Cheezle, Arguing with you is unproductive.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Photon in an acceleration field
- Thread starter Mazulu
- Start date
Cheezle, Arguing with you is unproductive.
Before we got sidetracked, the conversation was about tachyons traveling faster than light, the relativity of simultaneity and causality. My omly point was that FTL phenomena can certainly cause an event to be observed backwards (almost like playing a song backwards), but that you can't undo the past or change causal events. If someone steps on a landmine and is blown to bits, you cannot undo that. But you can observe the events occurring backwards. I hope I didn't offend anyone with that imagery.
I didn't say anything of the sort. String theory is the extreme end of mathematical constructs in theoretical physics. I'm asking you to provide any derivation of any result, in a clear logical manner.You want me to give you a string theory mathematical model, which is completely unnecessary.
Not accepting "God told me" isn't a slanted point of view, it's the scientific point of view.You are perpetuating a bogus argument from a slanted point of view.
Firstly the photon doesn't have an anti-particle, since it carries no charges of any kind. Thus an anti-photon is a photon. So well done on showing you don't even know what science actually says. Secondly, you obviously don't have the mathematical capabilities to understand the maths, instead you're relying on people who supposedly do understand it interpreting it into a form you can grasp. Since you obviously have such a close mind that you cannot accept there might be things in the universe which run counter to your experience it's not surprising you don't grasp the details. And finally, anti-matter is not quite the same as a particle going back in time. Firstly it doesn't carry information back in time and secondly C and T symmetries in quantum field theory are different. But hey, don't let things like facts get in the way of your constant misrepresentation of work you cannot fathom.I had professors of physics who told me to look at the mathematics to see if it makes sense. If the mathematics is telling you that you can create anti-photons that carry information into the past, then clearly there is something wrong with the math.
You make it sound like a bad thing that general relativity predicted it. Einstein predicted the effect decades before we could measure it. It is a triumph of his work that it was accurate. Besides, no one just took his word for it, people went out and did experiments. Initially his work was not very well received. When news of GR's prediction about light deflection being confirmed and Newton's prediction being falsified reached the Royal Society there was uproar. People could hardly believe it. Hence more experiments were begin. And they continue to this day.Gravitational time dilation tells you that the progression of time slows down as a photon falls along the radii of a black hole. Why? Besides the fact that this is calculated to be so by general relativity, the other reason you have to take some time to think about.
Well done on repeating the Pound-Rebka experiment from decades ago, which confirmed Einstein's predictions.I will try to set up the thought experiment. You can't build a tower on a neutron star or a black hole because gravity forces would crush the tower. But if you could, you could set up a function generator/amplifier/antenna at the top of the tower. The antenna would direct waves from the frequency generator down to the bottom of the tower/base of the tower. The waves would effectively travel (fall) along the radii to the base. At the base, there is an antenna that detects the incoming waves. The waves are counted by a frequency counter.
I can program the function generator to emit 100MHz for 1 microsecond. With high confidence, I can expect to emit 100 cycles of electromagnetic radiation which travels down to the base, where the frequency counter is. If nothing deflects or blocks the 100 cycles, then my frequency counter at the base should measure 100 cycles as well. Nothing odd so far.
Only to those who cannot see beyond the bounds of their experience.Here is where it gets weird.
I'm not one of those people. You aren't saying anything new, in fact you're showing how unfamiliar you are with the existing literature. I guess god and aliens didn't keep you up to date. I'm well aware of how gravity affects light and matter.It is a surprise to many people that photons also increase their energy as they fall in an acceleration field; there are still many people who don't know that gravity acts on light as well as matter.
It surprises you perhaps but you're very close minded. You need to get over this utter misconception you have that everyone else is as poorly informed and as ignorant as you.Gravitational time dilation is the surprising truth that gravity acts on light as well as matter. Every photon emitted from the top of the tower is going to gain energy as it falls to the base. But a photon's energy is nothing more than E=hf. So it wouldn't be too surprising that 100 cycles of 100MHz radiation, emitted from the top, could be received as 100 cycles of 200MHz radiation. Would it? From that top to the bottom, yes, you get more energy at the base. But you don't get more photons. You also don't get more waves; you only get the 100 waves that you emitted. But those 100 waves have more energy now because gravity acts on photons (electromagnet radiation). Gravitational time dilation is a stunning shocker that surprises us.
