The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Lambert's Cosine Law  (Read 51562 times)

Offline vampares

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #75 on: 21/09/2014 05:51:36 »
I thought, I found a way to enter
 It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)
 I thought, I found the connector
 It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor) Just a reflektor

It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)

It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)

It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)

reflektor (Just a reflektor)
 (Just a reflektor) just a reflektor
 (Just a reflektor) just a reflektor (reflektor)
 (Just a reflektor)
 (Just a reflektor)
 (Just a reflektor, just a reflektor)
 (Just a reflektor, just a reflektor)

Just a reflection, of a reflection
 Of a reflection, of a reflection, of a reflection
 Will I see you on the other side? (Just a reflektor)
 We all got things to hide (Just a reflektor)
 It's just a reflection of a reflection
 Of a reflection, of a reflection, of a reflection
 Will I see you on the other side? (Just a reflektor)
 We all got things to hide (Just a reflektor)

Alright, let's go back
 Our song escapes, on little silver discs
 Our love is plastic, we'll break it to bits
 I want to break free, but will they break me?
 Down, down, down, don't mess around

I thought, I found a way to enter
 It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)
 I thought, I found the connector
 It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)

It's just a reflektor

It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)

It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)
 It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)

Thought you would bring me to the resurrector
 Turns out it was just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)
 Thought you would bring to me the resurrector
 Turns out it was just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)
 Thought you would bring to me the resurrector
 Turns out you were just a reflektor
 It's just a reflektor (It's just a reflektor)
 (It's just a reflektor) Just a reflektor

Just a reflektor
 Just a reflektor
 Just a reflektor
 Will I see you on the other side?
 It's just a reflektor
 Will I see you on the other side? (reflektor)
 We all got things to hide (reflektor)
 Just a reflektor
 Will I see you on the other side?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #76 on: 21/09/2014 15:01:53 »
For light the geometry at the event horizon no longer has a recognizable 3 dimensions. The outward path normal to the horizon now equals zero and this dimension is inaccessible. This does not mean that we only have a two dimensional environment across the surface of the horizon as gravity will still act on the photon. This leads to the conclusion that beyond the horizon we have a negative 3 dimensional space. If the spacetime is flattened at the horizon this can be the only conclusion. This ultimately leads to a breakdown in the physics. To pass through the horizon light would have to be two dimensional with no depth to the energy. Internally this then translates to negative energy. This was one of the reasons that Maxwell could not proceed from electromagnetism on to gravity. However his consideration of negative energy was nothing to do with black holes.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #77 on: 28/09/2014 22:31:29 »
I am currently looking into this and whether it can relate at all to symmetry broken photons.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/44
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #78 on: 29/09/2014 00:50:20 »
If we consider gravity losing energy and mass over time and distance from source to dark matter and dark energy then at an infinite distance it will no longer exist as gravitation. The dark energy/matter can no longer operate as a repulsive force at infinity so must be a mainly localized phenomena and follow the same inverse square law as gravitation. The majority of this dark matter and energy would reside in the vicinity of the source of the gravitation. That is the galaxies that originated the gravitation. The gas cloud G2 would therefore be prevented from serious interaction with sag a* simply because of the higher concentration of dark matter/energy coincident with the accretion disk and surrounding environment.

