Author Topic: Light is converted gravity (Read 28379 times)

newbie123 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 04, 2009, 12:51:20 AM »

Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 03, 2009, 09:05:53 PM

It really doesn't matter, just continue your line of thinking and I will continue mine. I am not wrong.

you can't get work without energy and you can't get energy without work, it is simple Physics. they go hand and hand.

you can't even take a measurement of time without doing work.

Jerry

I don't think anything in the universe can exist without time.... But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything is equal to "time", and "Time = Energy" .... If it this is common physics knowledge as you guys seem to imply, can you show me some good references?

Prove that you guys aren't just trying to push your (or someone elses) half baked theories here...

gravityblock · « **Reply #16 on:** July 04, 2009, 05:28:39 AM »

Quote from: newbie123 on July 04, 2009, 12:51:20 AM

If it this is common physics knowledge as you guys seem to imply, can you show me some good references?

Prove that you guys aren't just trying to push your (or someone elses) half baked theories here...

I've been trying for the last 7 months. I can't make one hair on your head black or white. I can't do your thinking for you or for anyone else. There is no need in attempting to prove that Time is Energy, until people can come to terms with Time being a basic elementary truth of the universes and all other individual forces or energies arise from Time. It's like trying to teach a baby to ride a bicycle before they can walk, it's not going to happen.

I did a poll that asked people if mass was equivalent to energy. That didn't go very well. They said I was mis-stating Relativity Theory and everything else.

It is impossible to prove or teach someone anything, when they will disagree and find faults in everything that is said or mentioned, including references that are widely accepted throughout the physics community.

I've posted a video on space-time and the speed of light in two different threads, and not 1 comment on it. I've given references to other things, and not 1 comment on them either. What good are references, when there is no discussion of those references, or they are automatically rejected without putting any thought into it, for the simple reason that it doesn't conform to their current ideas and thoughts on the subject?

I will try to find some good reference materials that can easily be understood without the mathematics, since you are leaving a door open for this to be a possibility. I won't post the references here in this thread, since it is slightly off-topic here. I will post it in the thread, "Why does mass slow time".

Thanks,

GB

newbie123 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 04, 2009, 05:55:02 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on July 04, 2009, 05:28:39 AM

I've been trying for the last 7 months. I can't make one hair on your head black or white. I can't do your thinking for you or for anyone else. There is no need in attempting to prove that Time is Energy, until people can come to terms with Time being a basic elementary truth of the universes and all other individual forces or energies arise from Time. It's like trying to teach a baby to ride a bicycle before they can walk, it's not going to happen.

I did a poll that asked people if mass was equivalent to energy. That didn't go very well. They said I was mis-stating Relativity Theory and everything else.

Well, first consider where you are posting these things... Lots of people here will say the majority of main stream physics is a big conspiracy.. Which is fine (imo) if they can provide real evidence to support it.

Quote

It is impossible to prove or teach someone anything, when they will disagree and find faults in everything that is said or mentioned, including references that are widely accepted throughout the physics community.

Anyone can disagree or agree with something, but if facts and credible references aren't used to support their idea, their opinion is meaningless...

gravityblock · « **Reply #18 on:** July 04, 2009, 06:41:26 AM »

Quote from: newbie123 on July 04, 2009, 05:55:02 AM

Well, first consider where you are posting these things... Lots of people here will say the majority of main stream physics is a big conspiracy.. Which is fine (imo) if they can provide real evidence to support it.

There is a big conspiracy with main stream physics. It is not being taught correctly. The universities having one set of physics books, while the physicists working for the military have another set of physics books that is different from the universities.

The question is, which set of physics books do you want to learn from, aside from you're own theories, so you can formulate and extend those theories further with correct concepts?

newbie123 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 04, 2009, 12:04:11 PM »

Quote from: gravityblock on July 04, 2009, 06:41:26 AM

There is a big conspiracy with main stream physics. It is not being taught correctly. The universities having one set of physics books, while the physicists working for the military have another set of physics books that is different from the universities.

The question is, which set of physics books do you want to learn from, aside from you're own theories, so you can formulate and extend those theories further with correct concepts?

Why would this be a conspiracy? Or do you believe that military physicists have "futuristic information" in their books .. i.e. how anti-gravity is possible, etc.

IotaYodi · « **Reply #20 on:** July 04, 2009, 02:49:13 PM »

You would have to consider the whole electromagnetic spectrum not just the visible parts. The larger the wavelength the lower the energy. They all travel at the same speed according to physics data. The interesting part is that visible light is sitting in the center of the electromagnetic spectrum. I guess it would be possible that the whole electromagnetic spectrum travels in blocks. With the lower and opposite higher energy states creating a circuit within the block itself, thus creating a balance in the center creating light.
Pure speculation on my part.

gravityblock · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2009, 05:54:19 PM »

Quote from: IotaYodi on July 04, 2009, 02:49:13 PM

You would have to consider the whole electromagnetic spectrum not just the visible parts. The larger the wavelength the lower the energy. They all travel at the same speed according to physics data.

