Wave-particle duality is special

quantum_wave said:
Are you looking for gravity to show up in your sweep, and if so, are you supposing that there is some similarity between electromagnetic radiation and gravity?
Click to expand...
I think there is a relationship between the time rate of change of electromagnetic frequency and the acceleration of gravity.
I can see where there is no need for an EM related field to affect the motion of a particle through the aether if particles are standing wave patterns. Your antenna would be useless in detecting gravity, IMHO.
Click to expand...
If I drop the antenna it would detect gravity. Actually, I'm trying to create a gravity field by radiating a frequency sweep. Basically, I looked at gravitational redshift (gravity causes light to redshift), and had the idea that if I radiate a frequency sweep, I could get back a gravity field.
If the medium is flowing into and out of the particle space, in and out of the standing wave pattern in other words, then the particle is not moving through the aether, but instead moving relative to the aether as a standing wave pattern. If the inflowing and out flowing components of the standing wave have a directional imbalance. The pattern moves as the wave energy refreshes it with new directional inflowing wave energy.
Click to expand...
My aether concept is completely original. I took the wave-function solution(s) to the Schrodinger equation, and elevated it to a quasi-existent phenomena of nature. Therefore, wave-function solutions are just mathematical descriptions of the aether medium. Then, I required that this aether medium must obey the postulates of relativity as a fundamental characteristic. For that to happen, the aether medium has to be made of waves that obey $$c=\lambda f$$. Particles of the standard model are just kinks, knots or energy stored localizations in the waves of the aether. When an aether wave is energized, it has energy E=hf. An energized aether wave acts like a photon. But when there is no energy, the aether wave has a quasi-existence. It exists enough to act like a medium for light, but is itself undetectable. Aether waves effectively interconnect everything in a way that guarantees the invariance of c. If two aether waves go by each other with a relative velocity v<c. then there exists a frequency shifted wave (or waves) between them. So the frequency sweep experiment is designed to energize these frequency shifted waves, and hopefully get back an acceleration field.

For that to be true, you have to consider the aether to be a wave bearing medium, and consider particles to be composed of wave energy traversing the medium that then form standing wave patterns. Then you might not be able to find any kind of "gravity field" when searching the EM spectrum, since gravity might be a wave energy phenomenon and not the effect of an EM field on a particle.
Click to expand...
A frequency sweeping EM field should interface with gravitational acceleration.
I'll give you an example since this thread is in the Alternative Theories forum: Suppose that there is a medium, wave energy traverses it frictionlessly in all directions, and particles form as standing waves, with directionally inflowing and spherically out flowing wave energy components as characteristics of those patterns. If that describes the composition of a particle, then the motion of a particle through the medium would be caused by a directional imbalance in the net inflowing wave energy. Particles and objects would move toward the source of the highest wave pressure without the presence of any field related to EM.

Excuse the interruption, and that was just an aside related to the off topic idea of detecting gravity with an antenna.
Click to expand...
Not detect gravity, emit gravity. I can detect gravity just by dropping the antenna. :D
 
Mazulu said:
I think there is a relationship between the time rate of change of electromagnetic frequency and the acceleration of gravity.

If I drop the antenna it would detect gravity.
Click to expand...
You got me on that one, lol.
 
Basically, gravitational redshift is caused by acceleration of gravity. As light falls into a gravity well, it blueshifts. If it is escaping a gravity well, it redshifts. Blueshift and redshift are very similar to frequency sweeping. I can generate a frequency sweep and emit it with an antenna. My hope is to generate a gravity field.

Dropping things is a way to detect gravity. For my experiment, I'm going to use a scale to measure for changes in the acceleration of gravity. I was being facetious about "dropping the antenna".
 
Mazulu said:
When I generate a frequency sweep, it is an electromagnetic field with a changing frequency. But to what extent is it also a constant frequency under the influence of a time dilation field? If my techniques were more refined, could I induce a time dilation field measurable with atomic clocks? If I could do that, then I expect a gravity field to appear.
Click to expand...

As I said, a true crank never gives up. There is no science involved. There is no evidence that your idea can work. It does not conform to any other working theory. All that it is, is something you imagine that space aliens have told you. But unlike many cranks you don't even work hard at it. It has taken you months to basically plug an antenna into a signal generator and look at your postage scale. I can safely predict that you will be dead long before you ever even attempt a serious experiment. So much for your passion of finding a FTL drive. You are just a pathetic fool.
 
Mazulu said:
Basically, gravitational redshift is caused by acceleration of gravity. As light falls into a gravity well, it blueshifts. If it is escaping a gravity well, it redshifts. Blueshift and redshift are very similar to frequency sweeping. I can generate a frequency sweep and emit it with an antenna. My hope is to generate a gravity field.

Dropping things is a way to detect gravity. For my experiment, I'm going to use a scale to measure for changes in the acceleration of gravity. I was being facetious about "dropping the antenna".
Click to expand...
The redshift is caused by the motion of the stars and galaxies relative to the point of observation, regardless of the gravitational mass of the location of the observer. That is why we essentially see redshift in all directions from any location. Let's call that the raw redshift data from any original point of observation. Then, motion relative to that original location will change the redshift data that will be recorded at the new moving location from what the raw data was that was recorded from the first observation post. You can even tell which observing location is moving relative to the background because if the motion from the original location that showed redshift in all directions is at a relativistic velocity, you will see blue shift in the direction of motion which tells you you are moving relative to the original observation location.
 
quantum_wave said:
The redshift is caused by the motion of the stars and galaxies relative to the point of observation, regardless of the gravitational mass of the location of the observer. That is why we essentially see redshift in all directions from any location. Let's call that the raw redshift data from any original point of observation. Then, motion relative to that original location will change the redshift data that will be recorded at the new moving location from what the raw data was that was recorded from the first observation post. You can even tell which observing location is moving relative to the background because if the motion from the original location that showed redshift in all directions is at a relativistic velocity, you will see blue shift in the direction of motion which tells you you are moving relative to the original observation location.
Click to expand...

