granpa

regarding 'shame', we are getting into semantics here. threads go downhill quickly when that happens. in my view having a conscience isnt the same thing as feeling guilt ond shame.

deleted

to be free one must have no social mores? I like social mores. I want social mores. it is my will to follow social mores. If I was unable to folow social mores then I would feel a loss of freedom not a gain. I dont consider social mores to be confining at all. by social mores perhaps you really mean something different. something like feeling oof shame or guilt that society sometimes causes some people to feel. that would be bad. perhaps you should clarify what you mean.

logical or human? why not both?

I say, thats playing it a bit fast dont you think. pulsating is swelling and shrinking not rocking side to side. I will discuss this no further on this site. you win. you can all sleep well tonight. if anyone is genuinely interested in this they can email me.

the gravitational field and the electric field arent exactly alike. the electric interacts with the magnetic field. the gravitational field has nothing like that. so 10^36 may not be exactly right. it might be exactly right but I doubt it. on the other hand I very much doubt that it is far off. 10^36 is definitely not a quantum result. its simply the ratio of the energy in the gravitational field of a proton to the energy in the electric field of a proton. any oscillating mass must produce gravity waves unless gravity propagates infinitely fast. its a simple antenna. again no quantum mechanics at all. bullshit. exactly the opposite of the truth. thats why a pulsating sun wouldnt emit gravity waves. all the wave would be in phase and would cancel out. a pulsating charge wouldnt emit light either. that would be true for light as well. yet the sun emits lots of light. what does the 'emission' of light have to do with whether the resulting waves cancel each other out or not? either the waves cancel out or they dont. light waves dont. so there is no reason to think that gravity waves would. how the waves were created in the first place is irrelevant. ???????? 10^36 is the ratio of the energy in the electric field of a proton to the energy in the gravitational field of a proton. this model is purely classical. there are no virtual particles in it. quantum mechanics may indeed alter it a bit but there is no reason at all why it cant be modelled classically. I just realized why mainstream science is against this idea. if solar wind is caused by gravity waves then so are reletivistic jets from black holes. that would mean that black holes arent singularities. that means that its hopeless for me to try to convince any of you that I am right. since its hopeless I give it up.

well my whole approach is the classical approach. if you dont believe it applies then thats pretty final. yes as each particle moves back and forth it emits light and gravity waves. certainly of the whole sun was pulsating then it would not emit any (transverse) gravity waves but there is no reason to say that therefore it wont emit any due to the thermal motion of its particles. if you believe that then it shouldnt emit light either. that is all I have to say about that. now I already know that you have a response ready for this so I wont bother to respond to it. have a nice day.

not 'associated with that'. the gravity waves and the light waves are produced by exactly the same mechanism. the vibrations of the particles. since the gravity field everywhere is 10^36 times weaker it follows that the waves produced will be 10^36 times weaker.

I'll be honest with you. I have no idea what you just said. I think you are referring to some quantum mechanical interpretation of things. the model I'm using is purely classical. I'm thinking of the vibrating particles as antennae. the freezing up of this computer has become intolerable. I'm preparing to reinstall ubuntu. it may take a little while.

☺☺ so to determine the total amount of energy in gravity waves reaching the surface we need to calculate the total amount of light energy being emitted (even if its just immediately reabsorbed) by all particles in the sun and divide by 10^36. right?

thats what I just said. its the whole point of what I am saying

wtf. I had to go to work. now that I'm back I'll be glad to respond (in spite of your attitide). my computer keeps freezing so my posts are going to be short. this isnt complicated. I dont understand why you cant work this out for yourselves. lets start at the beginning. a nucleus bounces off another nucleus and therefore emits light. now the energy in the gravitational field is 10^36 times less than the energy in the electric field therefore it should emit 1l10^36 times less energy in gravity waves than it does emits as light? right? (assuming that gravity waves propagate at the same speed that electric fields do) the light waves are except at the very surface absorbed immediately and re-emitted time and again. but the gravity waves are not absorbed. therefore the gravity waves reaching the surface of the sun come from the entire bulk of the sun.

I use 'will' and 'ntent' interchangably. what was it that paul said? something about what he willed to do he didnt do. what he willed not to do he practiced. maybe you always do exactly what you will to do but us mortals dont.

I dont have time right now but suffice it to say that you've greatly mistunderstood what I wrote. the key is the total light emitted by all atoms/nuclei in the sun. of course its virtually all absorbed and then re-emitted again and again. we are only looking at the total amount emitted.

yes. coronal heating. I've calculated the energy emitted in gravity waves by vibrations of all the individual particles/nuclei. its close to the required amount of energy.

if my will is to lead a happy rich rewarding and satisfying life then am I free or not?

never heard of them. but regarding most such people I think they're just a bunch of crackpots and nutcases telling made up stories that just happen, through pure random chance, to actually have a tiny bit of truth to them (maybe).

nice. but the only one that appears to be anything but an artists impression is: ESO PR Video 46j/08 Timelapse sequence with VLT and NTT images

what do you see as the difference between 'freewill' and 'will'?

