Quantifying gravity's mechanism

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

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    I just suggested to the moderator or administrator that this thread be moved, at my request. Maybe to Alternative Theories? Where ever; even I can't stand the way it is going.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    Home grown his just all hype, people just like it because it just sounds good. I don't think that would fit as a good descritption of your model.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    See, your just doing intellectual sabotage, you would go as far to sabotage your own thread. If you didn't really want to see it anymore, you would be asking to have it cesspooled like it should be to keep your intellectual sabotage at bay. But, then if they just send it to alternative theories, then you can keep it as looking like a crank theory. Either that or you have serious issues, and need people to move your threads for you so that you can get attention for being a crank.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,661
    Say what you want, the thread doesn't meet my standards of what should be left in P&M. The idea of quantifying "gravity's mechanism" hypothesis that the moderators allowed me to develop in P&M is a good one, and I have some material on the subject that I have developed over the years that I thought could make for an interesting thread, but I was wrong. If I put myself in the place of a casual observer, I wouldn't leave the thread in P&M, given the way it has unfolded. I am perfectly OK with continuing in Alt Theories, and I won't feel like I am responsible for further deterioration of P&M.
    (438)
     
  8. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Moderation on this website is almost nonexistent. Don't expect them to move or delete this thread. I have reported blatant spam posts such as this (from Alternative Theories):
    and they do nothing. So you are stuck with this eye sore here is P&M forever it seems. Next time think before positing.
     
  9. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,877
    i guess they got tired after a while.


    I don't think Sf members have any interest in LV.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Yup. LOL. Not much call for LV here. But if you look at the LV post you can tell it is not really about LV. It is not really a spam post trying to get people to buy LV products. It probably only makes sense to a bot somewhere.
     
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    Call it an eye sore if you want, my hobby isn't going away as long as I'm allowed to post my hypotheses and explore alternative possibilities. Members who find my so called model irritating are the ones who are smart enough to know that the current consensus is full of unknowns and inconsistencies. I'm fully aware of the pop versions of the generally accepted theories, and for a layman, I have more than a popular media conception of the areas of physics and cosmology related to what I address in my hobby. I want a personal model of how things could work consistently and without incompatibilities, and if you are irritated by me for that, then you aren't a science enthusiast in the same sense I am.

    I hope you are irritated by people who question, imagine, and post alternative ideas, because I'm irritated by people who don't and who pretend that such thinking should be called "crank" as if the accusers aren't worse than that. The self proclaimed "smarter that thou" crowd might as well be irritated by me until science gets things reconciled, and when they do the answers to some of the current imponderables might be quite different than the current inconsistent consensus. Look for me to stay around the various forums even though the disdain and disparagement will certainly continue to prove that there is a "worse than cranks" crowd out there calling the alternative crowd cranks,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
    (499)
     
  12. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    You know that you can create threads in alternative theories, I have dones this a couple of times, or created threads in pseudoscience. That is because I thought there where topics that where not in the Standard Model. From the title of this thread alone, I think you should have created it somewhere else than here, but people don't make threads in alternative theories to discuss alternative theories. It just acts like a thread garbage dump. Everyone wants there ideas to be science right now, but they cannot admit when their ideas are not accepeted science. You never should have thought your idea was actual science in the first place. Thinking it could be is only a delusion. I already showed you how it cannot fit into what is already science in any shape or form. There simply are no room for overlaping spheres in particle physics, so then adding sections of them together means nothing.
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    Out of all that, one thing is true; what you say about the possibility strarting threads in places like Alternative Theories, Pseudoscience, and the Fringe in general. Since I joined the forum in 2008 I have started numerous treads in many of SciForums sub-forums about alternative ideas intended to spark discussion and to learn?

    Also, before this thread, I had started another thread in Physics and Math whose title was something like, "Is it true we don't know the mechanism that causes gravity yet?" The intention was to discuss whether people thought that gravity was actually caused by the geometry of spacetime or what. Here is a quote from the opening post: "I'm not making any statement about an explanation that is not generally excepted science, I am asking if those of you who are well informed in physics and math say that there is known mechanics explaining the effect or is that what the big issue is, i.e. the search for quantum gravity that has not yet given us a generally accepted answer? Is it true that we don't have the answer yet?"

