In your model, how do you depict an orbiting electron around a proton or nucleous?
Or,
In your model, how do you describe/explain the "atomic structure"?
Quantifying gravity's mechanism
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
In your model, how do you depict an orbiting electron around a proton or nucleous?
Or,
In your model, how do you describe/explain the "atomic structure"?
Lol, why ruin a perfectly nonsensical thread with wild speculation about changes to the physics books that we all read and love? I'll send you a PM with my ideas but they are off topic to this thread. Starting a new thread in Physics and Math would probably be enough to revive to calls to get me banned, and certainly until the mods or administrators acknowledge that the thread is being moved to elsewhere, why aggravate the few members who have spoken out against my use of the forum.
Alternative theories ->
Isn't this what you wanted?
No, I wanted it in physics and math, and I do wish while it was in P&M someone would have confirmed that the equation works the way I set it up to work, i.e. to determine when the overlap of two spheres, each containing a quantum of energy by definition, equals a new quantum of energy composed of the combined wave energy from the two parent spheres. There is some justification to have wanted to discuss that in P&M.
It certainly is hypothesis, and not science in the minds of anyone who counts, and what people think justifies the treatment of the thread; most people don't waste time reading and thinking about what a lone layman hobbiest thinks. And to tell the truth, getting someone to say the equation works properly isn't as important as the bigger issue of the location of discussion of the so called model. I enjoyed my little sojourn into physics and math, I know the equation is mathematically correct, and I know that the so called model is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, even if no one was/is gentleman enough to say so, or to point out where I'm wrong. Most people don't have a clue about how the quantum realm works, and those who say they do are responsible to prove what can't be proved yet. I simply talk about what I think it could be like, and am not upset that I'm alone in my thinking.
(1132)
Last edited:
QW - I don't want to get into discussing your theory, but understanding a little of your frustration, wonder if you have studied similar theories, seen any duplication of your's, and maybe tried to contact these other authors. Just a few examples of competing ideas:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112089
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/
http://www.16pi2.com/
http://www.amperefitz.com/index.html
A huge and ever growing number of such competing 'alternative TOE's' out there, and a lifetime can be spent just trying to read it all. Just how much of nature any of such can accurately account for is probably the first question to ask. Each will be claimed by respective author to do it all. Which means someone's wrong because they all disagree on fundamental ideas.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112089
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/
http://www.16pi2.com/
http://www.amperefitz.com/index.html
A huge and ever growing number of such competing 'alternative TOE's' out there, and a lifetime can be spent just trying to read it all. Just how much of nature any of such can accurately account for is probably the first question to ask. Each will be claimed by respective author to do it all. Which means someone's wrong because they all disagree on fundamental ideas.
I have studied various popular and alternative theories and have gradually extracted my so called model form a growing personal view fueled by such studies.
Thank you for the links, and I know you understand the way I might feel, though it would frustrate some people more than it does me. I'm OK with my status and treatment on the forums, given my awareness of the lack of interest in any model coming out of my limited understanding.
You now, have a more frustrated posture. For example, your question about magnetism and the source of the energy in the magnetic field.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-of-energy&p=3046465&viewfull=1#post3046465
Consider a quantum explanation, the possibility of continually inflowing and out flowing wave energy that maintains the presence of particles in standing wave patterns.
In a magnet, the arrangement of the atomic and molecular bonds would "shape" the normally spherical out flowing wave energy to follow flux lines established by the magnetic field when the bonds are properly aligned. That could then explain the source of energy you were inquiring about.
You won't likely be able to see any logic to it, and I didn't waste your time by posting this in P&M, but let me know if any of that resonates
.Yes I've let it be known there is disappointment with attitudes. But it's not new. Back at my former forum abode, this sort of reaction was common, though not generally as consistently vicious&vacuous as in that case (but then flaming is acceptable pastime here it seems). And more often than not there were positive inputs at least initially. But the big difference between you and me is that I have never proposed some new theory. Always a case of just pointing to hidden issues inherent within existing ones. Attack a sacred cow though and the mindless angry mob descends in force. Shrewd ones tend to stand silently aloof. The exact mix between brainwashing, opportunism, and 'intestinal fortitude' issues always hard to judge.
