Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[Cheezle]

I would be interested in what your own definition of "energy" is, Cheezle? That is the same question I asked AlexG. Innocent and reasonable enquiry on topic, right? But he got all aggressive personal for some reason. Eventually he gave me his definition, and then I asked him how he liked my definition. Why is that natural response asking for his opinion on how our definitions compared so offensive to you, Cheezle? I never said I was defending q-w's hypothesis, I just made some suggestions to q-w as to possible connections between some aspects of his OP and other known and accepted science aspects. I do however defend q-w's right here (in the Alt Theory section) to discuss his OP without interference from trolls. Since when was "agreement" a necessary precondition for having a discussion? If that were the case nothing new would ever emerge and paradigms would never change, yes? And also disagreement between ideas is what drives discussion in Alt Theories section, by definition, right? Since when is asking questions, and giving one's own suggestions for the OP development and discussion, cause for getting all personal and aggressive at me? Now would you like to tell me your own definition of "energy" and leave out all the personal attitudes and off-topic commentary, Cheezle?

I don't see what good my telling you my personal definition of energy will do, but it is simple enough. It is the expression of work or the potential to do work. And work involves moving mass around. There is the case of radiant energy as in photons that seem to lack mass, and I am uncertain how that links in with my personal definition of energy, but I suspect that it does somehow. When I think of work or energy I think of the story of Sisyphus, doomed forever to push a boulder up a hill but always failing and having it roll back down. The boulder is a mass, the hill represents a distance upward against gravity. Mass* distance * distance / (time * time). Or mass * acceleration * distance. Or force * distance. I always hear Pink Floyd's "Sysyphus" in my mind when I think of work or energy.

I don't find personal definitions of words to be that useful. As I have said before, many a time have I been in an argument only to find that both sides agreed in principle but one of us misunderstood the definition of some term. If you allow people to define words any way they want then communication will breakdown and you might as well give up. There is a reason that somewhere there is a 1 kilogram weight that defines a kilogram. Without a standard reference the term gram would degrade over time and become useless.

The reason people were asking quantum_wave about his definition of energy is that his wowions which are (I guess) energy quanta, don't seem to involve mass or distance or force. It is just ever expanding bubbles of pure "energy". And because his theory does not seem to agree with standard definitions of energy, I think it is important for him to connect his theory to standard definitions. Maybe he does have a good explanation, or maybe he does not. We may never know.

 

[Undefined]

I don't see what good my telling you my personal definition of energy will do, but it is simple enough. It is the expression of work or the potential to do work. And work involves moving mass around. There is the case of radiant energy as in photons that seem to lack mass, and I am uncertain how that links in with my personal definition of energy, but I suspect that it does somehow. When I think of work or energy I think of the story of Sisyphus, doomed forever to push a boulder up a hill but always failing and having it roll back down. The boulder is a mass, the hill represents a distance upward against gravity. Mass* distance * distance / (time * time). Or mass * acceleration * distance. Or force * distance. I always hear Pink Floyd's "Sysyphus" in my mind when I think of work or energy.

I don't find personal definitions of words to be that useful. As I have said before, many a time have I been in an argument only to find that both sides agreed in principle but one of us misunderstood the definition of some term. If you allow people to define words any way they want then communication will breakdown and you might as well give up. There is a reason that somewhere there is a 1 kilogram weight that defines a kilogram. Without a standard reference the term gram would degrade over time and become useless.

The reason people were asking quantum_wave about his definition of energy is that his wowions which are (I guess) energy quanta, don't seem to involve mass or distance or force. It is just ever expanding bubbles of pure "energy". And because his theory does not seem to agree with standard definitions of energy, I think it is important for him to connect his theory to standard definitions. Maybe he does have a good explanation, or maybe he does not. We may never know.

Thankyou for your very honest and courteous response, Cheezle; it was a heartening pleasure to read it! The immediate benefit from someone giving their definition of such a critically important concept as "energy" will be to help make clear where someone may be "coming from", especially in the context of the their discussion points around the OP overall. Nothing wrong with that? For example, when you say "energy" is the "expression of work or the potential to do work", I'm still not clear on where you are coming from (and the rest of your honest and courteous post implies that you are still not sure of what this "energy" may be?). Specifically, what exactly is the "form" in which this "expression" manifests? Do you think of it in terms of an "abstract mathematical expression" like "time", or as some more "concrete physical observable" like "motion in space"? That is always the crux of any discussion about such fundamental concepts/things which must be carefully handled in discussions strictly in context if avoidable misunderstandings (as you already observed happens all too often) are to be minimized?