    AlphaNumeric, who you may or may not know is or at least was a moderator in physics and Math renamed the thread to "Gravity's Mechanism" in post #3, ---> click here to see that post <---, and though I said throughout that thread that if it was not appropriate for the Physics and Math forum, to move it to the Fringe forums, and that I would be OK with that.

    Since then it seems to have been OK, but certainly it could just have been left in P&M because moderation is no longer being applied.
     
  14. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    It is true that we don't know the mechanism that causes gravity yet in quantum mechanics. Scientist use the General Theory of relativity to describe gravity on larger scales and use the curvature of spacetime as that mechanism. But, one thing Michio Kaku discovered is that when you try to combine GR and QM into one single theory, all you get is an infinite number of infinities. He has also claimed that it seems like there is something fundementally wrong with modern physics because of this. Then even though a lot of quantum physicist believe that Michio Kaku is a crank, they still agree with this idea of his, and they don't think spacetime curvature is the actual mechanism of gravity and a different mechanism can be found in the Standerd Model. This is one reason why they invented the graviton, and they think it may still exist even though they have never found a graviton in any experiment. I for one do not believe the graviton exist, and that since they found the Higgs Boson that is created from the Higgs Field that then transfers the gravitational force to all the other particles, then I would say that a good quantum theory of gravity would then have to involve the Higgs Field.

    In some ways the Higgs Field is similar to empty space, it is a scaler. That means that it has a ground energy level that is not zero. In empty space you cannot create a perfect vacuum. It will always contain some energy. Empty space has virtual particles that are created and then destroyed everywhere that then contribute to that energy. So then there can be no zero energy level of space. But, since this idea has been floating around, they have not been able to prove that empty space and the Higgs Field are the same thing. The Higgs Field can have different amounts of energy according to how much energy they then put into it. Even so, I think they are coming closer to finding that the Higgs Field is something similar to Einsteins idea of GR. Like Leon Lederman wrote about, that was a director of Fermilab, the Higgs Field spreads its icy tentacles across vast distances even with a spooky action at a distance. This saying that it connects particles in the Standerd Model with particles anywhere, and it does not transfer heat from itself to those particles.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    On second thought, ... I'll just ignore your off topic responses.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2013
  16. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,877
    Good choice.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    Whether there is active moderation or not, and whether discussion of a mechanism for gravity in a science forum is appropriate or not, the fact is that we are doing that for the moment

    Cheezle and Origin, who make no bones about labeling those mere laymen who advocate alternative views as cranks, and others who agree but haven't pipped up to complain about me conducting the atrocity of discussing an alternative to GR that actually features a mechanism for gravity in a science forum, too bad for you for now. Maybe a little more name calling will get results, but perhaps not the results you expect.

    As humble as I am :shrug:, you two probably know only a fraction of what I know as a layman about popular science media, current science theories, the limits of our ability to observe the details of nature, and the observational support for the great developments in science over the last 400 years, and yet because I see inconsistencies between major theories, and because I discuss the unknowns which you like to keep in the closet because well ... you know everything, lol, you disparage me and at the same time claim to never read my posts. You say it hurts you too much to see science abused by my word salad. Get over it and either read it and point out what makes your stomach crawl, or shut up about how it is not even wrong. I'll ignore you until then.

    I haven't been too polite to some posters but have had second thoughts about that too. I think I should at least try to state directly and clearly what an energy wave is, because Prof.Layman hasn't grasped it yet. Let me start by asking:

    Prof.Layman, in your recent post you referred to virtual particles popping up in so called "empty space" and agreed with me that space is not empty; you said that proves there is energy in space, so we agree. And yet spherical wave energy traversing space doesn't seem to register with you.