NOTE: The amount of this mass loss is directly related to the spacetime density surrounding the mass generating the gravitational field so this would not even be noticeable in a terrestrial environment.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2014 00:58:41 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #79 on: 04/10/2014 16:36:36 »
I am now of the view that mass loss may not be the answer. Gravity probe B results show the vortex around the earth as predicted by Einstein. This runs counter to the direction of angular momentum as if, like an induced magnetic field, gravitation is the interaction of an external field with the moving mass. The Higg's field imparts some of the mass to a particle. This relationship may be part of the answer. Energy may still be lost by gravitation but not sufficient to explain dark matter and dark energy. The voids between the galaxies are always being affected by gravitation however infinitesimally small the effect in those regions. This could over time lower the general mass density which in turn lowers spacetime density. I am looking at the falling slinky effect in order to determine a method of describing the density change in spacetime.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #80 on: 05/10/2014 02:52:53 »
I now have an equation to determine the radius of the start of the accretion zone around dense objects, including black holes. The conclusions explain the failure of G2 to be consumed by sag a*. It also brings up the possibility that once a black hole forms nothing will ever fall into it. While this sounds like it must be wrong there are reasons for this conclusion. These involve non-violation of light speed and were calculated indirectly from the gravitational binding energy.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #81 on: 06/10/2014 22:41:29 »
Gravitational binding energy U is given by U = (3*G*M^2)/(5r). Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass and r is the radius to the surface. THe mass must be considered of uniform density. Gravitational acceleration g can then be determined by g = (5*U)/(3*M*r). If we extend the radial distance and consider a drop in density within our new surface boundary then U decreases proportionally. This appears to indicate that density is a critical factor in gravitational calculations. This density can only be expressed through a variation in G which makes it frame dependent. This relates G not only to mass density but to spacetime density.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #82 on: 07/10/2014 00:03:36 »
This all indicates that we are chasing a ghost by trying to find a constant value for G.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #83 on: 10/10/2014 00:25:26 »
I am now starting work on a universal time dilation gradient with its reference point as the event horizon of a black hole. I will be able to use this gradient in further equations and possibly then link gravitation directly to maxwell's equations.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #84 on: 10/10/2014 21:39:49 »
If we take GM as our starting point and find the fractional portion of the mass used in gravitational calculations we can then find the depth of distribution this would be around the surface. This then shows a relationship between the depth of this mass and the radius of the event horizon. The concentration of the mass then reaches a critical point at which the intensity of gravitation produces the energy required to overcome the escaping photons. This surface depth then relates directly to the radius of the horizon. It also shows just how weak the gravitational field is.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #85 on: 10/10/2014 21:50:29 »
It could be that most of the gravitational energy in a mass is confined and only a small portion of the flux leaves the mass at its surface. This cannot be determined without an investigation of this surface depth at increasing densities in relation to gravitation forces. If this depth equals the radius at the horizon this would answer some questions. It may also confirm the frozen star hypothesis.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #86 on: 10/10/2014 23:43:40 »
The speed of light can be determined by the equation 1/(G*50). This equation can be rearranged to find the exact value for G in the local frame. The factor of 50 relates to the fraction of mass across the surface found by using GM.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #87 on: 11/10/2014 00:00:24 »
Therefore 1/50c = G.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #88 on: 11/10/2014 10:24:58 »
A while ago whilst investigating the 2GM in Shwarszcchild's calculation I came across the factor of 0.02 which I knew was important but didn't know why. Well 0.02 = 1/50 and now I know why.  [8D]
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #89 on: 11/10/2014 16:05:54 »
Our G value is in seconds per meter so if we take the reciprocal 1/G this gives 50*c which may well be the speed of gravity. The speed is then 14,983,877.348 km/s. This would be why gravity cannot be detected easily. You would need to take 50 equally spaced measurements and look for a repeating pattern of vibrations that could not be explained any other way.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 16:15:05 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #90 on: 11/10/2014 17:08:06 »
The electromagnetic spectrum could them be linked to gravitation by interference of the wavelength of the graviton with that of the photon. That is if the graviton exists.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #91 on: 13/10/2014 00:06:47 »
Just for good measure I have attached a plot of a composite wave interaction with a standing wave.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #92 on: 13/10/2014 21:33:16 »
Attached is a model representing the removal of the gravitational component from a compressed mass. The length contraction decreases to zero through the progression. The gravitational constant has been replaced by the 1/50 factor. This plot starts with a mass compressed within its event horizon radius. The length contraction dies off gradually until during the last 20% the rate of change increases dramatically.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2014 21:35:55 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #93 on: 13/10/2014 22:18:49 »
The equation for our starting point is 3d17c18adfddfb0f8fe249228ba931af.gif whose units are cubic seconds per cubic meter. In other words 3 dimensional time in 3 dimensional space. This is a much better solution than using G.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #94 on: 14/10/2014 23:49:28 »
Attached are two plots. One calculating g using the gravitational constant and the other using a factor of 1/50c. The question is this; is the factor of 50 actually a constant. We view gravity from an isolated bubble and have limited data on differing strength gravitational fields. This is one thing I am looking into. The other is gravitational interaction at the particle level.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #95 on: 15/10/2014 01:33:09 »
Although the results match there is a real problem in using c in the denominator. Instead this should be L which then represents simply the distance traveled by light in 1 second. G is used as a unit conversion and can be calculated approximately by using hbar/(lP^2C^3). However we need a unit conversion that instead of producing G will produce the unit value of 1. So hbar/(lP^2C^3) requires such a factor before being added to our equation. The reciprocal of this equation will give us this value as a constant. Then it needs to be determined what this constant means.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2014 01:59:00 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #96 on: 15/10/2014 02:21:04 »
So fingers crossed our equation for g should be (hbar*M)/(lP^2*c^2*L*r^2). Of course the Planck length would need to be recalculated using 1/50c in place of G to get an adjusted value but ignoring units.

Note: Changed g to G related to the 1/50c factor.
« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 02:16:56 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #97 on: 16/10/2014 02:20:24 »
I have not checked the results for the above equation for consistency yet. The point of interest is that the factor of 50 has disappeared. This suggests that there can be no energy loss in gravitation. So no link with dark energy/matter. Dark energy is entirely separate from gravitation.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #98 on: 16/10/2014 03:52:13 »
Well now like Joyce's Finnegan's wake we go back to the start with:

-e8b40a892f462413b0c8d876775c483b.gif
-096e31371fcc75f544a6e1aa4dfc126c.gif

What about replacing G with 1/50c in this equation? The other point of note here is that we have 3 constants in the left hand term. That is G, Pl and Pm. It was shown that the factor of 50 can cancel out but in this case it would still be present, I think. This is the next project. To incorporate gravitation into the electromagnetic wave equation. In this way a formula for the affect on the wave over time by gravitation can be developed. Hopefully!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #99 on: 16/10/2014 03:53:15 »
Then it will be back to the standing wave interaction.  [:0]
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Reply #99 on: 16/10/2014 03:53:15 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums