Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 05/04/2017 20:13:36
-
Firstly, I feel it is important to not look at the attractive side of gravity, but to look at why things don't compress to a complete solid making everything dense.
I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge.
What do you think?
-
According to GR, it is spacetime curvature. Spacetime looks curved arround matter. From this perspective, I think that actually gravity shouldn't literally compress matter. Matter looks compressed if viewed from a distance, but space itself should compress not matter. Another problem is what is matter? Compressing matter perhaps doesn't make sense. For example if we consider particles unidimensional, there is nothing to compress but space between particles. Compressing atoms makes sense because we know the occupy a certain volume. Anyway I don't have a clear view on this.
If we consider spacetime flat, then gravity becomes a force that acts on anything that has energy or momentum.
We don't feel gravity because it acts evenly throughout our entire body, but we do feel the forces that oppose gravity which create pressure regions . I'm not sure if this is commonly accepted but I think it is correct. It is interesting that Einstein used the analogy to acceleration figure it out, because it doesn't necessarily need to be equivalent to acceleration, therefore there is a higher chance spacetime is flat. The fact that gravity can bend light is not a reason to believe spacetime is curved, although it is a nice concept. If you ask me, in fact I think everything is made of EM waves, and OAM light beams not only curve or redshift as they travel in an gravitational field but they can also stop for a moment and turn back towards the field generator, just like matter does.
From my point of view, gravity is either a flow of the medium that enables propagation of waves of matter and light, or possibly an effect of waves interferences.
Gravity can easily overwhelm forces generated by charges.
Charge forces don't keep electrons from falling into the nucleus. The wave behaviour of electrons explains what happens.
I think that atoms can compress if they loose energy. Basically they radiate constantly but if you prevent the incomming radiaton away from them, they cool down. If the temperature of a system is reduced below 10K, the atoms start to behave differently. This make atoms occupy a smaller volume. I think it may be a key to understanding how matter collapses forming BH. Perhaps atoms form a sort of BEC that becomes too dense and massive to be recovered.
-
Would be wrong to assume that C of gravity does not compress matter, but that instead assume that "C of gravity spins energy". Gravity spins the energy on matter? Therefore matter is not related directly with gravity.
Matter being a final product of spinning C state of energy in function of gravity, and once again, the final product being recycled from outside in the very system that has created it?
-
Would be wrong to assume that C of gravity does not compress matter, but that instead assume that "C of gravity spins energy". Gravity spins the energy that matter? Therefore matter is not related directly with gravity.
Matter being a final product of spinning C state of energy in function of gravity, and once again, the final product being recycled from outside in the very system that has created it?
I suppose c of gravity is the velocity of gravitational waves, which is the same value c. This velocity spins energy?
-
Ok guys when thinking about things it is wise basic practice to start at the beginning. I will say if you are trying relate c to gravity you are wrong . Gravity is nothing to do with light. Light heats things up, warm things expand , quite the opposite of what we are looking for. We are looking for cold .
-
The Box : I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge.
What do you think?
Very close to it, I think. The number of scientists who agree on the basic scenario that electromagnetism was involved in gravity are too many to even begin to list here. In Particular those scientists including Poincare who were responsible for the eventual and unintentional revival of the aether theory in the form of relativity. Relativity was originally formulated as a means to to explain why the aether was undetectable.
-
The Box : I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge.
What do you think?
Very close to it, I think. The number of scientists who agree on the basic scenario that electromagnetism was involved in gravity are too many to even begin to list here. In Particular those scientists including Poincare who were responsible for the eventual and unintentional revival of the aether theory in the form of relativity. Relativity was originally formulated as a means to to explain why the aether was undetectable.
Electro-magnetic is a difference in potential. Charge is a difference in potential. Gravity is a difference in potential. c spectrum is the potential.
-
Gravity is an attraction followed by a repulsion, the net sum is generally not 0. If objects are not to far from each others (with 2 objects for example), the net sum is an attraction, what we called "gravity". Each part of matter is an electromagnetic rotor with N poles, and the rotor turns: not the matter but the waves. Each pole comes from each particle. The frequency (attraction/repulsion) is very high maybe 1e30 Hz or more. The force of attraction (or repulsion) at the maximal value is very high, it is the sum of all small rotor inside each "basic-rotor-particle".
-
The Box : I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge.
What do you think?
Very close to it, I think. The number of scientists who agree on the basic scenario that electromagnetism was involved in gravity are too many to even begin to list here. In Particular those scientists including Poincare who were responsible for the eventual and unintentional revival of the aether theory in the form of relativity. Relativity was originally formulated as a means to to explain why the aether was undetectable.
