Notices
Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: The Next Newton

  1. #1 The Next Newton 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Imagine that in the late 1800's scientists, rushing to find the ether, did not think that it might actually be a by-product of decay. Imagine that it is so small that even today it is overlooked and assumed not to happen. But what if it does and we never thought that it was possible, our thinking has been veiled, clouded, and it was right under our noise. And imagine, that the decay process automatically fills in with a reserve background which makes it impossible to detect directly. Could this explaination explain the nature of the gravitational force? Could this process explain the concept of space and relativity, reference frame consistancy with the speed of light constant and time changing? Could this understanding explain the big bang inflation? Could this process explain the increasing acceleration of the mass in the Universe? The answer is yes to all.
    Change in space = Change in Matter times the radius squared= area=
    E=M times C squared.
    Time= transfer rate, frequency, of matter decaying creating space
    Space= the resulting area of the transfer
    The gravitational wave/field= space
    The missing link= constructive/destructive wave interference= gravitational wave synchronization (Example thought= two objects emitting a wave/field are brought together by newtons laws which actually describe gravitational wave synchronization. the synchronization of wave/fields brings objects to contact and the strength is field density dependent.
    Concluding thought- mass does not warp time and space it creates time and space as points of origin, matter to energy transfer via the gravitational wave/ field. Gravitational wave synchronization is the new understanding of how the universe is run and how gravity works. Now I wonder what the first question will be? I wonder if you are going to ask about dimensions and a descrepency because I have that answer ready, too. I wonder if anyone sees the question and the answer? Hint- What happens if the entire universe is finite and going through gravitational wave synchronization?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman StarMountainKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    61
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'decay' and, "that the decay process automatically fills in with a reserve background which makes it impossible to detect directly.", and 'reserve background'. ?


    "Where are you going?" "I go where it is changeless." "How can you go where it is changeless?" "My going is no change."
    http://www.youtube.com/user/starmoun...d?feature=mhee
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Are you saying you are the next Newton? Sure you are. Seek help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    belongs under "pseudo-science"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,877
    I'm not going to contend that the good doctor is the next Newton but it has been my experience to notice that anything that's radically introduced into the science community is usually met with derision.

    There could be someone in the world right now who has figured it all out but unfortunately does not have the acumen, the wherewithal, the education or the proper contacts to publish their findings. Thus the key to unlocking nature's marvels sit in the bottom of a desk drawer underneath a Penthouse magazine.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    it's pretty hard to get "the good doctor"'s drift because he's using terms that possibly have meaning to himself but not to the uninitiated (i.e. the rest of us)

    for instance, what's "Gravitational wave synchronization" ? and what's so special about it ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,877
    I'm not advocating or promoting the fact the good doctor knows what he's talking about, let's get that straight. Its just that there seems to be a repetitive pattern of ridicule from the science community whenever someone thinks outside the box or actually delivers something new but unorthodox for lack of a better word.

    Hey ,the guy's excited. He's just looking for acceptance, positive feedback & acknowledgement. He may have spent a lifetime coming up with this, who knows? Obviously, this forum became a sounding board for him since every other avenue was shut down. More power to him, right or wrong.

    Sorry about going off on a tangent. Just getting my two cents in.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    ok, i'll restrain my knee-jerk reaction
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman BenTheMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    42
    This guy has stolen the name of a famous cosmologist, I think, in an attempt to lend credability to his argumen. Don't distrust EVERY Michael Turner you meet
    Sometimes you eat the bahr, and, well, sometimes he eats you. ---Anon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 The Understanding of Wave Synchronization 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Here is my thought- "By stating that mass warps time and space, that is a cop out because it does not address the mechanism. By stating that mass generates a wave and the wave synchronizes to other waves not only does that explain the mechanism it explains the essence to time and space as descriptions of a process of wave generation."

