"Double-A" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 11:12 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:56 am, Double-A wrote:





On Dec 15, 11:28 pm, "Darla" wrote:

"jughead" wrote in message

...

On Dec 15, 6:17 am, "HVAC" wrote:

Stop thinking of gravity as a force. It's an effect.

Agreed. So what is the actual, literal mechanism *causing* the
effect?

General Relativity very eloquently describes the effects, but
remains
mute on the causal mechanism itself (and it ain't 'particle-
antiparticle pairs' popping into and out of "nothing").

oc

In a sense this is correct.
Quarks are not quite particles in a similar sense to the thinking
that
viruses are not quite living things.

In the case of quarks, they comprise particles.
Gravitation is caused by the quark-antiquark pairs that are in
essence the
"missing link" between energy and matter.

And just because gravitation, as described by Einstein, is the
"effect" of
space's reaction to matter, this is not meant to construe that
gravitation
is not a force.

Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.


I LOVE to digress!
What does the term "force" really mean?

Jughead knows much about force since he is a type of pilot.
There is "thrust", a force that increases velocity.
And there is "drag", a force that decreases velocity, and so forth.

So force is a "vectoral" quantity, in that it has both magnitude and
direction.
There are a multitude of websites that describe force in more detail, from
classical mechanics through relativity and up into today's equations.
Feynman is one who came close... very, very close.

The primary forces that have been studied thus far are the SNF, WNF, EMF
and, of course, QMF (gravitation).
SNF = strong nuclear force
WNF = weak nuclear force
EMF = electromagnetic force
QMF = quarkomagnetic force

The QMF is the "prime" force.
As one might surmise by the workings of gravitation, QM radiation is not
like EM radiation, and does not comply with the physics of the other forces.
New generalisations (a.k.a. "laws") are called for in order to understand
the QM force.
One reason for this is the fact that "wild" quarks, or more descriptively
"sub-quarks" are not precisely matter, nor are they quite a "pure" energy.

On a scale from 0 to 10, where zero stands for pure energy and ten stands
for pure matter (there are of course no such things as "pure" matter or
energy, but let's agree to begin somewhere), protons for example are about a
9.7.
Tame quarks that comprise material particles range from 7.4 to 9.1.
Wild quarks/subquarks that are the source of QM radiation range from about
2.8 to 7.8.
Electrons range from 0.4 to 1.9, so there is no overlap of EM radiations
with QM vibrations.

More?

Gravitation is both the weakest and the most powerful force in the
universe
depending upon the material level of its application, i.e., the
density of
the matter to which space is reacting.

So true! So true.

Double-A

Also so very terrestrial, as in how many thousand times has that been
postulated and further nailed by known physics.

Ask Darla; what makes a quark, or what's inside of a quark?

How about asking Darla how we can make/create or assemble new atoms
from scratch?

~ BG-


I am more interested in what is emitted when quark anti-quark pairs
annihilate.

Double-A


QM energy.
I hesitate to apply the usual "particle identification" practice that
physicists like to use, such as "two quarks and a photon", because there are
no kinds of photons emitted, and the radiation that IS emitted is not
"wavicle-like" in the same manner as the photon.
Don't misunderstand, because the emission is somewhat wave- and somewhat
particle-like, but just not in the same way as photon emission.

--
**** Darla
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!