Ok, so we know that like wise charges repel each other. What other things can we think of that repel each other?
Could we consider that to a degree an electromagnetic field repels light and light repels an electromagnetic field?
Light sails and the crooks experiment showing light exerts a force/pressure.
added - To extend on this slightly, light doe's not push the sail, light pushes the fields of the sail?
-
Gravity is an attraction followed by a repulsion,
According to theory, there is no repulsion and the reason orbits remain is because the orbiting body is trying to travel a straight line. However I do not entirely agree with that although it is logical accuracy.
I think on a more local scale is the answer to gravity, rather than looking at orbits.
-
According to GR, it is spacetime curvature. Spacetime looks curved arround matter. From this perspective, I think that actually gravity shouldn't literally compress matter. Matter looks compressed if viewed from a distance, but space itself should compress not matter. Another problem is what is matter? Compressing matter perhaps doesn't make sense. For example if we consider particles unidimensional, there is nothing to compress but space between particles. Compressing atoms makes sense because we know the occupy a certain volume. Anyway I don't have a clear view on this.
If we consider spacetime flat, then gravity becomes a force that acts on anything that has energy or momentum.
We don't feel gravity because it acts evenly throughout our entire body, but we do feel the forces that oppose gravity which create pressure regions . I'm not sure if this is commonly accepted but I think it is correct. It is interesting that Einstein used the analogy to acceleration figure it out, because it doesn't necessarily need to be equivalent to acceleration, therefore there is a higher chance spacetime is flat. The fact that gravity can bend light is not a reason to believe spacetime is curved, although it is a nice concept. If you ask me, in fact I think everything is made of EM waves, and OAM light beams not only curve or redshift as they travel in an gravitational field but they can also stop for a moment and turn back towards the field generator, just like matter does.
From my point of view, gravity is either a flow of the medium that enables propagation of waves of matter and light, or possibly an effect of waves interferences.
Gravity can easily overwhelm forces generated by charges.
Charge forces don't keep electrons from falling into the nucleus. The wave behaviour of electrons explains what happens.
I think that atoms can compress if they loose energy. Basically they radiate constantly but if you prevent the incomming radiaton away from them, they cool down. If the temperature of a system is reduced below 10K, the atoms start to behave differently. This make atoms occupy a smaller volume. I think it may be a key to understanding how matter collapses forming BH. Perhaps atoms form a sort of BEC that becomes too dense and massive to be recovered.
Understands that opposing fields stop all the Quarks being a whole. The answer we seek in my opinion is why a Quark is attracted to a Quark. Seemingly there is strong nuclear force holding them together as a Proton. So what is the strong nuclear force? I think if we can answer that, we can answer what gravity is.
-
Idea - Could we place a low mass magnet on a sheet of ice and move the magnet by using light?
-
Idea - Could we place a low mass magnet on a sheet of ice and move the magnet by using light?
The magnet is made of matter, therefore light will give it a little kick. A demagmetised magnet would probably be pushed with the same force.
Even atoms act like little magnets, therefore your low mass magnet can be a single atom.
-
Here are some thoughts about gravity:
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/A-hypothesis-on-how-gravity-works
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/Gravity-could-be-a-consequence-of-electromagnetic-field-interference
-
Idea - Could we place a low mass magnet on a sheet of ice and move the magnet by using light?
The magnet is made of matter, therefore light will give it a little kick. A demagmetised magnet would probably be pushed with the same force.
Even atoms act like little magnets, therefore your low mass magnet can be a single atom.
So how easy would it be for light to push a planet if the planet was not under any inertia?
-
Idea - Could we place a low mass magnet on a sheet of ice and move the magnet by using light?
The magnet is made of matter, therefore light will give it a little kick. A demagmetised magnet would probably be pushed with the same force.
Even atoms act like little magnets, therefore your low mass magnet can be a single atom.
So how easy would it be for light to push a planet if the planet was not under any inertia?
Yes, but it wouldn't be a planet anymore, with no inertial mass. But, what is the point?
-
Here are some thoughts about gravity:
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/A-hypothesis-on-how-gravity-works
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/Gravity-could-be-a-consequence-of-electromagnetic-field-interference
Thank you for the links which I have browsed over, I can not ''see'' how or why light would have anything to do with gravity, processes involving light are sort of the opposite to gravity. Light makes things expand, light is sort of ''anti-matter''. If it were not for the bonding/gravity , particles would stay separated because hf/S making that particle ''warm''. ''Warm'' breaks ''bonds''.
So ty for your links but I feel that is the wrong path to take by involving light.
-
Idea - Could we place a low mass magnet on a sheet of ice and move the magnet by using light?