Unfortunately not. As said above, my penchant is, apart from defense of orthodoxy where appropriate, to point out at least seemingly paradoxical issues emanating from within established theories. And getting no thanks for doing so.Consider a quantum explanation, the possibility of continually inflowing and out flowing wave energy that maintains the presence of particles in standing wave patterns.
In a magnet, the arrangement of the atomic and molecular bonds would "shape" the normally spherical out flowing wave energy to follow flux lines established by the magnetic field when the bonds are properly aligned. That could then explain the source of energy you were inquiring about.
You won't likely be able to see any logic to it, and I didn't waste your time by posting this in P&M, but let me know if any of that resonates
Oh oh, that's how I started out, but I concluded that the fix will not be a gradual reconciliation of irreconcilable differences, but will be new thinking from the foundational level up. But if you have fun doing it, and are happy with the results, then you are fine... As said above, my penchant is, apart from defense of orthodoxy where appropriate, to point out at least seemingly paradoxical issues emanating from within established theories. And getting no thanks for doing so.
.If that fits your situation, I'm glad for you in the sense it's always better to be happy than sad. Can only persevere and hope the same may eventuate for your's truly.Oh oh, that's how I started out, but I concluded that the fix will not be a gradual reconciliation of irreconcilable differences, but will be new thinking from the foundational level up. But if you have fun doing it, and are happy with the results, then you are fine
In the diagram in the OP above, the new quantum wave will be centered relative to the two parent waves. But according to the Gravity Hypothesis, motion of an object is caused by an imbalance in the net inflowing wave energy. Since the inflow in the example in the OP is made up of two equally dense parent waves, there is no motion resulting from the convergence; the new quantum wave is located in the center of the action.
However, consider the convergence below:
Notice the imbalance between the two parent quantum waves. The smaller parent wave, Sphere B, has higher energy density because its quantum of energy is confined in a smaller sphere. The location of the new quantum wave produced by Cap A and Cap B will be offset in the direction of Sphere B because of the directional imbalace of the inflowing wave energy density. The new quantum wave will expand spherically from the Cap A + Cap B lens shaped space.
This is a simple example, but the principle of motion in the direction of the highest inflowing wave energy density is depicted.
A particle in my so called model will be much more complex in that there will be a huge number of converging quantum waves in the standing wave pattern, and the directional inflow will be arriving at the particle from the spherical out flow of other particles and objects.
(43)
(1233)
OK, back to the spreadsheet for two unequal spheres, next.
Last edited:
quantum_wave, I see you are still laboring on this hobby of yours. I read through the thread and thought I would point out a couple things. Gravity is not an energy it is a force. You seem to be conflating energy and force. Also your theory seems to not include any notion of conservation of energy and your ideas of quantum seem completely off the mark. If a particle is giving off out-going wave energy and taking in in-going wave energy, then there is no guarantee that those will balance. In fact it is very unlikely they would. There would be cases where the energy would build up to unimaginable levels or completely drain away (or maybe they go negative in your theory). You only need to consider the case where a particle is alone in the universe where it would have to give off an infinite amount of energy, or at least a huge amount until it decayed. And in the case where the particle is at the center of a shell of dense matter, if it could stay in equilibrium then it would be taking in vast amount more energy than it gives off. Unless there is some mechanism where energy inflow and outflow are variable, in which case all kinds of strange behavior would occur.
Yes, still at it.
The premise is that everything is wave energy, ... everything ... every point in space contains wave energy. If you want to help, refute that misconception on my part. Just say I'm wrong, you don't have to prove it by saying there is actually any solid particle or object out there. You don't have to say there is actually a perfect vacuum anywhere, just say you think there is something that is not composed of wave energy, and maybe suggest what that something is, and I will have something to go on.