Seriously, you're using a Disney film as an argument?In the 1979 movie, Black Hole, by Disney, there was nothing about gravitational time dilation.
Obviously you didn't hear very well because you couldn't even spell his bloody name right, it's Hawking. No s and it has a g at the end. And you didn't hear right because the question of 'how does time pass' is observer dependent. Someone falling into a black hole will experience time normally until they are killed by the gravitational effects. This would be well inside the event horizon if the black hole is large enough. However, to someone far from the black hole watching them fall in will see them move slower and slower, become more and more red shifted, never actually getting to the event horizon. Any action the person falling in does within the event horizon will never be seen by the person far from the black hole. I heard that from someone who had Hawking as their PhD supervisor. When I attended his lecture course. In the same department as him. I used to see him occasionally in the cafeteria area.A black hole was just this whirl pool looking thing that swallowed everything in real time. I heard it from Hawkins that time slows down as you approach the event horizon.
Rather than making irrelevant assertions about what laypersons may or may not think why don't you actually find out what people who study this stuff think? You obviously haven't bothered to find out because you didn't even know what Hawking actually says. And it wasn't Hawking who came up with that result, the first publication on black holes was by Schwarzchild in 1915, less than a year after Einstein and Hilbert published general relativity. Unfortunately he was then killed in the trenches of World War 1.There are some people who think that time stops at the event horizon.
If you knew the details you'd be able to do all of this formally. We could have an informed discussion about null geodesics about spinning, charged black holes in 4 dimensions. Well, we could do it in 10 dimensions if you want, I've got some experience with such things. But instead you're stuck just waving your arms, misrepresenting people whose work you've never read and clearly do not understand, believing yourself to be saying something informative. I'm sure you can get away with it with friends and family, waffling about nonsense and telling them god speaks to you (that's the kind of nonsense which will make people trust you in some parts of the US, rather than call for the men in white coats!) but it isn't going to wash here. Some of us not only read Hawking's book 'A Brief History of Time' but we can do all the calculations which lead to the results in said book.
So you've given some numbers there. Please show how you arrived at that specific relationship between frequency, distance and gravitational acceleration. It's things like that which might con people who don't like maths on even the most remedial level but it isn't going to fly here. As I said, I can do all the various GR calculations which construct photon orbits for spinning black holes or show a spinning black hole contains a ring singularity or why gravitational waves cannot be emitted from the collapse of a spherically symmetric star. But I'm not asking you for those, I'm asking you to justify the tiny, laughably basic, mathematical results you've given. That or admit all of the equations you're posting you're just pulling out of your backside.This is what gave me the idea that nature was doing something peculiar with EM radiation "cycles", time dilation and frequency shifting. This is what gave me the idea that the acceleration of gravity (across some distance) is coupled to frequency shift of EM waves. So I had the idea that it might work the other way (with some efficiency <1.0).
If $$g=2.9 trillion$$ g's of g-force, across a distance of 300 meters could induce a frequency shift from f to 2f, then perhaps it will work in reverse as some very tiny efficiency. By efficiency, I mean that a frequency shift from f to 2f, across 300 meters, might be able to induce a very small efficiency of 10^{-12}*g g's of g-force. Better technique could improve efficiency.
It isn't an argument of any kind, it's just vapid nonsense. You've convincing yourself your random suppositions are valid and then just piling one on top of the next. Now you've done that so much, claiming god has told you, that you're too emotionally invested to accept mistake. You think all of what you've said is 'common sense', as that's your guiding principle. As such accepting you're wrong about this would mean accepting you don't have a completely rational mind and your intuition is flawed in some places. This is something every honest scientist must accept, that there are things which behave completely unintuitively. You haven't realised this because you've never done any actual science, had to produce viable results, you've just waved your arms and claimed a hot line to your preferred deity.If you still don't understand, try to remember that it is a conceptual argument, not a mathematical argument. As a metaphor, the leader of a nation can easily overcome (kill) one enemy soldier; however, under very special circumstances, one enemy soldier can defeat the leader of a nation. It comes down to the details of the special circumstances.
I seriously doubt you could pass a high level science exam. You don't even seem to grasp the scientific method, to say nothing of your constant misrepresentation of what science and scientists say.But thank you for your contribution from middle school science.