There are three kinds of redshift: relativistic doppler, cosmological and gravitational. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

In the case of relativistic doppler, light has to transition from one frame to another. The very fact that the speed of light is invariant between the frames suggests the presence of a medium. Otherwise, the invariance of c would be without a mechanism. It would be an observable without any natural way to explain why it's observed.
 
Mazulu said:
There are three kinds of redshift: relativistic doppler, cosmological and gravitational. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

In the case of relativistic doppler, light has to transition from one frame to another. The very fact that the speed of light is invariant between the frames suggests the presence of a medium. Otherwise, the invariance of c would be without a mechanism. It would be an observable without any natural way to explain why it's observed.
Click to expand...
Shame on me for not noticing that you said gravitational redshift and you are right about two frames being involved in any redshift observation. Do you know how much gravitational force there would have to be to cause any measurable graivtational redshift? Just asking. Because I don't know what you could be trying to emit or find associated with gravity or redshift by sweeping an antenna. Do you agree that the effects you could generate would be too small to measure without atomic clocks?

Now, are you certain that the speed of light is the same at different gravitational locations? Just checking your level of conviction on that point, lol.
 
quantum_wave said:
Shame on me for not noticing that you said gravitational redshift and you are right about two frames being involved in any redshift observation. Do you know how much gravitational force there would have to be to cause any measurable graivtational redshift? Just asking. Because I don't know what you could be trying to emit or find associated with gravity or redshift by sweeping an antenna. Do you agree that the effects you could generate would be too small to measure without atomic clocks?
Click to expand...

It is certainly possible that the effects might be too small to measure. I hope I don't have to resort to atomic clocks. If it comes down to it, I have to try to get two atomic clocks that are very precise.

Now, are you certain that the speed of light is the same at different gravitational locations? Just checking your level of conviction on that point, lol.
Click to expand...
I am relying upon a constant speed of light. I know for black holes the proper speed of light is always c; the remote speed of light is calculated to be slower.
 
Mazulu said:
It is certainly possible that the effects might be too small to measure. I hope I don't have to resort to atomic clocks. If it comes down to it, I have to try to get two atomic clocks that are very precise.


I am relying upon a constant speed of light. I know for black holes the proper speed of light is always c; the remote speed of light is calculated to be slower.
Click to expand...
The set-up to make the measurements would be daunting even if you had the clocks. Maybe someone can tell me this, doesn't there have to be some way to read and compare the clocks while in separate locations in the gravitational field?
 
quantum_wave said:
The set-up to make the measurements would be daunting even if you had the clocks. Maybe someone can tell me this, doesn't there have to be some way to read and compare the clocks while in separate locations in the gravitational field?
Click to expand...
If each clock drives a counter, you can run both for an arbitrary period of time (5 minutes for example), stop both clocks, and then take the ratio of one counter to the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter
 
quantum_wave said:
The set-up to make the measurements would be daunting even if you had the clocks. Maybe someone can tell me this, doesn't there have to be some way to read and compare the clocks while in separate locations in the gravitational field?
Click to expand...

You could use a telephone.
 
Mazulu said:
If each clock drives a counter, you can run both for an arbitrary period of time (5 minutes for example), stop both clocks, and then take the ratio of one counter to the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter
Click to expand...
Not to be giving you a hard time :p but the problem is not solved, because even with two separate counters set for the same duration, and two clocks ticking off what would be a slightly different duration, then by comparing the results and calculating the ratio to get the difference in the amount of time that had passed, you still haven't pinned down that time passed slower or faster in one or the other locations, you have simply proven that the clocks measured a different amount of time passing. There is still the possibility that the difference in the energy density between the two locations also affected the rate at which the clocks functioned. Maybe the atoms functioned slower in the higher energy density environment, and time itself was simply passing at the same invariant rate but the clocks measured it to be passing at different rates :shrug:.
 
Quantum, no choice in Faith. Faith is law, natural, and we get it all the same. Great Faith.
 
quantum_wave said:
Not to be giving you a hard time :p but the problem is not solved, because even with two separate counters set for the same duration, and two clocks ticking off what would be a slightly different duration, then by comparing the results and calculating the ratio to get the difference in the amount of time that had passed, you still haven't pinned down that time passed slower or faster in one or the other locations, you have simply proven that the clocks measured a different amount of time passing. There is still the possibility that the difference in the energy density between the two locations also affected the rate at which the clocks functioned. Maybe the atoms functioned slower in the higher energy density environment, and time itself was simply passing at the same invariant rate but the clocks measured it to be passing at different rates :shrug:.
Click to expand...
It's probably easier and cheaper to measure for changes in the acceleration of gravity, than to measure for time dilation. Frequency sweep exerts a time dilation; but we measure for changes in the acceleration of gravity. Time dilation is what we hope to achieve using rapid frequency sweeping. If $$\Delta f = f_{upper} - f_{lower}$$ and $$\Delta t$$ is the time it takes to generate the freqeuncy sweep, then $$\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}$$ has to be as large as possible (and the wave quality has to be as good as possible). This is the key to acceleration field generator technology. This leads to gravity control, gravity drives and hyper-drives. If you want our future to be like Star Trek, then this is the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top