We must also be keenly aware that at some stage in paradigm changing ideas there will/may be the need to define things in slightly different ways in different contexts (I am led to believe that such happens all the time in maths and physics where certain terms/concepts are "modified" and used with different connotations/operations according to which maths system/domains or physics theory application/modeling is using the term/concept slightly differently than the previous/other usages?).

In chaos theory there comes order out of disorder as a matter of cumulatively higher iterations and complexity. Waves of "transition states" between the disordered and ordered states does not happen by magic at certain locations within the global disordered states-space or medium (or whatever one calls the starting context/medium by way of physical states-space potential we could perhaps call the "universal context"; or even q-w's "foundational wave-space medium"; or even "Fundamental Quantum Vacuum" etc etc; take your pick or identify and define your own via some hypothesis of your own?). These transition states from order to disorder and back again seem to "come from nowhere and return to nowhere" and don't seem to "involve mass or distance or force" until they manifest sufficiently effectively in the local states-space to have physically observable effectiveness at the scales we can observe their "mass" and/or "force" over some observable "distance" etc etc depending on the scale and sensitivity of the observational construct applied? So just because something appears to be "sterile" in "fundamental level" physical content/effect, it does not necessarily mean that the cumulative iterations and complexity and growing scale does not result in obvious phenomena just as we observe in certain non-linear media/contexts which can spontaneously form ordered patterns and effects from originally disordered/ineffective seeming state?

The questions you ask are valid. No problem. It's the answers expected and answered which differ from expectations which may be "problematic" if one approaches discussions of these things with the frame of mind that no one is allowed to think differently from the "accepted" definitions or "understandings" of what is "energy" (or for that matter, "mass", "distance", "force" etc). Things may be slightly different in the context of an OP hypothesis. That is to be expected precisely because it is an "Alternative Theory" section we are discussing things in which may BE different given enough honest and courteous consideration and responses as you have just given above. Thankyou Cheezle again for that. I will be visiting this discussion from time to time as my "time" resource permits. Good to see pleasant discussion where once was animosity from certain quarters. That is past now, if your post above is any guide. I wish you and quantum-wave and everyone in this thread a great discussion as between friends not enemies! So long for now, Cheezle.

 

[Cheezle]

Thankyou for your very honest and courteous response, Cheezle; it was a heartening pleasure to read it! The immediate benefit from someone giving their definition of such a critically important concept as "energy" will be to help make clear where someone may be "coming from", especially in the context of the their discussion points around the OP overall. Nothing wrong with that? For example, when you say "energy" is the "expression of work or the potential to do work", I'm still not clear on where you are coming from (and the rest of your honest and courteous post implies that you are still not sure of what this "energy" may be?). Specifically, what exactly is the "form" in which this "expression" manifests? Do you think of it in terms of an "abstract mathematical expression" like "time", or as some more "concrete physical observable" like "motion in space"? That is always the crux of any discussion about such fundamental concepts/things which must be carefully handled in discussions strictly in context if avoidable misunderstandings (as you already observed happens all too often) are to be minimized?

If you want to learn about physics you should talk to a physicist, or read a book, not challenge some random guy on the street to discuss it. If I was to give you a better description of what energy is, I would have to just cut and paste from a physics text. You can do that on your own. And it is not on the topic of quantum_wave's theory which is what we are discussing.

We must also be keenly aware that at some stage in paradigm changing ideas there will/may be the need to define things in slightly different ways in different contexts (I am led to believe that such happens all the time in maths and physics where certain terms/concepts are "modified" and used with different connotations/operations according to which maths system/domains or physics theory application/modeling is using the term/concept slightly differently than the previous/other usages?). ...

I would rather not get into all that somewhat off topic discussion. If quantum_wave brings those subjects in any of his posts then I might comment. What this all comes down to is that quantum_wave constructed his theory in an irrational manner. He postulated some laws for his so called model that have no evidence to back them up. In deductive logic, we start with what we know and try to find more facts. quantum_wave is gold panning. He is starting with what he does not know and hoping that by looking hard enough that he will find a golden nugget of truth in the pan. His odds of that are quite remote, especially when he has chosen such an unnatural so called model to start with.

