Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[Cheezle]

Well, I guess the mystery of why qw's theory is wrong has been solved. Poor guy has been working on this idea for at least a decade and here we find he was under the mistaken idea that his theory obeyed the inverse square law. He has me on ignore so he is unaware of this. Nobody tell him. It would break his heart to know. eram, thanks for asking the question. I think others may have asked before but I never made the connection.

So I will saunter off into the sunset. Undefined, I want to to be encouraging qw when I am gone. Bring up those quark gluon plasmas whenever he seems down. Later ....

 

[eram]

So, are you saying that the inverse square law was verified observationally by Cavendish? That would mean I was right, wouldn't it. Why the history lesson?
(3464)

Nope.

Brahe made the observations, Kepler interpreted the data, Newton devised the law, Cavendish measured G.


And what's 3406 and 3464?

 

[Undefined]

The analogy is not really about science. It is about whether a person has to put forward a theory before having the privilege or ability to comment on someone else's theory. I could have chosen anything. For instance, does judging a criminal require that the jurors all be criminals? Can a beauty pageant only be valid if judged by a other contestants? I could go on. And perhaps I strained the cooking analogy too far, I tend todo that. You like to use the term sounding board. A sounding board is meant to amplify or direct a speaker's voice. It is a useful thing to have in any auditorium and I think this discussion board can use the idea. But you have to make sure that you don't go overboard and construct a echo chamber. Echo chambers (in the sense of boosting ideas through positive remarks) are not of much use to anyone.

No. It was just curiosity if you had any ideas for "soundboarding" here too. Anyone can criticize constructively if they know what they want to criticize and for what reason one way or the other. Majority of common criminal case jurors have a particular qualification standard set by the law requirement for peer as member of our society not our professions (some special cases may use specialist witnesses and jurors if matters beyond ordinary juror require a different kind of "peer" panel). Beauty Pageants have rules set by a club or organization which runs them, the standards are set by them, not by the contestants (sometimes ex-contestants and winners part of judging panel). Mistaking a sounding board for an echo chamber is not an easy thing to do unless you are determined to mistake them as equivalent concepts and constructions. Positive remarks may be in sense of suggestions and possible connections not considered by the author of a theory. The mindless sycophants in your Monty Python clip have neither to offer, hence they are the ones who are making useless noises which help no one. If something interests me I will respond to the author with nothing like your expectations either way. That is what soundboarding means, to get involved to see if it sounds ok after all the feedback is in and the original modified or rejected or accepted.

Yes, that would be interesting to hear his explanation as long as he could be specific. For me, if I could ask him anything, it would be where this idea came from. He seems to have come up with a set of rules for how energy and space work. To me these rules seem arbitrary. So I would like to know the origin of the idea.

It doesn't get any more "arbitrary rules" situation than when a Big Bang hypothesis claims "everything from nothing is ok, just go with it until we figure it all out in the end and then we will know what those rules were which led to the Big Bang". Why pick on q-w in that manner when you have that much bigger and better target for that particular criticism?

So I will saunter off into the sunset. Undefined, I want to to be encouraging qw when I am gone. Bring up those quark gluon plasmas whenever he seems down. Later ....

Well, when LHC guys tell us that the collision produces "Quark-Gluon Plasma" of high viscosity (liquid like), I for one listen and understand naively that such underlying states do exist and behave in flowing, jetting and vortices while they differentiate back into energy waves and particles they observe. Why ignore that context, and possible lower scale and higher energy contexts, just in order to making fun of someone soundboarding his ideas in that scale medium context too?

 

[quantum_wave]

Nope.

Brahe made the observations, Kepler interpreted the data, Newton devised the law, Cavendish measured G.


And what's 3406 and 3464?

Perhaps you don't know that the Cavendish apparatus confirmed the inverse square law, or perhaps my lengthy reading of the experiment, the set up and conducting of the experiments, etc., resulted in my misunderstanding that it was also considered an observational confirmation of the inverse square law. Do you want me to be wrong, well maybe I am, hows that.

You might want to jump on Cheezle's bandwagon where he concludes that my hobby is a bust because the density of gnats on the surface of a sphere has nothing to do with how a distant object has to deal with them when the swarm arrives. I wonder if you are you in his class as far as actually contemplating the universe is concerned; perhaps, since you like all of his flames and can't find any logic in my word salad, and characterize me as running around like a dying chicken.

Am I right that you still think I'm wrong about the quantum nature of light passing through a medium like glass. Do you still insist that velocity of light slows through a medium like glass because photons are absorbed and reradiated? Though that does occur, it is not the cause of light slowing down, but you must know that. Certainly you don't think that all the photons are absorbed and scattered. I could be wrong on that too, but I asked you twice if you still believe in the absorption, reradiation scenario and I don't remember an answer. Perhaps you can't be wrong?