The magnet is made of matter, therefore light will give it a little kick. A demagmetised magnet would probably be pushed with the same force.
Even atoms act like little magnets, therefore your low mass magnet can be a single atom.
So how easy would it be for light to push a planet if the planet was not under any inertia?
Yes, but it wouldn't be a planet anymore, with no inertial mass. But, what is the point?
My point would be that we could broaden that and look at the affects of galaxies pushing galaxies . Things within a galaxy have inertia, but does the galaxy have inertia? It could be a case that the light/heat of galaxies push other galaxies, thus explaining spacial expansion.
This then takes me back to looking at charge , likewise charges of one galaxy having push affect on another likewise charge galaxy. There is evidence of gravity within an isolated system , i.e a galaxy and the entropy of the system, but there is no evidence that beyond the event horizon of a galaxy that there is any inertia?
-
I will just leave this here for a while so I don't lose this thought.
added note to remember: All the matter wants to go to a central point of the centripetal force of the spacial Maelstrom but the fields opposed to fields prevents this.
added note - so how do I get dark energy , a negative energy or constant that is undetectable, to rotate?
added note - hmmm, maybe it was not the field that spun first, maybe a process between particles caused initial spin of particles and the kinetic energy evolved the spin of the dark energy.
Sorry just speaking aloud lol.
If two particles were attracted to each other on a linear path and collided, the F of collision would cause spin, hmmmm, but then where do I get the particle from to begin with? Maybe somehow it was dark energy ''dust''.
But then I am back with the original problem, how do the particles attract each other to begin with?
-
There are two fractal systems at work. Both have there own fractal density. Energy and mass. The next fractal size up is BH's where our mass is its energy. What moves the electron?
-
There are two fractal systems at work. Both have there own fractal density. Energy and mass. The next fractal size up is BH's where our mass is its energy. What moves the electron?
I keep getting asked this question, what moves an electron? I thought a force from other electrons?
They will sort of jump about attracted to other things.
Maybe a change in entropy of another particle/body makes the electron move, if you can imagine 2 stones of equal size side by side. If one of the stones was to say lose some q- from its entropy, the entropy becomes more pos attracting more neg and of course vice versus.
-
You are describing kinetic energy and kinetic style entropy. The electron has perpetual motion. One lone H electron will cycle indefinitely most likely.
Put a clock that measures by cycles of the electron in the center of the earth the electron increases its cycle distance with dilation to slow down its tick rate. Put the clock in outer space and the cycle distance contracts to speed up its tick rate. No kinetic transfer from other electrons. The electron travel distance is a marble to a football field for ratio. It's unlikely electrons ever touch (except to disintegrate back to the c base energy).
-
You are describing kinetic energy and kinetic style entropy. The electron has perpetual motion. One lone H electron will cycle indefinitely most likely.
Put a clock that measures by cycles of the electron in the center of the earth the electron increases its cycle distance with dilation to slow down its tick rate. Put the clock in outer space and the cycle distance contracts to speed up its tick rate. No kinetic transfer from other electrons. The electron travel distance is a marble to a football field for ratio. It's unlikely electrons ever touch (except to disintegrate back to the c base energy).
Ok, to be honest Goc I think the Proton emits an electron field rather than an electron attracted to a proton. I picture a single particle absorbing c energy then inside the proton the c energy holds in place building up to emit an electron field, I would have no way of knowing this though or testing it as atoms are so small we can only second guess. Is there any evidence that shows the electron moves to begin with? or are we just talking about assumptions to begin with which makes a big difference in how we should view things.
-
We can detect through indirect measurements. Everything is subjective. The BB was voted on by the 13 most respected scientists of their time. The vote was 12 to one. You cannot vote something into existence in physics. The ones who voted did not have the information on BH's being 30,000 AU but the teaching of the BB is automatic.
The consensus in the past was the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat and if you sailed to far you would fall off the earth. Science should need only one observation incompatible with theory to reject a theory.
The subjective theory that explains all observations to date is the best we can expect.
X-rays prove electrons move but does not prove electrons travel through space. The affect of the electron moving through space is all we can determine by indirect observations. Same as the photon.
-
We can detect through indirect measurements. Everything is subjective. The BB was voted on by the 13 most respected scientists of their time. The vote was 12 to one. You cannot vote something into existence in physics. The ones who voted did not have the information on BH's being 30,000 AU but the teaching of the BB is automatic.
The consensus in the past was the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat and if you sailed to far you would fall off the earth. Science should need only one observation incompatible with theory to reject a theory.
The subjective theory that explains all observations to date is the best we can expect.
X-rays prove electrons move but does not prove electrons travel through space. The affect of the electron moving through space is all we can determine by indirect observations. Same as the photon.
