Quantifying gravity's mechanism

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, Apr 4, 2013.

  1. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    I would be interested to hear your own answer to that question, AlexG. What do you think it is? How would you define it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Energy is not a thing. It's a property of objects and fields.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    You know AlexG is a [deleted, pending reply from moderator], right? I guess by playing with him I set a bad example :shucks:, but my excuse is its Friday night!
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Won't answer basic questions and admittedly has no science behind his ideas, simply strings together buzz words and has no idea what they mean.

    q_w is the very definition of a crank.
     
  8. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    A "thing" as in "conception of something yet to be defined".

    Now I would be interested to know what "property" of objects or fields you refer to and how you define that "property", exactly, without any circuitous chain of definitions involved in your reply?
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Ah, you want it simple and easy for you to understand.

    Sorry, Realitycheck, but as a sockpuppet of a banned user, you really shouldn't be here.
     
  10. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Are you trying to incite (against site rules) a personal exchange here in order to avoid answering a legitimate scientific question regarding your definition of "energy as a property" of objects or fields?
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Sockpuppets are also against the rules. And as I'm not the one turning out reams of meaningless word salad filled with misused buzz words, I'm not required to answer anything from you.

    However, I like the definition of energy as that property of matter or fields which allows change.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    BTW, Hi Undefined. I think we agree on some points. Where do you stand on hypothesizing about the things I have been discussing?
     
  13. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    I prefer my definition that energy is matter and fields; which flux from "Quantum Mechanical ground states" via localized variations and propagating perturbations in the underlying energy reservoir of states of the Quantum Vacuum of fundamental energy-space.

    By the way, someone sent me this quote:
    Could that "AlexG" posting such disrespectful and contemptuous personal opinions of our administrator in public forums all over the internet be the same AlexG who is so charmingly engaged in trying to incite personal exchanges and possibly (science forbid!) trolling q-w against site rules here? Surely not!
     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    What you mean is that you, as your sockpuppet of a banned user on Physforum copied it from that forum and posted it here.

    Realitycheck, you've been banned from every forum you've posted on, but you simply refuse to accept your permaban.

    BTW, this would constitute flaming, and has been reported as such.
     
  15. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    AlexG,

    So, on the subject of energy and its definitions: how did you like my definition in comparison with the definition you liked for energy as property of matter and fields?


    As for this:
    First you try to incite a personal exchange with me.

    Now you have been caught flaming our administrator all over the net, and I quote:

    And now you want to accuse me of flaming you because I quoted your public flaming of our administrator here and because I do not rise to your baiting?

    I wonder what the administrator whom you reported this to will make of that logic on your part in reporting me.....instead of yourself!

    Surely this latest troll ploy of yours will go down in sciforums history as the silliest, most bizzare troll con trick ever attempted....and rightly failed, I trust!
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2013
  16. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    No one ever asked you for your definition of energy. I doubt anyone cares about your definition. This is quantum_wave's theory we are discussing not yours. AlexG's question stands like many other questions people have asked. But it seems that quantum_wave prefers to keep some parts of his so called model secret, as he has said. Several people have asked about the numbers he assigns to his posts. Numerology? He will not answer. AlexG has asked for his definition on energy, which is key to his so called theory, and quantum_wave refuses to answer. I asked many questions, and he would not answer. I asked what his definition of energy was. I asked what he meant by standing waves since his definition seems to be different than my understanding. I asked several other questions. quantum_wave, to all his claims to answer questions he does anything but. He is a fraud or a crank or just a nutcase, take your pick.

    But what I really want to point out here is that your defense of him is very interesting. rr6 tried to come to agreement with quantum_wave and found that was an impossibility. Why? Because quantum_wave would not explain his so called theory in terms he could understand. That is a common problem with quantum_wave and most people here. Lack of communication. rr6's complaints were valid, even though his own theory was incomprehensible. So it comes down to why you support quantum_wave and his so called theory. I have to assume that it is because of the aether connection. And aether is a defunct idea. It is an idea abandoned as unworkable a century ago. It continues on in crank theories and will from now to eternity it seems. The interesting thing about all the crank aether ideas, is that they all disagree on the specifics. The fact that aether has been disproven and yet so many cranks make it a centerpiece of their crank theories. That is what we have here. A crank supporting a crank even though they disagree on 90% of the specifics. It is kind of laughable. Like different hollow earth theorists describing the environment of the central region. One person says it is dinosaurs, the next it is ufos, and the next is is Shangri-La. They all fight the solid earthers and yet none can agree. It is a funny situation.

    quantum_wave is stuck. His so called theory is not progressing because he is unable to figure out how his so called theory would unfold. His posts her are really a plea for help. His idea of wowions are composed of energy and expand spherically and keep a constant energy density is demonstrably wrong. As I said his constant energy density demands that his energy "standing" waves don't follow the inverse square law. They follow something like the inverse cube law, and that would rule out nature as we experience it. I pointed this out and he responded that I just did not understand how his theory produces the inverse square law. He did not explain his so called theory's ability to get the inverse square law out of his postulated constant energy density. I guess he used the excuse that he didn't need to answer my question because he didn't like my attitude. I would encourage someone with a better attitude than mine,or AlexG's to ask these questions. But I suspect that they will also not get answers. There are no answers in an unworkable system.
     
