Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[arfa brane]

Some comments:

That start in point in BBT is described is an infinitely dense point in space before space or time existed.

The supposed infinitely dense point (a singularity) can't have been "in space" because there was no space. Since time didn't exist either (except inside the singularity) there can't have been any "start" as such.

In fact, any description of the assumed singularity cannot include anything related in any way to space or time. The description should be independent of space and time--a problem, since physical descriptions depend on both.

Moreover (ain't that a cool word?) the infinitely dense "point" is only a logical conclusion based on "running the expansion backwards"; it's possible that the universe was instead "smeared out" and smooth rather than pointlike, before time or space emerged by whatever mechanism.

 

[quantum_wave]

Some comments:
The supposed infinitely dense point (a singularity) can't have been "in space" because there was no space. Since time didn't exist either (except inside the singularity) there can't have been any "start" as such.

In fact, any description of the assumed singularity cannot include anything related in any way to space or time. The description should be independent of space and time--a problem, since physical descriptions depend on both.

That is true; thank you for clarification and elaboration, but t=0 is often mentioned in the popular media, and that is my perspective when it comes to "sources" to link to about BBT.

Moreover (ain't that a cool word?) the infinitely dense "point" is only a logical conclusion based on "running the expansion backwards"; it's possible that the universe was instead "smeared out" and smooth rather than pointlike, before time or space emerged by whatever mechanism.

You want cool, how about, Never-the-less, over shooting of the backtracking of the observed expansion seems to have occurred if you take the popular media as the source. I do have recollection of more scholarly accounts that refer to the start of time at 10^-43 seconds or so, and that refer to the brief period of annihilation of particles and antiparticles in that first Planck epoch of time before the universe emerged with characteristics of space and time. I saw it the other day, but I'll have to search it out, or can you elaborate on that part?

 

[Cheezle]

That is true; thank you for clarification and elaboration, but t=0 is often mentioned in the popular media, and that is my perspective when it comes to "sources" to link to about BBT.

I don't think that Arfa Brane was endorsing your so called model (I could be wrong). He was just agreeing that your assertion that popular media's representation is not in agreement with current scientific understanding. Your so called model goes way beyond anything that any scientist anywhere would agree with. To gain any scientific acceptance you need to show that your so called model agrees with actual measurements. I know that you dislike the idea that theories require proof but without that requirement, there is no science. And I know you don't claim your theory is science, but you seem to imply that most of the time.

You still need to show that your idea of wowions leads to gravity and other forces of nature. All that you have is the fact that wowion action will produce movement. I can explain that action if you wish. But it is not anything like Newtonian motion. My opinion is that you can't ever show Newtonian motion. Your abilities are not sufficient to do that even if your theory was correct. And it seems that no one will help you establish your ideas as fact or fiction.

It is not a case of your theory just being too obscure or unpopular. It is a case of a theory being highly improbable. Your theory is highly unlikely and so no one is going to help you try to prove it. If your theory had a more likely outcome, I think you would get some support.

Count your supporters. I think the count is zero.

Oh and I forgot to acknowledge that you don't read my posts. Very immature for a grown man (or woman).

 

[quantum_wave]

... Let's see where this goes. . .

Where this is seeming to go is that you ignore my responses as if it isn't the so called model you want to discuss, but instead you want to display your knowledge of mainstream physics and cosmology. I was trying to explain to you that my so called model is different from mainstream views, and would make your mainstream responses wrong from the context of my so called model :shrug:. Then, you acknowledge and even listen to Cheezle which is not even wrong, and so my saying those things might be enough to have caused you to lose interest.

Never-the-less, I did give you some elaboration on the general post #378 which was about how I use the word "energy". You responded in post #416, and I started to elaborate on #378; see post #420. That's history.

This post is picking up where I left off on the post #378 elaboration.

I know that it is hard to imagine the standing wave structure of particles, especially since the fundamental particles of the standard particle model have no internal composition. In my so called model, they do have internal composition, and that composition is further toward the infinitesimal end of the size scale than the concept of a fundamental particle from the SM. The standard model's concept of a point particle is useful in physics, and for me to go beyond that to describe them as having a more complex microscopic quantum nature is a major departure from the mainstream.

