The Unified Spectrum & The Hyperbolic Sphere

[photon propeller]

 

THE UNIFIED SPECTRUM
OF LIGHT

THE HYPERBOLIC LIGHT
PULSE &

THE INERTIAL
STRUCTURE OF GRAVITY

 

The perfect curve is the median wavelength of the
electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum
is simplified from this equilateral vantage point. The full spectrum range can
be represented in one un- polarized light pulse, or one spectral sphere. That
sphere is the hyperbolic torus. It may be subdivided into seven separate
hyperboloids each with a 15 degree conical range. Pure color and temperature is
the median of each range. These separate
hyperboloids coincide exactly with the seven pure color tones and the twelve
natural musical tones when subdivided appropriately within 360 degrees of a
sphere. The hyperbolic sphere itself is the inertial structure of gravity in
which energy and momentum flow. The torus transformation is the flow of energy
through the hyperbolic structure, the natural logarithm. When an electron and positron annihilate,
their rest mass transforms into the momentum of the resulting photons and the
gravitational vortices align. This is the propulsion energy of the photon. The
angular momentum increases as the distance to the axis decreases and vice
versa. As this occurs, the sphere transforms to a spindle torus, then a horn
torus, then a ring torus, and repeats the cycle. Wavelength and temperature fit
accordingly and are orthogonally related. When stationary, this is the Mass
Hyperboloid, or mass shell. Amplitude to couple increases as color purifies and
decreases as colors are mixed. Although the sphere may be divided infinitely
into color shades, it does not extend to infinity. However, the inertial
structure of gravity may be induced at any point in space. It is homo genius
and isotropic. The difference from the source to the photon is the alignment of
the gyroscopic gravitational planes, as it is for the electron and positron.
The spectral sphere is the platform to calibrate energy tolerances. It is the
fork with which to tune elemental frequencies. It is the secret harmony of
light.

Edited March 29, 2013 by photon propeller

[ACG52]

Nonsensical word salad. Totally lacking in any meaning.

[photon propeller]

It is a model for inertial gravitational effects on a photon, and the intrinsic relationship of spectral color to wavelength, temperature, frequency, and the natural music tones. The EM spectrum is not a flat line extending to infinity in both directions, It is a sphere. That sphere is the platform where gravity and light interact. I agree it would make a very colorful word salad, tasty too.

For those who lack vision I offer this quote. "It is the weakness of the orthodox follower of any received system to impute insanity to the solitary dissident." Augustus De Morgan, "A Budget of Paradoxers," 1872

[elfmotat]

Both your image an your words look like meaningless nonsense to me.

[John Cuthber]

This word salad should be in speculations.

[photon propeller]

Gravity compresses matter at the source and expands light in the form of photons. Does Gravity dissappear on the way to the observer? No, it is an inertial counteraction to the photons oscillation and a propelling and resisting factor to its forward momentum. I invite anyone to produce another model or even a shred of constructive review.

[John Cuthber]

"Gravity compresses matter at the source and expands light in the form of photons."

No it doesn't.

[photon propeller]

"no it doesnt" ??? What do you think is happening at the center of our sun? gravity is compressing hydrogen into helium and the resulting energy is released in the form of photons. Is this science 101 or attack of the word salad bandits?

[John Cuthber]

What is happening in the centre of the sun is a nuclear reaction. It is not driven by gravity.

Gravity doesn't expand things so your assertion that it "expands light" is not correct.

that's what I meant by "no it doesn't".

And I think you would do better to read and understand science 101 before you carried on with this thread.

[photon propeller]

are you implying that it is not gravity that is the driving force of nuclear reactions? Are you serious! how do you think hydrogen gases coalesce to form stars in the first place?

[ACG52]

and understand

The part he left out.

[John Cuthber]

are you implying that it is not gravity that is the driving force of nuclear reactions? Are you serious! how do you think hydrogen gases coalesce to form stars in the first place?

No, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it quite categorically.

And I can prove that gravity isn't the cause of the nuclear reactions because the same reactions happen in high energy physics labs where the gravity is vastly less.

Now, do you plan to learn to actually understand science 101 any time?

[pwagen]

are you implying that it is not gravity that is the driving force of nuclear reactions? Are you serious! how do you think hydrogen gases coalesce to form stars in the first place?

Am I understanding this right; The nuclear forces in stars are due to gravity because gravity caused the gas clouds to pull themselves together to form stars?