    Here is a response to the description I wrote about the forces behind mass emitting constructive and destructive wave interference which I call gravitational wave synchronization.
    " Dr. C. Michael Turner,

    Seeing gravity in the universe as a total vibrating wave that is expressed as the interference pattern resulting from many smaller waves seems like a logical deduction when we consider gravity to have a wave nature I am understanding you to say that the shape of these smaller wave is determined by subatomic particles which emit them. I take it, though, that the shape of the wave would be considered to be the same as one that was created by a bending of space-time that was already there.

    I think hanging on to Newtonian physics while working with total universe explanations has problems. Whether the vibrating space-time interference pattern originates from particles or is bent from their influence, it is curved. Newton's physics does not give correct results in this environment because, in part, it relies on the concept of universal time passing in the background. Vibrating gravity waves do not have this feature.

    I think your ideas are interesting and wish you luck with your reasoning. I am not sure though that this understanding is "easier than all those extra dimensions". If these ideas are formalized into math equations in agreement with known observations -- which means they must at least degenerate to a form that duplicates the complexities of Einstein's general relativity -- then, I think, they would look quite involved.

    But then, I am not an astrophysicist. Best regards,"

    Back to my story-----

    This man is a physics and Math teacher at high school level and he gets it.
    What he is not getting is that I am not hanging on to Newtonian physics but what I am doing is showing why newton and Einstein had it both right in their own ways but not complete with the whole picture. And to answer another question, no I do not claim to be as mathmatically inclined as Newton but I am creative in the sense that I see things in a way that no one else does. And it is a nice feeling to understand gravity and time and space and to be original in thought. It is okay if you want to bully me I take it as a sign immaturaty, and thank you the others, for understanding that not everyone should be so judgemental as to cut your nose off to spite your face. It is true that formal responsibility does limit the ability to think creatively. it is also true that I do not have a clue on how to publish a paper. My thoughts were to understand the nature, machanism of gravity and as a consequence I had to redefine time and space to understand the true picture.

    Oh, one more thing, I am using my real name and it is how I use it everyday, I would use my first name but I have a personal issue with it because growing up my dog had the same name, he wqas a bull dog named "Chuck". Just for a laugh at myself, now back to the magazine on top.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 One more point 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Gravitational wave synchronization comment-
    All forms of wave radiation travel at the same set speed in a vaccum as they enter different reference frames and those reference frames can be traveling at all different speeds and yet in each reference frame the speed of the radiating wave, photon, is the exact same. Oh yea and all the sources of all the radiation that enters the reference frame can also be traveling at different accelerating velosities.
    And is it not obvious that the reference frame is itself synchronizing the radiation by giving off gravitational waves identical to the photons decaying wave and therefore the waves are aligning and conforming to the rules of density dependent wave synchronization.
    Another words, the only way that matter can have the same rules in all reference frames is that electromagnetic radiation decays into a wave/field that contributes the force of gravity by constructive and destructive wave interference and constant speed of radiation in all reference frames independent of the speed of the source is by the synchronization of the more dense wave/ field being generated by the reference frame through the path of least resistance. Raditation, generating a wave, ie space itself, synchronizes with it's more dense surround area by the limits of the reference frame, space density. This ends the riddle of dark energy, and ends string theory along with shedding light onthe relativity/ quantum theory delima, now back to my magazine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: One more point 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    Gravitational wave synchronization comment-
    All forms of wave radiation travel at the same set speed in a vaccum as they enter different reference frames and those reference frames can be traveling at all different speeds and yet in each reference frame the speed of the radiating wave, photon, is the exact same. Oh yea and all the sources of all the radiation that enters the reference frame can also be traveling at different accelerating velosities.
    And is it not obvious that the reference frame is itself synchronizing the radiation by giving off gravitational waves identical to the photons decaying wave and therefore the waves are aligning and conforming to the rules of density dependent wave synchronization.
    Another words, the only way that matter can have the same rules in all reference frames is that electromagnetic radiation decays into a wave/field that contributes the force of gravity by constructive and destructive wave interference and constant speed of radiation in all reference frames independent of the speed of the source is by the synchronization of the more dense wave/ field being generated by the reference frame through the path of least resistance. Raditation, generating a wave, ie space itself, synchronizes with it's more dense surround area by the limits of the reference frame, space density. This ends the riddle of dark energy, and ends string theory along with shedding light onthe relativity/ quantum theory delima, now back to my magazine.
    Your proposal would have a lot more going for it if it didn't rely so much on pure imagination. For one thing, there's no evidence whatsoever of EM wave "decay." That's nothing more than a term you've invented yourself. It carries no meaning nor consequences.

