nstansbury

Relativity doesn't preclude superluminal activity, it says bodies can't be accelerated FTL. Constant superluminal activity is not precluded.

Yes!!!!!! I think it's interesting... (I did warn you my maths sucked! Embarrassing logic updated above) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I actually don't get this: If: [math]p = \frac{E}{c}[/math] Then: [math]E = pc[/math] And if: [math]m=\sqrt{\frac{E^2-(pc)^2}{c^4}}[/math] Surely: [math]m=\sqrt{\frac{E^2-E^2}{c^4}}[/math] .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Actually... yes I do because p is the momentum of a massless object so [math]m\propto{0}[/math] must always hold true for any massless wave, so that equation was already proved by: [math]A^2 \propto E \propto m[/math] All I've managed to do here is prove that for a given electromagnetic wave propagating at c, the square of its' amplitude is proportional to its' energy whose mass must be 0. I always suggested these Space-Time waves would have no mass, so I am absolutely no further forward! I need to some how relate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy to the amplitude and interference of a wave. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ok, this is incomplete, but this is my first stab at it: According to my idea, there should be an association with the distance a Space-Time wave propagates from its' source, its' amplitude and the force exerted by gravity. I'm hoping to be able to relate it to: [math]F=G\frac{m1*m2}{d^2}[/math] So... as a radial wave propagates outwards, its' radius increases, and given that: [math]c=2\pi r[/math] As its' radius doubles, so does it's circumference. The amplitude of a propagating radial wave is inversely proportional to the length of its' wavefront. As it's wave front or circumference doubles, the wave's amplitude is halved. And, given that: [math]E \propto A^{2}[/math] - so does it's energy. Therefore: [math]A \propto r[/math] Now, more specifically these Space-Time waves are 3D, which means I need to consider any wavefront as a spherical surface area. The surface of a sphere is given by: [math]a=4\pi r^2[/math] The amplitude of a 3D radial wave is again inversely proportional to its wavefront, and as it's wave front or spherical area doubles the wave's amplitude is reduced by a quarter. Therefore: [math]A \propto r^2[/math] So far so good. However, as Gravity doesn't act perpendicularly to two masses, I think the spherical area would describe the total energy in the Space-Time wave propagating in all directions, and a 2D wave would describe its' gravitational potential acting in one direction... I think! Anyway, for the moment, assuming that to be true, using 2D propagation, and that: [math]A \propto r[/math] If: [math]E=mc^{2}[/math] (intentionally no momentum) And: [math]E \propto c^2[/math] Then: [math]m \propto E \propto A^2 \propto r^2[/math] Which is already interesting because of the Gravity equation above. Anyway... thoughts welcome, but TBC BTW - How can I switch off this "multiple post merged" thing - I'm joining up disparate ideas here?

There must be at least one force that pushes or pulls the wave surface back to its original flat position, otherwise we won't have waves! Though in the case of a surfer I would imagine it would be Gravity. Because as the wave propagates the circumference of the radial wave will progressively get larger thus the energy will be spread over a larger wave front, or something like that. No, because standing waves don't propagate I need to describe waves radiating out from a single source. Eeek - heinous error - I meant amplitude not wavelength - apologies jedaisoul

Arrgh!! - Of course

Just read this article at NewScientist.com: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Aside from it being fascinating in its' own right, I thought it would be an interesting phenomenon for creationist to explain.

Apologies see what you mean. Yes I was assuming that it would just be "primed" once, and then sealed. No I realised that wouldn't work, aside from the fact air would seep in and break the vacuum, at that size surface tension may stop the water flow anyway. Aha - I think this is why it might not work.... Look, I'm not arguing this would work, it's just the reasons mentioned why seem counter-intuitive to me.

No there is no pump, it's the atmospheric pressure "pushing down" and a partial vacuum "pulling up" Yes that's exactly what I thought but, the difference in p will be so minor & the one-way value needn't be pressure activated. I couldn't see how once it was started the momentum of the water travelling down through the outlet would be stopped by air pressure. Dodgy pic attached.