This whole discussion about definitions of energy was an effort to get quantum_wave to state his definition. Only then can we know what his theory is about. I would even be willing to let him bend the definition into one of your paradigm changing ideas, if he would be exact in his language. As it is his theory is indecipherable. I don't think anyone here on these forums understands it. As it is now, it is just meaningless drivel. I have to assume he posted all this here in an effort to communicate his ideas. He has failed at that.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I don't see what good my telling you my personal definition of energy will do, but it is simple enough. It is the expression of work or the potential to do work. And work involves moving mass around. There is the case of radiant energy as in photons that seem to lack mass, and I am uncertain how that links in with my personal definition of energy, but I suspect that it does somehow. When I think of work or energy I think of the story of Sisyphus, doomed forever to push a boulder up a hill but always failing and having it roll back down. The boulder is a mass, the hill represents a distance upward against gravity. Mass* distance * distance / (time * time). Or mass * acceleration * distance. Or force * distance. I always hear Pink Floyd's "Sysyphus" in my mind when I think of work or energy.

Work=force*distance
Power=work/time
Energy=power*time

Check your electric bill, they charge you energy by the Kilowatt hour, the kilowatt being a unit of measure of power, and the time being how much time you used that amount of power.

If you burn a 100 watt light bulb for 10 hours you will have consumed 100*10=1 Kilowatt hour of energy.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Work=force*distance
Power=work/time
Energy=power*time

Only if the force and power levels are constant in time. Otherwise you have to define them as integrals, $$E = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}P(t) \textrm{d}t$$, If $$P(t) = P$$ is a constant then $$E = P \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\textrm{d}t = P(t_{2}-t_{1})$$ as you've stated.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Only if the force and power levels are constant in time. Otherwise you have to define them as integrals, $$E = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}P(t) \textrm{d}t$$, If $$P(t) = P$$ is a constant then $$E = P \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\textrm{d}t = P(t_{2}-t_{1})$$ as you've stated.

I agree, because if they weren't constant that would be acceleration.

 

[quantum_wave]

Work=force*distance
Power=work/time
Energy=power*time

Check your electric bill, they charge you energy by the Kilowatt hour, the kilowatt being a unit of measure of power, and the time being how much time you used that amount of power.

If you burn a 100 watt light bulb for 10 hours you will have consumed 100*10=1 Kilowatt hour of energy.

MD, thanks for bringing us into reality in the real world, lol, and I know that you know that my so called model deals with the underpinnings of the level of order where what you say is true. In my last post where I was trying to convey the idea of wave energy, there is another part of the so called model that some people are completely uncomfortable with, and that is the distinction between what I just described as a process where particles are composed of wave energy, and the nature of the energy you just portrayed.

When energy is used in your home and fed through the power distribution system of your neighborhood, the wave energy that I was describing is far to small to be observed, but in my so called model, the particles involved in your scenario are composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

Electrons, atomic particles, atoms and molecules are said to be standing wave patterns that move in response the directional density of the the immediate wave energy density environment. In a copper wire being fed with alternating current, the electrons don't need to move far to transmit the energy, but it flows through the wire and to the ground in huge amounts as quanta are exchanged from electron to electron during the process.

You have certainly seen my post about energy quanta and my wild a** guess about how many quanta are in an electron; hundreds of millions in a single electron that is in its lowest state of excitement. The distinction between billions of electrons in place in a tiny cross section of copper wire, and those billions of electrons times the supposed hundreds of billions of energy quanta in each electron, begins to add up to a pretty big number of quanta as described by my so called model to equal the the quanta that are making up the charge to a customer for electric power.

 

[quantum_wave]

Only if the force and power levels are constant in time. Otherwise you have to define them as integrals, $$E = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}P(t) \textrm{d}t$$, If $$P(t) = P$$ is a constant then $$E = P \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\textrm{d}t = P(t_{2}-t_{1})$$ as you've stated.

I agree, because if they weren't constant that would be acceleration.

Thank you both for your contributions.
(10544)

 

[Motor Daddy]

MD, thanks for bringing us into reality in the real world, lol, and I know that you know that my so called model deals with the underpinnings of the level of order where what you say is true. In my last post where I was trying to convey the idea of wave energy, there is another part of the so called model that some people are completely uncomfortable with, and that is the distinction between what I just described as a process where particles are composed of wave energy, and the nature of the energy you just portrayed.

