John Cuthber Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 My gut tells me that the strong nuclear force has as much to do with gravity as it does with quarks and gluons. Can your gut answer the points which have been raised? Can the rest of you?
photon propeller Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Is it really all meaningless nonsense, ACG52? arent we past that. Doesnt the history have some value for you or help you in any way to see where im coming from? Im not here to stroke my ego Im trying to get feedback on my thoughts and maybe learn something from it. Isnt it obvious that Im not the fool you mistook me for? If anything is meaningless here it is your comments. How about some common courtesy. "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? Do you agree that its possible for gravity to act as the 3rd and 4th components of a transverse wave as inertial reactions to oscillation? Can anyone else enlighten me on the origin of gravity waves? Can you tell me how they are produced? Take away the 1st and 2cnd components of the transverse wave, the em component, and you have a wave of pure kinetic energy, the gravity wave Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller
John Cuthber Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) "Is it really all meaningless nonsense, ACG52? arent we past that. Doesnt the history have some value for you or help you in any way to see where im coming from? Im not here to stroke my ego Im trying to get feedback on my thoughts and maybe learn something from it." You got feedback and you ignored it. In particular you didn't address the questions raised. And we won't get past calling your stuff word salad until you come up with evidence that it is meaningful. "Do you agree that its possible for gravity to act as the 3rd and 4th components of a transverse wave as inertial reactions to oscillation?" No, apart from anything else, gravity doesn't go negative in the way that electric fields do. Why is it that you acknowledge that you don't know anything about gravity waves"Can anyone else enlighten me on the origin of gravity waves? Can you tell me how they are produced?"; but you are prepared to pontificate on what they are "Take away the 1st and 2cnd components of the transverse wave, the em component, and you have a wave of pure kinetic energy, the gravity wave" Do you not see the contradiction there? Edited March 31, 2013 by John Cuthber
photon propeller Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) I am offering a hypothesis, and you disagree, its a part of the learning process. Youve said its not possible, how are you so sure? I asked you a specific question too, Can you offer any explanation on the origin of gravity waves? What is your specific question John? fact is that no one knows everything about them which is why we have a billion dollar satellite looking for them now. That is why this is theoretical, we are using what foundation we do have and adding our imagination to try to fill in the blanks. What might work and not contradict any law? Do you think it was meaningless when Lord Kelvin postulated that the vortex rings may very well represent atomic structure? Do you realize how wealthy he became from all his electrical gadgets. Where would we be if he had said, "thats impossible." If anything the history demonstrates a meaning and a need for further discovery. Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller
swansont Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. Equal and opposite is forces. The behavior of E and B fields is governed by Maxwell's equations, which tell us that the oscillation of the E field gives rise to an oscillating B field, and vice-versa. We also know that the motion of the wave is orthogonal to these oscillations. For a photon leaving a source, e.g. a star, the E and B fields are perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force. 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. Gravity doesn't spiral. It's purely radial, with field lines terminating on masses. 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. Gut doesn't count. Experiment does. 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. And?
ACG52 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Is it really all meaningless nonsense, ACG52? Yes, it is. arent we past that. Obviously not, because you're still posting meaningless nonsense. Doesnt the history have some value for you or help you in any way to see where im coming from? I don't care where you're coming from, I care what you're posting, and in terms of physics and the way the universe operates, it's meaningless nonsense. I am offering a hypothesis What you're offering doesn't rise anywhere near the level of hypothesis. What you offer is word salad. and adding our imagination to try to fill in the blanks. Try to add some education in there at the same time.
photon propeller Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Was my history summary not educational ACG52? Let me guess, you knew all about it, yet it still was meaningless to you. Once again you have no specific inquiries just typical insults lacking any original thought or meaning. Swanson, as a mass rotates doesnt the radial component of gravity become a spiraling component Inducing centrifugal and centripetal forces? If em radiation does propagate as vortex rings , wouldnt these same inertial forces be produced? I am well aware that a magnetic field induces an electric field and vice versa, and the orthoganal relationship to forward motion, just because one gives rise to the other does not remove the inertial component. Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller
John Cuthber Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I am offering a hypothesis, and you disagree, its a part of the learning process. Youve said its not possible, how are you so sure? I asked you a specific question too, Can you offer any explanation on the origin of gravity waves? What is your specific question John? fact is that no one knows everything about them which is why we have a billion dollar satellite looking for them now. That is why this is theoretical, we are using what foundation we do have and adding our imagination to try to fill in the blanks. What might work and not contradict any law? Do you think it was meaningless when Lord Kelvin postulated that the vortex rings may very well represent atomic structure? Do you realize how wealthy he became from all his electrical gadgets. Where would we be if he had said, "thats impossible." If anything the history demonstrates a meaning and a need for further discovery. Your offering is not a hypothesis, it's barely a suggestion. Whether I agree or not is entirely beside the point. Does reality agree? Do you have any experimental data? I told you why it wasn't possible and others have repeated that point (and they too have given reasons). My answer to your specific question is no. The rest of your post is essentially rambling: you are no Kelvin, and his ability to invent the coffee pot has nothing to do with gravity (or anything much else). For what it's worth, the lack of a rest mass removes the need for inertia.
