MigL

Hey Seeger Carbajal, maybe you should remind Swansont and ACG52 That a shair or a hand is mostly empty space and is in fact made 'solid' by electromagnetic forces between atoms, so ultimately it is still electromagnetism counteracting gravity. No seriously, the reason we get so many 'gravity is just electromagnetism' posts, is that obsessive fanatical cranks keep on coming back to the same inane subject and will not take reason for an answer. And incidentally the reason things always start falling at slow speed and accelerate to faster and faster speeds is due to the principle of least action, where the Lagrangian of the system ( kinetic minus potential energy ) is minimised. This follows from symmetry considerations. Massless objects such as photons, that don't obey this principle ( but rather the principle of least time ) do not 'accelerate' to c, rather they start moving at c as soon as they come into being.

Einstein certainly doesn't need my help to save his reputation. But what he mistakenly included for the wrong reason, has turned out to be accurate, is all I've said. Don't go off on a tangent to confuse the issue and avoid having to give explanations for your wild speculation. Gravitational waves have been part of mainstream cosmology for quite a few years, they only needed verification. Its not like the _1993 Nobel prize_ that you keep mentioning was a paradigm shifting of accepted physics. Stop throwing up smoke and mirrors and answer dimreeper's questions if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise move on to your next psychotic episode.

ou've created a universe in your own mind which works a certain way, makes no prdictions and is untestable. To everyone else it is unnecessarily complex,or simply wrong as it involves throwing out every scientific insight of the last 300 yrs ( since Hyugens ). And it seems no one can convince you of your narrow-mindedness or ignorance of physics. You seem to think everyone else has blinders on. I think this is the reason I don't like to post in speculations. Sometimes the subjects are interesting but it attracts the wrong kind of people.

Just like you told Dimreeper to understand before he criticises, I think you should do the same. You have little understanding of the accepted and consistent way things work as exemplified by your understanding of proton decay, And Einstein did predict dark energy, however he called it a cosmological constant. If you read any advanced cosmology texts you'll find that the two work the same and are both caused by vacuum energy.

The photon is the electromagnetic field, or rather, the manifestation of excitation of the field. The field does not hold photons together. So if its not one 'process' decaying into another but rather two 'processes' with a commonality, can you supply equations that describe this commonality, as Maxwell's equations and those of GR do not. Have you found a unification for electromagnetism and gravity ? Should I submit your name for a Nobel prize yet ? The principle of least action describes pretty well the reason for and mechanism for exchange of potential energy to kinetic energy, and I really don't think any gravitational monopole waves are involved.

The reason your example may work with balls in water is because water waves are in a medium, ie water, there is a distinct difference between water and the wave, they are not the same thing. EM waves on the other hand haven't, nor need a medium. The photons which comprise them are bosons which follow Bose-Einstein statistics. This means you can stack as many as you want into the same state with no repercussions or interactions. So what is the mechanism by which this'decay' from EM waves to gravitatonal monopole ( HUH ?? ) waves happens ? What is the mechanism for mass and energy 'decay' to create space through the continuous release of gravitational waves. It has been experimentally confirmed that the half-life of a proton is greater than 10^32 yrs ( 10,000 billion, billion, billion years !!!), how does that jibe with your decay of mass-energy into space ?? Or does it all sound so unbelievably strange because you are using 100 yr old terminology ????

So, is that a yes then ? According to you EM fields 'decay' into 'gravitational monopole waves', whatever those might be, and so EM fields have a limited, not infinite range. Did you then lie when you claimed to have said no such thing ? And again, how do you reconcile this with Maxwell's equations ? Also, what is the machanism for this 'decay' from EM to GM waves ? Or were you hoping no one would ask you and you could make up the rest of it later ?????

Well if its detectable like P L A S M A, ie it interacts electromagnetically so we can observe it, then its not really dark matter, is it now ???

You have a very bad memory about your posts, nobrainer. In post #63 you write... "As long as the photon generating star is producing electromagnetic radiation the photons electromagnetic field is being continually replaced as the electromagnetic field is decaying into monopole gravitational waves." It distinctly says that elecromagnetic fields decay into gravitational waves, DOES IT NOT ??? Yet yesterday you posted... "When or where did i state that electromagnetic fields have a finite range, I did not state that. " WRONG ! Let me remind you that you stateed it in post #63. Not only is your 'theory' inconsistant but you've just proven that your thinking is also.

Hey Nobrainer, are you on a diet ? It seems you're always making salad. Word salad !! My apologies to the mods and other members. It seems I've descended to his level.

Well since you quoted me, nobrainer... No, you do NOT understand accepted theory. You believe electromagnetic fields have a finite range, and they 'decay' into gravitational waves. Show me where Maxwell's equations predict that will happen. You are the one who called me an ass saying, and I quote "you like to be an ass to people?", and I defended myself saying, and I quote " I don't think I'm being an ass". YOU go back and re-read the posts. Every time you post something, you get accused of making salad. WORD SALAD ! Grow up and learn some physics.

I have thae Pais book ( Subtle is the Lord... ), along with several others on Einstein's life and carreer. I also don't see well ( almost no vision in left eye ) due to PDS glaucoma in my middle 30s, filtering operations and subsequent cataract operations. Driving at night or in bad weather is an adventure, and I now read fine print with a magnifying glass. The math professor who called Einstein a lazy dog was none other than Hermann Minkowsky. Planck's introduction of quantization was an ' act of desperation ', a fudge factor if you will, since he couldn't make his equations make sense ( infinite energy as frequency approaches infinity ) without it. He was not influenced by anyone or any prize. I prefer to try and understand the accepted science first, before making speculative assertions, as I've always thought you'd be able to see farther by standing on the shoulders of others ( recognise the quote ?? ) rather than jumping up while standing behind them.