 

Then iron smelting works are responsible for car accidents, because iron is used when building cars.

[photon propeller]

Gravity forces the atoms close together so that the electrostatic repulsion can be overcome by the attractive strong nuclear force. Does that spell it out? Or is this merely a game of word salad bandits?

In high energy experiments, gravity is substituted by powerful magnetic fields which accelerate the particles to necessary collision velocity. All of this is widely know and a mood point.

[John Cuthber]

So, you have now realised that the strong nuclear force is what causes the reaction. That's a good start. (Actually, it's generally an electric field that does the work of accelerating the particles in the experiments, but that's not really the point.)

 

Why did you say it was gravity when it's actually the strong force?

 

Now can you try to explain what you think you mean by the phrase "expanding light"?

[photon propeller]

I realized it the whole time. In nature, gravity is essential for bringing atoms close enough for the short range of the strong nuclear force to prevail. Of course astronomical collisions and high energy explosions can also do this. Gravity is still an essential step. So in this way gravity is a natural initiator of photon production. Since gravity obeys the inverse square law, at planck scales it is easy to see the association of gravity and the strong nuclear force. Now that we have reviewed science 101, how about something constructive on the dynamics of photon propagation and the inertial effects of a transverse wave.

[John Cuthber]

"So in this way gravity is a natural initiator of photon production."

So are the back ends of fireflies.

So what?

 

And this

". Since gravity obeys the inverse square law, at planck scales it is easy to see the association of gravity and the strong nuclear force."

is word salad again.

 

Also, you have yet to explain what you mean by phrase "expanding light"?

 

If you don't tell us what you think you mean, we can't really comment on it beyond saying it's unclear to the point of being gibberish.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Can we tone down the rhetoric on both sides please .

 

And more importantly: Photon Propeller, in this forum you do not get to dodge questions and it is to be expected that members will challenge you on your ideas, wording, and eventually maths.

 

[swansont]

It's fair to say that the fusion in stars is enabled by gravity

 

Since gravity obeys the inverse square law, at planck scales it is easy to see the association of gravity and the strong nuclear force. Now that we have reviewed science 101, how about something constructive on the dynamics of photon propagation and the inertial effects of a transverse wave.

 

You can't jump from gravity being inverse-square, which is a classical description, to planck scale, which is a quantum description. They don't mix. Stellar fusion has nothing to do with analysis at the planck scale.

 

As to the OP, it is nonsensical word salad. What specific predictions does this model make, and how do you test these predictions?

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, the fact that for small distances the nuclear forces are stronger, but for long distances the gravitational effect is stronger proves that, whatever the form of the nuclear force may be, it isn't an inverse square law.

So, if anything, this shows that (at any distance) the gravitational and nuclear forces are very different things.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Gravity is still an essential step. So in this way gravity is a natural initiator of photon production.

 

Light bulb, tv monitor, fire flame are all producing photons.

Where in them is strong gravity source?

[photon propeller]

I am simply trying to show the dynamics of light production from the source to the observer as one intrinsically connected system in which gravity is always present. As far as the spectral platform, I am trying to demonstrate a geometric model of the relationship between gravity and photons from source to observer. The key point is that at any scale gravity is always present. This leads to the postulation that gravity has some inherent geometric structure represented by the way energy flows through it. Keplar, Bohr,Rene Descartes, IssacNewton, Voltaire all envisioned a relationship of spectral colour and musical tone to physical properties. Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin mapped the relationship of spectral colour to temperature with the Kelvin scale. Thomson and Tait did experiments testing Helmholtz's predictions of the behavior of vortex rings, a torus, better known as the donut or smoke ring. The Navier-Stokes equations for fluid dynamics used in Helmholtz's predictions on vortex rings were verified by Thomson and Tait. What it showed was a vortex ring has an inherent tendency towards stability and a curious leapfrogging behavior where the front vortex grows as the rear approaches and the rear is pulled through its center when two or more rings are present. In a vortex ring the circular axis is the electric component(electron) and the magnetic component(positron) coils around it like a spring. The idea here is that em radiation propagates as vortex rings through a series of 7 spectral colour hyperboloids induced by the inertial gravitational effects. An inertial gravitational feild. A torus degenerates to a sphere as its circular axis shrinks. I propose this as a geometric model for the dynamics of light flow through the aetherial quantum vacuum. I propose that in every transverse wave their are two gravitational waves inertially opposing the electric and magnetic waves opposite of each peak and trough. Notice how wavelength and temperature relate to the angle of the spectral colours when they are divided this way. It is no coincidence that the colours and music notes divide equally within a sphere. As far as testing or measuring, scale centimeters to nanometers and break out your ruler. I invite intelligent comments as thats why I am posting here. This subject fascinates me and believe there is much to be gained.

Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller

[swansont]

I am simply trying to show the dynamics of light production from the source to the observer as one intrinsically connected system in which gravity is always present. As far as the spectral platform, I am trying to demonstrate a geometric model of the relationship between gravity and photons from source to observer. The key point is that at any scale gravity is always present.

 

But that does not mean that gravity is necessary, or important, for photon production. Gravity is an important mechanism for stellar fusion, but we can quantify why this is so: it facilitates the nuclear interactions that release the energy that eventually results in the emission of photons.

 

This leads to the postulation that gravity has some inherent geometric structure represented by the way energy flows through it.

 

Energy does not flow through gravity. This is nonsense.

 

Keplar, Bohr,Rene Descartes, IssacNewton, Voltaire all envisioned a relationship of spectral colour and musical tone to physical properties. Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin mapped the relationship of spectral colour to temperature with the Kelvin scale. Thomson and Tait did experiments testing Helmholtz's predictions of the behavior of vortex rings, a torus, better known as the donut or smoke ring. The Navier-Stokes equations for fluid dynamics used in Helmholtz's predictions on vortex rings were verified by Thomson and Tait. What it showed was a vortex ring has an inherent tendency towards stability and a curious leapfrogging behavior where the front vortex grows as the rear approaches and the rear is pulled through its center when two or more rings are present. In a vortex ring the circular axis is the electric component(electron) and the magnetic component(positron) coils around it like a spring. The idea here is that em radiation propagates as vortex rings through a series of 7 spectral colour hyperboloids induced by the inertial gravitational effects. An inertial gravitational feild. A torus degenerates to a sphere as its circular axis shrinks. I propose this as a geometric model for the dynamics of light flow through the aetherial quantum vacuum. I propose that in every transverse wave their are two gravitational waves inertially opposing the electric and magnetic waves opposite of each peak and trough. Notice how wavelength and temperature relate to the angle of the spectral colours when they are divided this way. It is no coincidence that the colours and music notes divide equally within a sphere. As far as testing or measuring, scale centimeters to nanometers and break out your ruler. I invite intelligent comments as thats why I am posting here. This subject fascinates me and believe there is much to be gained.

 

There are many things in such a proposal to test to try and falsify them. How would one do this? How do you test that "em radiation propagates as vortex rings"? How do you test for the presence of an "aetherial quantum vacuum" — what properties does it have? What is an inertial gravitational field? How does it "oppose" a magnetic or electric field?

[John Cuthber]

"The key point is that at any scale gravity is always present".Moot point. lights still work in free fall.

At best, it's like saying that all photon sources that we know about are with about 15 Bn light years of me, so I must be important to the production of light.

"I am trying to demonstrate a geometric model of the relationship between gravity and photons from source to observer."

You might be trying to demonstrate that, but you have yet to provide any evidence for such a link.

Furthermore, as I and others have said, there really doesn't seem to be any link.

You can gave gravity without a lot of photons- you don't float away from the floor when you turn the lights off.

And you can have light without a lot of gravity- for example, in free fall.

 

"The key point is that at any scale gravity is always present. This leads to the postulation that gravity has some inherent geometric structure represented by the way energy flows through it."

No it doesn't, or at least, not to me.

Can you show why you think that is the case?

How does it lead to that postulate?

[photon propeller]

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Consider a transverse wave in 3d space. As each wave oscillates from peak to trough at 90 degrees to each other a 3rd and 4th component must exist to counter act each one. Imagine when the electric component peaks, at the same time, on the same plane, but on the opposite side of the axis an inertial reaction also peaks. Likewise for the magnetic component. Gravity is not a compression force here but an inertial reaction.

 

The "path" of the energy flow highlights the structure. A sphere is the platform. Think of planet earth and the electromagnetic field, it is a torus. Now overlap it with the flow of gravity spiraling in from all directions towards the center.

 

If the forces are all constituents of a complex energy then they all must work in unison. My gut tells me that the strong nuclear force has as much to do with gravity as it does with quarks and gluons.

 

As far as the Quantum vacuum goes we know it has a specific energy density and inherent constants. Im proposing a spectral framework which is revealed as light travels through it.

Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller