Quantifying gravity's mechanism

Well, you are kind to put it in that perspective, and it is a process I have been employing for many years. That is why I am doubtful about the new participant who already plans to prove who wrong I am, lol. He will have trouble doing that, not because I'm not wrong, but because the things I am wrong about are not subject to observation. They can only be disputed and not falsified. The best approach he could use would be to find internal inconsistencies in what I call the model, because observations at the quantum level are not possible yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a lot of work but here goes.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. All I got from this was that everything is "wave energy". No mention of what this wave energy is. There are lots of types of wave energy. Are you say that there is some type of special wave energy that all things have, or are you saying that everything has a type of wave energy but that type can be in lots of forms.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. Are you saying that there are only 2 forces, or that you are talk about 2 particular forces that have to do with a type of pressurized energy? So are you saying that a force such as centrifugal force is caused by energy densities? Please explain how centrifugal force is a result from these 2 forces you mention.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. It seems to be about conservation of energy. I think I understand what you are saying here.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. This in-flowing and out-flowing seems to be the core of your idea. I will be asking about this in more detail later.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. Here you seem to be connecting your idea to the big bang. I will be looking at this in more detail later.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. A lot to digest here. Will comment much later.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. I am familiar with Newton's bucket. I will be looking at this later.

I did not find a general definition of energy or force in this paragraph. I am familiar with infinities. I have taken some number theory classes and have talked to a professor of mathematics about infinities and the problems with them. I guess this is one of those things that I will abandon my current understanding an tentatively accept your idea of the and their place in your theory.

No where in this post did you answer my request that you define energy and force. As I mentioned, I would have accepted f=ma, E=mc^2, joules vs newtons, or even a cut and paste dictionary definition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That didn't seem to be so hard once you go started.

Your failure to let go of what you believe is keeping you from asking questions that pertain to the definitions. F=ma is fine, but do you understand mass in the context of my so called model?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think this is where you tell me what your idea of a spherical standing wave.

I guess that I should tell you what I think a standing wave is and you tell me if you agree. A standing wave is formed when a sine wave is emitted from a source and reflected back to that source by some change in impedance. The superposition of the incident wave and the reflected wave form nodes where they exactly cancel out. And there are nodes where they exactly add. In the spherical version the incident would start at the center of the spherical volume and then be reflected at some radial distance back to the source. This would cause shells of superpostion nulls and sums.

Does that jibe with your definition? If not please explain. From what I have seen in your diagrams it seems like you have a different notion of the term.

 

Well the subject at hand was the definition of energy and force. I would rather wait on mass until later. Please answer some of the questions I asked.

How is centrifugal force a result of your energy densities?

Are you saying that all forces are of 2 types caused by energy densities. I assume one is caused by being "pressurized" and the other by being rarified energy regions. And so there is an attractive force and a repelling force. Actually I must have that wrong because in the case of gravity there is no repulsive force.

Are you saying that the dense regions and "less dense" regions are models and that gravity is one system that uses this model and say electric charge is another example? If so why do electric charges have both repulsion and attraction while gravity has only attraction.

 

Lol, such a short reply. That's new.

That's the old fashioned method. Now we just click the "Disconnect" button.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who is this guy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And what was the flaw in his device?

 

Here is his website.
http://www.forceborne.com/FBW/principle.htm
There are videos of his device there and also the letters of endorsement there (link on main page).

The flaw is of course that it does not work. hehe. It is supposed to rectify the centrifugal motion of the weights it uses. The problem I found with the engineer's analysis had to do with what was not included as part of the machine, something about the center of mass. I no longer have a copy of the letter I wrote and can't remember the exact details. It was a long time ago, nineteen nineties. And the solution I found is not a case of me being really smart, it was just that I noticed a small detail. It is an ingenious machine and deserves a patent, but not as a propulsion device. It is kind of sad that the guy has wasted his life working on this contraption.

 

Crazy, he claims it violates the CoL and Newton's 3rd Law. I wonder why MIT educated Rick Rose endorsed his invention?

What do you think is a possible practical application of his device?

 

Yes the violations should be a big clue. But as you can see from people commenting here that would be your and my closed mind at work. Our inability to grasp new ideas. We are just stuck in a previous paradigm of Newtonian or Einsteinian thinking.

I think his device could be used to pick up some item off one conveyor and put it on another. That is about it. I am sure somebody someplace has an application for it. I pointed out that you could skip the machine and just pick up the weights with your hand and wave them around in the pattern and then set them back down. But I guess it requires the armature. I also suggested a fluid based version which I thought would be easier to implement. Fluid pumped through tubes in a certain configuration. But that was not a popular idea either.

And if you watched some of the videos you can see this thing makes quite a racket. I would hate to be stuck in a spaceship to Mars with that sucker.

 

I'm not stuck, but if he claims it violates Newton's 3rd Law I'll have to see it for myself.

Oh...then what was up with all his revolutionary claims and how did he get those engineers to endorse him?

Haha, I'm starting to doubt the competence of some of these professionals.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here you go. Videos of the device breaking Newton's 3rd law. There are lots of other reactionless drives out there too.
http://www.youtube.com/user/lordpelius?feature=watch

 

Thanks. I can't tell if it's violating Newton's 3rd Law because I can't see inside. There's friction after all.

