How could anyone ever show you how your wrong when you refuse to relate it to anything that consist of reality or real things or subjects? You can't prove or disprove a never ending day dream that only consist of imaginary things.
Quantifying gravity's mechanism
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
How could anyone ever show you how your wrong when you refuse to relate it to anything that consist of reality or real things or subjects? You can't prove or disprove a never ending day dream that only consist of imaginary things.
You may be right, and since you seem to want to help, and it is Friday evening thinking you are good at, answer this. If I were to challenge you to show me something, anything about the generally accepted science theories that is inconsistent or incompatible, could you do it? If I were to ask you if you know the limits of our ability to actually observe nature, would you say what those limits are. If I were to ask you what observations stand up as evidence for the popular theories, do you know and could you discuss them, and separate out what is observational evidence from what is mathematical theory? I'm sure you could.
Now if I ask you to show me what there is about my so called model that is internally inconsistent, can you show me one thing; or have you failed to read it, which is no great criticism, because I don't read other people's word salad either. But mine means something to me and so I do my best to get it right, to correct it when I'm shown to be wrong, and continually search forums and sites for ideas and improvements, using a personal methodology that meets the standards that I set for having as good an understanding as I am capable of about the things that science does not yet have a consensus about.
That is why I'm talking about gravity's mechanism in this forum. The moderators are free to move it where they see fit.
And I know that this equation can be simplified, but I prefer to write it this way:
$$\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capR}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_R}=$$$$\frac{1/3\pi H^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi R^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi H ^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi R^3}$$
If the discussion gets past the off topic disdane, I would like to see how to write the equation for "n" number of parent waves. The diagram that corresponds with it is in the OP. Do you understand why I am asking?
Here it is in tex to save a bit of time: "\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capR}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_R}=\frac{1/3\pi H^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi R^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi H ^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi R^3}"
(216)
Last edited:
I can live with thatYour theory is "not even wrong".
That's all there is to this whole argument.
. Can you help write the "not even wrong" equation for "n" number of converging parent waves, as if quantum waves actually exist, or would you have to read the OP first. I know that is asking a lot!
I can live with that
I'm not sure what you're trying to describe with your diagram(s).
I'm describing a characteristic of a particle, saying particles are composed of wave energy. Wave energy doesn't stand still, it is always moving, and yet particles, relatively speaking, stand in place, even though it is understood or theorized that internally they are never still; their quantum nature doesn't allow them to be at rest in the conventional sense. If all of that is true, then the hypothesis is that particles are synchronized patterns of inflowing and out flowing wave energy, and the diagrams depict the lowest common denominator of a particle; what I call a quantum wave.
The hypothesis is that synchronized inflowing and out flowing wave energy converges within the particle space. A convergence is the meeting of waves coming from different directions. At that convergence of the waves, there is a higher density overlap where wave energy from each contributing "parent" wave combines in a high density spot at the point of convergence. That spot is the common denominator of all wave convergences, it is characteristic of the entire synchronized standing wave pattern. That is assuming that a particle's standing wave pattern is composed of multiple synchronized intersections in the particle space that allow particles and particle types be composed of different amounts of energy.
That high density spot itself becomes a new quantum wave within a standing wave pattern and its high density is disbursed within the particle space as it expands out of the overlap space. The new emerging wave is a quantum wave and the number of emerging quantum waves within the particle space during any given quantum period equals the number of quanta in the particle space.
So the image of two parent waves in the OP is depicting a single convergence within the particle space, and that space contains multiple convergences. The equation assigns the energy value to each quantum wave, 1 quantum, so the two converging waves total 2 quanta. The equation can start to quantify the energy value of the new quantum wave being produced by the convergence from the point of convergence. At the point of convergence the value of the equation is zero because there is no overlap.
Once the parent waves expand into each others space the overlap begins. The energy value of the new wave is equal the the energy content in the two spherical caps in the diagram. As the overlap plays out, the radius of each parent wave is continually increasing and the equation, which gives a value greater than zero as soon as the overlap begins, gives a greater and greater value as the radii of the parent waves increases.
When the value of the equation equals 1, the new quantum wave is established and it expands on out of the overlap space until its expansion is interrupted by converging with other quantum waves within the particle space.
My question is, can you help me write the equation for multiple or "n" number of converging waves, since the internal structure of the so called standing wave pattern would feature multiple waves converging instead of the simplistic case of just two parent waves.
