Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: brian334 on July 03, 2009, 12:46:31 AM
-
Light travels at the speed of light.
How long does it take light to accelerate to
the speed of light?
The instant light is created it is traveling at
at its maximum speed.
So what ever light comes from is already traveling
at the speed of light.
Gravity is where light comes from.
-
Light has mass and momentum.
Gravity also has mass and momentum.
Light is the visible from of gravity
-
Light travels at the speed of light.
How long does it take light to accelerate to
the speed of light?
The instant light is created it is traveling at
at its maximum speed.
So what ever light comes from is already traveling
at the speed of light.
Right.
Gravity is where light comes from.
Wrong.
-
123,
Thank you for your intellectual statement
on the issue.
-
Light from the sun is pushing the earth
out into space, at the same time gravity
from the sun is sucking the earths mass
in making the earth lighter, the earth mass
than gets turned into light and gravity
pushing the earth further out into space.
-
The sun spits out the planets,
than the suns gravity sucks
the mass of the planets back in.
-
Light has mass and momentum.
Gravity also has mass and momentum.
Light is the visible from of gravity
Yes, those light bulbs sure have lots of mass. Much more than, say, a 10 ton boulder. Which explains why light bulbs are so bright and boulders are so dim.
-
Light from the sun is pushing the earth
out into space, at the same time gravity
from the sun is sucking the earths mass
in making the earth lighter, the earth mass
than gets turned into light and gravity
pushing the earth further out into space.
I'm not following you. Are you saying light and gravity are somehow related? Or are you just saying light comes from objects with gravity?
-
Gravity is the quintessential of energy, Energy is work, Gravity tries to store energy to conserve it. Energy is time and time is energy that means gravity would be the conservative of time and energy. Gravity is the condensation of energy and or time. which also leads to mass. mass is condensated energy.
Quintessential:
the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element, ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies, the others being air, fire, earth, and water.
Jerry ;)
-
Gravity is the quintessential of energy, Energy is work, Gravity tries to store energy to conserve it. Energy is time and time is energy that means gravity would be the conservative of time and energy. Gravity is the condensation of energy and or time. which also leads to mass. mass is condensated energy.
Quintessential:
the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element, ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies, the others being air, fire, earth, and water.
Jerry ;)
This is an interesting terminology in describing gravity ("Gravity is the condensation of energy and or time."). In a way, that is exacting what is happening. I posted something in another thread that is similar to this idea in principal. Your version is shorter and sweeter, fine tuned a little more, but my version is telling the same story in long form. LOL
"Poetry in Motion",
GB :)
-
Gravity is the quintessential of energy, Energy is work, Gravity tries to store energy to conserve it. Energy is time and time is energy that means gravity would be the conservative of time and energy. Gravity is the condensation of energy and or time. which also leads to mass. mass is condensated energy.
Quintessential:
the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element, ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies, the others being air, fire, earth, and water.
Jerry ;)
Energy = Time? This is all home brew physics... Not truth. Why do you guys spew your own theories as if they're facts?
-
Hi Newbie.
there is no way around it, Time is a measurement of work, work is energy, therefor time is a unit function of energy. Gravity is the conservation of energy and time, it is the stored energy that condensates to and or into matter itself.
if there is no work, there is no time, if there is no time then there is no work.
what part of this do you don't understand? or are you going to throw Wiki and Physics at me that I have already studied?
oh and newbie, you might get a better conversation out of this if you weren't so snotty. I know a great deal about Physics so don't go there.
Jerry :)
-
Hi Newbie.
there is no way around it, Time is a measurement of work, work is energy, therefor time is a unit function of energy. Gravity is the conservation of energy and time, it is the stored energy that condensates to and or into matter itself.
if there is no work, there is no time, if there is no time then there is no work.
what part of this do you don't understand? or are you going to throw Wiki and Physics at me that I have already studied?
oh and newbie, you might get a better conversation out of this if you weren't so snotty. I know a great deal about Physics so don't go there.