To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.
What doe's 30,000 Au mean?
-
We can detect through indirect measurements. Everything is subjective. The BB was voted on by the 13 most respected scientists of their time. The vote was 12 to one. You cannot vote something into existence in physics. The ones who voted did not have the information on BH's being 30,000 AU but the teaching of the BB is automatic.
The consensus in the past was the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat and if you sailed to far you would fall off the earth. Science should need only one observation incompatible with theory to reject a theory.
The subjective theory that explains all observations to date is the best we can expect.
X-rays prove electrons move but does not prove electrons travel through space. The affect of the electron moving through space is all we can determine by indirect observations. Same as the photon.
To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.
What doe's 30,000 Au mean?
I think it means 30,000 Astronomical units. 1 AU is I believe the distance from the Sun to Earth.
-
To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.
What doe's 30,000 Au mean?
Ok I will put it in terms that might allow an objective opinion. We determine some BH's to be on the order of 3,000,000.000,000 miles in diameter. Our sun as a Black Hole would be about 1.7 miles in diameter. The life cycle of our sun is about 10 billion years. The larger suns cycle is shorter but what is average? Our 4.5 AU will combine with Andromeda's 25 AU to form a 30 AU BH.in 4 billion years from now. How long before a galaxy has enough dead suns to even form a BH?
Do you have enough information to have an objective opinion about the universe only being 13.6 billion years old?
I follow relativity and find it to be a beautiful mathematical interpretation of the Universe. I follow the Big Bang mathematics using Black Holes as a standard and the math does not work. You can disprove a theory if it does not follow math and BH's math disproves the BB theory for distance and time. Math is only a tool and cannot prove one theory over another when two different theories follow the same math.
An objective opinion is best with the most background information of observations. You can be lucky with little background information but you can only be good with studying as much information as you can that is available.
For instance a little information about Relativity will make you think the theory is crap. When you fully understand the seamless structure between GR and SR there can be no other explanation of the observables.
-
To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.
What doe's 30,000 Au mean?
Ok I will put it in terms that might allow an objective opinion. We determine some BH's to be on the order of 3,000,000.000,000 miles in diameter. Our sun as a Black Hole would be about 1.7 miles in diameter. The life cycle of our sun is about 10 billion years. The larger suns cycle is shorter but what is average? Our 4.5 AU will combine with Andromeda's 25 AU to form a 30 AU BH.in 4 billion years from now. How long before a galaxy has enough dead suns to even form a BH?
Do you have enough information to have an objective opinion about the universe only being 13.6 billion years old?
I follow relativity and find it to be a beautiful mathematical interpretation of the Universe. I follow the Big Bang mathematics using Black Holes as a standard and the math does not work. You can disprove a theory if it does not follow math and BH's math disproves the BB theory for distance and time. Math is only a tool and cannot prove one theory over another when two different theories follow the same math.
An objective opinion is best with the most background information of observations. You can be lucky with little background information but you can only be good with studying as much information as you can that is available.
For instance a little information about Relativity will make you think the theory is crap. When you fully understand the seamless structure between GR and SR there can be no other explanation of the observables.
Do not ever misunderstand my intentions, I also agree in the elegance of Einsteins work, however Einstein was limited to what was already known and only had what was known to work off. However if the logic of Einstein can be easily broke down to be false , then it must be false logic although some logic of his is accurate and true.
When I consider the ''whats'' Goc, I try to consider nobodies work and try to think for myself how things work, sometimes I recall information for comparison, this sometimes re-enforces my ideas.
-
I would explain a BH to be liking to an oblate.
-
I take the approach of challenging the ideas of others using the observations available. I challenged Relativity until I understood.
I gave information of why I do not believe the theory of the BB for time and distance. There should be enough information given to have an objective opinion on the BB.
Do you believe in main stream's theory of the BB for time and distance?
-
I would explain a BH to be liking to an oblate.
Why? And how much oblate?
There is a spherical bulge in the center of galaxies which suggests it would be minor.
-
Do you believe in main stream's theory of the BB for time and distance?
I part believe in it, before the big bang I do not agree there was nothing, I think however this is down to the definition of nothing.
I think time existed before the big bang but like Newton thought and Absolute, then I believe we have relativistic time which can be manipulated in thinking to make out things that don't happen.
I do not think space is expanding the way it is explained to be expanding. Also I think anti matter is much more simpler than anti matter. I think anti matter is actually light/radiation.
-
I would explain a BH to be liking to an oblate.
Why? And how much oblate?
There is a spherical bulge in the center of galaxies which suggests it would be minor.
I think this because I am about 99.9 percent certain a BH spins. Everything else in the Universe seems to spin , so must a BH.
