Can we build a new Reality Theory?

  • 89 Replies
  • 21709 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #50 on: 20/11/2009 01:56:18 »
I couldn't connect the bolded text with your gravity charge notion. As I recall, you proposed a magnetic monopole as the gravitational charge. That part did not sink in for me.

Because for your model to aquire a 50-50 concordance (those cycles) any time a photon crosses into a curvature and a charge is released, you said an absence of magnetic charge is valuable. So in concordance with this, i proposed this can be removed where gravitons (that stuff which creates and is the same as curvature) gobbles up that magnetic side of the photon. The two charges which inexorably remain, is the magneminity of the photon travelling a geodesic path..
« Last Edit: 20/11/2009 01:58:52 by Mr. Scientist »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #51 on: 20/11/2009 01:59:23 »
Do we understand each other now?

:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #52 on: 20/11/2009 03:34:47 »

In fact, i add another modification/explaination. A magnetic monopole above are gobbled by gravitons which makes the graviton field weak. The reason why the permeability between the absorption of the monopole is due to having only one pole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #53 on: 20/11/2009 12:11:50 »
I have not yet seen the need to name the residual fields that I visualize as gravitons. They would be changing electric and magnetic amplitude potential, but would be too weak to directly interact with anything. Photons moving through these weak fields would find their points of saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.

*

Kiran The King Kai

  • Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #54 on: 20/11/2009 12:16:07 »
I have not yet seen the need to name the residual fields that I visualize as gravitons. They would be changing electric and magnetic amplitude potential, but would be too weak to directly interact with anything. Photons moving through these weak fields would find their points of saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.
guys can I join you ?
I mean only if I have time.
do I need to fill the agreement form ?

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #55 on: 20/11/2009 16:01:59 »
No form required; just think, and show us your thoughts. This is speculation, so don't be restrained in your thinking.   [;D]

Feel free to use any ideas you find here; when you go for your Nobel, just give us honourable mention.

*

Kiran The King Kai

  • Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #56 on: 20/11/2009 16:13:41 »

No form required; just think, and show us your thoughts. This is speculation, so don't be restrained in your thinking.   [;D]

Feel free to use any ideas you find here; when you go for your Nobel, just give us honourable mention.
Did you say speculation ??
WOW I am really good at it LOL ..
Ok I need some time for this ..

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #57 on: 20/11/2009 17:44:11 »
Remember that our quest is to discover that principle that John Wheeler wrote about. From the Opening Paragraph it is:

"Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."

Then if you know anything about probability theory, and you see that relativity alone provides so much phenomena that exactly matches to the extended decimal, you see that the odds in favour of the reality advocated in the link are many millions to one.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2009 10:59:21 by Vern »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #58 on: 21/11/2009 14:08:01 »
More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!

Wild eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Kiran The King Kai

  • Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #59 on: 21/11/2009 15:40:09 »
Good bye all !!

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #60 on: 21/11/2009 16:41:41 »
WHERE TOO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #61 on: 21/11/2009 21:15:51 »
More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!

Wild eh?
I wonder why it is that although we have known this for about 200 years and there is not even one piece of experimental evidence that it is not what is real; we still cling to magical ideas of reality.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #62 on: 22/11/2009 02:45:06 »
More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!

Wild eh?
I wonder why it is that although we have known this for about 200 years and there is not even one piece of experimental evidence that it is not what is real; we still cling to magical ideas of reality.

We cling to them, not because of irrationality, or even mental capacity, but because we seem to see this unchanging pattern in our observations of the world. This pattern in a system in which a complexity continues to move (ordered systems of particles) all down to entropy.

It seems as though, that the complexity had to be designed, and have meaning, choice... because without any meaning, we would have no choice to make the speculations we make today, nor could we actually analyze the mind-blowing statistics of such a thing to be true. This is reality at its finest and damn hardest :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #63 on: 23/11/2009 11:43:55 »
Those are deep philosophical concepts. But back to our plan, can we add a postulate or a prediction to the realities we have thus far described?

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Postulate: Space and time are invariant.

Then those two postulates led us to understand that if that is reality, this must also be true. And then we have a notion that not only predicts the unification of all the forces. but demands it.

The most obvious thing that comes out of it is a clear understanding of just exactly why the universe appears to have a quantum nature and why it possesses the uncertainty we see. Our misunderstanding of those two things led us down the false path of Quantum theory that Shrodinger and Einstein warned us about.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 11:55:33 by Vern »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #64 on: 24/11/2009 09:39:45 »
Good points made vern.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #65 on: 26/11/2009 11:51:40 »
I think we need to add to the postulates. It seems that the speed of light is invariant and that notion is needed so that logic demands the conclusions we have suspected so far. So we have:

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Postulate: Space and time are invariant.

Postulate: The speed of light in empty space is invariant.