And though I have as recently as a couple of days ago posted what the numbers in parentheses means, again, the (number of views) is often placed at the end of my posts. I suspect your agenda is closer to Cheezle's than it is to wondering about my hobby, or about my word salad that gets posted in my threads, and which I refer to as my so called model.
(3654)

 

[quantum_wave]

No. It was just curiosity if you had any ideas for "soundboarding" here too. Anyone can criticize constructively if they know what they want to criticize and for what reason one way or the other. Majority of common criminal case jurors have a particular qualification standard set by the law requirement for peer as member of our society not our professions (some special cases may use specialist witnesses and jurors if matters beyond ordinary juror require a different kind of "peer" panel). Beauty Pageants have rules set by a club or organization which runs them, the standards are set by them, not by the contestants (sometimes ex-contestants and winners part of judging panel). Mistaking a sounding board for an echo chamber is not an easy thing to do unless you are determined to mistake them as equivalent concepts and constructions. Positive remarks may be in sense of suggestions and possible connections not considered by the author of a theory. The mindless sycophants in your Monty Python clip have neither to offer, hence they are the ones who are making useless noises which help no one. If something interests me I will respond to the author with nothing like your expectations either way. That is what soundboarding means, to get involved to see if it sounds ok after all the feedback is in and the original modified or rejected or accepted.



It doesn't get any more "arbitrary rules" situation than when a Big Bang hypothesis claims "everything from nothing is ok, just go with it until we figure it all out in the end and then we will know what those rules were which led to the Big Bang". Why pick on q-w in that manner when you have that much bigger and better target for that particular criticism?



Well, when LHC guys tell us that the collision produces "Quark-Gluon Plasma" of high viscosity (liquid like), I for one listen and understand naively that such underlying states do exist and behave in flowing, jetting and vortices while they differentiate back into energy waves and particles they observe. Why ignore that context, and possible lower scale and higher energy contexts, just in order to making fun of someone soundboarding his ideas in that scale medium context too?

You make very good points in that response. Maybe for you, and me too, it is not about believing some word salad on the internet. It is in finding interesting and contemplative thinking about aspects of theory or the lack of theory that interests me. So detractors would rather see fraud and delusion in my posts, while the very few, like you, understand brainstorming and sound boarding. Cheezle would have me water boarded until I admit to trying to warp the minds of the poor wandering youths that flock to drink my cool aide, I bet, lol.

 

[eram]

I suspect your agenda is closer to Cheezle's than it is to wondering about my hobby, or about my word salad...

I have no agenda.

You might want to jump on Cheezle's bandwagon where he concludes that my hobby is a bust because the density of gnats on the surface of a sphere has nothing to do with how a distant object has to deal with them when the swarm arrives. I wonder if you are you in his class as far as actually contemplating the universe is concerned; perhaps, since you like all of his flames and can't find any logic in my word salad, and characterize me as running around like a dying chicken.

Am I right that you still think I'm wrong about the quantum nature of light passing through a medium like glass. Do you still insist that velocity of light slows through a medium like glass because photons are absorbed and reradiated? Though that does occur, it is not the cause of light slowing down, but you must know that. Certainly you don't think that all the photons are absorbed and scattered. I could be wrong on that too, but I asked you twice if you still believe in the absorption, reradiation scenario and I don't remember an answer. Perhaps you can't be wrong?

About all the above (text), I've got very little to do with it.

 

[quantum_wave]

I have no agenda.

Oh, good. But what about "you can't be wrong?" Did you look more closely at what the Cavendish apparatus actually confirmed? You can't find where I am right on that? Or you can't admit I might be? Your several posts claiming I am wrong seem like an agenda if I am in fact right. If I'm wrong I am prompt to admit it, and learn from it.

And you did say it was absorption and reradiation that slows light through glass, but if you don't remember, I don't care enough to go back and find it unless you are denying it.

 

[quantum_wave]

That's a good question. I'm curious too.

My earliest memory, and my memory could be pretty faulty about the history of Quantum Wave Cosmology, was a post, maybe even a thread on FRDB asking what the scientific view of the Big Bang said in detail. I remember characterizing my grasp of it something like this, "Everything in the universe was once clumped together in a single point and now look at it, wow". I'm sure what I said was more ignorant than that, lol. That was the start of my research, maybe in 2002, but certainly after 9/11/2001 because it was the world view of terrorists that made me start to wonder why humans associated in religious groups that could inspire so much hatred, and I was looking to science as a common denominator.

I posted in the very early days on a few forums I don't remember on Prodigy in the 90's, at Yahoo discussion boards and others after 911, like on FRDB, The Science Forums, Bad Astronomy, ToEQuest, somewhere I was bogie_blogger because bogie was taken, I used Force 1 at The Physics Forums for a very few posts since they don't tolerate alternative views, but the vast majority of the evolution of my so called model comes from BAUT (as Bogie), SciForums (as quantum_wave), and ToeQuest (as Bogie).