    I ask you, if virtual particles are generated from the energy of space, do you have any idea of the preconditions to the event? I would suggest it is a wave energy phenomenon where waves carrying energy converge in the medium of space and create virtual particles when the wave energy density reaches the virtual particle threshold. Not saying that is what happens, but if you can explain how a virtual particle can pop into existence without wave energy, please explain it here, now.
    (585)
     
  18. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,877
    I think it's best to ignore him.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Sorry Prof, but you know how it always turns out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    If gravity is a wave energy phenomenon, and the wave energy traverses the space between objects, then there is a time delay associated with gravity changing events.

    Let me clarify that there is always a gravitational influence arriving at the affected object in question that was emitted in the past from the source object in question. It took time for that influence to traverse space from the moment in the past when it was emitted until the moment it is "felt" by the affected object. Therefore, there is a continual gravitational influence between the objects that is not instantaneous, but is characterized by the time delay. But on that basis there is always arriving gravity waves that "tell" the affected object how to move.

    That means that if an event occurs that changes the motion of the source object and therefore alters the gravitational influence it will have on the affected object, that change in influence will not be felt instantaneously, but will be delayed based on the speed of gravity waves and the distance between the objects.

    There is no difference in how an object is affected on a time delay based on the speed of gravity waves than there is in the effect felt by the object if that affect was due to the curvature of spacetime.
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    A discussion of gravity's mechanism boils down to how gravity waves can "tell" objects how to move, instead of mass telling space how to curve. That is why we have a thread on quantifying gravity's mechanism.

    Maybe I will ignore people who post off topic, but Prof.Layman expressed disbelief that there can be circles drawn on paper that represent spheres that would have anything to do with a mechanism of gravity, and I am trying to overcome that misconception because it may very well be a misconception that many who are annoyed by the thread have.

    A wave that reaches a distant object can be characterized as a curved plane wave if it started out spherically and expanded as its radius increased. When I started by talking about the wave energy mechanics that establishes the presence of a particle in the Gravity's Mechanism hypothesis thread, it is saying that particles composed of wave energy have both inflowing curved plane wave components, and out flowing spherical wave components that expand and flatten into curved plane waves, which in turn can be called flat by the time they reach a distant object.
     
  21. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,877
    Speaking of gravity waves, how does this relate to quantization?
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    The energy in the overlap relative to one quantum of energy is what I was quantifying; it could be called a secondary wave that represents the high energy density caused by the convergence of two parent waves. That is what the first picture I presented in the OP meant to show. Two spherical waves (see Radius r below) expanding in the medium of space until they interrupt each other's expansion by intersecting, (see Radius rsub1), and then overlapping, (see Radius rsub2)

    Insert pics

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The energy density in each parent wave decreases as they expand, but a value of the energy density maybe can be said to be equal to the inverse of the volume of the sphere. The energy content of the parent sphere always equals one quantum until its expansion is interrupted, and as the radius increases the density decreases proportionally.

    When the two wave energy spheres overlap, they each bring to the party their individual wave energy density at the moment of the intersection. The wave energy density of the overlap is necessarily greater than the wave energy density of the remaining portion of the parent spheres because they combine their energies in the overlap space.

    The equation in the OP was meant to place a value on the energy content of the overlap relative to one quantum. Each time the radius of the parents changes, the overlap gets bigger, and the energy content of the overlap approaches one quantum of wave energy.
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,661
    Quantum action, which I have described often, is characterized by wave energy density equalization. That is an important concept in the description of the events being quantized, both within the particle that is emitting the gravity wave energy spherically, and at the affected particle or object that receives the spherical out flowing wave energy as an inflowing curved plane wave.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is the next step in the time sequence, showing the two parent waves and the overlap at Radius rsub2, and then the quantum wave reshaping to spherical due to energy density equalization within the overlap space.

    Keep in mind that the internal structure of a single particle in my so called model is supposedly composed of billions of these intersecting quanta within the standing wave pattern, and the consolidated out flow from the pattern becomes a spherical out flowing gravity wave carrying wave energy across the medium of space to other particles and objects.
     

Share This Page