Jerry :)
If you know a great deal about physics, it must be some secret kind of physics.
Time is not a measurement of work. Work is the application of force over a distance. Time does not factor into it.
Second, work is not energy. Energy is the ability to do work, but the two are not the same thing.
Based on these two flawed assumptions, your conclusions are therefore also wrong.
-
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
-
Energy = Time? This is all home brew physics... Not truth. Why do you guys spew your own theories as if they're facts?
I'll have to agree with cuttingedge on Time = Energy. There is only one force in the universe and that is time. Space, energy, and mass are different manifestations of Time. I said this about 7 months ago in another thread.
This is not home brew physics. This is built on top of the currently accepted theories on physics. Some of this stuff is more than 100 years old. All scientific experiments to date, agrees with the Relativity Theory. Time is not constant and is variable. Time being variable is the cause of light to have the same speed value in all frames of references. Time is a variable, while the speed of light is a (C)onstant in all frames. C = Constant, for the speed of light.
If you're traveling at half the speed of light, you will measure light to be C as it passes by you. You will also measure light to be C, if you're moving towards light at half C. The speed of light will have the same value weather you are moving towards or away from light at any speed. This is due to Time. Time is also why light reaches C instantaneously.
Here's a link to explain this. There is no other explanation for this, other than Time. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1201649/time_travel_einsteins_big_idea_theory_of_relativity/
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
GB,
Where are you getting your information exactly? Seriously... Your information is so flawed it's not even funny.
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).
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?
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..
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....
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
You're starting with personal attacks now.
Sorry, I can only take so much bull shit...
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....
-
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)
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
IotaYodi says:
You would have to consider the whole electromagnetic spectrum not just the visible parts.
I agree.
334
-
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.
-
Yes, I have thought about post #27, but #27 doesn't seem to apply to yourself, it only applies to me. LOL
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
Now if you apply philosophy to this concept, and say photons (in some other dimension perhaps) are "spinning" because they have quantum spin.. Maybe you really have transverse waves actually spinning.. Which would be a corkscrew like feature...
But this isn't physics.. It's philosophy (right now).
-
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.
-
There are translational waves, which is destructive interference, going on here also. These type of waves would have a great influence overall I think. I would assume they come about from different wavelengths constantly colliding and creating other wavelengths.
Question: If the entire Electromagnetic spectrum is really in blocks then what is the total width of all the wavelengths added up?
Too high of a math question for me. :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
Electricity flows from the positive to the negative.
Light and gravity are the positive and the mass of the sun is the negative.
The sun grounds the solar system.
-
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.
-
@ newbie and others:
Here's a link by Maurice Cotterrell, http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html . He talks about helical waves or corkscrew waves. It's a really good read. He covers the EM waves, the atoms structure, gravity, galaxies, missing matter, etc in only 15 pages.
I may not agree with everything in those pages, but most of it, I agree with or makes sense to me.
Only trying to provide some reference materials. Please read the pages in the link, they are very informative.
Thanks,
GB
-
@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 ;D
"This is the half baked section, philosophy based on correct physics rules here"
-
@ newbie and others:
Here's a link by Maurice Cotterrell, http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html . He talks about helical waves or corkscrew waves. It's a really good read. He covers the EM waves, the atoms structure, gravity, galaxies, missing matter, etc in only 15 pages.
I may not agree with everything in those pages, but most of it, I agree with or makes sense to me.
Only trying to provide some reference materials. Please read the pages in the link, they are very informative.
Thanks,
GB
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
-
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
-
Deleted due to being off-topic.
-
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.
Well, (apparently) Not recognizing the strong force is pretty big problem, since there is overwelming experimental evidence to prove it exists.
Even if it's in a peer review journal, it will still be his theory.
That's right. But getting a theory accepted in a peer review journal adds credibility, and shows he's open to criticism... But his theories have some huge problems, and aren't compatible with proven physics..
