gre

oops, For gravitational/velocity redshifts (v must be positive): w.e + (w.e * z) = (1 / (1 - (v/c))) - 1 so, z = (1 / (1 - v/c)) - 1 For gravitational/velocity blueshifts (v must be negative): w.e / (1 + z) = w.e / (1 - (v/c)) so, z = (1 - (v/c)) -1 If the relative velocity between parting objects (redshift) exceeds c, then z is negative. What is negative z? Error?

antimatter is the closest thing to 'negative quantities' in nature...

Just curious, is it possible gain any insight into the relationship between the Doppler shift and gravitational red/blue shift by setting the observer's wavelength equal to each other in the following equations? gravitational redshift: w.e + w.e * z = w.o w.e = wavelength from emitter w.o = wavelength at observer z = spectral line displacement from redshift: z = (G*m) / (c^2 * r) doppler shift: w.e / (1 - v / c) = w.o v = relative velocity between observer & emitter (negative when objects are moving towards each other, positive when objects move apart) c = speed of light (w.e + w.e * z) = (w.e / (1 - v / c)) so, z = (1 / (1 - (v/c))) -1 If v is positive, then z is negative If v is negative, then z is positive Is this right, or is something goofed up?

Where do abstract questions (+ beliefs) like this come from? Do massive objects have thought (the moon for example)? If thought has mass (and gravity), then mass would probably have thought as well, which it doesn't.

Probably not. But what is the exact cause of frequency/wavelength shifting phenomena? Gravity seems to be the cause of gravitational red/blue shifting, and relative velocity between objects seems like the cause of the doppler effect. But what is the "common denominator" between these effects?

Is space-time alone thought to have density? Would areas of space with higher gravity be considered more dense? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI guess I could ask the same question about mass as well... Is it possible that an object's (mass) density increases in areas of higher gravity? Not from the actual force of gravity on the object, but from an effect similar to red/blue shifting.

can't gravitational and electromagnetic forces be considered centripetal force in rotating systems?

I just found this http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/astro/unify.html#c1

What is the smallest object ever observed with gravity? Also, how is it determined/known that subatomic particles (ie free electrons) have gravity?

I think the coils can hum/ring (maybe the arc as well) at the frequency which they are pulsed. The particular coils you were watching might all have the same resonant frequencies, which is why they all had the same "pitch", I'd guess.

Has any experimental data been released? They are calling it LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) not "cold fusion", probably since "cold fusion" has a black-eye. And according to standard belief there is no such thing as "LENR" .. So, who knows what they did.

Dave, Thanks for posting. It is hard to find a forum where people are open to discussing new ideas, and theoretical concepts. From what I've seen, physicists don't see value in finding a classical-like representation of Quantum physics. In my previous "what if" posts in this thread, In a nutshell I was curious if there is a magnetic-type force (Lorentz, maybe) which dictates the energy levels, shape, size, and maybe 0 point energy, of an atom.. perhaps an "internal" magnetic force which is not seen (completely) from an outside reference frame, like quark charge... In my calculations this might be shown mathematically w/o any rigor .. But it is still probably just speculation or not possible (which would explain the little feedback) ... Most of my calculations also involve numerology, which is pretty much an immediate turn off to most physicists. What I'm curious about now: What would have to be shown to mathematically to get interest in these concepts? Would an alternative perceptive be useful?

"e" does seem like an oddball. And coulombs (1/(4*pi*Electric_Constant)) seems to convert elementary charge (e) to Planck charges, anyway.

ajb, What is Dirac's argument?

Has the value of the elementary charge of a particle decreased over time? I'm curious why 'e' is lower than the Planck charge value and if the Planck charge value ever shows up ever in nature. Thanks, Greg

How exactly is this information related to the topic? (I haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but I'm curious). You might want to start a new thread. Greg

In a older post, I was wondering if this equation: F = (proton_mass^2 * c^3)/hbar could be used to estimate the strong force in newtons (maximum or total) holding quarks together in a proton. Just for fun, I checked to see if it would have the same result (using Planck mass instead of a Proton's) F = (planck_mass^2 * c^3)/hbar = 1.210e44 N

I would like to see more on this actually (sorry I'm so thick headed). Mathematically why is what I have incorrect, and can someone show the correct math calculation is applied... Or experimental proof the ionosphere is a key part of the Schumann resonance? Not right now, but If I come up with something I'll be sure to post it. c^4/G Worked out it's a Planck unit of force ... Could it be the "force" holding space together, or something to do with a black hole (?). By itself "c^4" might just be a representation of space-time. (planck_length^4) / (planck_time^4) or (4D planck space) / (4D planck time) And the gravitational constant by itself, or: (planck_length / (planck_mass *planck_time^2) .. Could be a few things. Martin, I'll have to think about the rest of your post. Thanks, Greg

I've never seen this before .. so I figured I post it. While researching another subject I noticed the following relationships. Is this why it is theorized that all forces unify at the Planck level? Pm = Plank Mass Pl = Planck Length Pt = Planck Time Pf = Planck frequency (non-angular) = 2.952104e42 Hz Eo = Electric Constant Uo = Magnetic Constant Force of gravity between Planck masses one Planck Length away: F = G * (Pm * Pm) / (Pl * Pl) = 1.210259e44 N Electrostatic force between Planck charges on Planck length away: F = (1/(4*pi*Eo)) * (Qp^2/Pl^2) = 1.21025e44 N Magnetic force between two Planck scale magnetic poles: F = (Uo/(4*pi)) * ( [(2*pi*Pf*Qp)*Pl)]^2 / (Pl^2)) = 1.21025e44 N (edited) Other forces, such as centripetal are probably the same.. I'm guessing.

My bad. I meant "frequency end up higher" not lower.

Thanks. What are the variables involved other than the non-spherical shape of the ionosphere.. And how does the frequency end up lower?

What's wrong with my last post?

Ah, Thanks. Here is another amazing RC helicopter stunt video.

How is this possible?

Just curious.. What makes you think there is a vast supply of free energy all around us (in a nutshell)? By definition radiant energy is solar or heat energy, I believe. Are you referring to cosmic rays (i.e. particles from sun, etc.).