I was hoping to find something that showed that the magic numbers are more stable but I cant seem to find anything.

the sun weighs 2*10^30 kg. the energy in the gravitational field of a proton is 10^36 times less than the energy in the electric field of a proton. the temperature of the surface of the sun is 5800 k the temperature at the center of the sun is 15,000,000 k the energy output of a blackbody increases with the fourth power of temperature (15,000,000/5800)^4=4.5*10^13 the density at the center of the sun is 150 times that of water. the energy required to heat the corona is 1/40,000th the total output of the sun. we assume that gravity waves are transmitted at c. we assume that gravity waves once emitted are not reabsorbed (in the body of the sun) to any significant degree. the total surface area of the sun is 6*10^18 m^2 the total energy emitted in high frequency gravity waves due to the oscillations of individual nuclei due to heat should equal 1/10^36 times the total light energy being emitted by the same particles in the sun (even if that light is just reabsorbed again). since most of this light is emitted in the center of the sun and the total mass of the sun is 2*10^30 kg then 2*10^30/10^36 equals 2 millionths of a kg of material at the center of the sun. the light energy emitted by this 2 millionths of a kg should be equal to the energy emitted by the whole sun in high frequency gravity waves. this 2 millionths of a kg of material will emit 4.5*10^13 times as much as it would at the surface of the sun. or rather a blackbody at the center of the sun will emit 4.5 * 10^13 times as much as a blackbody at the surface of the sun. the question becomes how thick does material at that temp and density have to be to be opaque and therefore more or less blackbody-like. if we assume that it is totally opaque meaning that a layer only a few particles thick would radiate like a blackbody and we can see that this 2 millionths of a kg could cover 0.5 m^2. this will emit 4.5*10^13 times as much as it would on the surface. so lets say it emits the same amount as it would on the surface but covers 4.5*10^13 times as much area. thats 2.25*10^13 m^2. the total surface area of the sun is 6*10^18 m^2. this is 1/270,000th the total surface area. so the total energy emitted by high frequency gravity waves would by this calculation be 1/270,000th the total energy emitted by the surface of the sun.the only real assumption here is that the material at the center of the sun is so opaque. other than that its pretty straightforward. this compares favorably to the 1/40,000th needed to heat the corrona. therefore if some unknown quantum mechanical interaction causes the solar atmosphere to absorb these high frequency gravity waves then that could explain the coronal heating. edit: actually the core is much denser than the photosphere so collisions are much more common. that will greatly increase the amount of gravity waves. The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter. 150,000,000 times less dense than the center of the sun. particles are 500 times closer and presumably collide 500 times more often. also the neutrons in the helium nuclei havent been taken into account. and gravity waves should be longitudinal as well as transverse so that should also increase the energy emitted as gravity waves. the absorption of gravity waves in the rarified solar atmosphere but nowhere else could be explained if every time a particle strikes another (which is what creates gravity waves) it is rendered unable to absorb gravity waves but then slowly regains it over time (unless it strikes another before then). so in effect creating gravity waves renders the particle transparent to gravity waves for a short time. the only way a lone particle can absorb transverse gravity waves is if that particle possess some kind of gravitational curl. gravitomagnetism I suppose.

english is a flawed language. the fundamental unit of existance is the 'event'. events 'happen'. so the question should be does 'nothing' happen? also the universe IS everything. even though it is finite it is still everything. even though it has a beginning it is still everything. it always was everything. it always will be everything. even when it was just a point it was still everything. it didnt come from nothing. it came from everything.

the sum of all the forces is zero

forces are always balanced but at least one of the fonces is proportional to the rate of change of motion.

if the nucleus consists of shells of 50 nucleons each of which consists of subshells of 2*1², 2*2², 2*3², 2*4², and 2*5² nucleons then the magic numbers would be 2,8,18,32,50,52,68,82,100. the observed magic numbers are 2,8,20,28,50,82,126. I make no attempt to explain the discrepencies. I only point out that it comes close to explaining the observed numbers and is very similar to the electron shells/subshells. if we assume that the neutrons that arent part of alpha particles form a shell of their own then the formula for stable nuclei becomes neutrons not part of alpha particles=total neutrons-protons=(P/12.36)² hence the number of these neutrons becomes proportional to the electric force trying to push the nucleus apart. (the electric force following an inverse square law). for uranium 235 the number of such neutrons is 51.