swansont Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Swanson, as a mass rotates doesnt the radial component of gravity become a spiraling component Inducing centrifugal and centripetal forces? Classically, no. There are very small GR effects, of course, which is why GR supplanted Newton, but you offered this up as a general case and never mentioned that this is dependent on rotating masses. If em radiation does propagate as vortex rings , wouldnt these same inertial forces be produced? What's the math of propagating as a vortex ring? I am well aware that a magnetic field induces an electric field and vice versa, and the orthoganal relationship to forward motion, just because one gives rise to the other does not remove the inertial component. Is this something that has been measured? If not, how could you measure it? IOW, what inertial component? You need to establish that there is one.
photon propeller Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Swanson, you said,"Classically no, I never offered it as a rotating mass?" I said take the earth as an example, is the earth not a rotating mass? Gravitational force does spiral. All matter has intrinsic angular momentum. Wherever there is momentum there is inertia. When a car stops, what is it you feel? You certainly do not have to be in a gravitational field for this to happen. Gravity is simulated in space by rotation. One only has to look at a cloud of hydrogen gas forming a star or a forming spiral galaxy. Matter follows this spiral "path" towards its center until an equalizing orbit is achieved. There is a detailed drawing of exactly how it does spiral in an earlier post of mine on coriolis and centrifugal force. The math for vortex propagation can be found in Helmholtzs predictions for vortex ring propagation using the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid dynamics as I also stated earlier. Gravity waves are a subject of current study, they do exist. From pure logic one can deduce that they must be a wave of purley kinetic energy, no electromagnetism, just ripples in the fabric of spacetime like the ripples on a pond. No one here has offered any ideas of their origin or properties, I have. When current satellite data is deciphered, we will all know more about the subject. So gravity waves are currently being "established" and my hypothesis of the 3rd and 4th components of a transverse wave as inertial by products of oscillation is not that far fetched. Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller
ACG52 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Deducing things from 'pure logic' is a red flag. Edited March 31, 2013 by ACG52
photon propeller Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) In response to you John that Kelvin has nothing to do with this topic is just a plain foolish statement. I have shown you that his ideas and several others on the relationship of spectral color to physical properties and the idea of vortex rings are the basis of my investigation. The men I stated earlier in my history lesson are key players in the discovery of many important aspects of physics. You have looked for any opportunity to cast down on what ive said. Are you just holding a grudge because your bubble was burst in the religion forum. Or is it just that you and ACG52 are from the good ole boys school in England and cant take having your feathers ruffled. To that end I say welcome to the USA. Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller
photon propeller Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Deducing things from 'pure logic' is a red flag. Give Feynman his due and correct the spelling of his name in your posts. Edited March 31, 2013 by photon propeller
swansont Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Swanson, you said,"Classically no, I never offered it as a rotating mass?" I said take the earth as an example, is the earth not a rotating mass? You offer the earth as an example, not as the general case, but I ask, where is the spiral in Newton's law of gravitation? It is an attraction between points. There is no torque for point objects. Gravitational force does spiral. All matter has intrinsic angular momentum. Intrinsic angular momentum has a specific meaning on the quantum level. Classically, there is no such thing — angular momentum of any object can be zero. Wherever there is momentum there is inertia. When a car stops, what is it you feel? You certainly do not have to be in a gravitational field for this to happen. Gravity is simulated in space by rotation. One only has to look at a cloud of hydrogen gas forming a star or a forming spiral galaxy. Matter follows this spiral "path" towards its center until an equalizing orbit is achieved. Because angular momentum is conserved, not because it is provided by gravity. There is a detailed drawing of exactly how it does spiral in an earlier post of mine on coriolis and centrifugal force. The math for vortex propagation can be found in Helmholtzs predictions for vortex ring propagation using the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid dynamics as I also stated earlier. How does this apply to photons? Gravity waves are a subject of current study, they do exist. From pure logic one can deduce that they must be a wave of purley kinetic energy, no electromagnetism, just ripples in the fabric of spacetime like the ripples on a pond. No one here has offered any ideas of their origin or properties, I have. When current satellite data is deciphered, we will all know more about the subject. So gravity waves are currently being "established" and my hypothesis of the 3rd and 4th components of a transverse wave as inertial by products of oscillation is not that far fetched. Is this the thinking behind the existing searches for gravity waves?
