Space is not empty

Space is not empty
What is filling space? According to wikipedia, we have this answer:
Outer space is not completely empty—it is a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, and cosmic rays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
Many scientists try to imagine what else is filling space. Quantum physics tells us that:
The Facts: Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. This is also known as “the Vacuum” or “The Zero-Point Field.” https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/07/space-is-not-empty-its-actually-full-of-energy- the-quantum-vacuum/
Another site on internet says that
This boils down to the idea that the vacuum isn’t really empty. It’s actually churning with smatterings of particles that disappear and reappear at random, creating a fluctuating energy field. Of course, that’s just because Heisenberg says so. We’ve never had actual proof of this so-called energy field. In the 1940s, scientists found indirect evidence of it by examining the radiation emitted by hydrogen atoms and the forces exerted on closely spaced metal plates, but that was it. Then in 2015, a team of German scientists led by Alfred Leitenstorfer announced that they had directly detected that fluctuating energy field by firing a super-short laser pulse into a vacuum and seeing tiny changes in the polarization of the light. Those changes, they said, were caused by the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Still, since many things could potentially cause that fluctuation, that result was up for debate.
https://curiosity.com/topics/empty-space-isnt-empty-and-quantum-researchers-now-have-direct- evidence-curiosity/
The answer from Alfred Leitenstorfer is derived from observed facts not from theory.
Another scientist, Hetrz, made a discovery in 1887 when using a spark gap apparatus. Here is the text from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Heinrich_Hertz
In 1887, Hertz made observations of the photoelectric effect and of the production and reception of electromagnetic waves, which he published in the journal Annalen der Physik. His receiver was a coil with a voltage difference maintained across a spark gap, which would issue a spark in the presence of electromagnetic waves (which were produced by a transmitter spark coil). He placed the apparatus with the receiving spark gap in a darkened box in order to see the spark better and observed instead, that the maximum spark length was less when in the box. Putting a glass panel between the source of the waves and the receiving spark gap also caused a weakening of the spark.
When teaching electrostatics to college students, we observed another interesting fact. A very sensitive detector was placed about 3 meters away. An ebonite rod was rubbed on fur and it acquired millions of electrons. The detector immediately activated a green led. When a plastic rod was rubbed on cloth to lose electrons, the detector activated the red led. In science language, we say that the ebonite rod with a surplus electrons has a negative charge and the plastic rod with a lack of electrons has a positive charge. That means the detector activates the green led for a negative charge and it activates the red led for a positive charge.
We observed more interesting facts. When the negative ebonite rod was move away from the detector, the detector activated a red led as if it senses a positive charge even if the rod was negative. The opposite effect was also recorded: when a positive charged rod was move away from the detector, it activated the green led showing a negative charge even if the rod was positive.
The most interesting fact was that when the negative ebonite rod was move back and forth, the detector followed by activating the red led and the green led alternatively at the same frequency. A fast movement produced a fast change at the detector. Since the detector was about 3 meters away, it was possible to move a neutral object in between the rod and the detector. When the neutral object was directly in line between them, the detector stopped sensing the charged object. It seems that something was leaving the charged rod in every directions and reached the detector but a simple object like a thin book was able to block that. Hertz observed a similar effect when he placed a glass panel between the spark and the receiving coil. The glass blocked some of the emissions from the spark. That fact really shows that there is something real going from the spark to the coil or from the rod to the detector. It cannot be electrons from the charged rod or from the spark because electrons do not travel 3 meters unless the voltage is in the million volts. The rod did not possessed that voltage. What was emitted from the rod?
Some scientists affirm that virtual particles are created all the time in space. Maybe these particles are the one emitted by the electrons. But virtual particles
have the property of returning to nothing in a very short time. Here we have something real leaving the charged rod and going in strait line to the detector. According to Hertz, it should go at the speed of light. In his experiment, he used sparks at different frequencies and the coil was able to detect what was called radio wave at that time. A rod moving back and forth very fast produces the same thing. The frequency is lower than radio waves but it is of the same nature. Those radio waves seem to be simply a series of emissions where the density varies at the same frequency. Light would then be simply a continuous variation of density of these emissions from a charged object. Space is not empty but contains all those frequencies produced by many apparatus that continually emits those same entities in all directions at speed of light. Are these entities the same as the micro quanta mentioned by Maurizio Michelini in his article: A Flux of Micro Quanta Explains Relativistic Mechanics and the Gravitational Interaction by Maurizio Michelini? Are these entities the same as black matter supposed to exists everywhere because they do not emit light so they appear ‘black’ to us?
What are the properties of these entities?