Look how long it took mainstream physics to accept Einstein's theory on relativity. Some to this day still do not accept it.
So far Einstein's theories have had an incredible amount of accuracy AND supporting data/evidence, and there is absolutely no reason to believe they aren't valid theories at this point... The difference between Einstein and most crank theoriests are 1.) he accepted criticism and really tried hard to push his theory in accepted ways... 2.) He was well aware of existing science (most crank theorists are not).
-
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.
Where the hell are you getting all of your information? Physicists are still looking for 300 theorized particles?
The Standard Model has been very successful at predicting the existence of particles and their behaviors (key word: PREDICTING) and the only missing particle AFAIK is the Higgs Boson... And the exact nature of the graviton is cutting edge theoretical quantum physics right now.
-
Where the hell are you getting all of your information? Physicists are still looking for 300 theorized particles?
The Standard Model has been very successful at predicting the existence of particles and their behaviors (key word: PREDICTING) and the only missing particle AFAIK is the Higgs Boson... And the exact nature of the graviton is cutting edge theoretical quantum physics right now.
I'm getting my information from people who can think own their own, without having other people to do their thinking for them.
You have a lot to learn. I'll upload a video here soon, about all of the particles they are looking for. Have to work for a few hours right now and don't have the time at the moment to look for it.
I think that the observations of lensing indicate that a quantum theory of gravity, based on gravitons interacting with every particle including individual photons, cannot be correct. For graviton interaction to be correct, a photon would have to follow a polygonal path as it passes a massive body, each segment of the polygon being, perhaps, of planck length.
-
Duplicate Post, sorry
-
I'm getting my information from people who can think own their own, without having other people to do their thinking for them.
You have a lot to learn. I'll upload a video here soon, about all of the particles they are looking for. Have to work for a few hours right now and don't have the time at the moment to look for it.
I think that the observations of lensing indicate that a quantum theory of gravity, based on gravitons interacting with every particle including individual photons, cannot be correct. For graviton interaction to be correct, a photon would have to follow a polygonal path as it passes a massive body, each segment of the polygon being, perhaps, of planck length.
Lol... Dude, you are so full of bull shit and misinformation that it's not even funny.... Here is my challenge to you:
Just show me ONE reference that confirms this claim made by you:
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.
300, huh? Show me one reference... Just one that has an ounce of credibility..
-
Show me one reference... Just one that has an ounce of credibility..
Did I not say I will show you a video on the particles they are looking for? But yet you still demanding I do this after I said I would. There is something definitely wrong with you.
There is nothing that has credibility in your eyes, other than yourself or your reference material! And you will be the judge of that one ounce, right? LOL
-
Sigh.... Ok. Post your YouTube video.
-
@ newbie and others:
Here's a link by Maurice Cotterrell, http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html . He talks about helical waves or corkscrew waves. It's a really good read. He covers the EM waves, the atoms structure, gravity, galaxies, missing matter, etc in only 15 pages.
I may not agree with everything in those pages, but most of it, I agree with or makes sense to me.
Only trying to provide some reference materials. Please read the pages in the link, they are very informative.
Thanks,
GB
Great read makes sense to me, I wonder if a magnate motor could be made this way.
-
Great read makes sense to me, I wonder if a magnate motor could be made this way.
I wonder if it could power a bullshit motor too. Enough BS in that article and in gravityblocks posts to last quite a while.
-
Sigh.... Ok. Post your YouTube video.
I've located the video, but you have already pre-judged the video since it's on YouTube and not in a peer review journal. I'll receive the same response from you as I did in showing you a reference of the electromagnetic waves being corkscrew or helical. This video also has references to the EM waves being helical.
Also, on the first page of Cotterell's link, it mentions them looking for more than 300 theorized particles, but that is not a credible source in your eyes, and I doubt the video is credible in your eyes either.