Well I was figuring the flow of water would power a small over-shoot water turbine. I figured the pressure of water would be ~14.7psi

Oooh, do you mind if I add mine to this thread as well because I can't figure out what laws mine is breaking as well. A tube with one end sealed, is placed into a pool of water open end down. A suction pump attached to the closed end, and it evacuates all the air. Ambient air pressure forces the water up the tube. A one-way valve is inserted in the tube just above the water line, that allows water out but no air in. Air pressure is pushing the water up the tube, counteracting the effect of gravity on the water, but the one-way valve still experiences a pressure against it, equivalent to the weight of water above it. The one-way valve allows water to be pushed out of the tube and no air back in, and ambient air pressure maintains the height of water in the tube??? Obviously the water flow powers whatever you like. What the heck am I missing? Just cant see what it is.

What would my reciprocal be?

Graviphoton, as a relative bystander to this thread I can hand-on-heart, honestly say I don't have the vaguest notion of what you are going on about. Firstly, you sort of tripped at the first hurdle: An idea's goodness is not determined in whether it makes you a crack pot or not, it whether it has scientifically valid, peer reviewed evidence to support it. However...for me.. what does just this part mean: "bubble of spacetime"? What does that mean? Was Einstein wrong? "correlates to a point in external space and time". But previously you said "neither exists in time nor space". I don't understand. "the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system" Are you suggesting that t - which I take is Time (as I didn't see it defined)' date=' that [math']t^2[/math] determines the probability of a quantum state? The only reason I ask is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude equation seems at odds with yours, how would you rectify that?

Love it... I'm sure that's what the Pope would say too.

Yes apologies - careless typo. Updated above. Umm... would someone be kind enough to check my logic for me please... If: [math]E \propto A^{2}[/math] And: [math]p = \frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{E}{c}[/math] Then: [math]p \propto \frac{A^2}{c}[/math] And: [math]A^2 \propto pc[/math] If: [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2 +(pc)^2[/math] Then: [math]m=\sqrt{\frac{E^2-(pc)^2}{c^4}}[/math] Therefore: [math]m \propto \sqrt{\frac{A^4-A^4}{c^4}}[/math] Then: [math]m \propto 0[/math] Thus: [math]A^2 \propto m[/math]

Though marginally off topic, I would like to put forward an explanation of where and how: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33431

Hi, I am hoping someone can help me with these equations: If two ping-pong balls were dropped simultaneously onto a completely flat surface of water, the waves from both balls would propagate radially outwards until they met, where their amplitudes would superimpose exerting a force of attraction on the two balls. What equation/s would describe the force exerted on the two balls and allow me to discount any loss due to the viscosity of the fluid? What equation/s would describe how the radius of the propagating wave would be proportional to its' amplitude? Thanks. In relation to: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33431

Yes, thanks. So really it's just a synonym for the total energy? So using: [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2 +(pc)^2[/math] Could someone help - have I transformed this correctly: [math]m=\frac{E^2-(pc)^2}{c^2}[/math] Having said that, whilst obviously changing the outcome of any values, obtaining momentum from: [math] p = \frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{E}{c}=\frac{A^2}{c} [/math] Would still hold true with my suggestion, that mass (and now momentum which makes sense!) are affected by the amplitude of the wave in question.

Be delighted to.... but if his autograph looks like George Clooney's surely it must be George Clooney's? Which would be odd because his name is Rod

It's not a case of not understanding, aside from the fact he has no experimental evidence to backup his ideas - his logic is fundamentally flawed. Just because the rings on a tree might be analogous to the earth's crust doesn't make it true. A good friend of mine looks like George Clooney. That doesn't mean he is George Clooney.

Hmmm yes.. very true. Which is interesting because the momentum of a massless object is a wave function with Planck's constant: [math]p = \frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{E}{c}[/math] And even more interesting as I've already suggested: [math]E \propto A^{2}[/math] and [math]\frac{A^2}{c^2} \propto m[/math] Thus: [math]p = \frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{E}{c}=\frac{A^2}{c}[/math]

Happy to be corrected - but Why? I'm working with Relativistic Mass for Gravity, so I can't see how taking momentum into account would change mass as a result of gravitational potential? I'm interested in the total energy of the wave.

This is a simplification of my original ideas presented here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33375 with proof from first principles. I suggest the following: Gravity, Time & Matter are a result of 3 dimensional superluminal waves of "energy" created by the big bang . The missing mass/energy in the Universe is a consequence of the energy in these Space-Time waves. These waves can be considered Space-Time itself Every particle is a result of a wave partially collapsing, due to a loss of energy. Gravity & thus Mass are a function of the remaining un-collapsed wave's amplitude Time & thus velocity/distance are a function of the propagation of the wave's frequency/wavelength As Time is the propagation of the wave, causality can't be violated. Drop a cork onto a flat pool of water, the waves will propagate radially outwards from it As the radius (and thus distance) of the wave from the cork increases the amplitude will decrease Drop a second cork a distance from the first, and as their waves superimpose, constructive interference will increase the combined wave's amplitude, literally pulling the two corks together. If the corks are analogous to particles, the amplitude of the superimposing waves is analogous to gravity, and the waves amplitude reduces as a function of the distance (radius) from the originating particles. The particle Energy of a Space-Time wave is given by: [math]E=c2\pi r\lambda f[/math] Where: [math]c[/math] is its' rate of propagation [math]r[/math] is the radius of the Space-Time wave front [math]\lambda f[/math] are it's frequency and wavelength I will prove this from first principles using Dirac's constant, and then use this equation to prove both: [math]E=mc^2[/math] [math]F=G\left( \frac{m1*m2}{d^2} \right)[/math] I define Dirac's constant as: [math]\hbar=c\lambda r[/math] Where: [math]c[/math] is the wave's rate of propagation [math]r[/math] is the radius of the Space-Time wave front [math]\lambda[/math] is its' wavelength The Planck constant is given as: [math]h=\hbar 2\pi[/math] Thus: [math]h=c2\pi r\lambda[/math] Given: [math]E=hf[/math] or Then: [math]E=c2\pi r\lambda f[/math] Given that as a radial wave propagates outwards, its' radius and thus its' circumference increases proportionally: [math]c=2\pi r[/math] The amplitude of a propagating radial wave is inversely proportional to the length of its' wavefront. As it's wave front or circumference doubles, the wave's amplitude is halved. Thus: [math]A^2=2\pi r[/math] Where: [math]r[/math] is the radius of the Space-Time wave front [math]A^2[/math] is the square of its' amplitude Therefore: [math]h=cA^2\lambda[/math] And: [math]E=cA^2 \lambda f[/math] And the velocity of a wave: [math]v = f \lambda[/math] thus: [math]c = f \lambda[/math] Therefore: [math]E=A^2c^2[/math] If: [math]E=mc^2[/math] then: [math]m=A^2[/math] And: [math]A^2=\frac{E}{c^2}[/math] Given: [math]h=cA^2 \lambda[/math] Then: [math]\frac{h}{\lambda} = cA^2[/math] Thus momentum: [math]p = \frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{E}{c}=cA^2[/math] Assuming: [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2 +(pc)^2[/math] Then: [math]m=\sqrt{\frac{E^2-(pc)^2}{c^4}}[/math] And: [math]m=\sqrt{\frac{(A^2c^2)^2-(A^2c^2)^2}{c^4}}[/math] Then: [math]m \propto \sqrt{\frac{A^2C^2-A^2C^2}{c^2}}[/math] Thus: [math]m=0[/math] and [math]A^2=m[/math] My next goal is to prove Special Relativity & Gravity can be explained as waveforms, and both be affected by the amplitude, frequency & wavelength of these Space-Time waves, using the following equations: [math]E=mc^{2}[/math] [math]F=G\left( \frac{m1*m2}{d^2} \right)[/math] Mass I suggest that "mass" is the result of the superimposing of amplitude of multiple Space-Time waves. Given: [math]m = A^{2}[/math] Waves amplitudes are additive So: [math]\frac{m1*m2}{d^2}\Leftrightarrow \frac{A1^2+A2^2}{d^2}[/math] Proof: Considering two identical masses: If: [math]E=mc^{2} [/math] Then: [math]m=\frac{E}{c^2} [/math] Therefore: [math]\frac{E}{c^2} * \frac{E}{c^2} \Leftrightarrow {A^2 + A^2}[/math] Therefore: [math]\frac{E^2}{c^4} \Leftrightarrow 2A^2[/math] Therefore: [math]m \Leftrightarrow \frac{E}{c^2} \Leftrightarrow A^2[/math] Thus: [math]m \propto E \propto A^2[/math] Time I suggest Time can be explained as a consequence of the relative increase and decrease in frequency of these Space-Time waves. Proof: The velocity of a wave is a function of frequency & wavelength: [math]v = f \lambda[/math] Given two waves travelling parallel to each other at velocities [math]c[/math] and [math]\frac{1}{2}c[/math] with an identical wavelength [math]\lambda[/math] If: [math]f=\frac{c}{\lambda}[/math] Then: [math]\frac{\frac{1}{2}c}{\lambda}=2f[/math] Where: [math]f=\frac{1}{T}[/math] Thus: [math]2f=2 \left(\frac{1}{T}\right)[/math] Therefore to an observer travelling at [math]c[/math], time in the other wave appears to run twice as fast, thus relatively time runs slower in the faster wave - as Special Relativity predicts. Distance & Velocity I suggest that the distance & velocity in any frame of reference are a result of the frequency & wavelength of the Space-Time waves. Proof: The velocity of a wave is a function of frequency & wavelength: [math]v = f \lambda[/math] Where: [math]d = \frac{v}{t}[/math] And: [math]f=\frac{1}{t}[/math] Therefore: [math]d = \frac{f \lambda}{\frac{1}{f}}[/math] As the frequency & wavelength of the Space-Time waves change, and that distance is inversely proportional to velocity (frequency/wavelength) as per the Lorenz Contraction. Gravity I suggest that the gravitational force exerted on a body is affected by the frequency/wavelength and most importantly the amplitude of these Space-Time waves. Proof: As a radial wave propagates outwards, its' radius increases, and given that: [math]c=2\pi r[/math] As its' radius doubles, so does it's circumference. The amplitude of a propagating radial wave is inversely proportional to the length of its' wavefront. As it's wave front or circumference doubles, the wave's amplitude is halved. Considering: [math]E \propto A^{2}[/math] Therefore: [math]A \propto r[/math] Where [math]r[/math] is the distance of propagation. The total gravitational potential in a propagating 3 dimensional Space-Time wave would be described as the surface area of an expanding sphere. Given by: [math]a=4\pi r^2[/math] Therefore: [math]A \propto r^2[/math] However, Gravity doesn't act perpendicularly to two masses, and wave Amplitudes only superimpose when in phase, so a 2D "cross-section" of the wave would describe a body's gravitational potential acting in one direction. If: [math]A \propto r[/math] Then: [math]A^2 \propto r^2[/math] Distance [math]r[/math] is a function of a Space-Time wave's frequency [math]f[/math] & wavelength [math]\lambda[/math], to which the Amplitude [math]A[/math] and thus gravitational [math]G[/math] potential of the wave is proportional to. Thus: [math]r^2 = \left(\frac{f \lambda}{\frac{1}{f}}\right)^2[/math] Therefore: [math]F=G\left(\frac{A^2 + A^2}{r^2}\right)[/math] Therefore the gravitational force exerted on a body would be affected by the frequency/wavelength, amplitude and propagation of these Space-Time waves. Relativistic Mass also increases with velocity (frequency/wavelength) as per Relativity. As: [math]E \propto A^2[/math], an increase in Energy would also increase the particle Space-Time wave's Amplitude, thus increasing its' gravitational potential and therefore mass. In a spherical 3D waves propagating in all directions, Amplitude is related: [math]A \propto r^2[/math] Therefore, as the propagating spherical wave increases in area, it's Amplitude decreases proportionally. This explains why the early Universe was so dense and we are exponentially expanding ([math]r^2[/math]) to a Universe with less gravitational potential. Thus: [math]m \propto E \propto A^2 \propto r^2 \propto c^2[/math] Mass [math]m \propto E[/math] because [math]E \propto A^2[/math] [math]A^2 \propto r^2[/math] because [math]r^2 \propto c^2[/math] which is the speed the 3D wave front is expanding at [math]c^2 \propto m[/math] because [math]r^2 \propto A^2[/math] And [math]m \propto A^2[/math] because [math]A^2[/math] determines gravitational potential thus [math]m[/math] etc etc.. And in the beginning there was Energy... I will edit this post to fix mistakes.