Speed of light

Speed of light

Is the speed of light always c or can it go faster?

That question is still debated today. It seems that Einstein proposed to use the speed of light as a constant being always the same in void. He could not prove that experimentally but it seems to be true for many theories. Is it possible to prove that c is the only speed for light? Maybe.

N.B. The accepted value for c is 299 792 458 m / s.

When the force between two objects each having a surplus of 1.6 E19 electrons is measured, the answer is almost 9 E9 Newtons when they are separated by a distance of one meter. The speed of light does not appear in that measure.

N.B. 9E9 means 9 exponent 9. This method is used in the text.

Also when the force is measured between two 1 meter long wires each conducting an amount of 1. 6 E19 electrons per second and being parallel to one another at a distance of one meter the answer is 1 E-7 Newtons. Again, the speed of light does not appear in that measure.

The two formulas for these forces are here

Force = almost 9E9 Newtons x charge x charge / (distance squared) for charged stationary objects. The objects are pushed away from one another.

Force = 1 E-7 Newtons x charge x charge x speed x speed / (distance squared) for two conducting wires parallel to one another and separated by one meter. The two wires are pushed towards one another.

If we try to find at what speed the pushing force would equal the attracting force using these two formulas, we obtain a speed of 299 792 458 m / s. That is the measured speed of light.

If you like formulas, it would be this
(9E9 )x Q x Q / d2 = ( 1 E-7 ) x Q x Q x v x v / d2

where Q is for charge in Coulomb, and v for speed and d for distance in meters

cancel like terms on each side of equations

v 2 = (9E9 ) / (1 E-7 ) = 9 E16.
v = 3E8 m / s.

That is the measured speed of light.
At that speed the forces cancel one another.

There are many conclusions coming from that observation.

First, it seems that if two electrons were moving parallel to one another at the same speed, if they could attain a speed of 299 792 458 m / s, they would neither be pushed toward one another or pushed away from one another. It would seem that one electron would continue its trajectory as if there was no electrons near it.
That supposes the second electron has no effect on the first one or that the effect of one electron on the second one is leaving at a speed of 299 792 458 m / s, also, therefore never be able to reach the other one because it is also going at 299 792 458 m / s.

Second, it suppose the speed of something ejected from an electron in all directions can affect another electron if the speed of the electron is less than c. Those ejected something would also go at speed c. Interesting.

Third, the insight of Einstein was right even if he could not prove that experimentally.

Planets in gravitational well

Planets in gravitational well by Louis Rancourt

Far from any stars in space, gravity coming from one direction is almost cancelled by gravity coming in opposite direction. An object in that position continues in strait line because the net force on the object is zero.

Because of all its atoms, the sun blocks some of that gravity going through the sun. If it was possible to take a picture of only the gravity coming from all region of space, the density of that gravity would be less closer to the sun because of that shielding effect. Gravity density is lower close to the sun and increases according to 1/distance squared. The next drawing represents such a density.

But the sun itself is also an emitter of gravity. That extends to a certain distance from the sun. If it was possible to take a picture of only the gravity coming from the sun without the gravity coming from all region of space, the density of that gravity would be greater closer to the sun and the density decreases according to 1/distance squared.

When these two gravities are added, at a certain distance, the density of gravity from space is almost equal to the density of gravity coming from the direction of the sun.