The VcapR and Vcapr values for each of the multiple wave overlaps would become VcapN and Vcapn, and the resulting value of the central overlap in a multiple wave convergence would reach 1 in a much smaller volume of space. OK, I know I have lost you, lol.
(268)
I can't tell with you if you are just saying that or you just can't get yourself to come to my aid, lol.After reading your description, I don't think I'm up to the task
Go here,*http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCap.html
, follow the equations down to #6 for the volume of a spherical cap.
From my wordy description, you might have picked up the hypothesis that each cap has energy contributed by each parent wave. Are you with me that far?
In my equation you can see equation #6 being used twice for each cap, once for the energy contribution from each parent wave. Do you see that?
It's not that. I'm not your homework helper, and besides, my maths really ain't that good.
Plus your explanation was really wordy and complex and I'm having trouble grasping it.
Well, thanks for taking a look.
I'll try to help you out if I've got the time.
Here is a diagram showing multiple converging waves. It is meant to show the possibility of "n" number of waves overlapping to form a central overlap zone. I want my equation to be revised to go from the two spheres to the "n" spheres.
It does require some nifty maths that I don't have yet. But the benefit of the equation is that for a multiple wave convergence of "n" quanta, and assuming that the radii of the spheres increases at a given velocity (local speed of light), then the time it takes from the point of convergenge to the time of the formation a new spherically out flowing quantum wave in Zone A could be stated mathematically. Maybe it is hard to imagine what benefit I could make of that, but I have to have it first, lol.
It looks like it could use some G's for gravity, and it could also use some v's that stand for velocity. What did you do just add a bunch of sections of spheres together?
I don't think this method could be used to try and quantize gravity, even pointlike particles like the photon feel the force of gravity. So then there would be no sphere in order to determine how much gravity was felt by this particle. When you say quantize, that means it take it to its smallest form. It puts it in the form where the smallest effects that matter are then used. You couldn't really quantize gravity as the merger of spheres when there are particles that are poitlike, that are not spheres. So you could never quantize gravity in this manner.
If you want to get an idea of what something looks like that is quantized take a look at the Planck Constant . h-bar, or the angular momentum of a photon is 1.054571726(47) x 10^-34 J s. If it was one more decimal place over it most likely wouldn't even be abel to have any effect on our reality we wouldn't even be able to notice particle spin.
No, but don't feel bad about not being able to see what I am getting at. I am poor at writing and I am not invoking any concepts or theories that you are familiar with to explain particles and gravity. Your take on it though is helpful in that it shows how poor I am at conveying my ideas.
Just so you will have more concerns about my approach than you already have, and not to encourage you to help by any means, let me say that the photon that you call pointlike is not pointlike in my model. It is a particle composed of energy quanta like other particles. Have you seen where I describe the photon and its directional inflowing wave energy; I bet you missed that or didn't read it because you hate word salad. But we can agree that they do feel gravity. Their path also bends and slows as they pass through changing wave energy density environments. Do you still believe that they always travel at the same speed through all mediums, or was I able to convince you that you were wrong about that?
You are completely out of touch with my so called model, but it is my fault. I suggest you give up trying to get it. Maybe, with time, I will do a better job of conveying the ideas to you.
You are complete disconnected from my ideas. You shouldn't even try because as I said, I do an awful job of writing about them, and you are not helping give me confidence that I will ever say anything that you could understand.
I thought of being facetious and saying Max who, but humor doesn't always work for me.
That is why I said you should read pop physics books, sometimes I wonder if they try to cover up crank ideas with actual physics terms. I think you would be able to go a lot farther just by doing this one simple thing.
I have no idea what directional inflowing wave energy even means, or why you would even stumble onto such a concept. Your right if something is too much like word salad I just skip over it and not really read it. Sometimes I feel like trying to understand it may just end up putting my head in the wrong place, God forbid I start thinking in word salad.
I do think that photons feel gravity. Einstein did this in his famous experiment where he predicted gravitational lensing, what a crank lol. But, then by doing this he proved a lot of people wrong, and they started taking him more seriously after that discovery.
No you didn't convince me that I was wrong about that, I just got tired of trying to convince you that you are wrong about that. It didn't seem like a reasonable goal, so I didn't want to try and troll you about it. But, I do think that electromagnetic waves can interact with each other and slow each other down like they do in BCS Theory. I would think that they only slow down from becoming virtual particles that interact with other particles. But, all the time they are photons and not virtual photons, they travel at the same speed. Virtual particles don't really have to agree with conservation laws, I think that is part of why they are not really considered "real".