I am through wasting my time with you. I don't care what you say from here on out. I will not defend any statements I made or will make in order to prove them to be credible. It is up to you to decide what I say or anyone else says is credible or not. Do your own research and decide for yourself.
There is an option to ignore all postings made by an individual. You're now on the iggy list. Fire away, cause I won't see anything you post. :)
-
I've located the video, but you have already pre-judged the video since it's on YouTube and not in a peer review journal. I'll receive the same response from you as I did in showing you a reference of the electromagnetic waves being corkscrew or helical. This video also has references to the EM waves being helical.
Also, on the first page of Cotterell's link, it mentions them looking for more than 300 theorized particles, but that is not a credible source in your eyes, and I doubt the video is credible in your eyes either.
I am through wasting my time with you. I don't care what you say from here on out. I will not defend any statements I made or will make in order to prove them to be credible. It is up to you to decide what I say or anyone else says is credible or not. Do your own research and decide for yourself.
There is an option to ignore all postings made by an individual. You're now on the iggy list. Fire away, cause I won't see anything you post. :)
Good idea.. I'm tired of trying to get through to you..... It's crystal clear that you need to live in a fantasy world for whatever reason... So.. Have fun there..
-
Btw,
GB, Your attitude is pretty typical... All talk... You can't defend your ideas with proven science.... Then when you get cornered by a naysayer you cry and leave without ever posting a single link supporting your theories... (aka not open to criticism)
Go post your thoughts on a physics board, maybe they can get through to you..
-
Newbie ignored! ;D
-
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Getting rid of the trolls!
-
@GB
-
Great read makes sense to me, I wonder if a magnate motor could be made this way.
If nature is doing it, then I don't see why we can't do it also. Before we can emulate nature, we have to know how she is doing it first.
Cotterell's link could answer a lot of questions that the currently accepted model of the atom does not, due to possible flaws in their model for the atom. I have to be careful with the words I use, cause things are easily taken out of context here.
The neutron could be where science went wrong in modeling the atom correctly.
Thanks Dave,
GB
*Disclaimer, please do your own research in what I say and decide for yourself if it is correct or not. <---- I shouldn't need this, most people already know this. LOL
-
Check out newbie's profile, then view his posts and you'll see the same pattern continue. This guy is nothing but a distraction and nuisance where ever he goes in this forum. No doubt that he is a Troll. I apologize to all for doing this, but this stuff needs to stop. It is not my intention on derailing this thread. I am only trying to have a discussion that is on-topic here, but that is impossible to do with a Troll running wild.
I fell for the trap and went off-topic. I became a distraction myself and derailed this thread, like he wanted.
Sorry,
GB
-
I consider myself a neutral observer with no formal physics training and if you put the two theory's side by side the Velcro theory fails miserably I mean come on the velcro would implode and explode at the same time.
Does mainstream science expect everyone to follow this bullshit, the blind leading the blind.
The negative and positive neutrino seems far more plausible.
-
Light travels at the speed of light.
How long does it take light to accelerate to
the speed of light?
...
Light doesn't accelerate. It exists only at light speed and is created by quanta actions in matter.
If light accelerated then its wave length would be dependant on the distance from the source. This has never been observed.
-
Check out newbie's profile, then view his posts and you'll see the same pattern continue. This guy is nothing but a distraction and nuisance where ever he goes in this forum. No doubt that he is a Troll. I apologize to all for doing this, but this stuff needs to stop. It is not my intention on derailing this thread. I am only trying to have a discussion that is on-topic here, but that is impossible to do with a Troll running wild.
I fell for the trap and went off-topic. I became a distraction myself and derailed this thread, like he wanted.
Sorry,
GB
I fell for the trap and went off-topic. I became a distraction myself and derailed this thread, like he wanted.
GB,
Sorry, I just can't stand idiots who make up their own pseudoscience and talk about it as if it's facts...
This is called spreading misinformation, which the Cotterell link is doing as well.... Some aspects of the theory might be "open" but not recognizing the strong force is huge flaw... I'll find all the flaws later and post them, since this is now the topic of discussion.