And your interpretation of what time travel is in general relativity is also an utter misrepresentation. Travelling back into the past via something like a closed time-like curve doesn't somehow reverse the forces experienced by everything else in the universe, to make smashed glasses reassemble themselves or dead people come back to life or coffee and milk unmix. This is just another example of how your lack of knowledge about what science says leads you to making a strawman, dismissing what you think science says rather than what science actually says.Before we got sidetracked, the conversation was about tachyons traveling faster than light, the relativity of simultaneity and causality. My omly point was that FTL phenomena can certainly cause an event to be observed backwards (almost like playing a song backwards), but that you can't undo the past or change causal events. If someone steps on a landmine and is blown to bits, you cannot undo that. But you can observe the events occurring backwards. I hope I didn't offend anyone with that imagery.
Do you think this is going to get you anywhere? That if you keep ignoring glaring mistakes in your claims and your logic then eventually everyone, and even reality, will bend to your whims and confirm to your assertions? Do you think you're going to endear yourself to actual scientists who do research? Do you think you'll convince someone like Hawking you're right by misrepresenting his work to him and then spelling his name wrong? Do you believe that'll make him think "Wow, he's obviously got a good understanding of this. I should explore his ideas!". No, it'll make him think "Bloody hell, this guy hasn't got a clue what my work says, he obviously have no physics or maths knowledge and hasn't even been paying enough attention to spell my name properly!!".
The people you have to convince are people like myself or Prom or pryzk. We're the people who do the research, who would need to be convinced in order for the mainstream to move over to your point of view. Forums like this give you an opportunity for a back and fore, to communicate with such people so you can iron out any issues with how you present your work because, trust me, explaining yourself on a forum is a damn sight easier than convincing a journal reviewer. If you can't convince people like myself you're going to be suck on forums peddling your nonsense permanently. Just look at people like Farsight, Magneto and Sylwester. All of them have spend 5+ (sometimes 20+!!!) years pushing their nonsense, they fail on every single forum which has someone educated in maths/physics on and they've accomplished nothing. Try to use your time more wisely than them.
Firstly, there's nothing here which constitutes 'theory' in the proper use of that word. All there is is just random suppositions and guessing. Mazula can't provide the derivation of any viable model of any phenomenon, all he can do is butcher mainstream results. Secondly, can you provide an example of someone on this forum who isn't a mathematician/physicist by university education, has peddled their work here and has managed to get said work published in a reputable journal and is now being worked on by people in reputable research groups in universities or the private sector?"If you can't convince people like myself you're going to be suck on forums peddling your nonsense permanently." . . . Oh REALLY? . . . . is this not an Alternative Theories forum?
If someone posts their work here and really and truly wants their work to become the mainstream, to have it replace relativity or quantum field theory or whatever is the mainstream model, then at some point they are going to have to submit their work for review to a journal. They are going to have to present their work in a sufficiently clear, methodical and coherent manner so as to convince the reviewers the work has merit. It also then has to be good enough and justified enough to convince other people in the mainstream to stop working on whatever it is they are working on and change over to this new idea. Those people are people like pryzk, Guest, myself etc. If someone really and truly thinks they have something which they hope will replace the mainstream models then they have to be prepared to present their case to the mainstream via writing papers. Presenting your case via a paper is a lot harder than via a forum, because you have to anticipate the sorts of things the reader would wish to see you say, while on a forum you can respond to questions the reader might have. So someone who really and truly plans to get their work into the mainstream should view the requests for evidence, justification and details from people like myself as a warm up, training for when they have to convince people with decades of more experience and mathematical physics capabilities I can only imagine. This is a standard I would hope others hold me to if I were here peddling my personal ideas about science.
Of course if someone is just pitching random ideas for discussion then this doesn't really apply. But if someone really believes they have unlocked some secret of the universe no one else in the Human Race has done then it's reasonable to think they want people to know, else why come to a forum to tell people. The natural progression would then be from a forum to the literature and then into mainstream research. Not one person on this forum from outside the academic path to research has made that progression. Sure, people like Magneto and Farsight have paid vanity publishers to print copies of their nonsense but just barely above printing out their musings on A4 paper and handing out bundles of them on the street corner to people walking by. Farsight claims his work is worth 4 Nobel Prizes, that he's a world leader in understanding electromagnetism and knows more about quantum electrodynamics than the Nobel Prize winning mathematical physicist Paul Dirac, who unified quantum mechanics and invented quantum field theory. I've been asking Farsight for pretty much 5 years the same thing I just asked Mazula, to provide just one working quantitative predictive model of any real world phenomenon of his choice along with its derivation from the initial assumptions of his work. This is a standard thing any paper claiming to have developed some new explanation of some phenomenon would be expected to provide so it isn't unreasonable to ask of someone who thinks they deserve 4 Nobel Prizes. Farsight could not and still cannot provide. Now that he's been laughed off pretty much every English speaking physics (and a number of non-physics related) forums around he's made his own forum where people like he and Magneto spew nonsense at one another and slap each other on the back. In regards to their 'theories' Farsight has gone nowhere in 7 or 8 years, while for Magneto it's 20+. If Mazula doesn't learn from their mistakes then he's destined to repeat them. The same can be said for you.