-
ps. a spinning BH explains curvature.
Also I think something pushes back at the South or North pole of the Earth.
Added- When I consider gravity Goc, I consider the reverse, I consider all things are being pushed to the center, but the opposing forces of likewise charge etc makes orbits and stops the objects touching. But I only think this if I am thinking BH which I image to be like a spacial Maelstrom.
-
I just got up and spun. Did it make you spin? I do not disagree that BH's may spin but BH's do not follow Relativity inside of the BH.
Curvature is a two dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional gradient dilation. There is no dilation change within a BH.
-
I just got up and spun. Did it make you spin? I do not disagree that BH's may spin but BH's do not follow Relativity inside of the BH.
Curvature is a two dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional gradient dilation. There is no dilation change within a BH.
You are spinning with the Earth Goc. Try Goc considering a BH to be liking to magnetic bottling of plasma. Maybe you may ''see'' why I ''see'' spin there and compression.
-
I just got up and spun. Did it make you spin? I do not disagree that BH's may spin but BH's do not follow Relativity inside of the BH.
Curvature is a two dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional gradient dilation. There is no dilation change within a BH.
You are spinning with the Earth Goc. Try Goc considering a BH to be liking to magnetic bottling of plasma. Maybe you may ''see'' why I ''see'' spin there and compression.
There is no magnetic possibilities with BH's because there is no motion in a BH. There is no gradient dilation inside a BH. Every position is equally unmoving relative to every other position within the BH.
-
Would be wrong to assume that C of gravity does not compress matter, but that instead assume that "C of gravity spins energy". Gravity spins the energy that matter? Therefore matter is not related directly with gravity.
Matter being a final product of spinning C state of energy in function of gravity, and once again, the final product being recycled from outside in the very system that has created it?
I suppose c of gravity is the velocity of gravitational waves, which is the same value c. This velocity spins energy?
I'm changing my perspective.
The electron does not spins. It is sipping without meanings.
The electron very existence offers to C state of space a point of reference.
The electron is detected and the environment starts to spin itself around the point of least energy(electron).
Electron dilates space creating a pitch a 3D vortex "on space" that can be explaining as a hole on space.
The electron is now absolving(submited) the kinetic energy of the free fall towards itself.
By doing so it starts to psychically spins and when it does, the spinning electron starts to cause "loose ends/photon"
Photons being electrons attempts, happening around the electron and happening in function of its presence.
Photons are "infusing" the center of the event with kinetic energy that will starts to give to the electron geometry and subsequently mass as it starts to store the energy. Now causing entropy.
Gravity starts to occur as a "cause/effect", it's to blame quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is the source of the spinning electron.
So the spping electron is on itself a effect of quantum mechanics.
Gravity stats to enter the scene because:
The source of the effect, has now on (macro scale) started to re-clycle the quantum mechanics and re-appling over the cause of it's effect.
Gravity is quantum mechanics reading a planet as being a particle.
The spinning electron is the reason why energy is conserved.
The spinning C is avoiding everything to "fall" towards the point of least energy(electron/inner core).
Gravity has no source of rits born from the interaction of the sppining electron source back onto the effect of the sppining electron effects itself has caused in the first place.
Gravity is the "source of the cause" affecting the effect of the very cause it has caused.
Leading to gravity being a effect caused by the effect of its own cause,
Quantum mechanics is telling C of space that those planets are particles, and starts to reintegrate the effects of its own effects back into the cause, leading to relativity?
-
If we look at a light beam carrying angular momentum, if seems like there is force that makes the beam keep the spiral trajectory. We could say there is a force between the opposite sides of the beam and even calculate this force using newtonian concepts. However, we know, everything lies in how these beams propagate. The helical paths of the Poynying vectors, when we look towards a the fundamental level, are clearly not generated by such a force but by light interference. I will call such a beam fermi-like wave or matter waves, because is the direct correspondent to a beam of fermi particles.
The figure is a vague schematic representation of the phenomenon.
In the figure, the particle 1 is a fermi-like wave and it is accompanied by some phenomenon that is electromagnetic. I will call this phenomenon negative pressure EM waves or negative radiation. This negative radiation can clearly travel at the speed of light because it has no orbital angular momentum. However, if orbital angular momentum negative radiation is produces it would behave like negative pressure matter. How this negative radiation is produced, I don’t understand, but the hypothesis seems to require it. It needs to make particle 2 gain energy and accelerate towards the source of the radiation. The direction of the negative waves produced by the source matches the gravitational field lines, and it would cause the fermi-like wave to accelerate in the direction of the source. Apparently this radiation has exactly the opposite effect that regular electromagnetic wave have. The radiation seems to have the properties of dark energy.
