Gravity Chapter
5 continued
Vacuum Definition
At this point it must be clarified as to what a perfect
vacuum is. The dictionary defines a vacuum as, a) ‘a
space completely empty of matter’, b) ‘a
space from which air has been excluded as completely as possible’, or, c) ‘a
space containing a gas at pressure lower than atmospheric’. This is obviously confusing
and imprecise as people using the word vacuum are in most cases actually
describing only partial vacuums.
So here I will use the term vacuum to mean a perfect vacuum,
i.e. a space completely devoid of matter, that contains
no atoms, molecules, ‘ether’ or any subatomic particle
identified or unidentified.
So how in practice could a vacuum be produced?
Vacuum Technology
There are numerous ways of creating partial vacuums,
but it is clear that no mechanical system of pistons and
cylinders, for example, can be manufactured by man that can prevent
individual atoms bypassing even the most perfectly machined cylinder
and seals.
Various sophisticated techniques, such as diffusion, ionisation,
chemisorption etc., are used to produce ‘high’ vacuums
for commercial and experimental use, and development of
these and other techniques will no doubt result in even ‘higher’
vacuums than the current levels.
But to produce this state of a high vacuum or another words
of very low pressure requires the expenditure of a large
amount of energy and no system has been invented that can
remove every atom or molecule from a container. Accordingly
it is generally accepted, at least by applied scientists and technicians,
that attaining the state of a vacuum is not possible.
So with all the advanced technology available at present
it is still not possible for skilled applied scientists
and technicians to create a vacuum, and yet it is assumed
that the gas that we inhale is in fact already 99.9% a
vacuum.
Kinetic Theory and the Vacuum
In the light of this let us apply the
assumptions of kinetic atomic theory as taught today to
this question and it is significant to note here that in university
level textbooks, for example, when outlining the principles of the
theory and describing the actions and reactions of the atoms and molecules,
there is no attempt at an explanation of what this ‘empty space’ proportion
of the total volume of the gas consists of, or does not consist of.
As previously stated the theory suggests that atmospheric
gas at sea level, in other words the air that we breathe,
consists of just 0.1 percent matter in the form of atoms,
or molecules, mainly of nitrogen and oxygen. The remaining 99.9 percent
of the volume occupied by atmospheric gas is empty space. It has
been implied however that this ‘empty space’ in which atoms and molecules
are travelling at high velocities, cannot be considered in isolation
and must be considered as ‘an integral part
of the gas’.
The volume of matter in outer space is just a minute fraction
of even this small volume and, it is also suggested, that
as the number of atoms in a unit volume of outer space
is so small ‘they do not form a gas in the usual
meaning of the word’.
Under the influence of gravitational forces, the number
of atoms (per unit volume) increases proportionately with
a decrease in altitude from any massive body such as the
earth, and accordingly therefore the distance between atoms
progressively decreases.
Accordingly if the relatively vast amount of space between
the atoms in outer space is accepted as being a vacuum,
while the space between atoms at the earth’s surface is
not, then a specific level of density of any gas or gaseous
mixture has to be defined where the state of inter-atomic vacuum
ceases and the state of inter-atomic ‘non-vacuum’/’empty space’ begins.
Or in other words the point has to be defined where the
‘empty space’ between the 3 million (3 x 106) atoms of
hydrogen in 1 cubic metre of the deepest space and the
‘empty space’ between the 3 x 1019 atoms contained in 1cc
of atmospheric gas at the surface of the earth changes from being
a vacuum to being something other than a vacuum, and of course any
attempt to define such a level of density or altitude would be completely
arbitrary.
Therefore the only conclusion that can be drawn is that
the ‘empty space’ between the atoms of a gas at the earth’s
surface has the same characteristics as the ‘empty space’
between atoms in outer space.
This unspoken assumption of the presence of a vacuum and
its huge proportional volume in all gases is a serious
problem for kinetic atomic theory.
Kinetic Theory and Decompression
The empty space surrounding the atoms
in a kinetic gas, having no qualities by definition, can
exert no force or influence on any atom or molecule in its vicinity.