    Second, you rely heavily on gravity waves which are also pure speculation. There's no evidence to date that they exist and, in fact, many serious physicists seriously doubt that they do.

    Bottom line: any of us could construct any theory (hypothesis) we like using things not known to exist. That's pure child's play, not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 gravitational waves 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    yes there is indirect evidence of gravitational waves and a Nobel prize was given in 1993 as a result.

    If all the evidence points to one concise conclusion then maybe you might open your thought process to a possibility and not prejudge with false assumptions of today like 4,5,6 to 26 dimensions.

    Light from stars bending around the sun as seen during a solar eclispe is evidence of EM decay according to my understanding. Gravity is the best example. But so is the increase in acceleration of mass in the Universe, and inflationary theory and the missing mass in older black holes and reference frame rules all being the same especially the constant speed of all radiation independent of the speed of the source of the radiation. The list goes on and on......

    Was it Albert Einstein that said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Now imagne that I am correct and I have used my deductive reasoning to layout a logical hypothesis and there is strong indirect evidence to back it up, for example

    If time and space are generated from all matter as a wave function and these waves synchronize then all given reference frames should be independently and subject to the same set of rules with in each since they are generating their own time and space.

    Black holes in older galaxies should be shrinking as the black hole has attracted all the matter in its vicinity and now it is decaying into the gravitational wave with out any matter uptake from the older galaxy.

    The Universe's mass should be accelerating at an increase rate because according to this hypothesis the overall mass is decreasing with the force remaining the same since gravity does not slow the force down but synchronizes matter.

    Time and space changes due to acceleration between objects can be explained as functions of wave frequency and density comparasions.

    All this can be summized by hypothesizing that matter generates a gravitational wave and time and space are functions of that wave and the wave has the property of synchronization.

    Oh yea, it also explaines the mechanism behind gravity and since light is bent by gravity then it presupposes also that light itself decays into the gravitational wave.

    All the evidence that supports relativity also supports mass, not warping time and space, creating time and space and yet this concept of gravitational wave synchronization also explains inflationary theory and the increasing acceleration in the universe which relativity does not and I might add conflicts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: gravitational waves 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    yes there is evidence of gravitational waves and a Nobel prize was given in 1993 as a result.
    No, possible but as yet unconfirmedevidence. As a quote from one source puts it: "Albert Einstein predicted the existence of these gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, but only since the 1990s has technology become powerful enough to permit detecting them and harnessing them for science. Although they have not yet been detected directly, the influence of gravitational waves on a binary pulsar (two neutron stars orbiting each other) has been measured accurately and is in good agreement with the predictions. Scientists therefore have great confidence that gravitational waves exist. Joseph Taylor and Russel Hulse were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery of this binary pulsar."

    Please take note that of the statement that "Scientists therefore have great confidence that gravitational waves exist." And NOT that they do exist. Therefore, your statement, as of this date is completely incorrect.

    If all the evidence points to one concise conclusion then maybe you might open your thought process to a possibility and not prejudge with false assumptions of today like 4,5,6 to 26 dimensions.

    Light from stars bending around the sun as seen during a solar eclispe is evidence of EM decay according to my understanding. Gravity is the best example. But so is the increase in acceleration of mass in the Universe, and inflationary theory and the missing mass in older black holes and reference frame rules all being the same especially the constant speed of all radiation independent of the speed of the source of the radiation. The list goes on and on......

    Was it Albert Einstein that said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Now imagne that I am correct and I have used my deductive reasoning to layout a logical hypothesis and there is strong indirect evidence to back it up, for example

    If time and space are generated from all matter as a wave function and these waves synchronize then all given reference frames should be independently and subject to the same set of rules with in each since they are generating their own time and space.

    Black holes in older galaxies should be shrinking as the black hole has attracted all the matter in its vicinity and now it is decaying into the gravitational wave with out any matter uptake from the older galaxy.

    The Universe's mass should be accelerating at an increase rate because according to this hypothesis the overall mass is decreasing with the force remaining the same since gravity does not slow the force down but synchronizes matter.

    Time and space changes due to acceleration between objects can be explained as functions of wave frequency and density comparasions.

    All this can be summized by hypothesizing that matter generates a gravitational wave and time and space are functions of that wave and the wave has the property of synchronization.

    Oh yea, it also explaines the mechanism behind gravity and since light is bent by gravity then it presupposes also that light itself decays into the gravitational wave.

    All the evidence that supports relativity also supports mass, not warping time and space, creating time and space and yet this concept of gravitational wave synchronization also explains inflationary theory and the increasing acceleration in the universe which relativity does not and I might add conflicts.[/quote]

    And since there is as yet no proof of gravity waves it's quite presumption on your part to make a claim like EM waves "decay" to form them. In fact, there's no evidence of any kind that suggests EM waves can decay. Many photons have traveled for billions of years without any indication of the sort.

    Imagination is a fine thing and has been quite useful many, many times. But to expect anyone to accept your claims which are nothing but assumptions and imagination is beyond belief.[/b]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    I guess I have a hard time accepting that an explaination of the Mechanics of time, space and gravity in three dimensions is hard to believe and yet all the alternatives involve not to be detected multiple dimensions of which not one can be mentally visualized, and I am the one that has an imagination that is hard to believe?

    Einstein did not predict the force of gravity as "Gravitational wave synchronization, nor did he define time and space as functions of decaying matter, i do.

    Show me an alternative that simplies answers the boyhood question, "When I drop stuff, what is the mechanism of how it falls?"
    On this you will be silient because the simple answer, I hypothesis, is Gravitational wave synchronization".

    Give me a better guess, I am all ears!

    P.S. Don't forget ligo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Michael,
    could you show us the math?
    Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    I guess I have a hard time accepting that an explaination of the Mechanics of time, space and gravity in three dimensions is hard to believe and yet all the alternatives involve not to be detected multiple dimensions of which not one can be mentally visualized, and I am the one that has an imagination that is hard to believe?

    Einstein did not predict the force of gravity as "Gravitational wave synchronization, nor did he define time and space as functions of decaying matter, i do.

    Show me an alternative that simplies answers the boyhood question, "When I drop stuff, what is the mechanism of how it falls?"
    On this you will be silient because the simple answer, I hypothesis, is Gravitational wave synchronization".

    Give me a better guess, I am all ears!

    P.S. Don't forget ligo.
    I've not forgotten LIGO at all. In fact, it was an article about LIGO from which I took that quote about the Nobel Prize. And hopefully it WILL provide some solid proof about the existence of gravity waves.

    As to giving you a "better guess" I must say that I'm not in the guessing business. I much prefer to stay within the realm of proven facts and only venture into the very fringes of speculation. There are highly-skilled professionals that do that sort of thing and they have access to equipment for tests and verification/falsification that aren't available to me. (And most likely not available to you either.)

    And I'm not attempting to destroy your creative impulses, either. Simply pointing out that trying to rely on such whimsical notions as "decaying EM radiation" places you in the same category as people in the past who were relying on things like the imagined "aether" to transport light. I'm sure you're aware of where they would up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 gravity, time and space 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    I am, so far, unconvinced by your attempts to discredit out of a misunderstanding with in your abilities.

    Here is the best way I can get you to understand that you have not said anything meaningful to me.
    " How glorious it was to discover an underlying unity in a set of phenomena that seem completely separate." - A.E.