That makes a kind of big sphere or bubble where gravity is less. That region or bubble is the gravitational well . Planets in that region cannot go in strait line because in doing so, they would enter a region where the gravity from outside is now bigger and they are pushed back towards the sun. When they approach the sun, the same thing happens in opposite: the gravity coming from the sun is now bigger and the planet is pushed away, In that manner, the planet goes around the sun as satellite.

distance sun – planet
planet planet from sun in m mass kg 1 force in N
Mercury 1 5.80E+07 3.30E+23 2 1.30E+28 1
Venus 2 1.10E+08 4.87E+24 3 5.34E+28 2
Earth 3 1.50E+08 5.98E+24 4 3.53E+28 3
Mars 4 2.30E+08 6.42E+23 5 1.61E+27 4
Jupiter 5 7.80E+08 5.69E+26 6 1.24E+29 5
Saturn 6 1.40E+09 5.69E+26 7 3.85E+28 6
Uranus 7 2.80E+09 8.68E+25 8 1.47E+27 7
Neptune 8 4.50E+09 1.02E+26 9 6.69E+26 8
Pluto 9 6.00E+09

Using an arbitrary unit of 10 units for gravity from space, we can compare the different effects on planets of our solar system.

in log in log
distance sending blocking
10 1 1.0000 9.7782
1.00E+02 2 2.0000 9.6532
1.00E+03 3 3.0000 9.4472
1.00E+04 4 4.0000 9.1461
1.00E+05 5 5.0000 8.8921
1.00E+06 6 6.0000 8.3617
Mercury 1.00E+07 7 7.0000 8.0414
Venus 1.10E+08 8 8.0414 7.0000
Pluto 2.30E+08 9 8.3617 6.0000
7.80E+08 10 8.8921 5.0000
1.40E+09 11 9.1461 4.0000
2.80E+09 12 9.4472 3.0000
4.50E+09 13 9.6532 2.0000
6.00E+09 14 9.7782 1.0000

In order to show the gravity well, we must use the log value of the distances. The blue line is for the gravity from space that was partially blocked by the sun and the red line is the gravity emitted by the sun. It goes to almost zero at far distance.

 

The mass and the speed of the planet will permit to find an equilibrium point and it becomes a satellite to the sun. The centrifugal force has to be equal to the force pushing the planet toward the sun.

The gravity in this graphic represents the net total force when we add opposite forces. Depending on its speed, the planet finds the distance away from the sun where the force towards the sun equals its centrifugal force.

Einstein seems to have a vague idea of that gravity well and tried to explain it with his theory of space time curvature. Space is not curved but its different density will influence objects towards the sun as if it was “curved’ inward.

Following the equation (F = Gmm/dd) there is a possibility to have planets between the sun and Mercury if the speed is big enough. There is no such planet there. This is because of the gravity well described here. A planet closer to the sun would be pushed away by sun radiation of gravity unless it had a very high speed.

This also explains why most comets do not fall into the sun as they should because of the pressure of the gravity emitted by the sun. That gravity will push the comet’s tail away from the sun.

If we add all forces going towards a planet to forces from space coming from other side we have this picture. The sun is at 0 level on y axis in the next graph.

 

At position 7 to 8, the planet will stay in orbit.This correspond to distances between 1×107 m and 2.3 x 108 m from the sun .Closer distances smaller than 1×107 m, a planet is pushed away from the sun.

These are the figures used in Excel to calculate these positions. in multiple of 10 units.

forcrces going toward planet opposite
in log in log from away from total
sending blocking space forces space forces
1 1.0000 9.7782 10 20.7782 -25 1 -4.2218
2 2.0000 9.6532 10 21.6532 -25 2 -3.3468
3 3.0000 9.4472 10 22.4472 -25 3 -2.5528
4 4.0000 9.1461 10 23.1461 -25 4 -1.8539
5 5.0000 8.8921 10 23.8921 -25 5 -1.1079
6 6.0000 8.3617 10 24.3617 -25 6 -0.6383
7 7.0000 8.0414 10 25.0414 -25 7 0.0414
8 8.0414 7.0000 10 25.0414 -25 8 0.0414
9 8.3617 6.0000 10 24.3617 -25 9 0.6383
10 8.8921 5.0000 10 23.8921 -25 10 1.1079
11 9.1461 4.0000 10 23.1461 -25 11 1.8539
12 9.4472 3.0000 10 22.4472 -25 12 2.5528
13 9.6532 2.0000 10 21.6532 -25 13 3.3468
14 9.7782 1.0000 10 20.7782 -25 14 4.2218

In this graph, the sun centre is at 0 on y-axis.

