. Perhaps it can be seen as an
attractor also in the Newtonian view. There must be some literature on
this, I would expect, since resolution of orbital dynamics using the
Newtonian view becomes quite complex after a small number of interacting
bodies, and is certainly simpler (but not as rigorously predictive) to
describe it in terms of chaos.
Hence in the relativistic view, there is no problem of attracting bodies
"knowing" about each other. Their masses actually determine space-time
geometry (because of mass-energy and space-time equivalences), which
determines the paths of motion. There is no medium of "force" as such,
although the equations can be derived from this view in terms of force if
desired. I think in the relativistic view one substitutes the idea of force
with the idea of an accellerated reference frame, hence the eequivalence of
gravitational and inertal mass.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Please excuse any embedded ignorance.
At 01:57 PM 2/24/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Henry Cohen wrote:
>>Attraction is nothing else than non isomorph pressure occuring
>>between two items when their fields interrelate
>>
>>-how do they both "know" they should go one towards other ?
>> the space between the two is a perturbated pressure zone
>>
>>- where does energy come from ? =
>>
>>it comes not from the oil (item) but the from water (medium)
>>
>>If this is true, it would mean that gravity (a field) exists because
>>a medium of energy, or else, is around the mass creating gravitation.
>>In other terms, mass (an item) must be immerged in a
>>medium (unknown) to generate gravity
>
>May be my views are rather heretic but I would
>say that there is no other reality besides what comes from our
>models. There is no sense to argue where energy "really" is
>comming from. Evereything: energy, time, and space is nothing more
>than our models that we can use and share.
>
>If we have 2 models, and one of them is more universal than the other
>we stick a label of "reality" to it. As we know more and communicate
>more, we expand the boundaries of our reality. We don't just inhabit
>the reality, we build it.
>
>Returning to the Henry's message, it looks like his explanation of
>gravity is very similar (or identical) to the general relativity
>model of Einstein. But I am not a specialist in this area, so correct
>me if I am wrong.
>
>-Alexei
>-------------------------------------------------
>Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
>Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
>Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
>Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)