 

You could write the guy and ask him about it. He is trying to get funds to work on the drives. If he can get $10,000,000 he plans to build a flying version. He takes all the major credit cards.

 

What do you mean by "instantaneous effect" ? Perhaps I can help to clear this point up a little.
As I said curvature is not an "effect" of energy, curvature is energy, so it makes little sense asking for a mechanism or wonder about it being "instantaneous". Do you see the difference ?

I do appreciate your honesty in saying that you do not completely understand GR; I am not here to take sides, I am merely trying to help. I am, however, firmly grounded in established physics when doing so.

 

Nah, I wouldn't want to contribute to his pocket change. Reminds me of John Searl, although Searl's device looked cooler.

 

I have come across standing wave particles from talk that the electron could be fashioned as a standing wave in some instances, but that talk may or may not jibe with your definition. The real rise of the standing wave idea in my model came after I developed the idea of a foundational level of order below the fundamental level of the standard model. When you first imagine an electron as being composed of energy in quantum increments, the standing wave pattern begins to seem necessary. Edit: And to keep the development of the ideas in order, I started with the cause of the big bang. A big crunch preceding it was the result of some brainstorming long ago, and the collapse of a big crunch as the event to initiate a big bang was developed from there. In order to collapse, the particles and energy in the big crunch must give up their particle space under some extreme condition. The continual increase in the content of the crunch would be fueled by gravity, and the failure of the particles to maintain their individual particle space would occur at some natural limit of gravitational compression; then collapse/bang.

I would agree that a sine wave as you describe it is correct, but I don't mention sine waves as such in my so called model.

 

I haven't given much thought to centrifugal force, but I would agree that it is a worthy subject to address. Right now it would suit me to say that once you have particles, then we know there are a wide variety of particle interactions, applied forces, different types of energy, may types of potential energy, etc. In my model I address the foundational forces that have to exist to make the quantum universe work when you invoke a foundational level. That level is governed by the two forces and the limits and thresholds that nature imposes on wave energy density.

I'm saying that the foundational level is where the establishment and maintenance of the presence of standing wave particles is what all the action is about; quantum action is the process that establishes and maintains the presence of particles, and standing wave particles move due to the directional imbalance in the inflowing wave energy component.

Hmm, any system must have as its foundational nature, the two forces and the quantum action process. Particles are of that nature, but then particles are observable and we know a lot about them as far as identifying charge, fields, etc. Electric and magnetic fields and charges require particles. I haven't gotten into what causes charge to the extent that it is part of the so called model, but the inflow and out flow of wave energy certainly is a part of it. What ever I say about charge, electric and magnetic fields, etc. right now would just be so much blah blah blah because I haven't contemplated it enough to describe it as part of my so called model, and because what I am addressing is the unobservable foundation upon which the observables depend.

 

Are you telling me that GR does not maintain that the curvature is felt instantaneously while the changes or interruptions to the motion of objects is time delayed. That was my misconception then.

I'm hoping you can convert me, lol, because I'm not so firmly established in the generally accepted theories that are probably at best unreconciled.
(1991)

 

You still have not told me what you mean by standing waves. So I did some searches and found a website that seems to be exactly what you are talking about.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Particle-Wave-Duality-Paradox.htm
The standing wave in the pictures there is the result of the In-wave and the Out-wave which matches up to your theory. Did you know about this theory? I know that same ideas sometimes occur to different people, so I am not accusing your of plagiarizing this guy. I just want to know if this is also what you are saying.

The standing wave on the other website is a little confusing to me. While we are all familiar with the out-wave type of waves, pebbles in ponds and the such, the in-wave is a little disconcerting. Normally standing waves occur because of reflections. For instance you set up standing waves on a disk of material by injecting sound in the disk. The sound reflects off of the edge of the disk and the incident and reflected waves are in superposition. Reflection can occur multiple times. But there does not seem to be any reflection in the example on the page. Unless the point in the center is the reflector and the source is infinity in all directions. That is a very strange concept. And if the waves are traveling through a medium and the particle or center is in motion with respect to the medium, there are going to be some other effects there. I mention the medium because you have talked about an aether, though you claim it is different than the old concept of aether.

I would appreciate any comments you could supply on these issues.

 

I describe them endlessly in every thread at least once, and have responded to you. Try reading and thinking about what you read. And don't try to equate my standing wave patterns to anything you might be familiar with. A standing wave electron may have hundreds of thousands of tiny intersecting waves contained within the particle space, maintained by inflowing waves from other particles and objects, and characterized by out flowing spherical wave energy.

Yes, I have visited that page a few times.

You are joking, right?

Here is an idea. Take every combination of the key words I use, and search the entire internet, and find all the sites that have the same words, in some order, and accuse me of trying to fool everyone by suggesting that my so called model came to me from my own thoughts without input from any other source. Then show how I use ideas for around the net to prove your case because you have proof that various sites discussed similar ideas. That is a good sign of where you are coming from and of your poor character.

Yes, you are a light weight who wants to accuse and prove me to be a liar and thief, and if I complain you want to claim I'm quiting mad because you have cornered me in some uncomfortable claim I am making about my genius or that I fail to attribute my ideas to others, though I have made no such claims. Do you want to add anything to that agenda? Any questions?