"If you can't convince people like myself you're going to be suck on forums peddling your nonsense permanently." . . . Oh REALLY? . . . . is this not an Alternative Theories forum?
I thought that Alternative Theories, should have been kept in the science folder and just allowed a less mathematically rigorous blackboard to bounce ideas off of....., but it is where it is now.
Still anyone who posts anywhere, as if they are posting science, must expect those with some background in science, to challenge anything which obviously has fallen off the cart. There is some Fringe science which could still be called science, there is far more that seems to be just stuck in the ruts of past failed theories and intuition. Even some a bit further down in the muck, than that.
AlphaNumeric said:Of course if someone is just pitching random ideas for discussion then this doesn't really apply. But if someone really believes they have unlocked some secret of the universe no one else in the Human Race has done....
More likely they just have not read enough of what others and those in the past came up with. I have had a few eureka moments, one that I worked on for at least six months, before running a Goggle search only to discover it was old news, with all of the pros and cons included.
Imagination is good, but there is a downside inherent in the way the mind works. All too often if you tell yourself something long enough you begin to believe it, whether it is true or not. Within that trap lies the line between progress and deadened ideas.
This is the finale; nothing follows.I didn't say anything of the sort. String theory is the extreme end of mathematical constructs in theoretical physics. I'm asking you to provide any derivation of any result, in a clear logical manner.
Two fixed points exist along the radii of a gravitating object (black hole, planet, start, etc.); the points are labeled E (emitter) and (D) detector.
Emitter E emits an electromagnetic signal of 100 sinusoidal cycles (360 degrees/cycle * 100 cycles = 36000 degrees EM phase). The total EM phase is $$\Theta_E = f_E * \Delta t_E$$. The frequency emitted times the period of time necessary to emit equals 100 sinusoindal cycles.
Assuming the complete signal reaches the detector, the detector, must measure 100 cycles/36000 degrees of total EM phase. $$\Theta_D = f_D * \Delta t_D$$. Therefore, $$\Theta_E = \Theta_D$$. Emitter emits 36000 degrees of EM phase, the detector will detect 36000 degrees of EM phase.
So we have $$f_D * \Delta t_D = f_E * \Delta t_E$$. So we move frequencies to the left and time periods to the right to get, $$\frac{f_D}{f_E} = \frac{\Delta t_E}{\Delta t_D}$$
You have gravitational redshift on the left, gravitational time dilation on the right. If you can understand the significance, then you are on your way to understanding how the gravity drive works. If not, oh well. :shrug:
I'm not criticizing general relativity; I'm merely saying that GR surprised us. Nevertheless, that is the way the universe works; which is fine. We can still look for acceleration field generation technology. It's still there, it's just hard for some of us to recognize.You make it sound like a bad thing that general relativity predicted it. Einstein predicted the effect decades before we could measure it. It is a triumph of his work that it was accurate. Besides, no one just took his word for it, people went out and did experiments. Initially his work was not very well received. When news of GR's prediction about light deflection being confirmed and Newton's prediction being falsified reached the Royal Society there was uproar. People could hardly believe it. Hence more experiments were begin. And they continue to this day.
We can still look for acceleration field generation technology. It's still there, it's just hard for some of us to recognize.
