0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: jerrygg38This law enables the Doppler mass. The Doppler mass is larger in the front of an object than behind it. This is all part of the gravitational field. The moving gravitional field of an object occurs before the object appears.I haven't heard of Doppler mass. I'll do some research.
This law enables the Doppler mass. The Doppler mass is larger in the front of an object than behind it. This is all part of the gravitational field. The moving gravitional field of an object occurs before the object appears.
JerryGG38 - are we comparing our different models and trying to prove the one right the other wrong? Or are we actually trying to understand each other? It takes way too much time and is way too boring to try and compete. I couldn't anyway. I don't know your language. Did you even read my posts? If you didn't and only glanced at them - I can understand. It's words. Not math. I think sophiecentaur's right. I don't belong on this forum.
Quote from: witsendAnd I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.Some physicists suspect that the two fields might exist separate from each other and that a magnetic monopole might exist. So far this has not been observed. A changing magnetic creates an electric etc.Edit: jerrygg38; our posts crossed  We're on the same page.
And I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.
Quote from: jerrygg38Now we have a t- universe, a t=0 universe and a t=+ universe. If we did not have three time universes, then differential equations would be eliminated. Our universe would be eliminated as well.I just always thought of the + and - of time to be properties of the time dimension.
Now we have a t- universe, a t=0 universe and a t=+ universe. If we did not have three time universes, then differential equations would be eliminated. Our universe would be eliminated as well.
Hope you can find something printed in regular papers. The Sperry Library was confidential and secret. However that was many years ago. The study was by MIT and other Universities. Why it was locked up is a mystery. Hard to understand why an important scientific concept should have been labeled secret or confidential 30 years ago.
all mass is moving relative to something. But I couldn't find anything on it in my searches today. Google just links to your thread here, and the word mass pulls up thousands of links to Massachusetts. Well, I guess you could call different times different dimensions. I just never thought of it that way.
Did it ever strike you guys that there may be some numerical issues with these ideas which may not be consistent with measured reality. Or would that be being a spoilsport?
Measured reality is the final arbiter. I hope I don't deviate from that.
OK, guys, I'm trying this from an entirely new tangent. Dark matter is proven. It accounts for approximately 90% of the mass of all galaxies. It has been proven and revealed through gravitational lensing. It's authority is pretty absolute - being Michio Kaku, Sean Carroll, and somebody? Ellis and an experimentalist - from Fermilab - Bauer. I think he's Don Bauer? In any event. Easily googled. It was first seen in the 1920's and again measured in the 60's by some woman. Sorry forget her name too. It can only be accounted for by the identification of some particle that emits no light. Gravitational lensing was the final measured proof. This was done with the advent of Hubble telescopes.It definitely creates a gravitational field so it has mass. But it has no properties consistent with any known particles. It may, however, be a wimp - weakly interacting massive particle, or a MACHO which is more like an imploded star and can be seen as dark spaces in some galaxies. It causes effects that fly in the face of classical physics. It is the thing that holds galaxies together where the outer boundaries, the outskirts, so to speak, have a constant velocity in defiance of classical requirement. In other words the entire galaxy spins at a constant velocity - unlike the Newtonian, or Einsteinian requirement for slower velocities from Pluto - on the outskirts of our solar system, compared to Mercury - at its centre?This specifically does not fit in within a classical framework. I could go into this with a bit of research - I've got a lot on it. But would this be enough of an exception for you guys to consider that the electromagnetic force does not explain all? EDIT Measured reality the final arbiter - Vern. This is measured.
It's 2.24 am. by the computer clock. I'm a cat napper and a chronic insomniac. I usually spend my late nights chatting to a whole lot of science friends in the States. Sometimes I chat to guys in Australia. This intercontinental link has filled my nights for the last 10 years. It's only now that I've found a forum. Jerry - your dot waves are too general. They do anything and everything to fit in everywhere. It's like saying - wind is a dot wave and so is that mountain. It does not explain how the wind may have structured the mountain. Edit. And nor does it fit in with your requirement for Maxwell explaining all that is manifest.
I can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions. That is okay with me. I cannot split the interactions between the fields because we have not seen such occurrences.Jerrygg38If you can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions, then why can't I? That's exactly what I'm trying to point to. Here's the concept - yet again.Please, please, please, Jerrygg38. Try and read this. It's almost the entire foundational basis of the field model.
I try to avoid multiple dimensions, virtual anything, and periods in which the laws of nature did not hold. I suspect those are just crutches used by advocates to avoid otherwise falsifying situations. If I have a premise and find that it can not possibly fit in this dimension, I could either accept the fact as falsification; or I could invent another dimension to save the day.Then if I have a premise about particles as the medium of force conveyance and find impossible situations for that scenario, I can invent virtual particles to save the day.Then if I have a premise about the birth of the universe and find that it can not work within the present laws of nature, I can invent a period of time in which the laws of nature did not hold and save the day.
Hi Vern, I missed this. Actually it's not been posted long. Speak your mind. Do you think that the introduction of more dimensions is simply nonsense - some sort of unncessary pomposity? It actually IS critical. I'm very aware of your positings throughout - even in discussion with Jerrygg38 - where you express your objections. But it is necessay. I thought the way I described it made it too simple for anyone to accuse it of some form of exotic abstractions. I CANNOT work out your objection to it.
OK I sort of agree with that. Do you see the reconstituded mass - the nebulae coming out of a worm hole? something like that - from black holes? Why should matter cluster together. Why not scattered evenly throughout space?
Yes Vern, the practical engineer is showing in you. It is an advantage since we are used to buiding things which work.
Could that no-yet-discovered natural mechanism be dark matter and - the fact that galaxies move apart - dark energy? Given a few more years, and wider acceptance, would this concept not then become a NATURAL MECHANISM? They've got the math and the proof. They're just looking for a particle?
Jerrygg38, I really am not questioning your right to see your universe in any way you want. I've said it and say it again, I think that your solutions are really, really amazing. They're elegant and poetic and really quite beautiful. A gyroscopic action in three dimensions. It's geometrically truly fascinating. And I LOVE patterns. Especially moving patterns. What's not to like? I am ABSOLUTELY not in a position to criticise it. On the contrary. I think the concepts are wonderful.My only hope was that you could follow my own concepts. Not because they're important - but because I'd like to explain how I sort of try to piece the forces together. Like I say. It's not that only one of us can be right. Let me assure you - there is very little chance that I can even be half way right. But I do have a compelling explanation for how I see the forces reconciled. But you don't have to read it or understand it. It would be just be so nice if you did.And we are DEFINITELY not in competition. I can't compete. It's like marathan runner competing with child. It just would not be fair. I need a handicap allowance.
Quote from: witsendCould that no-yet-discovered natural mechanism be dark matter and - the fact that galaxies move apart - dark energy? Given a few more years, and wider acceptance, would this concept not then become a NATURAL MECHANISM? They've got the math and the proof. They're just looking for a particle?I'm not sure they have the proof. They have the measurements. Then they have speculation about what could cause the conditions they measure. It is entirely possible that stable, electrically-neutral, particles might exist.I suspect that it is not likely that dark energy exists. Maybe the universe is not expanding. Maybe light gives up energy as it ages.
There really is proof. Since 1920 they found discrepancy with mass ratios and then it was conclusively proven with Hubble telescopes.
Jerrygg38 I can't speak for Vern, but I KNOW that there is a really growing number of people who believe that the universe is expanding.
Quote from: witsendJerrygg38 I can't speak for Vern, but I KNOW that there is a really growing number of people who believe that the universe is expanding.My wife accuses me of not even believing the road in front of the house goes to the same place today as it did yesterday. I suspect a lot; I believe very little.
All this spewed out stuff contributes to the gravity of the system. Yet; it is not considered in the calculations. VernI thought that if mass is ejected from a system then it would reduce the mass and thereby the gravity? Is that wrong? 
Jerrygg38 I can't speak for Vern, but I KNOW that there is a really growing number of people who believe that the universe is expanding. This is another thing that's been measured. I personally don't agree with it. Not sure about Vern. But you're definitely in the general stream in expecting expansion. Really it's interesting that you required it because it's generally considered to be a fact.
You've missed the point. They cannot get enough mass to account for the fact that the outer boundaries of the galaxies spin at the same rate as the inner.
Yet again Vern. I've got my finger dangerously near that 'report to moderator' button!!!!!!   
Michio Kaku refers to a 'halo effect' where the mass of invisible matter is clustered in chunks around the boundaries of the galaxies.
Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.