The atoms and molecules, again by definition, can only
apply a positive force, exerted by means of the ‘kinetic’
energy that any atom must always possess, on other atoms
with which it comes into contact by collision.
But it is an observed fact that the force required to expand
a gas increases exponentially to the point where, in practice,
the integrity of either the materials of the cylinder, the piston,
or the seals between the two fails. This can be translated to suggest
that the force required would increase exponentially to the infinite.
There are machines in regular, daily use today that compress
gases to many hundreds of times atmospheric pressure and
there are more sophisticated machines that can compress gases and
matter to hundreds of thousands of times that of atmospheric pressure.
Thus the technology is available to construct a machine
to expand a gas and apply a similar, but decompressive,
force.
However the force that is required to oppose or overcome
atmospheric pressure at sea level cannot exceed 1 atmosphere
(15 lbs/inch2 , 1.2Kg/cm2), thus the total external force on a piston
cannot exceed this, which should in theory be easily overcome by
a simple machine.
With respect to the internal pressure within the cylinder,
as the atoms of a kinetic gas can only apply positive pressure,
this can only vary between 1 atmosphere and absolute zero pressure.
Therefore the absolute maximum theoretical pressure differential,
for a ‘kinetic’ gas, between the external pressure of 1
atmosphere and the minimum possible internal pressure of zero, is
1 atmosphere and if machines are capable of compressing gases to
differentials of many thousands of atmospheres, why should it be
impossible, in decompressing a gas, to provide the force needed to
overcome this minimal theoretical differential?
Clearly there is an observed, and exponentially increasing
force, opposing decompression that cannot be explained
by kinetic-atomic theory.
To reiterate the only force that a ‘kinetic’ atom can apply,
by definition, is a positive one and there can be no force,
positive or negative, emanating from or resulting from the element
of ‘empty space’ between kinetic atoms. Thus the observed and exponential
increase of the force of decompression necessary to expand a gas
is, in terms of the kinetic theory of gases, inexplicable.
To me it is quite astonishing that the complete failure
of kinetic atomic theory to provide any explanation for
this fundamentally important phenomenon has been ignored for well
over a century.
Gravity and Kinetic Gas
Mutual gravitational forces influence two massive
suspended bodies so that their position deviates away from
that dictated by the earths gravitational force alone. These
mutual forces are accordingly in opposition to that exercised
by the whole mass of the earth.
Figure 17
The laws of mechanics dictate that for a force applied in one direction
an equal and opposing force in the opposite direction must be applied.
It also must be presumed in this case that the force of
attraction between the two bodies that is opposing the
earth’s force, is applied directly in the space between them, i.e.
it cannot be an ‘external’ force from some other source.
The space between the two, according to current assumptions,
is occupied by a gas that consists of atoms in continuous
kinetic motion at high velocities separated by a vacuum.
As the atomic matter can only by definition apply a positive
force, their motion can not result in any force that would
translate into one of attraction.
The vacuum component of the gas has no qualities that could
generate a force.
It can only be presumed therefore that the force of attraction
is somehow generated at the bodies themselves and then
transmitted between these bodies through a vacuum. (whether this
transmission is somehow achieved by stimulating successive atoms
to pass on a force through the vacuum or whether it is transmitted
solely through the vacuum).
Conclusion
In an earlier section we discussed the natural forces that affect
us directly and concluded that the fundamental force of the universe
is gravity, which acts on every particle of matter individually or
collectively throughout the universe, and we noted that theoretical
physicists today are pessimistic about the possibilities of finding
a solution to this force and of combining it with what they call the
fundamental forces into a Unified Theory of Matter.
Ultimately this, apparently unsolvable problem for theoretical
physicists today, can be described in this manner: -
How is this force of gravity generated by and transmitted
between one body and another body through the intervening
and theoretically empty space?
In other words, if current atomic theory is applied to
the problem, it is essentially to explain how gravity is
transmitted through a vacuum either at the atomic level
or at the astronomic level.