  17. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    rr6 and quantum_wave seem to me to have parted ways. I would say there is a lack of common language. Not surprising given that one made up his language and the other was deeply secretive about his so called theory. And I see that Undefined is back to support quantum_wave. Not with quark gluon plasmas but with rhetoric. The kind of rhetoric that is not dependent on facts. Apologetics. Defense of the indefensible IMO. Neither is very convincing.
     
  18. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Character counts, but I am unsure how he decides which posts to include in the running total.
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    No, it is the number of views. I told rr6 that when he asked a month or so ago, and mentioned it here before that, but obviously no one reads every post so I repeat it when someone asks.
    (10270)
     
  20. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    I would be interested in what your own definition of "energy" is, Cheezle? That is the same question I asked AlexG. Innocent and reasonable enquiry on topic, right? But he got all aggressive personal for some reason. Eventually he gave me his definition, and then I asked him how he liked my definition. Why is that natural response asking for his opinion on how our definitions compared so offensive to you, Cheezle? I never said I was defending q-w's hypothesis, I just made some suggestions to q-w as to possible connections between some aspects of his OP and other known and accepted science aspects. I do however defend q-w's right here (in the Alt Theory section) to discuss his OP without interference from trolls. Since when was "agreement" a necessary precondition for having a discussion? If that were the case nothing new would ever emerge and paradigms would never change, yes? And also disagreement between ideas is what drives discussion in Alt Theories section, by definition, right? Since when is asking questions, and giving one's own suggestions for the OP development and discussion, cause for getting all personal and aggressive at me? Now would you like to tell me your own definition of "energy" and leave out all the personal attitudes and off-topic commentary, Cheezle?
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I won't hold my breath, lol.


    As a general response to the topic of how I use the word "energy" in my so called model, I use it in multiple ways, many of which are common usages in science. The usage that gives the detractors a problem is "wave energy" in the context of the foundational medium, and so that usage is what I am best known for in a contrary way.

    The phrase "foundational medium" itself is a big target phrase, so "wave energy traversing the medium of space" draws criticism.

    My so called model of the universe includes as its basis, wave energy traversing the foundational medium of space, so if you want to argue the cosmology, you best start there, and the detractors find that to be a good point of discussion. When I defend that basis, I say that everything in the universe is composed of wave energy, and matter is composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

    When I use that explanation in an argument defending the use of the phrase "wave energy", the detractors find the concept of wave energy as the basis of particles to be hard to accept, and so they have another aspect on which to make their disparaging claims.

    When they pursue the concept of matter being composed of wave energy in quantum increments, I explain the standing wave concept of wave energy where a standing wave is a synchronized and repeating convergence of wave energy with two components, inflowing wave energy and out flowing wave energy. Standing waves are admittedly a hard concept to grasp if you aren't a detractor, so I can see how that concept perpetuates the discontent with my so called model.

    When they pursue standing waves, they simply cannot understand that at the foundational level of my model, gravity waves are coming and going in all directions at all points in space. Each foundation energy wave that passes a given point comes from a particular direction. For that given point, there is a net directional high wave energy density direction, and that is the direction of the source the greatest net mass, and therefore the direction of the strongest inflowing gravitational wave energy.

    When I discuss the out flowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern, I say the outflowing wave energy is spherical, i.e. equal in all directions, and have a variety of examples that describe the out flowing wave energy as part of the process of quantum action that is continually governing the particle by maintaining its presence and its motion based on the imbalance between the directional inflowing wave energy and the spherical out flowing wave energy of the standing wave patterns.

    Once that discussion has taken place, I imagine that no one has stayed with me either in concept or in practicality, and so when I describe gravity as the directional imbalance between the two wave energy components of the standing wave patterns, well ...
    (10338)
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Good place to start, with meaningless buzzwords strung together.
     
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    These guys are missing out on their chance to learn something from folks like you, Origin, eram, Cheezle and other folks who are good contributors.

    As proof that your statement "energy is a property of matter" is accurate, I offer the following in support. Consider kinetic energy. As you know, although the naysayers have missed the boat on this, it's the consequence of mass and the square of the velocity - both of which are properties of matter. That alone should answer the mail, but we could compile an inventory of energy in all its known forms and we'd arrive at the same result. The electric potential energy, chemical energy, heat and all radiant forms, pneumatic or hydraulic forms, nuclear energy, gravitational potential energy - they all decompose into properties of matter - mass, charge, velocity, pressure, and so on. The electron is said to be at a potential within the atom that equates to a quantum of energy, and that boils down to its property of energy level occupation, which equates to the property of frequency, which applies both to photon emission and absorption as well as the emission spectrum for cathode rays. All properties, then.

    QW is relegated to stringing meaningless buzzwords together because he lacks any foundation for understanding even these most basic of first principles. It's too bad he doesn't just try his best to soak up the info you and the other good folks here are posting. Hell, it's a free education, or least a gateway to getting one. Even the dumbest of dumb-cluck threads has a tendency to draw you folks in with pearls of wisdom, so I suppose that's why they don't get cesspooled too quickly. The mods are probably enjoying your feedback. Or else there's a sort of devil's advocate scenario in place, in which science is so egregiously attacked that it's just a matter of time before someone actually says something meaningful and correct and that keeps the thread alive.

    You nailed that one, of course. Energy is obviously a property of matter. That's worth some more life to the thread, so the up and coming science students can get a chance to stumble onto it and put it in their pipe and smoke it. One thing's for sure: we need a lot more of them and fewer cranks.
     

Share This Page