The idea of the number of quanta in a particle was developed at BAUT, now CosmoQuest. I think it was in a thread called "The Infinite Reach of Gravity". http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...ach-of-gravity-in-the-ISU&p=981744#post981744

I had many detractors in those days too. I started a lot of threads there and learned a lot from those who took the time to help, like Neried and Celestial Mechanics and many more, and I didn't leave to come here in earnest until they limited discussions on their Against the Mainstream topics to 30 days. Don't waste your time going back though, because this stuff changes even while I sleep, lol.

 

[eram]

Oh, good. But what about "you can't be wrong?" Did you look more closely at what the Cavendish apparatus actually confirmed? You can't find where I am right on that? Or you can't admit I might be? Your several posts claiming I am wrong seem like an agenda if I am in fact right. If I'm wrong I am prompt to admit it, and learn from it.

And you did say it was absorption and reradiation that slows light through glass, but if you don't remember, I don't care enough to go back and find it unless you are denying it.

Did I say that I can't be wrong? Anyway, the experiment already assumed the inverse square law was true.

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


I don't remember saying that. Since I'm too lazy to find my post, I'm gonna deny it.

No, I never said that.

 

[quantum_wave]

Did I say that I can't be wrong? Anyway, the experiment already assumed the inverse square law was true.

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


I don't remember saying that. Since I'm too lazy to find my post, I'm gonna deny it.

No, I never said that.

Lol, OK, I stand corrected.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well, I guess the mystery of why qw's theory is wrong has been solved. Poor guy has been working on this idea for at least a decade and here we find he was under the mistaken idea that his theory obeyed the inverse square law. He has me on ignore so he is unaware of this. Nobody tell him. It would break his heart to know. eram, thanks for asking the question. I think others may have asked before but I never made the connection.

So I will saunter off into the sunset. Undefined, I want to to be encouraging qw when I am gone. Bring up those quark gluon plasmas whenever he seems down. Later ....

You can't go yet. I haven't dismissed you. Now go get lost.

 

[eram]

Lol, OK, I stand corrected.

Cool.

Well, I guess the mystery of why qw's theory is wrong has been solved. Poor guy has been working on this idea for at least a decade and here we find he was under the mistaken idea that his theory obeyed the inverse square law. He has me on ignore so he is unaware of this. Nobody tell him. It would break his heart to know. eram, thanks for asking the question. I think others may have asked before but I never made the connection.

So I will saunter off into the sunset. Undefined, I want to to be encouraging qw when I am gone. Bring up those quark gluon plasmas whenever he seems down. Later ....

You can't go yet. I haven't dismissed you. Now go get lost.

It's alright. Don't get too emotional.

 

[quantum_wave]

Cool.



It's alright. Don't get too emotional.

Did you listen? I like the line, "Within my writing not a syllables off."

Of course we all know better, but I like the bluster as a send off to Cheezle, though we both know he will be back, lol.

 

[eram]

Did you listen? I like the line, "Within my writing not a syllables off."

Of course we all know better, but I like the bluster as a send off to Cheezle, though we both know he will be back, lol.

I'm using a desktop.

That's a pretty good song. I didn't know you like rap.

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm using a desktop.

That's a pretty good song. I didn't know you like rap.

Who could not like rap :shrug

I guess this thread as pretty much reduced to chit chat. How about we talk about photons and gravity? In my so called model photons are particles with mass composed of energy quanta in the sense that I have defined particles and quanta. Their wave nature is very closely associacted with the inflow and out flow of wave energy that sustains their presence. You agree, disagree, or don't care to commit?

 

[eram]

In my so called model photons are particles with mass composed of energy quanta in the sense that I have defined particles and quanta. Their wave nature is very closely associacted with the inflow and out flow of wave energy that sustains their presence. You agree, disagree, or don't care to commit?

Don't know what to make out of it. It does not address any mainstream physics, so I can't say much.

I guess this thread as pretty much reduced to chit chat.

Who could not like rap :shrug

I like chit chat.


Yeah right. The older generation is always complaining about the younger generation's music.

I tried to get my uncle to listen to Dubstep. Wub wub. He absolutely loathed it. Sob sob.

 

[quantum_wave]

Don't know what to make out of it. It does not address any mainstream physics, so I can't say much.

You have to get over that and switch to the quantum nature of nature. And try to pay attention in class.

I like chit chat.


Yeah right. The older generation is always complaining about the younger generation's music.

I tried to get my uncle to listen to Dubstep. Wub wub. He absolutely loathed it. Sob sob.

Alright, I've told my age; how old are you?

 

[eram]

You have to get over that and switch to the quantum nature of nature.

Haha.

What do you mean by "switch to the quantum nature of nature"?

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Alright, I've told my age; how old are you?

Haha.

What do you mean by "switch to the quantum nature of nature"?

 

[rr6]

Grpahic Reminiscent of Fermi Bubbles

I will try and post link to Fermi-bubbles that are similar in shape/pattern to expressing my entropic-end and beginning of Universe but may have some resonance with your concepts also. I dunno
http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1011/11fermi/
r6

View attachment 6233

This above graphic of mine, that I use to help understand Universe at heat death. It is reminiscent of the Fermi-bubbles shape.

r6