Prove it wrong, instead of just stating it as being wrong.

According to wikipedia a transverse wave is oscillating up and down perpendicular to the direction of energy transfer or the direction of travel.  Plot this in 3D and it will have a corkscrew motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_waves

You're the one who is spreading misinformation due to denying or not understanding the truth.

Besides, a positive or truth can't be proven.  <<---That's more philosophy for you.

Just show me one respectable link that says transverse waves (or EM waves)  are "corkscrews" ...   Did you even think about post #27 ?

Just show me one respectable link that says transverse waves (or EM waves)  are "corkscrews" ...   Did you even think about post #27 ?

Yes, I have thought about post #27, but #27 doesn't seem to apply to yourself, it only applies to me.  LOL

The wikipedia link I give you about transverse waves, says if you have a clockwise/counter-clockwise motion then you will create a helical wave.  Helical and corkscrew are the same thing in this context.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corkscrew

The thing to remember is you have two transverse waves in the EM.  One from the electrical and one from the magnetic.  These waves are perpendicular to each other.  One wave is up/down, and the other wave is left/right.  This creates a corkscrew or helical motion in the direction of travel. 

Wrong. You are the one making extraordinary claims here, not me...    If you weren't making an extraordinary claim.. it would be very easy to find a link on the web that says EM waves travel in a corkscrew like motion..    Right?     Well, I haven't been able to find any..  But I can show you many links that say photons travel as transverse waves.. NOT corkscrews.. Lol..

Here for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

There are two waves associated with a photon traveling through space.  One wave is from the electric field and the other wave is from the magnetic field.  They are perpendicular to each other, thus causing a corkscrew or helical motion when their paths are plotted together.  Plot their paths separately, then they will appear as two transverse waves, one from the electric field and one from the magnetic field.  A moving charge creates a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field creates an electric field.  They are tied together and are not separate, thus both transverse waves are tied together which creates a corkscrew or helical motion in the direction of energy transfer.  This helical motion or waves are responsible for gravity.  We can only detect the transverse waves individually.  The two transverse waves combined causes space-time to be curved, which gives us the affects of gravity.  They are combined, cause you can't have one without the other.

Since they haven't unified gravity with the other forces of nature, then I doubt you will find a good reference for this.  I say a reference is not needed because it is logical and common sense.  The references are there, they just need to be pieced together with common sense.

I don't need reference materials from someone else, when it is just common sense.

It seems to my that waves from a lot of different directions
and with a lot of different properties are interacting with each
other all at the same time.

It seems to my that waves from a lot of different directions
and with a lot of different properties are interacting with each
other all at the same time.


But always there are gravity waves.
Gravity waves are ever where and can not be turned
off.

The sun does not let mass or energy leave its
solar system.
So almost all of the light that the sun sends out into
the solar system gets sucked back into the sun
by the suns gravity.

@cuttingedge:

The link in the previous post makes references to the Archimedes screw and has illustrations of the Inverse Archimedes Spiral.  Thought you would be interested.

Also, Newbie and I are starting off like you and I did.  LOL


GB   


"This is the half baked section, philosophy based on correct physics rules here"

GB,

Do I really need to exlain to you why this guy's article isn't credible?   Just because you "understand" what he's talking about doesn't mean it is correct.   This guy is just pushing his theories on the internet...  Not in a peer review journal. 


Btw, there are tons of ignorant statements in his "theory" ... Seriously..   Scientist can't explain why protons don't just .spring apart, he says... Come on..   The strong force must just be a big joke then..  Was this theory written 50+ years ago?

Nb

The guy is not just pushing his theories on the internet, he has written several well respected books.  I have not read one book or article that was inspired and written by man that I did not find a few things I did not agree with.

Even if it's in a peer review journal, it will still be his theory.  Look how long it took mainstream physics to accept Einstein's theory on relativity.  Some to this day still do not accept it.

There will never be a reference I can give you, that will not be someone else's theories or opinions, regardless where the information is being published from.  Do you realize that physicists to this date are still looking for more than 300 theorized particles, including the graviton, in order for their theories to be correct.  They just keep adding theorized particles in order for them not to be wrong.  LOL

Why does it have to be in a peer review journal?  Statements like this means nothing can be true or possible unless it's in a peer review journal.  The only thing you should be reading are peer review articles, since that is the only place for things to be possible and where they're not someone else's theories.  Why are you here?  There is nothing on this site that is credible in your eyes, because they are just personal theories, thoughts and ideas that are not in a peer review journal.  If I showed you a peer review article, then you would probably say, it wasn't accepted or it was ignored, so it can't be credible. You're not in a peer review article either, so I guess none of your theories can be credible, by your own definition.  LOL

Before I even posted the link, I said there were some things I did not agree with, but you still had to find what you believe to be faults within those pages and throw them in my face.  I already knew this would happen before posting the link.

I am through with you, you're thinking is curved due to all that mass in your head!

Have a good day,

GB