Forces toward the sun from space are below the 0 y axis and forces pushing away from the sun are above the 0 y axis.

These total forces are lowest at the distance where our planets orbit the sun.

N.B. Since we do not know the exact value of the forces due to gravity coming from every directions of space on every kg of matter, we used 10 units in the graph. These units are probably very great and might be measured in the future.

GRAVITY AND PHYSICS FACTS, NOT FANTASSY

GRAVITY AND PHYSICS FACTS, NOT FANTASSY by Louis Rancourt

Why this document?

We realize there is no consensus in science about physic theories and gravity is still not very well explained.

Some theories resemble the alchemist’s theories because they do not stick to facts but are pure fantasies of the authors. Theories should explained facts and one should not reject a fact because it does not fit his theory. We will look at facts and try to find what theories are more sensible.

Remember that people believed that the sun was revolving around the earth because it look like that; it take a certain time to observe more facts and to realize earth was revolving and turning on its axis.

We will first examine properties of light.

We will show how light can interact with gravity.

These two experimental results suggest an answer to what is the real nature of gravity.

Some properties of light.

– When a metal is heated enough, it gives up visible light.

– Light seems to be able to pass through some substance and reflected by some objects.

– Light seems to go very fast.

– Light is transformed in electrons when passing through heavy atoms.

– An electron joining a positron reverts to light.

– Some nuclei break up and send light; the atomic bomb was a good example.

– Calcite crystal can block some light and send two different polarized beams.

– Non visible light called radio waves are produced by electrons moving up and down along an antenna.

– Light can go in vacuum without a medium to carry it.

– Light has a frequency and its density varies at that frequency.

Sources of light:

All light frequencies are not visible to human eye. Some insects can see light that we do not observe. Frequencies can vary from almost nothing to very high, about 1022 cycles per seconds.

If we make light at a low frequency, 60 cycles per second, a detector will sense that light. By rubbing a comb in hair, electrons accumulate on the comb; if we move the comb back and forth, light of that frequency is produced by the changing intensity of the electric field around the comb. If we put a book between the comb and the sensor, light is not sensed anymore; it seems to travel in a straight line from the comb to the sensor. If a book can stop light, it probably originates from the charged comb. Some might think that the electrons in surplus in the comb are going to the sensor. But the sensor can feel the change at a distance of 3 meters; for electrons to jump 3 meters in air, we would need millions of volts and the comb would kill you first.

So, what is going from the comb to the sensor? Some call it photons but that definition is not clear as we will see latter.

Light is always produced by something having an electric charge and moving in space periodically. A stationary object does not produce a changing electric field. It can send infrared light because its atoms are not stationary but are vibrating all the time.

Nature of light

Light is sometime called an electromagnetic wave. We should not compare light to a sound wave or a water wave because it is not a disturbance in a medium such as air or water but something going fast from the source to the detector. Since the comb has no magnetic properties and it produces light, we realize the term magnetic should be avoided to describe light.

Some drawings help to visualize a changing electric field.

First, a charged stationary comb will send something in all directions at the speed of light but there is no frequency yet. If the comb is moved to the right, the density of what it is sending is higher to the right, in front of the moving comb and is lower behind the comb.

 

Fig. 1 emissions from a point source

Top, left: emissions from a stationary object.

Top right: emissions from an object moving at same speed toward right.

Bottom: emissions from an object moving back and forth.

If the charged object moves back and forth, the intensity varies at the same frequency as it is going in all directions. It looks like a wave and has some wave properties like frequency and distance between each high density. But it is not a disturbance of a medium because it goes also in pure void.

A moving object that sends light does not push on the light it is sending. A moving riffle sending bullets pushes on the bullet. Why is that? It seems that light in the object was already moving at that speed and it just continue outside the object. In fact, objects that seem solid are really made of atoms and these atoms are complex systems themselves that were made when light was changed into a system called electron, proton or neutron. This is explained latter.