John Cuthber Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 In response to you John that Kelvin has nothing to do with this topic is just a plain foolish statement. I have shown you that his ideas and several others on the relationship of spectral color to physical properties and the idea of vortex rings are the basis of my investigation. The men I stated earlier in my history lesson are key players in the discovery of many important aspects of physics. You have looked for any opportunity to cast down on what ive said. Are you just holding a grudge because your bubble was burst in the religion forum. Or is it just that you and ACG52 are from the good ole boys school in England and cant take having your feathers ruffled. To that end I say welcome to the USA. Lord Kelvin's inventions are old. None of them breaches the known laws of physics. You can not cite them as a reason to ignore those rules. So they are not relevant. You have shown nothing. You have not put forward a shred of evidence to support your ideas and you have repeatedly ignored problems that I and others have pointed out. You also have not truly investigated anything: you have simply made up some stuff. I have looked critically at what you have said, and I have pointed out some problems with it. If you were a scientist, you would thank me and address the problems. Are you going to do that now? I'm not aware of having any bubble in the religion forum, burst or otherwise. Please cite a post. I'm not from a boys' school, though I was rather pleased to see the whitewash yesterday. My feathers remain unruffled so your comment makes no sense. I visited the states last Summer: very nice it was too. Lots of friendly people and the weather was glorious, On the other hand, like Kelvin's coffee pot, it's hard to see what that has to do with anything except, perhaps that he was very much an establishment figure who went to an old boys' school. 2
photon propeller Posted April 1, 2013 Author Posted April 1, 2013 I realized last night it would take years to try and convey knowledge of fluid dynamics, octaves of light , and magnetic vortices to any who lack vision. John the post in religion is " we are the players". It is obvious by your comments you have no clue of the value of history in the field of science. Swanson, all the Navier Stokes equations for fluid dynamics can be found under that title. As for all the other naysayers I offer this path to enlightenment. Maybe you will come off your imaginary high horses and learn something. You only have to research the following terms: magnetic vortex dynamics, (superfluids) ,magnetic confinement fusion (Tokamaks) Cymatics and octaves of light multiple vortex rings I sincerely hope you take the time to do this as you may find some humility in opening your mind. I can promise one thing, if you do this you WILL learn something. A picture says a billion words. Regards -1
John Cuthber Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 So, when you talk of bursting my bubble you mean that I hadn't replied to a post you made. Well, now I have and, as I pointed out, your definition of God makes him rather less powerful than a pizza delivery driver. I really don't think I had a bubble there, and I'm even less convinced that it's burst. Anyway, like Kelvin, it has nothing to do with the topic. I'm quite happy to learn but, so far, you have offered nothing but word salad and I see no point to learning that.
swansont Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 I realized last night it would take years to try and convey knowledge of fluid dynamics, octaves of light , and magnetic vortices to any who lack vision. A disappointing but unsurprising response to a request for falsifiable testing. Swanson, all the Navier Stokes equations for fluid dynamics can be found under that title. What the equations are or where they can be found is not what I asked. I asked what they have to do with photons. 1
Kramer Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.The permanent dualism: mass and wave, quantum and gravity.I wonder: are sure - sure the experts about the relation between the duals? They speak with so convincing authority! With my l.m. opinion, I support the idea: electromagnetic waves are intrinsic property of common elementary particles, They are under the command of mass gravity (of the same particle) which attract or repulse them, interacting with partners. I would added that the gravity is inseparable with “electric charge”, this ones responsible for electromagnetic waves.If OP disagree with my opinion or think that I am “hijacking” its thread, please I want to know your rebut. Don’t leave it in the hands of moderators, it is your right.By the way, What is the mechanism of deliberation of light from the rear of fire fly, or lamp filament or match, or microwave oven? I suppose it is the same mechanism: deliberation of electromagnetic waves from “inert mass particles”.
photon propeller Posted April 17, 2013 Author Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) Equal and opposite is forces. The behavior of E and B fields is governed by Maxwell's equations, which tell us that the oscillation of the E field gives rise to an oscillating B field, and vice-versa. We also know that the motion of the wave is orthogonal to these oscillations. For a photon leaving a source, e.g. a star, the E and B fields are perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force. Gravity doesn't spiral. It's purely radial, with field lines terminating on masses. Gut doesn't count. Experiment does. And? Einstein Cartan theory or ECT adds the torsion of spacetime to the curvature based description of gravity and relates torsion to the density of intrinsic angular momentum. In fact, simple supergravity is equivalent to ECT with a massless, anti-commuting Rarita-Schwinger field as the source, a torsion field, or spin field. Gravity does spiral at all scales, fact. Gravity waves are torsion waves. They oscillate longitudinaly. Edited April 17, 2013 by photon propeller
swansont Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 Einstein Cartan theory or ECT adds the torsion of spacetime to the curvature based description of gravity and relates torsion to the density of intrinsic angular momentum. In fact, simple supergravity is equivalent to ECT with a massless, anti-commuting Rarita-Schwinger field as the source, a torsion field, or spin field. Gravity does spiral at all scales, fact. Gravity waves are torsion waves. They oscillate longitudinaly. ECT and supergravity are accepted, fully supported theories now? (As opposed to proposals with no experimental confirmation) That's the difference between "gravity is" and "gravity might be"
photon propeller Posted April 17, 2013 Author Posted April 17, 2013 ECT and supergravity are accepted, fully supported theories now? (As opposed to proposals with no experimental confirmation) That's the difference between "gravity is" and "gravity might be" The experiments are happening now. The nature of gravity already exists. How well it is defined is what might be.
Recommended Posts