Sorry, but if you have paid attention you know why I go there; it is because I want to explore preconditions to the big bang and in doing that, new physics has to exist that is as yet undiscovered. I am hypothesizing about preconditions, and physics that could cause a big bang form a preceding big crunch. Hence, complex quantum particles that change in quanta based on the changing energy density of their environment.

Here is the applicable excerpt from post #378 that gives you a picture of what I mean by an energy density environment:

... at the foundational level of my model, gravity waves are coming and going in all directions at all points in space. Each foundational energy wave that passes a given point comes from a particular direction. For that given point, there is a net directional high wave energy density direction, and that is the direction of the source of the greatest net mass, and therefore the direction of the strongest inflowing gravitational wave energy.
(11527)

 

[Cheezle]

Where this is seeming to go is that you ignore my responses as if it isn't the so called model you want to discuss, but instead you want to display your knowledge of mainstream physics and cosmology. I was trying to explain to you that my so called model is different from mainstream views, and would make your mainstream responses wrong from the context of my so called model :shrug:. Then, you acknowledge and even listen to Cheezle which is not even wrong, and so my saying those things might be enough to have caused you to lose interest.

Never-the-less, I did give you some elaboration on the general post #378 which was about how I use the word "energy". You responded in post #416, and I started to elaborate on #378; see post #420. That's history.

This post is picking up where I left off on the post #378 elaboration.

I know that it is hard to imagine the standing wave structure of particles, especially since the fundamental particles of the standard particle model have no internal composition. In my so called model, they do have internal composition, and that composition is further toward the infinitesimal end of the size scale than the concept of a fundamental particle from the SM. The standard model's concept of a point particle is useful in physics, and for me to go beyond that to describe them as having a more complex microscopic quantum nature is a major departure from the mainstream.

Sorry, but if you have paid attention you know why I go there; it is because I want to explore preconditions to the big bang and in doing that, new physics has to exist that is as yet undiscovered. I am hypothesizing about preconditions, and physics that could cause a big bang form a preceding big crunch. Hence, complex quantum particles that change in quanta based on the changing energy density of their environment.

Here is the applicable excerpt from post #378 that gives you a picture of what I mean by an energy density environment:

... at the foundational level of my model, gravity waves are coming and going in all directions at all points in space. Each foundational energy wave that passes a given point comes from a particular direction. For that given point, there is a net directional high wave energy density direction, and that is the direction of the source of the greatest net mass, and therefore the direction of the strongest inflowing gravitational wave energy.
(11527)

It is very convenient for you to ignore any "mainstream" argument. It effectively allows you to ignore ANY argument against your theory and allow any argument for your theory. You seem to accept any mainstream argument that might embrace your theory. It is quite obvious that if I were to cite any 19th century aether theory that supports your theory, you would happily allow that. Earth, air, fire and water? Hmmm, I wonder. I would also like to point out that this thread started in Physics and Math because you needed help from "mainstream" science because you were stuck. Not too proud to accept any help from any corner when you are stuck, but ANY criticism and you clam up. You are pathetic. Your so called model is pathetic.

 

[quantum_wave]

The premise is that space is a foundational medium that carries gravity waves.

If you acknowledge that my so called model is based on that premise, you have a chance of grasping it, and you have every reason to believe I will be responsive to your posts. It is probable that many of you acknowledge my premise and do grasp the so called model to that extent, and are not interested in such alternative views. It is perfectly understandable that you would move on.

I've answered all meaningful questions and I respond to meaningful comments.

In the mean time, I work on the internal consistency of my so called model, and I continue to make sure that it is consistent with all scientific observations and data.
(11563)

 

[Cheezle]

in the mean time, i work on the internal consistency of my so called model, and i continue to make sure that it is consistent with all scientific observations and data.
(11563)

lol.

 

[brucep]

The premise is that space is a foundational medium that carries gravity waves.

If you acknowledge that my so called model is based on that premise, you have a chance of grasping it, and you have every reason to believe I will be responsive to your posts. It is probable that many of you acknowledge my premise and do grasp the so called model to that extent, and are not interested in such alternative views. It is perfectly understandable that you would move on.

I've answered all meaningful questions and I respond to meaningful comments.

In the mean time, I work on the internal consistency of my so called model, and I continue to make sure that it is consistent with all scientific observations and data.
(11563)

Pontification won't get you very far.

 

[AlexG]

I've answered all meaningful questions and I respond to meaningful comments.

