Lol, the "rage quit". If you don't know what that is then let me give you an example. It is when your chess opponent takes his arm and sweeps all the chess pieces off the board because he realized that he can not win. It is normally thought of as an emotionally immature act. Often people that rage quit will calm down later and realize the problem is inside themselves. Whether they ever play chess with that person again depends on their character.
Quantifying gravity's mechanism
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Lol, the "rage quit". If you don't know what that is then let me give you an example. It is when your chess opponent takes his arm and sweeps all the chess pieces off the board because he realized that he can not win. It is normally thought of as an emotionally immature act. Often people that rage quit will calm down later and realize the problem is inside themselves. Whether they ever play chess with that person again depends on their character.
Edit: I do peek at posts even if I have people on ignore, so if I respond it is because you passed the peek test. This post failed.
Not brilliant, I just don't think you know enough about physics and cosmology to be telling me what I mean when I say something. That is what Prof.Layman did, and I don't respond because he clearly is not up to speed on what I have said all along or on generally accepted physics and cosmology.
I have followed the Susskind lectures on Physics. He covers cosmology and just recently put a new lecture series on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-medYaqVak
He does a very good job of bringing a hard subject down to my skill level. Currently he is lecturing on statistical mechanics. But I think his best series is the theoretical minimum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJfw6lDlTuA
But whether I am "up to speed" on the subject is not really the big question here, because you deny everything contained in those lecture series. There is no way I can be up to speed on your ideas because you have not even finished deciding what they are.
Well then your problem is solved. You should have me on ignore.
Not at all. Your theory is a problem I chave chosen as a way to learn some math and science. I have done this kind of learning before and found it very rewarding. For instance a decade or 2 ago, they interviewed a guy on the local news who claimed to have found a "loop hole" in physics involving angular momentum. He claimed that he had a purely mechanical way of converting angular momentum into linear momentum. So he could build a device that just would spin around in a complex way and any vehicle that it was bolted to would just be propelled forward. He even had letters from a couple big aerospace engineers at big name aerospace companies who had looked at his design and said they could find nothing wrong with the idea. So I was compelled to try and solve the problem of why his idea was wrong. It took me about a month of a few evenings a week and I did eventually figure out where the aerospace engineers had been wrong. I wrote the inventor a letter and explained the simple mistake and why it spelled doom for his idea. Of course he denied my solution even though there was no doubt. He had too much invested ($ and effort) in this invention to even stop. He had built engine after engine and they never exhibited any significant movement. The small amounts of movement were obviously just a consequence of the off center spinning mechanism causing it to make and break friction with the floor. A few inches per hour along a wandering path. As far as I know he is still working on his engine. I got a lot out of finding the solution. I learned a lot. I think I can learn a lot out of figuring out where your idea is wrong. Unfortunately for me, my efforts to get you to clarify your ideas have failed. Perhaps it is my sometimes agressive personality that has caused you to rage quit. Though I suspect that you just don't want to answer any questions that might show your idea to be crap. You have so far avoided answering my simple question about the difference between force and energy. It was not a trick question, and I would accept a wikipedia cut and paste job as an answer.
You are not going to get anywhere with my so called model unless you read about it. I did respond to your question though, so go back and start there if you want to try to understand, but I'll warn you now, there is no chance you will understand it if you don't read the responses I give you, and when you immediately say that my response doesn't agree with GR, QM, or string theory, or some other theory, I am not impressed. I already know where my ideas differ from generally accepted science and theory. And the really big problem is that I don't have the slightest confidence that you could find the problem with a broken fan belt, let along some theoretical "loop hole" that real engineers couldn't find. Not for one instant do I believe that based on what you have shown us up to now.
Challenge accepted.
But you will have to answer at least a few questions. Do you have an actual document that details your theory? That would be more useful than a series of posts across multiple threads.
You may want to construe what I said as a challenge instead of a criticism, but that is clearly your style. Did you find my response to your question?
No, but my threads are open to the public. Work backward from the latest which would be this thread, and the Gravity's Mechanism thread that for some reason is still in P&M. I have posted all of the latest version over the past year, buy I noticed that the history in our profiles does not work right now. If you get bored and want to read back, I may be able to find the threads, but I don't think your enthusiasm will last long, and I also don't think I will be able to stand communicating with you for the reasons I have already mentioned.
I read through thread from where I asked the question about energy and force and only found a vague ramble about how water waves carry energy. Not really what I was looking for but I guess that is all I can get from you. What I was hoping you would say what that energy is measured in kilogram*meters^2 / time^2 (joules or newton meters) and force is measured in kilograms*meters/time^s (newtons). So the difference between them is a factor of distance. And so you can't use them interchangeably.
As I said before, I will need to ask you some questions. One think I would like from you is a clear description of what you mean by spherical standing way. Now I already know what a spherical standing wave is, but I can't be sure that you do. So I would like you to describe that better. Maybe you could draw a cross section of the "gravity waves" so that I can tell what you mean. A simple diagram to tell me if gravity waves look like sine waves or what ever you imagine them to look like.
If they are sine waves then what do the peaks and valleys represent?
Also tell me about the frequency of the waves.
Are they the same for all objects or what ever you want to call the emitters of them?
In standing waves there are nodes where the wave and its reflection cancel. Are there such nodes in your theory?
Are the waves being reflected to form these standing waves or are they produced in some other manner?
What is the energy source for these waves?
That is a good start. Now I am off to try and decipher your theory.
You found the wrong vague ramgle. Post #95. Do I have to hold you hand every inch of the way. That will not work.
