Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/02/2021 20:35:33
-
If an object moving through space experiences time dilation how would gravity waves effect it? You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.
The electron shell could be a result of the gravity field of the nucleus. The electron shell allows for light of a certain amount to fill it at all times. It could be a property of a wave that has never been heard of before where the wave fighting out against the gravity pulling in creates the shell effect. It's such highly dense space at the nucleus that it would be like looking into forever darkness and the light gets trapped fighting its way out but cannot be pulled in because of the singularity that space is without gravity waves.
-
If an object moving through space experiences time dilation how would gravity waves effect it?
That depends on the direction of the object relative to the gravitational wave source. If it's moving towards the source, the gravitational waves will be blue-shifted. If away, they will be red-shifted.
You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.
How do you figure?
The electron shell could be a result of the gravity field of the nucleus.
The gravitational field of the nucleus is many orders of magnitude too weak for that to be the case. The electric field is what holds the electron shell in place.
The electron shell allows for light of a certain amount to fill it at all times.
I'm not exactly sure what that means, but do you have a source for this information?
-
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on Today at 20:35:33
You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.
How do you figure?
Because it is impossible for light to enter the nucleus which suggests a unique property of a wave in the space medium. Only if the universe were a singularity that's indivisible would light spread out as a density like any wave but bounce off of a denser region of space that is the electron shell, which is of the same density as light and light can't fight into the denser regions of the gravity field so it bounces off but gets stuck bouncing back and forth creating an electron.
-
Because it is impossible for light to enter the nucleus
What is your source for this claim?
the electron shell, which is of the same density as light
I need a citation that the electron shell is the same density as light as well.
light can't fight into the denser regions of the gravity field
Evidence?
so it bounces off but gets stuck bouncing back and forth creating an electron.
That's not how that works. Electrons are not photons. Turning a photon into an electron would violate conservation of charge and lepton number.
-
Evidence?
Kryptid it makes perfect sense, the gravity field is a density on space due to it being a singularity, the light wants to travel to less dense regions of the medium and when those two density's are the same the light tries to escape, it's held in a stationairy position for so long that it begins to resemble a particle when it leaves the atom.
-
Kryptid it makes perfect sense
So then where is the evidence?
the gravity field is a density on space due to it being a singularity
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
the light wants to travel to less dense regions of the medium
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
when those two density's are the same the light tries to escape
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
it's held in a stationairy position for so long that it begins to resemble a particle when it leaves the atom.
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
-
Kryptid it makes perfect sense
So then where is the evidence?
the gravity field is a density on space due to it being a singularity
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
the light wants to travel to less dense regions of the medium
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
when those two density's are the same the light tries to escape
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
it's held in a stationairy position for so long that it begins to resemble a particle when it leaves the atom.
Please back this statement up with a reputable source.
Is observation not evidence?
-
Is observation not evidence?
Yes it is.
And we observe interactions between EM radiation and the nucleus.
For example, this isotope emits gamma rays in the UV region of the spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_thorium#Thorium-229m
So we know that light does exit and enter the nucleus.
So we know that you are wrong.
I am curious; what observation(s) did you think you had made?
-
Is observation not evidence?
Please post a reference to a reputable source to the observations in question.
-
So we know that you are wrong.
I am curious; what observation(s) did you think you had made?
Sorry, light isn't a wave and gravity is magic. Just like magic gravity waves that are the only thing I know about general relativity. Probably a good thing.
I wonder what the branches of the human brain, that think there are answers to the paradoxes of general relativity, look like in the brain? They must be weird misfiring neurons that hurt when you just mindlessly take on GR as belief system.
-
Is observation not evidence?
Please post a reference to a reputable source to the observations in question.
This professor's video is the first video when you google search how gravity works youtube. Do you disagree with the example? You probably think that describing the 2D bending of the sheet is the correct view as well don't you? Well how do you justify yourself saying bending is gravity when it's not? You guys blow my mind. I'm not too interested in your knowledge that is obscured by clouds. You bloody English!
-
You probably think that describing the 2D bending of the sheet is the correct view as well don't you?
Not exactly. It's a visual analogy. It isn't a perfect representation of gravity.
Well how do you justify yourself saying bending is gravity when it's not?
When did I say "bending is gravity"?
You bloody English!
English? Do you really think I'm English? Either way, insults are not allowed by the rules, so cut that out.
Just like magic gravity waves that are the only thing I know about general relativity.
Gravitational waves aren't magic.
They must be weird misfiring neurons that hurt when you just mindlessly take on GR as belief system.
It isn't a belief system. It's a theory that is superbly well-supported by every experiment that has tested it.
By the way, why did you ignore this?
Please post a reference to a reputable source to the observations in question.
-
It isn't a belief system. It's a theory that is superbly well-supported by every experiment that has tested it.
By the way, why did you ignore this?
-
It isn't a belief system. It's a theory that is superbly well-supported by every experiment that has tested it.
By the way, why did you ignore this?
That's neither an observation nor from a reputable source, so it does not fulfill my request.
-
That's neither an observation nor from a reputable source, so it does not fulfill my request
It's the top view of the professor's experiment. It's just a fact of that experiment. It is also the only view worth recognition where many people will state the side view and the bending of the fabric. This is a false view because the experiment only works in 2D because of the gravity below the sheet. So a parallel view to the earth which is the top vies is the only correct view of the effect of gravity on space. If you're going to call it bending you might as well think the bottom vies is correct as well.
-
It's the top view of the professor's experiment.
No. I'm talking about your video about quarks.
-
Sorry, light isn't a wave and gravity is magic.
This is a science web site. Comments like that look like trolling.
-
that think there are answers to the paradoxes of general relativity,
If you think there are paradoxes in General relativity
(1) what are they and
(2) do you really think that you would be the first one to notice them?