Light seems to be simply made of something emitted by matter in a series of alternating density. That is the origin of the frequency detected by sensors. What is emitted by matter then? Matter can only emit matter. That suggest light is also matter or that matter is made of the same entities as light. These entities going at speed c in void space can be organized in different ways. If they are emitted from a point source, the resulting pattern would look like on fig.1 but in 3 dimensions.

N.B. c is the speed of light, about 3×108 m/s

If they are emitted by a non vibrating source, as a charged comb would do, they do not have a frequency pattern but a continuous density that decreases with the distance squared.

If they are emitted like a single bundle, as when the nucleus splits into many parts, they are called neutrinos. That is why neutrinos travel at speed c and have no frequency.

If they are emitted by neutral objects in a continuous flow, they are what causes gravity as we will explain now.

Gravity

A series of experiments clearly show that light can act on what causes an object to affect another object with what is called gravitational force. Those results were published.

– Effect of light on gravitational attraction, by Louis Rancourt, Physic Essays 24,4(2011)

Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation

Louis Rancourt, Philip J. Tattersall Applied Physics Research www.ccsenet.org/apr Vol. 7, No. 4, August 2015 issue.

– a few years latter, an independent scientist in Prague discovered the same effect without knowing it was already published. We communicated together and Libor published his results under

Experimental verification of electromagnetic-gravity effect: Weighing light and heat

by Libor Neumann, PHYSICS ESSAYS 30, 2 (2017)

In summary, when an intense flat beam of light passes near an object, the object is pushed toward the beam of light.

If light is over an object, the object becomes lighter.

If light is under the object, the object becomes heavier.

If the small object is close to a big cylindrical laser beam, the object is pushed toward the beam, goes in the centre of the beam and does not escape. This is the principle behind what is called laser tweezers. That effect has been observed when the first laser beams were produced but it was thought that the dust particles going in the middle of the beam were obeying the laws of electrostatic repulsion.

Some measurements were also made to find that gravity can bend light rays and is the cause of the lensing effect in astronomy.

Gravity and light interact with one another, that is a proven fact. Why?

A possible logical explanation is that this: the entities making light are the same entities making gravity. That could explain the possibilities of those interactions. One has to find the properties of these entities.

Experiments show that light can be made to become electrons, positrons, protons, if the frequency is high enough. Those electrons, positrons, protons can be reverted back into light. That clearly shows that these entities can appear in different configurations. If they are arranged to form a complex stable system, they are the electrons or the protons. If they travel in periodical layers of varying density, we call it em waves. If they travel as radiating from a unique source, we call it electric field and the intensity decreases with the distance square. If it travels in all directions of space, we call it gravity.

Gravity seems to be simply the vast amount of these entities emitted by matter in universe and going in all directions. The actual interactions of that gravity with matter is noticeable only if there is more interactions coming from one direction. If the interactions are the same from all directions, the object does not feel a pushing force in one direction and continues at the same velocity. If one side receives more interactions, the velocity of matter changes. A change of velocity is called acceleration. This is measured as energy where the amount of joules equals the mass times velocity squared times one half.

The big question is how this gravity interact with matter. Let us recall that atoms are made of these entities also. That is a clear sign that electrons, protons and neutrons are very complex systems made of a very very great number of these entities always going at speed c relative to fix space. Since the size of these electrons, protons and neutrons if small compared to us, it is difficult to imagine these entities going ‘inside’ at speed c. The easiest way to visualise that is to realise the size of these entities compare to the size of the system is like the size of stars compared to whole universe. For an entity to travel from one side of the electron to the other side, it takes a long time compared to its size.

When gravity interact with a proton, it does not push on the proton. It cannot push on a system because the proton is not like a billiard ball with a hard surface. The proton is a complex system made of these entities going at speed c, always. It is important to visualise an entity going at speed c in the proton and the proton going at a certain speed also. That means the relative speed of the entity compared to the proton is lower than c and the total relative speed compared to fix space is always c. When the entity interacts with the proton, it becomes part of the proton system. When more entities interact on one side of the proton, the proton system is rearranged at a different location in space as if it was pushed in one direction. It is not a pushing force as we see in macroscopic events but a rearrangement of the system proton further in space.