You are doing it again Prof.Layman. Telling me I don't understand what I say, and you do. Why don't you just tell me about my so called model and save us both a lot of time?
FYI, I'm finding you so far off track that I didn't read the rest. If it happens to matter later, when you figure out what you want me to have said, we can come back and you can tell me the rest of what you want me to say.
I read through that post and it did not really answer the question I asked. I asked for a definition of energy and force and you gave me some examples of what you call energy and force.
I am not telling you that you don't understand what you say and I do. I am saying that I don't know what you are saying. I don't have enough information to figure it out. So I am trying to engage you in a dialog where were I ask you questions about you theory. Isn't that why you started these threads? To tell others about your ideas and have them try and understand it. Here I am willing to help you better communicate this idea of yours. I have a feeling that I will wind up being the only reader participating in the thread and since you ignore me, then the thread will be dead, just like your other one.
I will make you a promise. I will try to not insult you or complain about your lack of clarity, and in return you will answer questions. In the end I will offer a critique of your theory.
The definition of the two forces is quite basic and a good starting point. Why not quote what I said, explain what it is in what you quote that you are having trouble understanding, and I might be able to clear it up, or confuse the issue more. This stuff doesn't correspond with the physics and cosmology you might be familiar with. You have to be willing to give up what you know and try to grasp what I say if you want to find the internal inconsistencies. If you want to just show how any of it is inconsistent with scientific observations and data, that would be welcome. It might seem easy to show where I am wrong, but then, be sure you are using observational evidence and data, and not mathematical theory, if you know the difference.
And for your information, it doesn't matter to me if the thread dies, I still keep the hobby going and add posts as I see fit, even when there are no readers. What good would a hobby be if I had to depend on participation in a fringe forum in a small science forum. It is just that there are only a few forums that allow this kind of crap, and I have been here for so long I hate to leave it.
This same old process reminds me of the same process met by Einstein. How many years did even professional physicists "not understand" what he was trying to set out "piecemeal" as his insights progressed from unfamiliar to conventional, even when he was using the mathematics they knew? He even invented some terms didn't he? But now this need to sometimes invent new terms because they don't exist in conventional paradigm is used as a negative comment on the person instead of trying to understand what and why the new term may be necessary based on the new ideas. Same old thing, new generation of antagonistic or envious incapable naysayers who are not up to it themselves to think and discuss new ideas for their own sake and not personal status. Lucky we now have "alternative theories" section of forums.
That is true, but alas, I won't suggest that you will find anything remarkable in this version, given the pariculars of my limited layman understanding and the vast body of knowledge out there that I have no hint even exits, lol. But as a hobby, having errors pointed out is just as good a figuring our the errors on my own. I regroup and go on.
All that I was looking for was something basic. Like f=ma or E=mc^2 or the units of force and energy. I would have accepted a cut and past from the dictionary definition. Anything that would tell me if you understood the concept at least as well as my limited understanding. Since I am now on best behavior mode I will just assume that you do understand all that. We can forget about it.
I am in the process of putting all your threads into a software tool I use for these kinds of things. It helps me condense the subject down while retaining all the orignal info. Multiple views of the same information. Graphics and all. I like to boil a subject down to its essentials and the rebuild it into a simple model. There is a good chance that I won't get anywhere with this. It all depends on if you answer reasonable questions I might have.
Most important: I need to understand what you mean by spherical standing wave. If you don't reply I will try and work with what I understand to be a spherical standing wave. How well that corresponds to your idea of how this wave energy acts is going to be key to success or failure.
I am not willing to give up what all I know. I don't see how that could be helpful. I will try and be as flexible as possible. I actually have some reasonable doubt about many scientific theories, and so I can probably work around any dogmatic problems. Not all, but maybe some. Depends on where the path leads.
I think that sort of thing is called a "sounding board" process to help refine or falsify ideas. It is the first thing that scientists do after a new idea or observation, to "soundboard it" with friends, family and colleagues before they move to the next stage of costly experiment or further observation and time consuming thinking on it? I think it's a good thing no matter how unpromising the new idea seems at early stage of "soundboarding" process. I will read anything as long as it is scientific idea not religious or political dogma. This section is good for this. Thankyou for your courageous "soundboarding" of your ideas. Always learn something one way or other along the way for my naive understanding of current and evolving science paradigms.
Redefinition of terms is OK as long as all parties in the discussion are working with the same definitions. I can't tell you how many times I have been in arguments only to find out that we did not agree on the definition of some key term. I doubt that Einstein ever used differently defined terms without explicitly defining them in the beginning of his paper. I have even seen people include a glossary of terms and their definitions in papers in order to avoid misunderstandings. If quantum_wave decides to coin a new terms, say "wavometric gravigism" then I expect that he will at least try and explain the term and not just expect the reader to understand from the context. Also if he redefines a term, I expect him to say so.
Fine, knock yourself out
. But you need to quote what I said about the two forces in a post, and then refer to the words I used to describe the two forces and ask about what you don't understand.Standing wave patterns establish the presence of particles, and might contain hundreds of thousands of quanta or much more. Each quanta is represented by an overlap between the expanding spherical quantum waves in the pattern. I'm sure you can visualize that, right.
There is another thing that is necessary to visualize a standing wave pattern. You have to visualize a foundational level below the fundamental level of the Standard Particle Model. As you know, fundamental particles in the standard model are said to have no internal composition, and yet I am describing them as if they are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, i.e. standing wave patterns as I just described.