Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis making gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

Yes.

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis making gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

Thanks dv

But even if gravity itself is the mediator of osmosis, how does that make gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

detail?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis making gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

Thanks dv

But even if gravity itself is the mediator of osmosis, how does that make gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

Isn’t osmosis establishing equilibrium ?

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis making gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

Thanks dv

But even if gravity itself is the mediator of osmosis, how does that make gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

Isn’t osmosis establishing equilibrium ?

Lots of things establish equilibrium.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks dv

But even if gravity itself is the mediator of osmosis, how does that make gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

Isn’t osmosis establishing equilibrium ?

Lots of things establish equilibrium.

and is there a governor?

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Isn’t osmosis establishing equilibrium ?

Lots of things establish equilibrium.

and is there a governor?

Could one say that inevitably mass only gains momentum?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Lots of things establish equilibrium.

and is there a governor?

Could one say that inevitably mass only gains momentum?

Making osmosis equilibrium of momentum.

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis?
mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

Details?

No details needed. Osmosis is a blockage of chemical species by a membrane. No connection to gravity – none – zilch – zip – nada.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis?
mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

Details?

No details needed. Osmosis is a blockage of chemical species by a membrane. No connection to gravity – none – zilch – zip – nada.

I thought I was referring to the pressure differential that allows siphoning to occur.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis?

Details?

No details needed. Osmosis is a blockage of chemical species by a membrane. No connection to gravity – none – zilch – zip – nada.

I thought I was referring to the pressure differential that allows siphoning to occur.

Perhaps gravitation is the mass equivalent of blockage of a dimensional brane?

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis?
mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

Details?

No details needed. Osmosis is a blockage of chemical species by a membrane. No connection to gravity – none – zilch – zip – nada.

to expand on that:

“Osmosis is the spontaneous net movement of solvent molecules through a semi-permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, in the direction that tends to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides.”

More details and examples at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis

Isn’t the energy spent removing a grounded object to a height to drop it inevitably the same as the energy released when it hits the ground?

Postpocelipse said:

Isn’t the energy spent removing a grounded object to a height to drop it inevitably the same as the energy released when it hits the ground?

Not when it has a parachute.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

Isn’t the energy spent removing a grounded object to a height to drop it inevitably the same as the energy released when it hits the ground?

Not when it has a parachute.

Include the energy required to create the parachute? Anyhoo, I’m going with, gravitation is osmosis of mass which is equilibrium of particle momentum.

Postpocelipse said:

Include the energy required to create the parachute? Anyhoo, I’m going with, gravitation is osmosis of mass which is equilibrium of particle momentum.

Do you really think it likely that you are espousing ground-breaking revelations in physics?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Postpocelipse said:

Include the energy required to create the parachute? Anyhoo, I’m going with, gravitation is osmosis of mass which is equilibrium of particle momentum.

Do you really think it likely that you are espousing ground-breaking revelations in physics?

Not at all. I’ve said from the beginning I am trying to define my own understanding in a manner that can be communicated.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Postpocelipse said:

Include the energy required to create the parachute? Anyhoo, I’m going with, gravitation is osmosis of mass which is equilibrium of particle momentum.

Do you really think it likely that you are espousing ground-breaking revelations in physics?

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis making gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

Define “reason”.

Donde would be proud.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is there any reason gravity itself is not the mediator of osmosis making gravitation the consequence of energy equilibrium?

Define “reason”.

Interesting question considering the question I have had to define for the past week to be resolved on tuesday. That would require answering the question “what is reasonable”.

Peak Warming Man said:

Donde would be proud.

hmm, thanks for the observation. I suppose I could be doing worse things than self educating.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Lots of things establish equilibrium.

and is there a governor?

Could one say that inevitably mass only gains momentum?

One could.

But not if one wanted to be correct.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

and is there a governor?

Could one say that inevitably mass only gains momentum?

One could.

But not if one wanted to be correct.

How is that so? Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds. Inevitably.

• How is that so?

Last night, I found, my guitar, on the fire…

furious said:

• How is that so?

Last night, I found, my guitar, on the fire…

Did it weep, gently.

sibeen said:

furious said:

• How is that so?

Last night, I found, my guitar, on the fire…

Did it weep, gently.

Your mum does…….

This is a question I might pick up when events have been exhausting and I feel I need to find a center. I don’t fail to see what confuses others about the question construction I apply at any point.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Could one say that inevitably mass only gains momentum?

One could.

But not if one wanted to be correct.

How is that so? Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds. Inevitably.

Because momentum is conserved, so if some mass is increasing in momentum, relative to some non-accelerating reference point, there will be other masses that are reducing in momentum. Note that velocity is different to speed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

One could.

But not if one wanted to be correct.

How is that so? Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds. Inevitably.

Because momentum is conserved, so if some mass is increasing in momentum, relative to some non-accelerating reference point, there will be other masses that are reducing in momentum. Note that velocity is different to speed.

Aah but does this account for spatial expansion?

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

How is that so? Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds. Inevitably.

Because momentum is conserved, so if some mass is increasing in momentum, relative to some non-accelerating reference point, there will be other masses that are reducing in momentum. Note that velocity is different to speed.

Aah but does this account for spatial expansion?

Badly phrased. Does this calculation include spatial expansion?

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

How is that so? Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds. Inevitably.

Because momentum is conserved, so if some mass is increasing in momentum, relative to some non-accelerating reference point, there will be other masses that are reducing in momentum. Note that velocity is different to speed.

Aah but does this account for spatial expansion?

No, but spatial expansion will reduce mass per unit volume, not increase it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Because momentum is conserved, so if some mass is increasing in momentum, relative to some non-accelerating reference point, there will be other masses that are reducing in momentum. Note that velocity is different to speed.