A 'meaningful comment' is one that agrees with him.

He still won't answer questions such as what is energy, or what is a 'foundational medium'. He's seems to be back to aether.

 

[quantum_wave]

You can't have energy in and out of a standing wave unless you mean something other than what you seem to mean.

I responded to your post twice with some elaboration of post #378 and some clarification related to your statement.

Here is the applicable excerpt from post #378 that gives you a picture of what I mean by an energy density environment:

"... at the foundational level of my model, gravity waves are coming and going in all directions at all points in space. Each foundational energy wave that passes a given point comes from a particular direction. For that given point, there is a net directional high wave energy density direction, and that is the direction of the source of the greatest net mass, and therefore the direction of the strongest inflowing gravitational wave energy."

Standing wave patterns

Understand that? Then you can imagine a point in space in that kind of energy density environment and expand that point in volume to encompass a certain number of those tiny convergences, each convergence producing a high density spot.

Note that the density of the particle space can be variable and much much higher than the wave energy density of the surrounding space filled with non-synchronized waves. That is because the waves within the space are synchronized, and therefore the convergences within the space are all quite similar in size and duration. That is the root of quantization, the sameness of the wave action within the particle space.

That is what I refer to as a standing wave pattern, and at any given instant it contains a finite whole number of quanta (high density spots at the convergence of standing waves). The mass of the particle is composed of the high density spots at any instant, and the spots reform continually as the inflow and out flow of wave energy occurs.

When the spots reform, they do so in the direction of the highest net wave energy density inflow (gravity waves arriving from other objects), and so the standing wave pattern moves in that direction. Quite simple to understand if you were to try.
(11692)

 

[quantum_wave]

If a particle is such a wave, this statement implies that particles can not move, which is impossible. You should at least begin with the concept that particles are in perpetual motion.

My so called model includes what causes motion and under what circumstance a particle may show no motion relative to its immediate surrounding environment.

I hope you have had time to notice my last four posts in response to your post. I explained where I goofed up and corrected it, i.e. I restated the paragraph that your were referring to above. That paragraph itself was a response to another question, and referred to a particle at rest, so it was perceptive of you to notice that. The description you picked up on was a particle "at rest" relative to its surrounding energy density environment, not a particle in motion, and I do know the difference, lol.

Then you wondered about what I meant by an energy density environment and I told you.

You wondered what I meant by a standing wave pattern and I told you.

Can you see in my last post how a standing wave particle can move?

Can you see what my explanation for the cause of gravity is?`

OK, I have tried to correct your misunderstandings of my misconceptions :/a little humor: .

There was a lot of good material to address in your post, and I'm sure you don't mind if I continue on through it and address each and every comment. That is a good way to elaborate on post #378 about how I use the term "energy" in my so called model.
(11792)

 

[Cheezle]

My so called model includes what causes motion and under what circumstance a particle may show no motion relative to its immediate surrounding environment.

I hope you have had time to notice my last four posts in response to your post. I explained where I goofed up and corrected it, i.e. I restated the paragraph that your were referring to above. That paragraph itself was a response to another question, and referred to a particle at rest, so it was perceptive of you to notice that. The description you picked up on was a particle "at rest" relative to its surrounding energy density environment, not a particle in motion, and I do know the difference, lol.

Then you wondered about what I meant by an energy density environment and I told you.

You wondered what I meant by a standing wave pattern and I told you.

Can you see in my last post how a standing wave particle can move?

Can you see what my explanation for the cause of gravity is?`

OK, I have tried to correct your misunderstandings of my misconceptions :/a little humor: .

There was a lot of good material to address in your post, and I'm sure you don't mind if I continue on through it and address each and every comment. That is a good way to elaborate on post #378 about how I use the term "energy" in my so called model.
(11792)

You still have no idea what a standing wave is. Aqueous Id explained it in his post but evidently it when right over your head. If you could just read and understand his post, but no. That is not within your ability. Same with energy. You just don't have the ability to understand. And until you do, you can't understand that your theory is just plain wrong.

You seem to think that gravity is a product of gravitational waves. It is not. Gravitational waves are a phenomenon resulting from gravity. Here is a wikipedia quote, I know you hate them, but read this carefully.