When energy is used in your home and fed through the power distribution system of your neighborhood, the wave energy that I was describing is far to small to be observed, but in my so called model, the particles involved in your scenario are composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

Electrons, atomic particles, atoms and molecules are said to be standing wave patterns that move in response the directional density of the the immediate wave energy density environment. In a copper wire being fed with alternating current, the electrons don't need to move far to transmit the energy, but it flows through the wire and to the ground in huge amounts as quanta are exchanged from electron to electron during the process.

You have certainly seen my post about energy quanta and my wild a** guess about how many quanta are in an electron; hundreds of millions in a single electron that is in its lowest state of excitement. The distinction between billions of electrons in place in a tiny cross section of copper wire, and those billions of electrons times the the supposed hundreds of billions of energy quanta in each electron, begins to add up to a pretty big number of quanta as described by my so called model to equal the the quanta that are making up the charge to a customer for electric power.

I think what you are trying to model is how/why particles are born, not how they are measured, correct?

 

[quantum_wave]

I think what you are trying to model is how/why particles are born, not how they are measured, correct?

Correct, from the perspective of your example about electric power. The particles are "born" in the quantum realm, and they produce power in the macro realm where particles and objects are observable.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Correct, from the perspective of your example about electric power. The particles are "born" in the quantum realm, and they produce power in the macro realm where particles and objects are observable.

I think the problem is that what science is trying to come to a conclusion on is the MEASURING SYSTEM. They still don't have an accurate measuring system in which to measure the universe with, let alone answer the question of how/why something exists.
You are working on the how and why, and they are trying to figure out how to measure.

Edit: Example, Einstein didn't care, or talk about how/why a train and platform exists, he only tried to tell people how to measure distance and time using light, and he failed miserably.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I agree, because if they weren't constant that would be acceleration.

Not necessarily, depends on the set up. You can have acceleration without any change in energy, ie circular motion.

I think the problem is that what science is trying to come to a conclusion on is the MEASURING SYSTEM. They still don't have an accurate measuring system in which to measure the universe with, let alone answer the question of how/why something exists.
You are working on the how and why, and they are trying to figure out how to measure.

Edit: Example, Einstein didn't care, or talk about how/why a train and platform exists, he only tried to tell people how to measure distance and time using light, and he failed miserably.

Reality is against you. Einstein's work has been put to practical use in many domains and is experimentally verified as accurate. Compare that to what QW or yourself have managed, nothing.

Simply making up your own version of reality doesn't make it true.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Not necessarily, depends on the set up. You can have acceleration without any change in energy, ie circular motion.

Circular motion measured how, by RPM? So we have a shaft spinning at 2,500 RPM, and it has a torque of 100 lb-ft on the shaft. 2,500*100/5252=47.6 HP. 1 HP=550 ft-lb of work per second, so 47.6 HP is doing work at the rate of 26,180 ft-lb per second. The torque and RPM are fixed, so they can't change. If the torque and RPM are fixed then the power can't change. If the power can't change there can be no acceleration. The engine is running at 2,500 at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) and it is not increasing or decreasing RPM. There is NO acceleration. The only way to get the engine to accelerate at WOT is to increase or decrease the load, but you don't get to change reality, so you can't accelerate the rotational velocity.

 

[quantum_wave]

I agree, because if they weren't constant that would be acceleration.

In regard to motion, the standing wave particle has a constant amount of energy quanta contained within it and as long as the inflowing and outflowing wave energy is equal. That standing wave pattern has no motion relative to its immediate surrounding environment, and no change in the energy quanta contained.

Over in the physics and math forum I have an obscure thread called "Two Swarms of Gnats" that pertains to my so called model. In that thread I am trying to spark a discussion and learn about the quantum state of a two quanta energy system. If we call that a quantum state with no change in energy content, then if a standing wave pattern is an accumulation of hundreds of millions of similar quantum states, the pattern itself might be a quantum state as well.

Of course I have references like "Quantum Physics for Dummies", and the Internet, but getting some human to help seems to be preferable. The energy in the two-quanta system remains constant, two quanta, but the system is dynamic because of the action of each of the two quanta of energy. Their natural action is expansion due to energy density equalization between the energy density of the two quanta, and the surrounding energy density of the environment.