BTW, This "Half-baked" section is the "peer review" section of OU.com ... If you post an idea here you should expect criticism, and be ready to back what you say with facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) or experiment.
-
Exnihiloest,
When quanti create light how fast
are the moving?
-
If light accelerated then its wave length would be dependant on the distance from the source. This has never been observed.
If a light source (i.e. flashlight) is moving towards an observer, the wavelength seen by the observer will (Doppler) red shift according to its velocity (increase energy, have shorter wavelengths).. Light is always moving at "c" ~ 300,000,000 meters/second... It never accelerates or decelerates, but experiences frequency/wavelength "adjustments".
-
If a light source (i.e. flashlight) is moving towards an observer, the wavelength seen by the observer will (Doppler) red shift according to its velocity (increase energy, have shorter wavelengths).. Light is always moving at "c" ~ 300,000,000 meters/second... It never accelerates or decelerates, but experiences frequency/wavelength "adjustments".
It is true that a gravitational field can cause light to red shift, and this can be seen as a color change or the frequency/wavelength changing while having no speed change, such as passing a large mass or other large energy source. Why does it increase in energy but doesn't increase in it's speed? The simple answer is because it lost a little bit of Time when it's energy increased. Since it lost some Time, then it doesn't have Time to increase it's speed. It basically converted Time into energy, thus mass/energy slows Time. It's also related to the frequency/wavelength, but that is related to Time/space also.
You're overlooking something though and confusing two different phenomenons. Let's take two observers with different speeds relative to each other where the light source is moving towards both observers, but where the light source itself will be outside the range of any gravitational fields including the gravitational fields of the observers. One observer is moving at half C and the other observer is moving at a quarter of C.
The frequency/wavelength of the light can not adjust to have different values for both observers simultaneously. Both observers will calculate the light source to have the same frequency, wavelength, and speed. There will be no red shift for either observer.
If the light source passed through a gravitational field, then both observers will see the same color change of the light and will calculate the frequency/wavelength/speed to be the same. What changes is Time.
Since Time is ticking for each observer at different rates according to their speed (energy/mass), then each observer will calculate the light source, to have the same speed, frequency, and wavelength. Time is variable according to your speed or energy/mass, and the speed of light is constant in all frames due to Time being variable. This is true for the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum also.
Light and the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum never adjusts it's speed/frequency/wavelength according to the observer or observers (like it knows who is watching or how many is watching it....LOL). If this is the case, as in moving through a gravitational field for example, then all observers will calculate this change and come up with the same values, regardless of their speed/energy/mass/etc.
They teach you this stuff in physics? LOL
P.S. I'm still ignoring you, but you left yourself wide open and is misinformation on your part. Why you spreading misinformation, since you hate this so much? LOL
-
If a light source (i.e. flashlight) is moving towards an observer, the wavelength seen by the observer will (Doppler) red shift according to its velocity (increase energy, have shorter wavelengths).. Light is always moving at "c" ~ 300,000,000 meters/second... It never accelerates or decelerates, but experiences frequency/wavelength "adjustments".
i see noobs make this error often. incorrectly assuming c is always constant. the constant velocity of light is only true in non-accelerating systems (i.e. special relativity).
the real world of accelerating systems and thus gravity (i.e. general relativity) is founded on a changing velocity of light in a gravitational field, which is in turn created by matter.
-
It is true that a gravitational field can cause light to red shift, and this can be seen as a color change or the frequency/wavelength changing while having no speed change, such as passing a large mass or other large energy source. Why does it increase in energy but doesn't increase in it's speed? The simple answer is because it lost a little bit of Time when it's energy increased. Since it lost some Time, then it doesn't have Time to increase it's speed. It basically converted Time into energy, thus mass/energy slows Time. It's also related to the frequency/wavelength, but that is related to Time/space also.