-
That's neither an observation nor from a reputable source, so it does not fulfill my request.
Is this your idea of gravity in 3D because the source is reputable?
-
If you think there are paradoxes in General relativity
(1) what are they and
(2) do you really think that you would be the first one to notice them?
The answers for the age old paradoxes are silly. The last one I watched said the twin clock paradox was solved by the twin's return journey home on a cell phone. That is when I researched answers to that paradox. What is your silly answer to it?
-
Is this your idea of gravity in 3D because the source is reputable?
A random YouTuber is not a reputable source.
-
If you think there are paradoxes in General relativity
(1) what are they and
(2) do you really think that you would be the first one to notice them?
The answers for the age old paradoxes are silly. The last one I watched said the twin clock paradox was solved by the twin's return journey home on a cell phone. That is when I researched answers to that paradox. What is your silly answer to it?
If you think there are paradoxes in General relativity
(1) what are they and
(2) do you really think that you would be the first one to notice them?
-
A random YouTuber is not a reputable source.
So your denying a fact that the image in the video is what the professor's experiment looks like from the top. Why are you arguing that? You should lose instead of more slashing of mine and the reader's intelligence.
-
So your denying a fact that the image in the video is what the professor's experiment looks like from the top. Why are you arguing that?
Do you know what a visual analogy is?
You should lose
Lose what?
Even if relativity was wrong, it wouldn't make your idea right. So far, you haven't given any evidence to support your idea.
-
So far, you haven't given any evidence to support your idea.
Hence it is only on an internet forum. This is new theories isn't it? I suppose your going to ramble on about what new theories are by definition.
-
Hence it is only on an internet forum. This is new theories isn't it? I suppose your going to ramble on about what new theories are by definition.
Sounds like you are admitting that you don't have evidence.
-
Sounds like you are admitting that you don't have evidence.
I showed you the visual evidence that gravity looks more like a squeezing pressure then a bending. What exactly is your case against what I said? Your just rambling on about sources. I posted one and you say nothing about. Stop thinking your some hotshot that's heard everything before. This is just a silly forum after all.
-
I showed you the visual evidence that gravity looks more like a squeezing pressure then a bending.
Where?
-
I showed you the visual evidence that gravity looks more like a squeezing pressure then a bending.
No
You didn't show any actual evidence of anything.
You showed a computer generated video of something.
That's like saying that the Lord of the Rings is evidence for Orcs.
-
You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.
On the contrary, a gravitational wave propagates through spacetime.
- It not only compresses and expands space, it also compresses and expands time
- Apparently, if it were not for the impact on time, LIGO would not work
- exactly why is above my pay grade, but you can hear Brian Cox explain it in an infinite monkey cage:
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09kxt28
- starting at 14 minutes - but the whole episode is great!
It also has some discussion of the trampoline analogy in the early part of the podcast...
-
I showed you the visual evidence that gravity looks more like a squeezing pressure then a bending.
Where?
Are you kidding me!? For the ten thousandth time what is your problem with the fact that the top view of the trampoline experiment shows space getting squeezed rather then bent? If your not going to answer I'm done.
-
For the ten thousandth time what is your problem with the fact that the top view of the trampoline experiment shows space getting squeezed rather then bent?
For the ten-thousandth time, do you know what a visual analogy is?
-
If your not going to answer I'm done
Goodbye.
-
For the ten-thousandth time, do you know what a visual analogy is?
The lasdies must love you because your such a great dancer. Danced around my question 4 TIMES in this thread alone. Dancin' and spinin', emitin' them gravityiationale waves.
-
The lasdies must love you because your such a great dancer. Danced around my question 4 TIMES in this thread alone. Dancin' and spinin', emitin' them gravityiationale waves.
The fact that you keep trying to misrepresent a visual analogy as the way gravity literally works in real life isn't my fault.
-
The fact that you keep trying to misrepresent a visual analogy as the way gravity literally works in real life isn't my fault.
I bet you dance for quarters.
-
If an object moving through space experiences time dilation how would gravity waves effect it? You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.
The electron shell could be a result of the gravity field of the nucleus. The electron shell allows for light of a certain amount to fill it at all times. It could be a property of a wave that has never been heard of before where the wave fighting out against the gravity pulling in creates the shell effect. It's such highly dense space at the nucleus that it would be like looking into forever darkness and the light gets trapped fighting its way out but cannot be pulled in because of the singularity that space is without gravity waves.
Another consideration is connected to the wave nature of electrons and the EM force. Picture a wave tank, with wave generators at each end of the tank. If the wave generators are 180 degrees out of phase, the waves coming from each side will be equal and opposite; plus and minus charge and will cancel. Since these wave will cancel. that energy being inputted by the wave generators will appear to disappear. since the tank will become still, due to wave cancellation. The energy is conserved but in an invisible way.
If we wanted to get the energy back, we can place a partition in the still water. This disrupts the waves from cancelling, and causes their energy to reappear. There is another way, which is connected time. If we could create a time delay, between the generators, so each generator is push the same waves and wave energy, but slightly different in time, part of the hidden energy will reappear since the crests and troughs are slightly separated along the x-axis. Gravity can create a time shift, and red or blue shift to reveal part of the hidden energy.
-
wave generators at each end of the tank. If the wave generators are 180 degrees out of phase, the waves coming from each side will be equal and opposite; plus and minus charge and will cancel.
The problem with this thought experiment is that the waves are propagating in opposite directions, so in some places they will be out-of-phase, and in other nearby places they will be in-phase, adding to produce greater amplitude.
- In the places where the amplitude is zero, the water currents are at a maximum, so the energy is transferred by kinetic energy rather than gravitational potential energy.