And there you go again. You believe that this technology exists because space aliens told you it does. That is not a theory. That is hearsay at best, delusion most probable. You can't produce a space alien to back it up. You can't produce a alien space ship to demonstrate. You can't produce a human witness to vouch for you. You can't produce a working experiment. You can't produce a theory. In fact we don't even have a character witness for you. All we have is some guy with the moniker Mazulu who makes these far out claims. So we just have to take your word that they aliens are real and that they chose you to present this technology to the world. People here are not even skeptical of such a story. They know it is false. Sometimes I wonder if you are some psychologist who is just running an experiment on the forums here, but I can't imagine what the point would be. So that leaves troll or insane person. I think most people think the later. And that fact that you didn't realize this all before you started your campaign to bring gravity beam aether wave technology to the world, and that you think that telepathic communication with space aliens it perfect rational, just further justifies this opinion. And you have demonstrated that you can't science (or electronic technician) your way out of a wet paper bag. This last "derivation" of yours was laughable at best. Nothing more than some arithmetic or "middle school" algebra. What do you expect people to think? You seem to expect people to be amazed at your elite math and physics skills. You seem to be some modern Don Quixote. Fighting giants and producing ground breaking physics in your mind. But what people see is very different. I think that you should get some counseling. This is not normal behavior for a rational human being.
Except you have no reason to think your claims are valid. I could just as easily claim you're right and Buddha told me how to really build a time machine or a gravity drive or a machine which gives infinite free energy. When scientists consider what experiments to do they look at which ideas, models and theories need to be tested, which would give the most insight and which is most likely to amount to something. Massive accelerators or telescopes are built because we already have evidence suggesting the accuracy of the associated models and the models provide us with specific things to look for. You're just saying "Trust me". Why should anyone trust you? You've shown you're utterly ignorant of science, don't grasp basic logic, hold contradictory beliefs and believe you're in contract with god and aliens. If someone has $100 million to do an experiment they aren't going to just take some ignorant layperson's word for it, they're going to need justification. Before you start saying "I know things about gravity no one else does!" you need to show you can explain the things we do know about. If you can't explain the things we can measure why should anyone think you are right about the things we currently can't measure?We can still look for acceleration field generation technology. It's still there, it's just hard for some of us to recognize.
You're right, nothing did follow. If you seriously think what you've just given is a valid response to my request then you have absolutely no idea about the level of evidence and explanation required in science. You didn't derive anything, you didn't flow things follow from simple postulates, you didn't actually come up with anything. The level of the physical concepts you talked about is below high school level, with just as remedial a level in terms of mathematics.This is the finale; nothing follows.
If you really do have a job involving big expensive equipment then surely you're a lab monkey, someone who gets told what to do by the people who actually know the science and understand what to do with the equipment. I say this because you obviously have no clue about even basic electromagnetism, given the things you've said.
I asked you to show how you would compute the precise relationship between the change in altitude and the change in frequency. Saying "Time intervals change, therefore frequencies change!" is true of anything since frequencies are defined in terms of inverse time units, ie frequency has units of 'per unit of time'. So the fact you swapped D and E labels isn't some deep insightful result, you've just played with trivial definitions. Nothing there even has to involve gravity, it's true of anything which is cyclic in its behaviour so 'frequency' is well defined.You have gravitational redshift on the left, gravitational time dilation on the right. If you can understand the significance, then you are on your way to understanding how the gravity drive works. If not, oh well. :shrug:
Since the concept of general derivations is beyond your rather confined mind I'll be a little more specific. The Earth is approximately spherical, with a radius of about 6,400 km. A geostationary orbit is 35,800 kilometres above the Earth's surface. Suppose satellite at that orbit, directly above your head, emits a photon of frequency 1THz directly down at you. Ignoring all other gravitational effects (ie from the Moon and Sun and Jupiter etc), any effects due to motion (ie ignore Earth's rotation and the satellite's sideways motion) and atmospheric effects tell me what frequency you would detect the photon to be when it reaches you. Give the formula you used and show you can derive it from some aether related set of assumptions. I know the prediction GR makes and I know the value experiments give so I can tell whether you're right or not. Come on, if god and aliens are feeding you information they should be able to give you a number along with a formula and explain how to construct it. No more arm waving, no more laughably basic science a child would find trivial, nail your colours to the mast by showing you can actually make accurate statements about the real world. As I said, before anyone is willing to take seriously your claims about things we can't yet measure you need to show you can explain things we can measure. The setup I just described we can measure, we have measured, we know the result. The question is whether you do or not.....
AlphaNumeric,
I can only type so fast. But I would use the following equations.