What is clear and very important is that fundamentally we cannot say the negative pressure radiation produces a force because my concept doesn’t allow forces. Forces can be attributed to objects, or corpuscules, but not to waves. Therefore, first we need to understand how reguar EM waves create a pushing like effect on helicoid structure waves (fermi-like waves). This can be achieved only by analyzing interference, and could be an important thing towards understanding gravity.
According to my concept, because my assumption is that everything is explained by EM filed waves, all waves interact only through interference. Therefore, as it goes down a gravity well, a fermi-like wave increases its energy and its velocity. Also, if a wave has a direction with a component perpendicular to the gravitational field lines due to interference with the EM perturbations produced by the object that produces gravity, the wave will propagate by modifying its trajectory towards the massive object. But, everything should be explained by interference.
In GR, acceleration is thought to be equivalent to gravity. My concept explains inertia as the conservation of the shape of a an EM wave. If it is a plane wave, its shape is basic and it is still conserved, therefore, it travels at constant speed, c. Helicoid waves keep their speed as long as their shape is conserved. Accelerating a fermi-like wave is basically altering its shape, making the helix pitch which is done by increasing its energy. A planewave comming from behind will increase its energy. Also, if the gravitational wave (negative pressure wave) comes from ahead it will also increase its energy, but only if the fermi-like wave is moving towards the source of the negative pressure waves. However, when the fremi-like wave doesn’t move towards a source it means it is pushed by a plane wave from the direction of the gravity source or there is a centrifugal effect. Hence, the effect the same as given by am EM wave, except that it acts for inversed direction.
I’ve used the term negative radiation to explain something that interferes with fermi-like waves and EM waves in a particular way. Now, my hypothesis is that gravity is produced by something similar to what GR says. If we have an OAM wave that is very slow, there is a certain level of excitation in the EM field in the region of space it occupies. However, the excitation of the field at a certain distance from the orbiting wave should not be zero. This is required to explain my hypothesis. The electric and magnetic field values should gradually decrease as we get further away from the wave. If any other wave interferes with those values of the EM field, it should produce the gravity effects. This way there is no need for another field to explain the effect.
Gravity must be a force just like any other force. Interferences between fermi waves and EM waves, create illusions of all sort of forces. The best example are OAM light beams where photons twist in the beam as though attracted by each other. But in this case, it is known that the effect is produced by ligh interference.
-
If we look at a light beam carrying angular momentum, if seems like there is force that makes the beam keep the spiral trajectory. We could say there is a force between the opposite sides of the beam and even calculate this force using newtonian concepts. However, we know, everything lies in how these beams propagate. The helical paths of the Poynying vectors, when we look towards a the fundamental level, are clearly not generated by such a force but by light interference. I will call such a beam fermi-like wave or matter waves, because is the direct correspondent to a beam of fermi particles.
The figure is a vague schematic representation of the phenomenon.
In the figure, the particle 1 is a fermi-like wave and it is accompanied by some phenomenon that is electromagnetic. I will call this phenomenon negative pressure EM waves or negative radiation. This negative radiation can clearly travel at the speed of light because it has no orbital angular momentum. However, if orbital angular momentum negative radiation is produces it would behave like negative pressure matter. How this negative radiation is produced, I don’t understand, but the hypothesis seems to require it. It needs to make particle 2 gain energy and accelerate towards the source of the radiation. The direction of the negative waves produced by the source matches the gravitational field lines, and it would cause the fermi-like wave to accelerate in the direction of the source. Apparently this radiation has exactly the opposite effect that regular electromagnetic wave have. The radiation seems to have the properties of dark energy.
What is clear and very important is that fundamentally we cannot say the negative pressure radiation produces a force because my concept doesn’t allow forces. Forces can be attributed to objects, or corpuscules, but not to waves. Therefore, first we need to understand how reguar EM waves create a pushing like effect on helicoid structure waves (fermi-like waves). This can be achieved only by analyzing interference, and could be an important thing towards understanding gravity.
According to my concept, because my assumption is that everything is explained by EM filed waves, all waves interact only through interference. Therefore, as it goes down a gravity well, a fermi-like wave increases its energy and its velocity. Also, if a wave has a direction with a component perpendicular to the gravitational field lines due to interference with the EM perturbations produced by the object that produces gravity, the wave will propagate by modifying its trajectory towards the massive object. But, everything should be explained by interference.