I would also re-examine your definition of the Pauli Exclusion principle, It states that no more than one fermion, ie particles which obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, can occupy the same state. A subtle but sizeable difference.

Einstein wasn't even part of the physics community in Europe in 1900, when Planck came up with several drafts to explain the UV catastrophy of black body radiation. In 1900 Einstein wasn't even a clerk in the Swiss patent office yet, Ronald. Symmetry is the underlying cause of many physical laws ( which are inviolatile ), I don't know if I'd extend that to rules ( which are for convenience ). One of the greatest female mathematicians proved this in the theorem named for her, Emily Noether. Global continuous space time symmetries like translational, angular and temporal account for the conservation laws for momentum, angular momentum and mass-energy respectively. There are also global discrete space-time symmetries that account for CPT conservation and local gauge symmetries which acocount for our forces and their associated particles. The simplest way to think of symmetry breaking ( credit to Alan Guth ) is to consider a dropping pencil. As it falls it moves to a lower and lower energy state but it is always rotationally symmetric, it can be turned at any angle about its axis and there is no difference ( a round pencil not a hexagonal one ). When it hits the ground point first, it still has the same symmetry but it is unstable because it can drop to a lower energy state, ie it is at a 'false' zero energy state. As soon as it falls on its side, it is in its lowest, real zero energy state but it is no longer symmetric because a rotation will now point the pencil in a specific direction. Symmetry breaking in the early universe worked the same way. As it expanded and cooled, it dropped to lower energy states. Some of these states were 'false' vacuum states, and as the universe dropped to the real vacuum state symmetry breaking occurred. There may have been many such breaks, the last one being at an energy of 250 GeV, where the electroweak sparated into the weak and EM force. A previous one may have occurred at 10^15 GeV where the strong interaction separated from the electroweak. These are examples of gauge symmetry breaks. A continuous space-time symmetry break of a scalar vacuum energy field may have precipitated the inflationary period between 10^-35 and 10^-30 secs after the big bang by causing a large negative pressure condition as it slowly rolled down to the true lowest vacuum energy. In GR it can be shown that large negative pressure ( pressure being a form of energy ) can cause repulsive or negative gravity, resulting in exponential expansion. If this slow roll down to the actual zero vacuum state still has to be reached , and the roll is very slight, it could account for th accelerating expansion of the universe. Dark energy is then nothing more than the final effects of a symmetry break which started 13.7 billion yrs ago.

Got as far as the first line... 'monopole gravitational wave solves the missing monopole problem' The missing monopole problem concerns the absence of MAGNETIC monopoles. You are right in your last sentence though, wear your name with pride !

t your facts straight Strengthening Sagactiousness, Max Planck' final version of a quantised statistically derived black body radiation spectrum, was published in late 1900. Albert Einstein's paper ( one of three, the other two being special relativity and brownian motion ) on the photoelectric effect, which alluded to quantization, was published in 1905. Who was influenced by whom ???

If you set up an experiment to detect wave effects of quantum particles like photons or electrons, they will display wave properties. If you set up an experiment to detect particle effects, they will display particle effects. Does that mean their nature is determined by the observer ? Obviously not. It means our model, wether particle or wave, is incomplete. It could be both, or neither.

No actually it does not seem stupid at all, and I'm not denying anything. Gravity, as accounted for by GR, can display both attraction AND repulsion depending on pressure due to vacuum energy. There is no need to complicate matters with your theory.

I don't think I'm being an ass Nobrainer, and it isn't only Bjarne that refuses to understand physics. You yourself haven' t got a clue as to how pressure affects gravity, even after Iggy has tried explaning. By the way negative pressure is the postulated cause for the inflationary period shortly after the big bang. Instead of pushing your pet theory, try understanding the accepted theory first, and work on the inconsistencies of that theory. Don't rush to replace the accepted theory by one which is even more inconsistent. All the hundreds, if not thousands of physicists who have worked on GR, the big bang and universal expansion were not idiots waiting for a genius like you to come along and correct them.

You're wasting your time Iggy, AJB has already tried to give logical scientific reasoning for universal expansion, to no avail. Nobrainer has picked a very suitable name for himself; Maybe Bjarne should change his to Alsonobrainer.

The universe is not expanding. It is just distancing itself from the hare-brained ideas and illogical leaps-of-faith presented as arguments in the speculations forum.

It seems that at the most fundamental level, symmetries, continuous and gauge, are responsible for physical laws.

"The perception that Color is a deep part of Nature is an important example" ??????? Again with the colour nonsense. QCD also has the label of 'flavour'. So tell me is it choccolate, vanilla or garlic flavour ?? Do you really think that at the quark/gluon scale colour has the same meaning that we associate with the evryday colours we see ( wavelengths of visible light ) ?

I doubt very much Anderson is the most cited person in physics. And, no, I haven't read Peter Briggs paper on spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism. I've only read Peter Higgs paper on the same subject. Must be his cousin or something. Oh, and thanks for the simplistic explanation of gauge invariance.

Maybe a bad choice of words on my part. A galaxy is not spiraling inward or outward as it is gravitationally bound, it is rotating, and the different angular speeds along its radius give rise to its spirality.