If the environment is the standing wave pattern, that expansion is almost immediately interrupted within the pattern, and the process of quantum action produces a new quanta of energy from the two or more parent quanta.

I agree, because if they weren't constant that would be acceleration.

Not necessarily, depends on the set up. You can have acceleration without any change in energy, ie circular motion.*

Reality is against you. Einstein's work has been put to practical use in many domains and is experimentally verified as accurate. Compare that to what QW or yourself have managed, nothing.*

Simply making up your own version of reality doesn't make it true.

:humorh darn I was so hoping that I controlled reality from my mental musings.:/humor:

I understand that I have done nothing but present ideas. Sometimes people discuss those ideas with me and I learn and I improve the ideas, but often people simply read and move on. Some suggest how nice it would be for me if I could learn a small amount of physics and cosmology. I seem incapable of convincing anyone that I know a bit of physics and cosmology on an informed and enthusiastic layman basis, and so I simply ignore the disparagement. Any meaningful post gets a meaningful response in the context of the so called model.

I do consider your comment to be correct and am not pretending otherwise. I'm not saying I'm not deluded, but I'm not deluded about that.
(10629)

 

[Aqueous Id]

Circular motion measured how, by RPM? So we have a shaft spinning at 2,500 RPM, and it has a torque of 100 lb-ft on the shaft. 2,500*100/5252=47.6 HP. 1 HP=550 ft-lb of work per second, so 47.6 HP is doing work at the rate of 26,180 ft-lb per second. The torque and RPM are fixed, so they can't change. If the torque and RPM are fixed then the power can't change. If the power can't change there can be no acceleration. The engine is running at 2,500 at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) and it is not increasing or decreasing RPM. There is NO acceleration. The only way to get the engine to accelerate at WOT is to increase or decrease the load, but you don't get to change reality, so you can't accelerate the rotational velocity.

The example you give is unrelated to the point that circular rotation produces a centripetal acceleration. That acceleration is happening without any work being done, and in fact none can be done as long as there is no mass accelerated over a radial distance. The wheel itself consumes no energy, even though the particles within it are being accelerated. They are simply subjected to a static force, without any work being done, and that force goes away when the wheel is stopped.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The example you give is unrelated to the point that circular rotation produces a centripetal acceleration.

I asked how you measured that rotation, RPM? Maybe you just get to claim something has "circular rotation" without having to bother with how you would measure your imaginary "circular rotation?"

That acceleration is happening without any work being done, and in fact none can be done as long as there is no mass accelerated over a radial distance.

Again, acceleration is the RATE OF CHANGE OF VELOCITY, and it has units of m/s^2. You see that little "s" in there? That stands for SECOND, but guess what? Work has no unit of time. If you want to add time to work then it's called POWER!

The wheel itself consumes no energy, even though the particles within it are being accelerated. They are simply subjected to a static force, without any work being done, and that force goes away when the wheel is stopped.

If the shaft spun at 2,500 RPM with 100 lb-ft of torque on the shaft, that is 47.6 HP, or 35 kW. If the shaft rotated at that RPM and torque for 1 hour then the energy is 35 kW-hour. The measure of work, power, and energy has nothing to do with the potential energy of gasoline. We are measuring the ACTUAL amount of work, power, and energy, not some fairytale BS you thought up.

 

[Motor Daddy]

In regard to motion, the standing wave particle has a constant amount of energy quanta contained within it and as long as the inflowing and outflowing wave energy is equal. That standing wave pattern has no motion relative to its immediate surrounding environment, and no change in the energy quanta contained.

So you mean the standing wave particle has a net zero potential energy?

 

[quantum_wave]

So you mean the standing wave particle has a net zero potential energy?

No, I'm saying it can be considered "at rest" relative to the surrounding energy density environment.

 

[Motor Daddy]

No, I'm saying it can be considered "at rest" relative to the surrounding energy density environment.

So in terms of living rooms and chairs, the chair is the standing wave particle, at it's at rest in the living room? There are photons hitting the chair from all directions due to the lamps in the room illuminating the room, but the chair is not changing position compared to the room. Is that the concept you are describing?

 

[quantum_wave]

So in terms of living rooms and chairs, the chair is the standing wave particle, at it's at rest in the living room? There are photons hitting the chair from all directions due to the lamps in the room illuminating the room, but the chair is not changing position compared to the room. Is that the concept you are describing?

Yes.