(1) $$1+z = \frac{f_e}{f_o}$$
(2) $$1+z = \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{2GM}{c^2r_o}}{1-\frac{2GM}{c^2 r_e}}}$$
Before I waste a lot of time, is this what you had in mind?
$$r_e = 35.8x10^6 meters$$
$$r_o = 6.4x10^6 meters$$
$$f_e = 10^{12} Hz$$
Calculate f_o.
You'll have to forgive me if I wrote something down incorrectly. My break ended 60 seconds ago and I have to get back to lab monkeying.
I can only type so fast. But I would use the following equations.
(1) $$1+z = \frac{f_e}{f_o}$$
(2) $$1+z = \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{2GM}{c^2r_o}}{1-\frac{2GM}{c^2 r_e}}}$$
Before I waste a lot of time, is this what you had in mind?
$$r_e = 35.8x10^6 meters$$
$$r_o = 6.4x10^6 meters$$
$$f_e = 10^{12} Hz$$
Calculate f_o.
You'll have to forgive me if I wrote something down incorrectly. My break ended 60 seconds ago and I have to get back to lab monkeying.
You missed the point. It's about electromagnetic field frequency (photons, Poynting vectors, light). It's about phase and frequency of electromagnetic fields. Lot's of things have frequency: clocks, tires on cars (rpm), seasons (4/year), AC voltage, AC current, etc. But the frequency and phase of Electromagnetic fields (photons, light, Poynting vector) have a close relationship to gravity and the acceleration of gravity. Ontologically speaking, EM frequency and acceleration of gravity have a very close relationship. That is why we should look for dual causality. Obviously gravity causes light to frequency shift. Because the relationship between EM frequency and gravity is so close, we should consider that causality goes the other way, that frequency shift can cause a gravity field (even if it's very small).I asked you to show how you would compute the precise relationship between the change in altitude and the change in frequency. Saying "Time intervals change, therefore frequencies change!" is true of anything since frequencies are defined in terms of inverse time units, ie frequency has units of 'per unit of time'. So the fact you swapped D and E labels isn't some deep insightful result, you've just played with trivial definitions. Nothing there even has to involve gravity, it's true of anything which is cyclic in its behaviour so 'frequency' is well defined.
You'll have to forgive me if I wrote something down incorrectly. My break ended 60 seconds ago and I have to get back to lab monkeying.
As usual, your reading comprehension is very bad. Here is the key sentence from AlphaNumeric's task.
Give the formula you used and show you can derive it from some aether related set of assumptions.
Of course you have no real "aether related set of assumptions". You just define the "wave aether" to act just like GR. In other words, your wave aether adds nothing to the science. Well, that is not exactly true. You claim it allows you to create gravity beams from a train of photons of different frequencies. But you don't have anything to support that other than your space alien communications.
So focus. Write down the properties of your wave aether (preferably stuff that is different in some aspect from GR) and somehow show that it gives the same answer. But if you start with GR then you have failed to show any value to your wave aether "theory".
Actually I test and troubleshoot oscilloscope boards (mostly). I test and troubleshoot other product lines too. I just thought you should have all the facts before you offer your biased opinion.If you really do have a job involving big expensive equipment then surely you're a lab monkey, someone who gets told what to do by the people who actually know the science and understand what to do with the equipment.
How would you know? You never asked. You're style of argument is to criticize others based upon your ignorance (lack of knowledge) about what that person knows. It's also called misrepresentation, lying, etc...I say this because you obviously have no clue about even basic electromagnetism, given the things you've said.
..
Cheezle, I know what AlphaNumeric asked for; but like I've said before, string theory mathematics is not necessary.As usual, your reading comprehension is very bad. Here is the key sentence from AlphaNumeric's task.
You'll need more than a few photons, but basically a train of EM chirps will reproduce the gravity field.Of course you have no real "aether related set of assumptions". You just define the "wave aether" to act just like GR. In other words, your wave aether adds nothing to the science. Well, that is not exactly true. You claim it allows you to create gravity beams from a train of photons of different frequencies. But you don't have anything to support that other than your space alien communications.
So focus. Write down the properties of your wave aether (preferably stuff that is different in some aspect from GR) and somehow show that it gives the same answer. But if you start with GR then you have failed to show any value to your wave aether "theory".
OK, the properties of aether waves are that, number one, they behave like the wave-functions of quantum mechanics. Number two, they are the set of waves that obey the relationship $$c=\lambda f$$. Third, they have properties identical to the electromagnetic frequency bandwidth (the EM frequency spectrum).