Newton and Vacuum
In these circumstances it is now necessary to reconsider
the statement that Isaac Newton made in a letter to the
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge: -
“That one body may act upon another at a distance through
a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by which
their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to
me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical
matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
To paraphrase Newton what he is saying is that is conceptually
and mathematically impossible to describe how one body
can transmit a force to another body through a vacuum. It does not
matter whether this space that separates the two bodies is the supposed
vacuum of outer space, which pervades the incomprehensibly large
distances between us and the galaxies at the edge of the visible
universe, or whether it is the supposed ‘empty space’ in the incomprehensibly
small distances between the atoms at the surface of the earth.
As Archimedes said 2500 years ago, ‘give me a
point on which to place a lever and I will move the world’, in other
words there has to be a ‘something’ for a force to act upon and in
the case of two atoms or of two massive bodies separated by vacuum,
as this space by definition has no qualities, a force emanating from
one mass has no base from which to act upon the other.
This when applied to atomic matter means that, if no continuous
contact is assumed between two atoms in any state of matter,
there is no possible way to describe how any force acting on one
is transmitted to, and acts upon the other.
Theoretical physicists thus have, with the assumed omnipresent
vacuum, quite literally no solid base from which to work,
and therefore, even with the wasted application of another century
of mathematical focus, they will never achieve an explanation of
the transmission of this force or any other on the basis of the assumption
that such a state exists.
Electron Microscope (STM) Images
Since the 1980's technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling
microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate,
the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are
widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time
to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across
the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined,
as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms
at the surface of a sample of solid matter.
Electron Microscope Figure 1
Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond
all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures,
which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in
the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration
of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most
striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in
these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of
the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.
If as kinetic theory suggests, each of the atoms of a solid
are oscillating eternally within a set volume of empty space separating
it from adjacent atoms, then instead of the clearly defined images
of rows of spherical atoms, the images of the atoms would be indistinct
and blurred.
Any independent observer would accordingly conclude that
in this state of matter atoms do not have any characteristic of independent
motion and that no empty space or vacuum exists between them. Eminent
physicists of the scientific establishment however, instead of accepting
these visual images as representing the reality of atomic interactions
in solids, cling to current scientific dogma and reject these clear
results, inventing vague and patently unsatisfactory reasons as to
why these empirical results do not contradict the hypothetical concepts
of kinetic motion and discontinuity.
An example of this is by Hans Christian von Baeyer 15A and I quote:-
The apparent continuousness of STM images has two fundamental
causes. First there is the problem of resolution. No matter how fine
the needle of a scanning probe may be, its tip can be no smaller
than an atom. This means in turn that the pictures it makes are limited
in sharpness. - In the domain of the atom there will always come
a point when two separate features of an object appear as one because
the probe is too clumsy to tell them apart.
The second cause -- (is that) in bulk matter, and on surfaces,
neighbouring atoms bump and jostle each other, and all the while
share electrons. Their electron clouds are so intertwined that it
is impossible to distinguish which electron belongs to which atom.
Metals and other conductors are suffused with electrons that are
free to roam over the entire sample – obliterating the structural
details of individual atoms.
Note that ‘apparent continuousness’ means that there is
no indication of the currently accepted theory of the discontinuity
of atomic matter. So this first sentence could be rephrased “The
fact that discontinuity is not evident in STM images -----”
Von Baeyer seems oblivious to the fact that, if the probe
is sensitive enough to pick up traces of individual electrons moving
at high velocity, the second cause would appear to contradict the
first.
However a more recent image of the surface arrangement
of metal atoms as is represented below in Fig.2 are a far more convincing
visual argument for continuity.
Electron Microscope Figure 2
Thus STM images are evidence of the existence of atoms,
but not of discontinuity or of kinetic motion in solids, and the
only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this, by objective
observers at least, is that in this state atoms are continuous and
that kinetic motion does not exist.
So to summarise, there is no definitive proof of two fundamentally
important assumptions that underpin currently accepted theories of
the atomic structure of matter, the state of a vacuum (quantum, or
any other hypothetical concept) and the kinetic motion of atomic
matter, and on the contrary there is clear and unequivocal evidence
that these assumptions are invalid.
Chapter 6 >
Back to Gravity Contents >
|