In GR, acceleration is thought to be equivalent to gravity. My concept explains inertia as the conservation of the shape of a an EM wave. If it is a plane wave, its shape is basic and it is still conserved, therefore, it travels at constant speed, c. Helicoid waves keep their speed as long as their shape is conserved. Accelerating a fermi-like wave is basically altering its shape, making the helix pitch which is done by increasing its energy. A planewave comming from behind will increase its energy. Also, if the gravitational wave (negative pressure wave) comes from ahead it will also increase its energy, but only if the fermi-like wave is moving towards the source of the negative pressure waves. However, when the fremi-like wave doesn’t move towards a source it means it is pushed by a plane wave from the direction of the gravity source or there is a centrifugal effect. Hence, the effect the same as given by am EM wave, except that it acts for inversed direction.
I’ve used the term negative radiation to explain something that interferes with fermi-like waves and EM waves in a particular way. Now, my hypothesis is that gravity is produced by something similar to what GR says. If we have an OAM wave that is very slow, there is a certain level of excitation in the EM field in the region of space it occupies. However, the excitation of the field at a certain distance from the orbiting wave should not be zero. This is required to explain my hypothesis. The electric and magnetic field values should gradually decrease as we get further away from the wave. If any other wave interferes with those values of the EM field, it should produce the gravity effects. This way there is no need for another field to explain the effect.
Gravity must be a force just like any other force. Interferences between fermi waves and EM waves, create illusions of all sort of forces. The best example are OAM light beams where photons twist in the beam as though attracted by each other. But in this case, it is known that the effect is produced by ligh interference.
Except all waves of the spectrum travel at c.
-
Except all waves of the spectrum travel at c.
But this is what my concept says, all waves travel at c, only front waves go slower because of the twisted trajectory which is non linear.
Gravity as an interference of waves is also similarly in a way particles following geodesics because the waves apear to change direction with no force acting on them. Photons in a OAM light beam twist as if following geodesics. Gravity could arise just like the orbital angular momentum does.
On the other hand the radiation I have described looks like a graviton beam from QFT.
-
Except all waves of the spectrum travel at c.
But this is what my concept says, all waves travel at c, only front waves go slower because of the twisted trajectory which is non linear.
As a wave packet c there would not need to be a slow down in the front. If it remained slower it would stretch. This is not what is observed.
Gravity as an interference of waves is also similarly in a way particles following geodesics because the waves apear to change direction with no force acting on them.
No force we can detect. We can never detect c directly only indirectly as photon distance.
Photons in a OAM light beam twist as if following geodesics.
Dilation of space the 3d spherical version of the 2d curve used as an example in relativity. The tenser is actually an energy gradient of less density as it approaches the center of mass. If the mass is a sphere the gradient is sphere like.
Gravity could arise just like the orbital angular momentum does.
On the other hand the radiation I have described looks like a graviton beam from QFT.
Gravity sucks. Angular momentum has a flow in equal forces and not directional.
[/quote]
-
Firstly, I feel it is important to not look at the attractive side of gravity, but to look at why things don't compress to a complete solid making everything dense.
I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge.
What do you think?
I think you are generally correct.
Like you, I feel it is important to look at the repulsive side of gravity.
That is the reason that I have come up with the Experimental Quantum Antigravity HYPOTHESIS :
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70629.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70629.0)
Naturally, there should be both, the attractive, as well as repulsive gravity.
The Solar system is a perfect example :
QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/
HAVE YOU EVER PONDERED DEEPLY ENOUGH WHY THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAS BEEN SO PERFECTLY STABLE OVER SUCH A LONG TIME?
HAVE WE EVER OBSERVED ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS RESULTING FROM ANY POTENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM’S INSTABILITIES, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE:
- PLANETS FALLING ONTO THE SUN;
- MOONS FALLING ONTO THEIR PLANETS;
- PLANETS ESCAPING THE SUN;
- MOONS ESCAPING THEIR PLANETS.
IS THIS PERFECT LONG-TERM STABILITY REALLY THE EXCLUSIVE RESULT OF A FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES AMONG THE SUN, THE 8 PLANETS, AND OVER 170 MOONS, NOT INCLUDING PLUTO, ITS 5 MOONS, AND THE PLANET NINE so massive that it tilts the entire Solar system by 6 degrees?
COULD THAT HYPOTHESIS OF FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES SOMEHOW BE SUBJECTED TO EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION, OR FALSIFICATION? WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE 4 SPECTACULAR INSTABILITIES TO OCCUR IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM?
Considering that the age of the Solar system (derived from the study of meteorites which are thought to be the oldest accessible material around) is estimated to be close to 5 billion years, have the angular velocities of all the planets and moons been slowing down? Have they been slowing down at the same rate, or at different rates? In either case, how long will it take before any one of the above 4 spectacular instabilities is going to finally occur?