Really, gravity is not a pushing nor an attracting force but an interaction with matter changing the system so that it is reorganised further in space as if it was pushed.

Entities

What are those entities we are writing about? They are not what is now called gravitons or photons. The photon is the needed amount of these entities having a density varying periodically and being enough to activate a photon sensor. Gravitons is a concept used to explain some facts about gravity. The properties given to the graviton do not correspond to the properties of these entities.

Maurizio Michelini uses the name micro quanta for these entities but he adds some properties that are not needed. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237742598_A_Flux_of_Micro_Quanta_Explains_Relativistic_Mechanics_and_the_Gravitational_Interaction by Maurizio Michelini.

The 4 basic properties of these small quanta are very simple: they are not made of other things even smaller, they have no dimension but have an interaction zone equal to the short length of Planck, about 1.6 × 10−35 m. As they are the ultimate smaller entities and have no dimensions, they are recreated continually a little beside their current position so that they seem to go at the speed of light.

Since these last sub-quanta have no mass or frequency, only being and a velocity of about 3 x 108 m / s, they have no energy in the known sense in physics. Energy is only a concept that applies to interacting systems; really, energy is summed up either with E = mc2 or E = hf or E = QV. Really one should remove the E and say simply that in the interactions, one can have this: mc2 = hf = QV. The other formulas are contained in these. Last sub quanta have no electric charge because charge is a property of a system just like the mass.

 

 

 

Gravity is a pushing force.

Gravity is a pushing force.

The clear results of an experiment can only be explained with the concept that gravity is a pushing force and not an attractive force.

Newton’s formula stating that the force of gravity between two objects depends on the mass of the objects and inversely with the distance between the objects. It does not say if it is a pushing or an attractive force. Many scientists thought that it was an attractive force and the public thinks the same. Here is a proof that it is not an attractive force.

An object is placed in the middle of an horizontal lever. One end of the lever is placed on the platen of an analytical balance and the other end is on a table.

g1

If the force of gravity was an attraction coming from the planet earth and pulling down the test mass on the lever, then the balance would indicate a certain weight. This force is indicated by the blue arrow in the next drawing.

g2

A powerful light ray was sent horizontally over the test mass as indicated on the next drawing. There should be no effect on the force acting on the mass if the force is coming from the planet as indicated by the blue arrow because the light is over the test mass. The result is surprising: the test mass has less weight when the light ray passes over the mass.

g3

Some might argue that since light has energy according to the formula stating that energy and mass are interchangeable ( Energy = mass x c x c ) where c is the speed of light, then some will say that the mass equivalent of the light over the test mass is also producing a force upwards on the test mass. That would explain why the weight is smaller because there is a force attracting upwards. If we calculate the equivalent mass of the light ray used in the experiment, that mass would be smaller that one atom of oxygen or nitrogen. Air all around the test mass is made of oxygen and nitrogen and one atom more or less does is not able to make the change of weight observed.

What caused the loss of weight then.

The next experiment gave a hint of that cause.

The same light source was used to direct the light beam under the test mass.

g4

Since the mass equivalent of the light beam is very small, it has no effect on pushing the test mass downward. But the weight of the mass increases when the light beam passes under the mass. Where is that force directed downard originates? The mass of the planet and of the test mass has not changed. The distance has not changed neither. According to the formula (FORCE = G X MASS X MASS / DISTANCE SQUARED,) the weight is not supposed to change but it does.

The most logical explanation is that the force of gravity is coming from all region of space around us. The amount coming from under is less because the planet did block some of that force.

The difference is directed down because the total forces coming from space is now greater than the force that passes through earth. We are pushed down by these forces.

Another interesting conclusion is that the ray of light was able to divert some of that gravity and when the ray passes under the test mass, it diverts some of the force coming from under. That causes a difference in the downward force and the weight of the object increases.

The results of these experiment have been tested many times and an independent researcher in Prague, Libor Newman,  found the same results a few years later without knowing that these results have already been published under Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation, Applied Physics Research; Vol. 7, No. 4; 2015.