Lost time? Photons experience 0 time since they're traveling at c... How can photons "lose time" if they never experience it?
You're overlooking something though and confusing two different phenomenons. Let's take two observers with different speeds relative to each other where the light source is moving towards both observers, but where the light source itself will be outside the range of any gravitational fields including the gravitational fields of the observers. One observer is moving at half C and the other observer is moving at a quarter of C.
The frequency/wavelength of the light can not adjust to have different values for both observers simultaneously. Both observers will calculate the light source to have the same frequency, wavelength, and speed. There will be no red shift for either observer.
Yes is can actually. The two different observers will see two different wavelengths from the same light source...
If the light source passed through a gravitational field, then both observers will see the same color change of the light and will calculate the frequency/wavelength/speed to be the same. What changes is Time.
The wavelengths will adjust accordingly, considering both gravity and relative velocity... And "Time" is irrelevant.
Since Time is ticking for each observer at different rates according to their speed (energy/mass), then each observer will calculate the light source, to have the same speed, frequency, and wavelength.
Time is variable according to your speed or energy/mass, and the speed of light is constant in all frames due to Time being variable. This is true for the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum also.
Time isn't variable.. It's just relative. If you were traveling at .9999c your frame's time would pass the same as it is right now on earth... You would never really know that your time was moving slower unless you had something to compare it to.. I.E a traveler moving at .999c
Light and the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum never adjusts it's speed/frequency/wavelength according to the observer or observers (like it knows who is watching or how many is watching it....LOL). If this is the case, as in moving through a gravitational field for example, then all observers will calculate this change and come up with the same values, regardless of their speed/energy/mass/etc.
Umm... Wow. You really need to go do some real reading (NOT YOUTUBE)... This is prefect example of your misunderstandings. EM waves really do "know who is watching" them, they will shift frequency and wavelength (NOT VELOCITY) depending on the observers "relative environment" (gravity/velocity).
-
Light travels at the speed of light this is true, however the speed of light as we know it (186,000mps), travels faster in a vacuum such as space. It also bends around masses like stars, planetary bodies, etc. This is due to the stars or planetary bodies gravity. Black holes are like a gravitational sink hole which pulls light into itself, not producing light. So gravity effects light but does not necessarily make it. Light radiates from the spending of energy. Our sun gives off light because it is fusing elements together not by burning them. Remember you need oxygen to burn and there is very little of it on the sun if any, and what little there is would burn off.
Gravity of the sun is great enough to squeeze its masses together causing the elements like hydrogen and so forth to fuse together making a lot of heat and light of which not all is visible. It also prevents the gasses like hydrogen to just float out into space. I don't know much about gravity, but I am sure it does not make light. And if it does, it does so indirectly. To prove this I leave you this thought, when our sun burns out its mass will be about the size of the earth with lots and lots of gravity and producing no visible light.
-
Light travels at the speed of light this is true, however the speed of light as we know it (186,000mps), travels faster in a vacuum such as space.
In vacuum the speed of light is constant.. But in transparent mediums the speed of light will appear to be less than c, due to slower propagation rates... But I believe the speed of light between the absorption and emission (in vacuum) in matter is still "c" ... so when EM radiation is traveling slower than c, it's just an "illusion" ... I could be wrong though. It's been a while since I looked into this.
-
Delta,
When the sun burns out how do you
know what its mass will be?
-
You need to explain more. Black holes are nothing but gravity and light does not come out of them. javascript:void(0);
-
If gravity has mass than mass is transferred by gravity from one object to another.
-
Gravity is a Tensor field, it is a product of mass and energy, the Tensor field around matter and energy is the Gravitational influence.
it is set apart as it's own force.
even an electric field has a Tensor field around its own electromagnetic field.
it envelopes matter and energy.
Tensor fields would be something to look into here.
Tensor fields are the 'warping' around matter and energy.
Jerry ;)
-
You should read this wright up called FTL Photons by John G. Cramer here is the site. <http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw43.html> It may help.