Aah but does this account for spatial expansion?

No, but spatial expansion will reduce mass per unit volume, not increase it.

I’m not clear how that reduces the relative momentum provided.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Aah but does this account for spatial expansion?

No, but spatial expansion will reduce mass per unit volume, not increase it.

I’m not clear how that reduces the relative momentum provided.

I didn’t ay that momentum was reducing.

How does your statement:
“Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds”
relate to expansion of space?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, but spatial expansion will reduce mass per unit volume, not increase it.

I’m not clear how that reduces the relative momentum provided.

I didn’t ay that momentum was reducing.

How does your statement:
“Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds”
relate to expansion of space?

Because I am speaking globally.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’m not clear how that reduces the relative momentum provided.

I didn’t ay that momentum was reducing.

How does your statement:
“Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds”
relate to expansion of space?

Because I am speaking globally.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Imagine yourself at the centre of mass of some large block of space, containing many massive objects. As space expands, how does the overall momentum of this block of space change, relative to its centre of mass?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I didn’t ay that momentum was reducing.

How does your statement:
“Mass aggregates and greater masses reach greater speeds”
relate to expansion of space?

Because I am speaking globally.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Imagine yourself at the centre of mass of some large block of space, containing many massive objects. As space expands, how does the overall momentum of this block of space change, relative to its centre of mass?

I take your meaning but my confusion begins about where 2 objects have been sufficiently separated by expansion that they are moving away from each other at greater than c?

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Because I am speaking globally.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Imagine yourself at the centre of mass of some large block of space, containing many massive objects. As space expands, how does the overall momentum of this block of space change, relative to its centre of mass?

I take your meaning but my confusion begins about where 2 objects have been sufficiently separated by expansion that they are moving away from each other at greater than c?

I have not understood how momentum is conserved at this point.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That doesn’t answer the question.

Imagine yourself at the centre of mass of some large block of space, containing many massive objects. As space expands, how does the overall momentum of this block of space change, relative to its centre of mass?

I take your meaning but my confusion begins about where 2 objects have been sufficiently separated by expansion that they are moving away from each other at greater than c?

I have not understood how momentum is conserved at this point.

I don’t know either. I don’t know that anybody knows.

But I know even less how all this relates to your osmosis hypothesis.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I take your meaning but my confusion begins about where 2 objects have been sufficiently separated by expansion that they are moving away from each other at greater than c?

I have not understood how momentum is conserved at this point.

I don’t know either. I don’t know that anybody knows.

But I know even less how all this relates to your osmosis hypothesis.

Osmosis might be replaceable by another word if I figure out the simplest questions involved. As the title suggests I’ve already gone the long way round and this is my approach to taking the simplest path of questioning.

So you got your travel agent sorted then , kii?

Peak Warming Man said:

So you got your travel agent sorted then , kii?

Yes she is going to create a pressure difference between here and there and arrive with equilibrium……..

Peak Warming Man said:

So you got your travel agent sorted then , kii?

Yes, thanks.

Postpocelipse said:

Peak Warming Man said:

So you got your travel agent sorted then , kii?

Yes she is going to create a pressure difference between here and there and arrive with equilibrium……..

:P

>osmosis

it’s a type of suggestion, or auto-suggestion, just wait a while for whatever to permeate.

transition said:

>osmosis

it’s a type of suggestion, or auto-suggestion, just wait a while for whatever to permeate.

Interesting.

Is the energy spent by a particle under gravitational pressure as photons emitted the shedding of non rest mass energy, making an atom that fuses with another within a star one that has only rest mass left?

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

Thanks SCIENCE. That is a good introduction to an interesting topic.

You’d think people had never heard of intellectual exercises………..

Postpocelipse said:

You’d think people had never heard of intellectual exercises………..

Why would you think that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

You’d think people had never heard of intellectual exercises………..

Why would you think that?

I have stated I do this as an intellectual(non-subjective) exercise as a means to calm the mind during periods of stress and the same observations are inevitably made.

This particular stillness exercise has provided an observation.

Within a gravity well what is it that provides curvature to space?

My conclusion is the elongation of the moment of existence of vacuum virtual particles in proximity to a mass is the source of spacetime curvature and thus the mediator of gravity and gravitational acceleration.

Postpocelipse said:

Within a gravity well what is it that provides curvature to space?

My conclusion is the elongation of the moment of existence of vacuum virtual particles in proximity to a mass is the source of spacetime curvature and thus the mediator of gravity and gravitational acceleration.

Could this scenario provide the erroneous mass referred to as DM?

Could this further illustrate spatial expansion and DE as spatial dilation as fusion mass is generated?

I wonder whether you thought “osmosis” meant “capillary action”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action

none of it makes any sense so really it wont make a fig of difference.

Michael V said:

I wonder whether you thought “osmosis” meant “capillary action”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action

Yes I’d almost got out of the habit but someone on tv used it the same way and reinstated the misconception. I can’t get my perspective on gravity any simpler than the last brief and it has given me some new angles to explore methodically so I’m happy with the ultimate result.

ChrispenEvan said:

none of it makes any sense so really it wont make a fig of difference.

what is a fig in parsecs?

ChrispenEvan said:

none of it makes any sense so really it wont make a fig of difference.

Oh well. You’ve brought on the mischief. Are you saying you disagree with the idea that spatial expansion is a dilation discrepancy facilitated by the difference in average density of the universe as it has evolved?

Course you have to qualify any negative response.

Bonus question. Could a neutron be the result of capturing the energy of a virtual particle pairing?

.. show me the mathematics…….