They may all travel the same linear speed or travel the same linear distance within the same given amount of Time, but the gamma rays will travel more space due to making more turns in their corkscrew motion as compared to a radio wave. If you stretched their corkscrew motion out into a linear distance, then it would be easy to see that the gamma rays are traveling more space than a radio wave and has a higher speed. This can be easily seen with your illustration on the electromagnetic spectrum.

Take two cars. One car is going 20mph in a straight line, and another car is going 40mph swerving back and forth. One car may have a greater speed and moving faster, but they will travel the same linear distance within the same time, due to the other car swerving.

This is the reason for them traveling the same linear distance and have the same linear speed.

The correct terminology would be that all of the electromagnetic spectrum travels at the same linear speed, but the higher frequencies with lower wavelengths have a greater overall speed with more energy than the lower frequencies with a higher wavelengths.

Hopefully I have made myself clear on this, because this is how space and time are tied together which is what the Relativity Theory is based on.

gravityblock · « **Reply #22 on:** July 04, 2009, 06:14:56 PM »

Quote from: newbie123 on July 04, 2009, 12:04:11 PM

Why would this be a conspiracy? Or do you believe that military physicists have "futuristic information" in their books .. i.e. how anti-gravity is possible, etc.

I'll let you decide on this. I will say that the military physic books are much well written, with better terms and more correct terminology. All of the errors and mistakes in the universities physics books have been corrected in the military physic books. Also their books are updated more often with the best scientific data.

Futuristic information? Maybe

Why do you think the technology that the military has is most of the time 20 - 40 years ahead of the knowledge of the general public. The most advanced technology that the military has today that is top secret, will not be public knowledge until 20+ years from now, unless they decide to give a public display in time of war, etc. This is a scary thought.

The stealth technology is a good example, but is really peanuts compared to the knowledge and technology they don't want us to know they have. I would say the military has super quantum computers, which opens up an entire universe for other applications and technologies when combined with nano and other advanced technologies, which they already have.

newbie123 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 04, 2009, 06:15:34 PM »

GB,

Where are you getting your information exactly? Seriously... Your information is so flawed it's not even funny.

Quote from: gravityblock on July 04, 2009, 05:54:19 PM

They may all travel the same linear speed or travel the same linear distance within the same given amount of Time, but the gamma rays will travel more space due to making more turns in their corkscrew motion as compared to a radio wave.

What is this crap? Gamma rays will NOT "travel more space due to making more turns in their corkscrew motion as compared to a radio wave" ... This single sentence is full of misinformation.... Corkscrew motion? Did you make this up? RF waves and gamma rays travel the same linear distance, true.. I'm pretty sure their tangential distances are the same as well.. Unless the longer EM waves travel more distance (not the other way around).

Quote

If you stretched their corkscrew motion out into a linear distance, then it would be easy to see that the gamma rays are traveling more space than a radio wave and has a higher speed. This can be easily seen with your illustration on the electromagnetic spectrum.

Do you even understand (or care) that main stream physics considers EM waves as transverse waves? Not a "corkscrew motion"? Do you understand that RF waves are longer than gamma?

Quote

Take two cars. One car is going 20mph in a straight line, and another car is going 40mph swerving back and forth. One car may have a greater speed and moving faster, but they will travel the same linear distance within the same time, due to the other car swerving.

This is the reason for them traveling the same linear distance and have the same linear speed.

The correct terminology would be that all of the electromagnetic spectrum travels at the same linear speed, but the higher frequencies with lower wavelengths have a greater overall speed with more energy than the lower frequencies with a higher wavelengths.

This analogy has nothing to do with EM waves..

Quote

Hopefully I have made myself clear on this, because this is how space and time are tied together which is what the Relativity Theory is based on.

Relativity is based on this?

? Really, now....

newbie123 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 04, 2009, 06:26:38 PM »

Quote from: gravityblock on July 04, 2009, 06:14:56 PM

I'll let you decide on this. I will say that the military physic books are much well written, with better terms and more correct terminology. All of the errors and mistakes in the universities physics books have been corrected in the military physic books. Also their books are updated more often with the best scientific data.

Futuristic information? Maybe

Why do you think the technology that the military has is most of the time 20 - 40 years ahead of the knowledge of the general public. The most advanced technology that the military has today that is top secret, will not be public knowledge until 20+ years from now, unless they decide to give a public display in time of war, etc. This is a scary thought.