Cheezle, I know what AlphaNumeric asked for; but like I've said before, string theory mathematics is not necessary.
Nobody said anything about String Theory. Did Einstein need string theory to give us GR? No. So stop with the No String Theory defense. (if you need string theory to derive your theory, then that says something about string theory). If your theory is to work then you have to be able to derive the same answers from it that GR does. If your theory is just that GR is wave aether, and undetectable medium that acts just like GR, then that is not a very good theory. It adds nothing. Your theory needs to be a new formulation, that predicts new behavior and also agrees with all known related physical behavior.
You'll need more than a few photons, but basically a train of EM chirps will reproduce the gravity field.
Proof is needed. I don't take the word of space aliens. As your algebra teacher told you, show your work. You will be marked down severely for just writing down the end result.
There is already a QM theory that does not require wave aether. Wave aether is not needed and adds nothing.OK, the properties of aether waves are that, number one, they behave like the wave-functions of quantum mechanics.
Nothing new here. I think that is covered under Maxwell's equations (over a century old). Wave aether theory is not needed and adds nothing.Number two, they are the set of waves that obey the relationship $$c=\lambda f$$.
That is kind of vague but EM fields are once again, already covered under other theories. Wave aether theory is not needed and adds nothing.Third, they have properties identical to the electromagnetic frequency bandwidth (the EM frequency spectrum).
Your theory needs to add something new other than just a facade layer. It appears you are just defining an invisible proxy, an extra layer, that has no additional benefit. Occam's razor. If it does add something new, then write that down in some rigorous way. If you can't write it down then you don't have any understanding of your own theory. Probably because it is bogus and you are just fooling yourself. If your theory has any merit and you understand it, then you have some derivation already. If not ...
So far you have nothing.
I disagree with the idea that an aether adds nothing. You need it for two reasons. First, matter, energy, the laws of physics exist; there needs to be an ontological reason why. Second, you need something to hijack. I'm sorry I can't think of a better word at the moment. In effect, were going to hijack the mechanisms of gravity. I'll try to find a better word.Nobody said anything about String Theory. Did Einstein need string theory to give us GR? No. So stop with the No String Theory defense. (if you need string theory to derive your theory, then that says something about string theory). If your theory is to work then you have to be able to derive the same answers from it that GR does. If your theory is just that GR is wave aether, and undetectable medium that acts just like GR, then that is not a very good theory. It adds nothing. Your theory needs to be a new formulation, that predicts new behavior and also agrees with all known related physical behavior.
Proof is needed. I don't take the word of space aliens. As your algebra teacher told you, show your work. You will be marked down severely for just writing down the end result.
There is already a QM theory that does not require wave aether. Wave aether is not needed and adds nothing.
Nothing new here. I think that is covered under Maxwell's equations (over a century old). Wave aether theory is not needed and adds nothing.
That is kind of vague but EM fields are once again, already covered under other theories. Wave aether theory is not needed and adds nothing.
Your theory needs to add something new other than just a facade layer. It appears you are just defining an invisible proxy, an extra layer, that has no additional benefit. Occam's razor. If it does add something new, then write that down in some rigorous way. If you can't write it down then you don't have any understanding of your own theory. Probably because it is bogus and you are just fooling yourself. If your theory has any merit and you understand it, then you have some derivation already. If not ...
So far you have nothing.
I talked with my boss. I told him that I had an idea for a gravity drive/acceleration field generator. I told him I had an idea for an experiment that involves frequency shifting (perhaps I should call it frequency sweeping) from 1GHz to 2GHz 1000 times per second. I asked if I could borrow/use the AWG7K function generator. He was very positive about it and said that when I was ready, we would go see the equipment guy. I explained that the theory of my idea involves my interpretation of the luminiferous aether medium, but that it was as simple as: acceleration of gravity causes gravitational redshift, let's try it in reverse. My boss said it was fine; he said that (paraphrasing): only the brave go where angels fear to tread.
Instead of a proposal, I'm going to write a description of the experiment. I also have to find my scale which is packed away, somewhere. I will have to figure out how to program the AWG7K. I'm excited and releived. I may yet get a chance to perform my frequency sweep experiment.
Instead of a proposal, I'm going to write a description of the experiment. I also have to find my scale which is packed away, somewhere. I will have to figure out how to program the AWG7K. I'm excited and releived. I may yet get a chance to perform my frequency sweep experiment.