I unequivocally agree - but as I said from the very beginning, alas I'm not in any position to provide them. Ok, I am starting a new thread with a simplification of the ideas and an attempt at the maths: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33431

Hey swansont - thanks I do appreciate you taking time to ask the awkward questions. Yes, apologies for the flippant reply - I was still smarting over the "pseudoscience" thing Ok, as I said in the paper, this was nothing more than a thought experiment based on my Physics knowledge, and I was simply following apparent logical truths to see where they lead. These truths appear to logically fit with experimental evidence and don't contradict any existing laws. A fundamental point of my paper was suggesting gravity (and thus mass) was the result of Space-Time waves superimposing and creating a constructive interference pattern that literally pulls two points in Space-Time together. Thus if gravitational potential is a result of the wave's amplitude, its' mass should also decrease as the amplitude decreases. What happens when waveforms lose energy, their wavelength (generally) increases - how can energy be removed from a body - by cooling it. We already know an increase in wavelength will change the time propagation of a wave, thus objects passing through waveforms whose wavelength is increasing should appear to slow down. What evidence do I have to sustain this - light slows down when passing through matter near absolute zero. Is there an existing theory that satisfactorily explains why this should occur - no. The logical consequence of what I suggest - particles should weigh less the more the amplitude of their Space-Time wave decreases. Do particles near absolute zero weigh less? I have no idea, I haven't been able to find any paper that experimentally proves yes or no. Hence the question. Why BEC and not EIT? Whilst comfortable suggesting that c might be affected by cooling due to an increase the Space-Time waves wavelength & thus affect time, I don't have enough in depth knowledge of EIT to suggest that the same effect could or couldn't be caused without cooling. We know of a number of mechanisms that can/do slow c, and I'm not (yet) suggesting all of them are a result of an change in their Space-Time wavelength. Though I do think the mechanisms behind EIT are definitely something I should investigate and understand more fully. Unknown. I didn't know they were being considered for that use. Though again some logical consequences do spring to mind following through from the above statements. There have been many contentious experiments in this area, some that predict gravity is anywhere between 0.8 and 1.2 c. Many of these results are disputed. If gravity is finite, the results of plugging this delay into gravitational calculations as I understand it is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed, resulting in unstable planetary orbits. The the speed of gravity in Newton’s Universal Law is unconditionally infinite, because he couldn't (neither could those after him) resolve the conflicts. Gravitational velocity is only assumed to equal c because of relativity, but relativity doesn't preclude constant superluminal motion. So, as far as I can tell this is as yet case unproven. You will though notice a key point - that as I suggest only these "massless" Space-Time waves are capable of superluminal motion, causality isn't violated, and attempting to "uncollapse" a particle by accelerating it's waveform would still encounter E=Mc2 Please don't misunderstand me. I make no claims here. This as I said is a set of logical consequences, that appears to fit with current experimental data. My only goals in publishing this idea are: To ensure I haven't got some spectacularly & embarrassingly obvious flaw in my logic To intrigue someone enough who is capable of doing the complex waveform calculations that should be able predict things like the gravitational constant from a wave's amplitude etc etc. Whether there really is something to this idea or it's complete bunkum and it's just co-incidence that this appears to fit very elegantly together, I am in no position to assert. I'm hoping someone here maybe able to! Without the hard maths, I would just argue lets see what (if any) of these logical truths can be experimentally (or at the very least intellectually) verified.

No... "Why" is the question - "How" is the equation. I'll let you discuss it with Einstein: Paragraphs 2 & 4: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg16121747.700 You'll also need to address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Either way, we're moving out of Scientific discussion into sophistry.

Sorry Klaynos, but it seems to me it is you that doesn't seem to grasp and fully appreciate the fundamental consequences of a ToE. I would suggest you chat with a professional Theoretical Physicist and ask them what answers a ToE must provide for it to be considered "The" ToE. This is why I keep using the word "consequences". No Theoretical Physicist will ever be content until at the instant of the "Big Bang" we can explain & predict why all the fundamental forces of nature exist and behave with the values that they do. Period. Anything less than that isn't a ToE. This is also of course assuming Hawkings is right, and that we may never be able to adequately describe the instant before it. It was the "pseudoscience" classification that bothered me, I assumed it was where the nutters, fruit loops, creationists & "aether" advocates were put!