Energy and force are inseparably connected. The premise is that there are two opposing forces and every event has elements of each. They are the force of energy density equalization that is responsible for expansion of wave energy density, and there is the force of gravity which is responsible for contraction and containment of wave energy into particles and objects from the tiny energy quanta that make up particles, to big crunches that precede big bangs.
The notion of energy conservation is that all events are wave energy phenomena at a foundational level. Every event uses existing wave energy and every quantum of energy is accounted for. The quantum of energy is the smallest meaningful amount of energy that can participate in any event. There are smaller waves, but until they aggregate into quantum waves they are not meaningful, except that they occupy space at the foundational level.
The imbalance between inflowing and out flowing wave energy is translated to motion. Particles move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density inflow; all out flow is characterized as spherical.
You read the thread and I'm proud of you, but you don't have the proper conception of the limits and thresholds of wave energy density in nature. I do say that energy does build up to an almost unimaginable level, the common big crunch in my so called model. Nature lets particles and wave energy accumulate until nature's maximum wave energy density is reached at the core of a big crunch, and then the gravitational pressure causes all of the particles in the crunch to fail to maintain their own particle space. They give up that space, collapse into each others space, which is the "big bang" event.
That event is the ultimate example of gravitational force.
The ultimate example of the force of wave energy density equalization begins as the particles in the crunch are negated into their wave energy, all compressed into ... wait for it, lol ... dense dark energy. The dense dark energy "ball" finds itself surrounded by the opposite extreme of wave energy density, i.e. the low energy density space formerly occupied by the crunch and by parent big bang arenas that converged to cause the crunch. Those circumstances are the ultimate opportunity for the force of energy density equalization; the dense dark energy emerges from the compressed "ball" and inflates or expands right back out into the relatively empty space surrounding it.
The last few sentences of your arguments remind me of Newton's bucket. In my so called model, if Newton's bucket of water was spinning out there in distant empty space, unaffected by the gravity of the so distant objects, it would be a good demonstration of a bucket of water experiencing the big rip. However, since there is no such empty space in my so called model, the bucket and water are quite stable, and the water would climb the sides.
Let me leave you with the premise that there are three infinities invoked in my so called model: Space, time, and energy. The model won't work without them. If you can't make it over the "infinities" hurdles, you should just ignore the model. It would be gentlemanly of you to just stop the wise cracks in my threads that tend to discourage any unsuspecting victims who might otherwise be willing to question me and listen to my defense.
(1430)
Last edited:
Markus Hanke
Registered Senior Member
The first one, that gravity has no energy associated with it, is just plain wrong. Both in classical mechanics as well as in GR the gravitational field is a form of energy.
The second bit is true only in Newtonian mechanics, but false in GR - the latter models gravity as a geometric property of space-time, there are no forces involved.
Being something and being "associated" with something are not the same thing. A duck can be associated with a pond of water, but a duck is not the same thing as a pond of water. Unless that is your alternative theory in which case I guess we will just have to have different opinions on the subject. In my world, energy and force are very different things. Force and Energy have very concrete meanings and have different units.
I understand this. But I don't think that quantum_wave is talking about GR. His ideas are all Newtonian. His TOE embraces the idea that gravity is a force. Well, he says that it is an energy or superposition of spherical energy standing waves. He has not said anything about relativity.
Basically I am say thing that you are just arguing to argue. Your first point that gravity is "associated" with energy is just loosely tossing about words to argue. If you measure gravity, it is (granted in the Newtonian sense) a force and not an energy. In the second part you are off the subject of quantum_wave's TOE and don't seem to be arguing for it, but do seem to be arguing against an argument against it. If you want to make an argument for GR, then make it with quantum_wave, not me.