I am kind of relieved and dissapointed at the same time. I fear that you are so unconnected with actual science that your model has no validity, but I think if you become more connected with it you might be able to relate these ideas to actual science. I fear that if there is any truth that is similar to your model that it will just be ignored and then it is just acting as intellectual sabatoge. I admit I have come up with some similar ideas but then I developed them by trying to connect concepts that I read about as already being actual science, I kind of already have my own psuedo-Standerd Model. I think telling anyone about it would just make it then get mixed up with yours that has no basis on actual science whatsoever.
I shouldn't go into this with you, but what General Relativity calls gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and the Eddington measurements that quantified the bending of light that passes the sun only confirmed that the curvature of spacetime was consistent with the observed effect, it did not prove that the mechanism was curved spacetime. Of course, in my so called model the mechanism of light bending is the nature of the wave/particle photon that slows down as the wave energy density of the environment increases. But then, you don't know what I mean by wave energy density because you don't read my word salad (hint= gravity waves are part of the wave energy density of the medium of space, and as you get closer to a massive object, the gravity wave energy density increases).
As for your belief that the speed of light through glass or any transparent medium is the same as the speed of light through empty space, sorry, you are wrong. As for you explanation that the light slows going through glass is that the photons are absorbed and re-radiated, sorry, you are wrong. But being wrong is not a big deal. And this thread is not about that, so sorry for bringing it up.
Directionally inflowing wave energy is one of the two wave energy components of standing waves. Standing waves are an important feature of my so called model because they establish and maintain the presence of particles. The other component, by the way, is the spherical out flowing wave energy. That makes motion a factor of the differential between the net directional inflowing wave energy and the spherical (equal in all directions) out flowing wave energy of particles.
You were confused by the spheres in my drawings and perplexed about how they relate to particles and gravity. I don't think you are actually reading this so I won't bother rehashing that business.
Oh, and so you think I don't do much reading about physics and cosmology, or pop science? No wonder you keep suggesting things that even the first year science enthusiasts would know.
(378)
I would think that this comment is still facetirous. If you wanted to start at gound zero trying to figure out something from quantized particle structure, I think that may be a good place to start. I don't see how your gravitational mechanism could coincide with the Planck Constant in any way whatsoever. The photon practically has a spin of 1 of the smallest unit possible that could be detected. Then it is point like so then there couldn't be any basic smaller spherical structure that could then have an influence on anything.
Try this crank theory on for size, say like in superstring theory, there are curled up dimensions that are so small that we cannot move in those directions. Then they say that these particles are small enough to travel around in these dimensions. I think that is part of what spin is, the particles are traveling around in these curled up dimensions. But, then why are these dimensions curled up? The only possible way we know of where space is contracted is SR. The particles may just be traveling the speed of light in these dimensions, or so much in this direction that they are completely contracted. This then causes them to have anglular momentum of 1 in our three dimensions. Then we can observe that particle in our own three dimensions. So it is like trying to define particle structure that has become some crazy higher dimensional theory that couldn't only be explained by simple spheres colliding together. But, then wave interactions wouldn't be able to cause us to travel slower in these higher dimensions, so then do these higher dimensions even really exist? It would seem that there isn't wave interactions in these curled up dimensions, then particle waves are just translations of a unit circle in these higher dimensions. Then interactions of waves in our three dimensions spread those dimensions out so that we can then observe those dimensions.
Then particles don't "wave" in higher dimensions and just gain a spin of 1 in our dimensions that then gives rise to the Planck Constant. That then figures a particle traveling the speed of light would have a spin of 1. Prove me wrong. There is no way to know. There is now nothing done from experiment that could disprove this theory. So what good does it do? It doesn't even accomplish anything at all be maybe making someone that really works on superstring theory sound like a total crank if they now developed a similar legitimate theory. They could just say, oh you just made up a bunch of mathmatics to give a particle a spin of 1. It could be true, but no one will ever recognize it as being that way now once word got out a layman came up with it that has no clue about string theory.
You couldn't possibly expect me to read that. You should know by now that we won't read each others word salad; too much ecoli going around, . But on the other hand, mine is organic home grown.
. But on the other hand, mine is organic home grown.