The stealth technology is a good example, but is really peanuts compared to the knowledge and technology they don't want us to know they have. I would say the military has super quantum computers, which opens up an entire universe for other applications and technologies when combined with nano and other advanced technologies, which they already have.

Give me a break dude.. Everything thing you've said here is completely retarded.

Just show me proof that Military physics books have "better terminology" and "less errors" than universities...

gravityblock · « **Reply #25 on:** July 04, 2009, 06:45:09 PM »

Quote from: newbie123 on July 04, 2009, 06:15:34 PM

GB,

Where are you getting your information exactly? Seriously... Your information is so flawed it's not even funny.

What is this crap? Gamma rays will NOT "travel more space due to making more turns in their corkscrew motion as compared to a radio wave" ... This single sentence is full of misinformation.... Corkscrew motion? Did you make this up? RF waves and gamma rays travel the same linear distance, true.. But IF there is a difference in their tangential distance, don't you think the shorter wave (high energy) photon would have less distance to travel?

Do you even understand (or care) that main stream physics considers EM waves as transverse waves? Not a "corkscrew motion"? Do you understand that RF waves are longer than gamma?

This analogy has nothing to do with EM waves..

Relativity is based on this?? Really, now....

Transverse and corkscrew are the same thing. Transverse waves are oscillating up and down perpendicular to the direction of travel. If you plot it on a 2D surface, then it will have a wave motion that is up and down with a line going through the middle. When you plot it in 3D, then you can see how it has a corkscrew motion.

This is another thing. Teaching something that is 3D or 4D in nature and plotting in on a 2D surface doesn't work very well.

Radio waves have a lower frequency with a longer wavelength, than a gamma ray. This is true, but the amplitude is greater or higher with a radio wave, meaning it will make less turns, thus moving in a straighter line.

If you stretched out their up and down distances as they travel with their forward distances, then you will see that the gamma rays do travel more space and more distance than a radio wave and has a greater overall speed, but their linear speeds are the same.

You keep thinking and learning in 2D, and I will think and learn in 3D and 4D.

gravityblock · « **Reply #26 on:** July 04, 2009, 06:51:48 PM »

Quote from: newbie123 on July 04, 2009, 06:26:38 PM

Give me a break dude.. Everything thing you've said here is completely retarded.

Just show me proof that Military physics books have "better terminology" and "less errors" than universities...

You're starting with personal attacks now. Why don't you find the proof for yourself, instead of asking everyone else to prove something for you. I'm not going to do your work for you.

I could care less what you think, it is obvious that the military has knowledge that isn't being taught in the universities. Believe what you want, it will not change what they know.

newbie123 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 04, 2009, 07:05:59 PM »

Quote from: gravityblock on July 04, 2009, 06:51:48 PM

You're starting with personal attacks now.

Sorry, I can only take so much bull shit...

Quote

Why don't you find the proof for yourself, instead of asking everyone else to prove something for you. I'm not going to do your work for you.

That isn't how it works!! If you claim something as a fact, you need to be able to support it with references (proof), NOT the other way around.

Think about it...

Here's an example,

Someone could claim they have a 100 lb frog in their backyard... Then say to a skeptic "Prove that I don't have a huge 100 lb frog in my backyard"... without even giving an address/city, video, pictures, etc... This is essentially what you are doing and it's completely idiotic....

newbie123 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 04, 2009, 07:06:45 PM »

Quote from: gravityblock on July 04, 2009, 06:45:09 PM

Transverse and corkscrew are the same thing.

Wrong again!

If you want to speculate (aka Philosophy) that's fine, but make it clear that you're doing so.. (unless you like spreading misinformation)

gravityblock · « **Reply #29 on:** July 04, 2009, 07:18:15 PM »

Quote from: newbie123 on July 04, 2009, 07:06:45 PM

Wrong again!

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.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Light is converted gravity (Read 28379 times)

newbie123

Re: Light is converted gravity

gravityblock

Re: Light is converted gravity

newbie123

Re: Light is converted gravity

gravityblock

Re: Light is converted gravity

newbie123

Re: Light is converted gravity

IotaYodi

Re: Light is converted gravity

gravityblock

Re: Light is converted gravity

gravityblock

Re: Light is converted gravity

newbie123

Re: Light is converted gravity

newbie123

Re: Light is converted gravity

gravityblock

Re: Light is converted gravity

gravityblock

Re: Light is converted gravity

newbie123

Re: Light is converted gravity

newbie123

Re: Light is converted gravity

gravityblock

Re: Light is converted gravity