Whenever I read your stuff I am presented with a maze of vague language that I have to navigate through. You say things that, if they are stripped of all the crank language, are just plain wrong. But then I get caught up in the, "well maybe if this over hear means that, and that over there mans something else then yes, I think what he is saying might be right." But I have to supply most of the idea myself and I have no idea if that is what you meant. If I only go by what you write, then all I can do is disagree or shrug my shoulders and give up. I guess I should shrug my shoulders again.
Both of your points are true.
That is true to the extent that you include in your world the things that are being taught and learned in classrooms, or that are encompassed in the generally accepted science, and the standard theories. I do know a little about those things but don't make an issue out of my layman level of understanding because you would just say I don't know anything anyway, lol. I don't want my threads to be about all of that established science. My ideas are alternative to that and I guess you just have to give me credit for having a decent laymen understanding of physics and cosmology, or point out my errors.
As for the terminology, as you can imagine, given that I have been posting about my alternative ideas for many years, unless I make up new words for concepts that are a plain as "energy", I get the kind of responses like you give, i.e. the words I use confuses you. My response has always been that I will be glad to give you the specific definition of words I use in the context I use them. Not happy with that? Oh well.
To clear up that little bit of misunderstanding, my ideas are not all Newtonian. My so called model does say there are two forces, gravity and energy density equalization, but you haven't inquired about that any further, and have concluded it is Newtonian?
I don't invoke GR but I hypothesize about an alternative that yields the same result. I do acknowledge the EFEs; they are the best math we have to quantify the effect of gravity. I do discuss and describe my view of a mechanism of gravity, and my faulty layman efforts to quantify it, but I'm sure you can overlook that shortcoming
.(1520)
In reference to Energy and force you wrote:
This is a good example of the lack of clarity in your writing. You seem to be saying that you define energy and force differently than other people. But then I could not say for certain that you said that. I have to read between the lines and supply most of your meaning there myself. In truth I have no idea what you said above. Instead of just coming out and stating something you talk around the subject. Never getting to the point.
Ok then, what is your definition of 'energy'?
And what is your definition of 'force'?
Are they the same thing? If so then tell us why.
Please try and be clear.
At one point in this thread I actually thought maybe you were talking about GR but as I said, I had to supply my own context and try and understand your differently defined words. There are only 3 places I have ever encountered this to such an extent. One is religion where the listener has to read into the words of the dogma his own understanding (which is not necessarily the same as the next person's). Second is advertising where they can present a jingle or some meaningless words and the consumer decides what the meaning is. Coke, its the real thing! Third is politics. And now I have to add a forth, Alternative Theories. But I actually have to go looking for these rather than have them thrust upon me like in the other subjects.
This is a good example of the lack of clarity in your writing. You seem to be saying that you define energy and force differently than other people. But then I could not say for certain that you said that. I have to read between the lines and supply most of your meaning there myself. In truth I have no idea what you said above. Instead of just coming out and stating something you talk around the subject. Never getting to the point.
Ok then, what is your definition of 'energy'?
And what is your definition of 'force'?
Are they the same thing? If so then tell us why.
Please try and be clear.
To clear up that little bit of misunderstanding, my ideas are not all Newtonian. My so called model does say there are two forces, gravity and energy density equalization, but you haven't inquired about that any further, and have concluded it is Newtonian? I don't invoke GR but I hypothesize about an alternative that yields the same result. I do acknowledge the EFEs; they are the best math we have to quantify the effect of gravity. I do discuss and describe my view of a mechanism of gravity, and my faulty layman efforts to quantify it, but I'm sure you can overlook that shortcoming
(1520)
At one point in this thread I actually thought maybe you were talking about GR but as I said, I had to supply my own context and try and understand your differently defined words. There are only 3 places I have ever encountered this to such an extent. One is religion where the listener has to read into the words of the dogma his own understanding (which is not necessarily the same as the next person's). Second is advertising where they can present a jingle or some meaningless words and the consumer decides what the meaning is. Coke, its the real thing! Third is politics. And now I have to add a forth, Alternative Theories. But I actually have to go looking for these rather than have them thrust upon me like in the other subjects.