For a system like the Sun and Earth, is about 1.5×1011 m and and are about 2×1030 and 6×1024 kg respectively. In this case, the power is about 200 watts. This is truly tiny compared to the total electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun (roughly 3.86×1026 watts).​

Did you catch that. 200 watts. A couple of light bulbs of power in gravitational waves from the sun. Obviously not supporting your theory.

As far as gravitational standing waves go. I am not sure that is even possible. As Aqueous Id explained, standing waves require reflection. I don't think that gravitational waves can be reflected. I could be wrong. But if I am, it still does not support your theory. As I explained to Aqueous Id, every term you use is differently defined differently than commonly understood. A smart person would learn to adequately describe their theory without having to redefine every term they use.

 

[quantum_wave]

This is time for Friday night talk, not serious on topic pontification. Humor only for tonight.

I count 19 hidden posts this week from those detractors I have on ignore, lol. OK, I peek, but they contain no on topic content. I just took a quick look, and might not have seen it perfectly, but it looks like a post from Alice Cheesy. It is a post full of misspelled words claiming QW doesn't know the meaning of the word "quantum".

QW turns to his team of researchers and says, "That's my first name, for God's sake, what else does she think it means???"

 

[Cheezle]

This is time for Friday night talk, not serious on topic pontification. Humor only for tonight.

I count 19 hidden posts this week from those detractors I have on ignore, lol. OK, I peek, but they contain no on topic content. I just took a quick look, and might not have seen it perfectly, but it looks like a post from Alice Cheesy. It is a post full of misspelled words claiming QW doesn't know the meaning of the word "quantum".

QW turns to his team of researchers and says, "That's my first name, for God's sake, what else does she think it means???"

You know, I have only received one infraction from the moderators. And that was for chastising someone for what could be assumed to be misspelling. But I suppose the moderators feel sorry for you and will not do the same to you. Its all good. LOL.

 

[quantum_wave]

That's humorous.

How about this: I probably should publish ... in comic book fashion that is, with the hero, QW, storming across the pages by harnessing Quantum Action to propel himself at will to any distant planet, or even to other big bang arenas, bringing those who disparage him to justice. LOL. OK, I said its Friday night!

 

[Motor Daddy]

A skunk sat on a stump. The skunk said the stump stunk, and the stump said the skunk stunk.

 

[quantum_wave]

Everyone sees humor differently, MD.

I worry a little that the detractors will find it boring to post their nonsense all week and have me ignore them. I was in hopes they would participate in the Friday night humor. On Friday night I sometimes acknowledge them and we can have a little fun on the thread, tongue in cheek. We all can handle a little fun, and being made fun of, and so why not, on Friday night, we can make fun of each other and ourselves, hopefully with no hard feelings.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Everyone sees humor differently, MD.

I worry a little that the detractors will find it boring to post their nonsense all week and have me ignore them. I was in hopes they would participate in the Friday night humor. On Friday night I sometimes acknowledge them and we can have a little fun on the thread, tongue in cheek. We all can handle a little fun, and being made fun of, and so why not, on Friday night, we can make fun of each other and ourselves, hopefully with no hard feelings.

I don't limit my fun to Fridays, I laugh DAILY on this site. Usually it's not jokes that I laugh at, it's the sarcasm that's awesome!

 

[quantum_wave]

Sarcasm is an art, lol.

More Friday night light hearted fun. Here is a proposed comic book installment idea; a comic book with QW the hero, and some greasy pizza faced kid sitting on a whoopee cushion. Cheesy Pizza is the name scribbled in the corner of yesterday's third grade homework, generously graded double F by his lenient teacher. He is finger tapping out a post full of misspelled words and disparagement to QW's latest thread, thinking QW doesn't know that he gets ideas for his posts from the magic messages burped out by his whoopee cushion.

 

[Cheezle]

I don't limit my fun to Fridays, I laugh DAILY on this site. Usually it's not jokes that I laugh at, it's the sarcasm that's awesome!

Motor Daddy, I wonder if you would do me a favor. Would you ask quantum_wave what he thinks of your theories of motion. Because I can assure you he does not believe your stuff any more than all the other people here. I find that hilarious. How all you cranks support each other but none of you believe the others crank's wacko theories. And actually, now that I am thinking about it, I would like to ask you. Do you subscribe to quantum_wave's theory, or are you two just mutually agnostic?