Well, I will not hold by breath, and if none of the above 4 spectacular instabilities had ever happened even once, not to mention that all of them could have happened more than once, then it would follow that the present Solar system stability hypothesis of FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES is correct in small part only. play-roulette-liveNo orbit in the Solar system is perfect, like a spinning roulette, and since chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the Solar system, whatever the reasons of its stability, they cannot be fragile, and in order to be able to compensate for the variety of these chaotic dynamics, they need to be robust enough.
QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/
“ Scientific discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought. Scientific discovery must be, by definition, at variance with existing knowledge. During my lifetime, I made two. Both were rejected offhand by the Popes of that field of science.”
— Nobel Prize Laureate, 1937
-
Firstly, I feel it is important to not look at the attractive side of gravity, but to look at why things don't compress to a complete solid making everything dense.
I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge.
What do you think?
I think you are generally correct.
Like you, I feel it is important to look at the repulsive side of gravity.
That is the reason that I have come up with the Experimental Quantum Antigravity HYPOTHESIS :
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70629.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70629.0)
Naturally, there should be both, the attractive, as well as repulsive gravity.
The Solar system is a perfect example :
QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/
HAVE YOU EVER PONDERED DEEPLY ENOUGH WHY THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAS BEEN SO PERFECTLY STABLE OVER SUCH A LONG TIME?
HAVE WE EVER OBSERVED ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS RESULTING FROM ANY POTENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM’S INSTABILITIES, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE:
- PLANETS FALLING ONTO THE SUN;
- MOONS FALLING ONTO THEIR PLANETS;
- PLANETS ESCAPING THE SUN;
- MOONS ESCAPING THEIR PLANETS.
IS THIS PERFECT LONG-TERM STABILITY REALLY THE EXCLUSIVE RESULT OF A FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES AMONG THE SUN, THE 8 PLANETS, AND OVER 170 MOONS, NOT INCLUDING PLUTO, ITS 5 MOONS, AND THE PLANET NINE so massive that it tilts the entire Solar system by 6 degrees?
COULD THAT HYPOTHESIS OF FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES SOMEHOW BE SUBJECTED TO EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION, OR FALSIFICATION? WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE 4 SPECTACULAR INSTABILITIES TO OCCUR IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM?
Considering that the age of the Solar system (derived from the study of meteorites which are thought to be the oldest accessible material around) is estimated to be close to 5 billion years, have the angular velocities of all the planets and moons been slowing down? Have they been slowing down at the same rate, or at different rates? In either case, how long will it take before any one of the above 4 spectacular instabilities is going to finally occur?
Well, I will not hold by breath, and if none of the above 4 spectacular instabilities had ever happened even once, not to mention that all of them could have happened more than once, then it would follow that the present Solar system stability hypothesis of FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES is correct in small part only. play-roulette-liveNo orbit in the Solar system is perfect, like a spinning roulette, and since chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the Solar system, whatever the reasons of its stability, they cannot be fragile, and in order to be able to compensate for the variety of these chaotic dynamics, they need to be robust enough.
QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/
“ Scientific discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought. Scientific discovery must be, by definition, at variance with existing knowledge. During my lifetime, I made two. Both were rejected offhand by the Popes of that field of science.”
— Nobel Prize Laureate, 1937
Try to think about orbits this way:
"the "material planet/moon/sun" is not important at all"
They are only masks, a meaning to an end...
Consider that the thing orbiting the sun is exclusively the atom at the center of each of those objects, and that solar systems are all about:
"space anomaly A interacting and resonating with space anomaly B, and the field is space..."
Space interacting with space....
Although a planet is required to envelop space "away from c", I believe what a planet serves for as casualty, the density splits a portion of space, isolating it from the exterior one... At that moment one have space outside in and inside out...
I understand space cannot be separated like a tangible material, but it can be slowed down by density far enough to reverse...
Some consider earth as being a dynamo at the center, I save the speculation that our "dynamo" is not metal at all but in fact empty space(space/energy) spited from the other layers due pressure and then infused with radiation, to the point it starts to expand, but the only way to release is to start to spin and convert it into acceleration, just like a Black hole engine...
Although one that never effectively interacts with the external space, one that is not self sustainable as a neutron star should be, therefore earths singularity never reaches it's full potential...
Question, start a black hole from inside out a rocky planet and make sure that there is no interaction with the exterior, would it "devour" the planet from inside out?
i do not thing so...
Black hole + direct interaction with space = Event horizon
Black hole + Rocky planet = Inner core
Just try to frame, one inner core (space) interacting with another and so on and on... At the end the conclusion is that our density is blinding us to a possibility: It was space interacting with itself all along, we were just the meanings to...