So given this we can dispense with some foolish notions. We immediately know that space and time do not vary to accommodate material things in motion; material things must vary to accommodate motion because of their construct in accord with our first postulate.
« Last Edit: 26/11/2009 11:59:33 by Vern »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #66 on: 27/11/2009 20:16:03 »
If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #67 on: 27/11/2009 23:26:36 »
If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.
Are you saying that motion does'nt exist? This reminds me of Einstein's world line where every change is not movement but a totally new existence for every Planck unit of time.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #68 on: 28/11/2009 00:58:12 »
Vern if you could mess. me, it would be appreciated. I have a few things to discuss with you. Thnks :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #69 on: 28/11/2009 00:58:58 »
If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.
Are you saying that motion does'nt exist? This reminds me of Einstein's world line where every change is not movement but a totally new existence for every Planck unit of time.
Yeh.... yeh, I can see that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #70 on: 28/11/2009 11:40:00 »
Vern if you could mess. me, it would be appreciated. I have a few things to discuss with you. Thnks :)
I try to respond to my all messages; I like open forums for idea development. [:)]

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #71 on: 28/11/2009 11:46:30 »
I suspect we should be careful of Planck units. We can only logically deduce one Planck unit. That is the constant whose energy is E = hv; we can deduce from that simple equation that the amplitude of electric and magnetic potential is a constant in photons. This is an absolute deduction as real as 1 + 1 = 2. Planck's constant is the energy content of the rate of change of electric and magnetic amplitude over time. If the amplitude reached by this change were variable, it would need be part of the equation. It is not part of the equation. It is a constant.

We would then suspect; since we never see a greater amplitude value; that this constant electric and magnetic amplitude for empty space is the maximum that empty space can support.

But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does  not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2009 11:52:44 by Vern »

*

Offline werc

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #72 on: 29/11/2009 10:46:25 »
I suspect we should be careful of Planck units. We can only logically deduce one Planck unit. That is the constant whose energy is E = hv; we can deduce from that simple equation that the amplitude of electric and magnetic potential is a constant in photons. This is an absolute deduction as real as 1 + 1 = 2. Planck's constant is the energy content of the rate of change of electric and magnetic amplitude over time. If the amplitude reached by this change were variable, it would need be part of the equation. It is not part of the equation. It is a constant.

We would then suspect; since we never see a greater amplitude value; that this constant electric and magnetic amplitude for empty space is the maximum that empty space can support.

But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does  not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.

the Plank unit is the quantization of the spacetime it's not a continuous thing
newbielink:http://www.albertwasright.com/ [nonactive]

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #73 on: 29/11/2009 11:26:36 »
What are the fundamental factors that demand the quantization of space-time? We have those with the electromagnetic field; we don't hove those with spatial or temporal dimensions.

*

Offline werc

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #74 on: 29/11/2009 15:08:12 »
What are the fundamental factors that demand the quantization of space-time? We have those with the electromagnetic field; we don't hove those with spatial or temporal dimensions.

but if you try to introduce a quantization in the space time a lot of things like fine structure constant, gravity and atom electrons orbit jumps will be has a clear explanation
The base of the theory is here:
newbielink:http://www.albertavevaragione.com/index.php?id=28&lang=en [nonactive]
I'm glad to hear your opinion about them

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #75 on: 29/11/2009 15:33:57 »
Quote
It is known from relativity that an absolute frame of reference does not exist. It is therefore obvious that the rest of the maximass can exist only in comparison with other observers.
I find lots of things in your paper that I can agree with. However, the above statement in chapter 14 does not fit well. If by relativity you mean Einstein's theories, about relativity, you could not use it as a logical argument that we know because of Einstein's theory. Theories cannot be the cause of things; at best they can only explain and predict.

If you mean relativity phenomena there is much evidence that this is not so. In that scenario, flat space-time is required in order to  produce relativity phenomena.

Quote
The physical meaning of the formula derives from the ratio of the velocity c of the wavefronts moving in the orbit and the velocity ve of the wave source-electron in the same orbit.

We must remember that we are referring to those wavefronts moving along the ideal tube whose axis is the orbit on which the closed path of the electron-wave source lies.

Figure 95 shows that "137" wavefronts of wavelength le move in the orbit in a resonance state, and that for each revolution made by the wave source the wavefronts coming from it make "137" revolutions.

Also, this from Chapter 24 does not sit well. We have pretty much discounted the notion that electrons orbit atomic nuclei. QM has it as a cloud of probability functions, which I find unnecessary. I would rather consider the Fine Structure Constant to be the ratio of the bend radius of the electron's comprising energy wave to the electron's charge value. In this case we find the cause of electric charge. It is the bend in the path of the energy wave.

Then, knowing this we can predict the value of electric charge that a tighter bend would produce. We can calculate the value of the strong nuclear forces. The force is two times shell 2 plus two times shell 3 electrons worth of force. And then we see that observations agree with predictions. And then we see that the dynamics of the strong force would be as observed. The predicted dynamics are exactly as is observed.

Calculator Source Code in C

« Last Edit: 29/11/2009 21:11:48 by Vern »

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #76 on: 29/11/2009 17:09:57 »

But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does  not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.
Interesting; For existence to be digital, every quantum action must be in synchronous order. If we can observe one unit of Planck time intersecting another out of sync. then our total existence can not be digital. Maybe it's true that Planck time is a reality but only in terms of our ability to observe it? I think I'll start using my analog watch again, this digital world they're pushing on us dosen't fit my kind of reality.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #77 on: 29/11/2009 17:32:46 »
I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well  be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.

Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.

This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.
« Last Edit: 29/11/2009 17:37:00 by Vern »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #78 on: 30/11/2009 21:25:56 »
I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well  be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.

Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.

This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.

I'm afraid vern, that perhaps this is all quantum mechanics is saying right now.

Oh how i would love one which incorporates two models: One which suffices the description of this world, but one equally which suffices our existences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #79 on: 01/12/2009 01:47:20 »
That last one was a little over my head; I didn't quite grasp the meaning of it.  [:)]

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #80 on: 01/12/2009 01:51:45 »
That last one was a little over my head; I didn't quite grasp the meaning of it.  [:)]

Sometimes vern, it even goes past mine :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #81 on: 03/12/2009 12:51:22 »
We should forget Quantum theory in any quest to develop a Reality theory. Quantum theory is philosophically unsound at its foundation. It corrupts the mind making it unable to recognize reality. Keep all observations; forget all theories; develop new hypothesis to explain the observations.

 

*

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 964
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #82 on: 03/12/2009 14:52:24 »
Hi, sorry to barge in in your dialog thread here. I just wanna vent an opinion, stupid or not...
Higher up in the thread I read that gravity comes from bent photon paths and thus 'deforming' the EM fields.

Could it be that gravity is arising from the bending as heat is arising from (mechanical) friction?
I have this picture in my head, of gravity fitting in your EM-fields-only universe, but these are the best words I find for the picture...
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #83 on: 04/12/2009 11:03:11 »
I think you may have misread the mechanism for gravity.

Gravity develops from the property of space that limits the amount of electric and magnetic amplitude that any point in space can support. All photons naturally contain two points at this electric and magnetic amplitude. The two points are caused by and are supported and are driven through space by the changing amplitude of electric and magnetic fields that surround the points and extend outward forever through space.

Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their maximum amplitude with the help of the the fields of other photons. The result is that maximum amplitude occurs at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields of other photons.

It is hard to get your mind around it. But once you see it, it is obvious that it must happen given the postulates we have so far proposed.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2009 11:06:50 by Vern »

*

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 964
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #84 on: 09/12/2009 13:18:17 »
Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their maximum amplitude with the help of the the fields of other photons. The result is that maximum amplitude occurs at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields of other photons.

Please help me understand Vern [:)]

So a photon exists of two points of field saturation (1 electrical and 1 magnetic, coupled and moving together).
When these two points move through a field of another photon (with relative amplitude somewhere between -1 and 1 i guess??), the sum of the field strength at this location exceeds the maximum allowed amplitude for a satured photon point, and the excess EM amplitude translates to gravity?

Or what exactly do you mean with maximum amplitude occurs at an offset ... ?
Do you mean a spatial offset, like an angle change?
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #85 on: 10/12/2009 13:24:00 »
It's not one point magnetic and one point electric. The electric and magnetic fields occupy planes situated ninety degrees apart. The two planes cross at the centre line of the photon's path. Saturation of both fields occur at two places in a photon wave. Each half cycle of the wave has a point of maximum amplitude. Two half cycles make a whole photon.

Electric and magnetic fields extend outward forever from the points. The fields diminish as the square of distance from their points of origin. However weak the fields, they still contribute toward the saturation amplitude of photon points moving through them. This contribution toward saturation makes the point of saturation happen at an offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.

This is the action of gravity. It is the only cause of gravity. There is not two mysterious kinds of gravity such that one applies to photons and one applies to massive objects. All gravity is of this photon flavour.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2009 13:28:45 by Vern »

*

Offline Butterworthd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #86 on: 11/12/2009 02:53:46 »
Can I join in?  Instead of a light-only view of the universe I've been proposing a different view using subspace (OK I'm a Star Trek fan).  A subspace is a dark matter particle that exists in two dimension, smaller on the outside and larger on the inside.  A particle of matter is made out of two subspaces perpendicular to each other.  They create space between them with the perpendicular feature shown in the diagram provided above.
On your model building you forgot to list the givens:  You are thinking that space exists even if matter and light are absence from the universe.  In truth without matter or light, space would not exist.  They are all connected.
 
When given a choice Always take the theory that's easier to understand.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #87 on: 11/12/2009 14:15:49 »
Subspace is a buzz word. Even i could use the word to describe consciousness as a dimension which is sub or hyper to those we physically-recognize and of those we consciously-experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #88 on: 11/12/2009 16:42:49 »
  In truth without matter or light, space would not exist.  They are all connected.
I respectfully disagree my friend. And, BTW, how in heavens name can one ever prove that discription of space/time without the presence of matter and light? I personally think that is the only reason that this particular view is held by any physicist, it's called lazyness.

IMHO, space is just a place where things can be put. And the universe is just that, an infinite place, a void, where matter, energy, and information reside.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #89 on: 11/12/2009 18:32:42 »
My view exactly Ethos.