    To link the actions of black holes with the increase acceleration of mass away from the big bang, to understand what time and space actually are, to fully understand the shortcommings of Newton's and Einstein's understanding of gravity and to see the entire laws of nature open up right before my eyes and link it all togehter, not just some laws but free falling and rotating and accelerating movements and to see the missing link behind the actual mechanism of gravity, to have a concrete grasp of why inflation happened in the early universe and how the specific formation of matter is the key and how all the radiation from the universe is traveling at the same velosity even though the sources of the radiation are traveling at different relative speeds and to understand why and how it relates and works is a great great and wonderful feeling. If I had insight into one or two problems I wouldn't be waisting my own time but to see haw all of it fits together and to be able to define exactly what I don't know and the fact that I got it shows me what happens when a chore turns into a passion. So I haven't learned anything from you except that you are skeptical and If I am right then whatever you are staking your claim on is wrong, anyhow that is usually what I see. Then again, you think my insights are very imaginative. Its been usual. Oh and to the post before you, e-mail me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Heck, Einstien was similarly visual and imaginative, requiring the aid of others in order to successfully convert some of his theories into coherent mathematical models. Good luck to you Dr. Turner.


    Now my question so far is: What propogates the gravitational waves?

    I could envision a sound wave (or similar waves) synchronizing with interesting effects, but a gravity wave has to cross empty space. It doesn't seem to have a particle with it (or no one has detected one yet), so how does it do this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Heck, Einstien was similarly visual and imaginative, requiring the aid of others in order to successfully convert some of his theories into coherent mathematical models. Good luck to you Dr. Turner.


    Now my question so far is: What propogates the gravitational waves?

    I could envision a sound wave (or similar waves) synchronizing with interesting effects, but a gravity wave has to cross empty space. It doesn't seem to have a particle with it (or no one has detected one yet), so how does it do this?
    And that's THE big question! As far as we've determined so far, there's no particle associated with gravity nor energy, either. And it's that latter factor that causes many serious folks to oppose the thought of gravity 'waves' as there appears to be no mechanism with which to "generate" them. The real truth is (despite the "New Newton" that no one really has a clue as to what gravity actually is nor how it works. There has been a number of crackpot ideas (and a few rather interesting ones) floating around for year. But the bottom line is still that of today nobody has a good answer. ( Regardless of what they dream.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Heck, Einstien was similarly visual and imaginative, requiring the aid of others in order to successfully convert some of his theories into coherent mathematical models. Good luck to you Dr. Turner.


    Now my question so far is: What propogates the gravitational waves?

    I could envision a sound wave (or similar waves) synchronizing with interesting effects, but a gravity wave has to cross empty space. It doesn't seem to have a particle with it (or no one has detected one yet), so how does it do this?
    And that's THE big question! As far as we've determined so far, there's no particle associated with gravity nor energy, either. And it's that latter factor that causes many serious folks to oppose the thought of gravity 'waves' as there appears to be no mechanism with which to "generate" them. The real truth is (despite the "New Newton" here) that no one really has a clue as to what gravity actually is nor how it works. There has been a number of crackpot ideas (and a few rather interesting ones) floating around for year. But the bottom line is still that of today nobody has a good answer. ( Regardless of what they dream.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Heck, Einstien was similarly visual and imaginative, requiring the aid of others in order to successfully convert some of his theories into coherent mathematical models. Good luck to you Dr. Turner.


    Now my question so far is: What propogates the gravitational waves?

    I could envision a sound wave (or similar waves) synchronizing with interesting effects, but a gravity wave has to cross empty space. It doesn't seem to have a particle with it (or no one has detected one yet), so how does it do this?
    And that's THE big question! As far as we've determined so far, there's no particle associated with gravity nor energy, either. And it's that latter factor that causes many serious folks to oppose the thought of gravity 'waves' as there appears to be no mechanism with which to "generate" them. The real truth is (despite the "New Newton" here) that no one really has a clue as to what gravity actually is nor how it works. There has been a number of crackpot ideas (and a few rather interesting ones) floating around for year. But the bottom line is still that of today nobody has a good answer. ( Regardless of what they dream.)
    Well that is your opinion and it might be correct, I personally disagree because of my own understanding. Here is a glimpse
    From: C. Michael Turner


    Subject: introduction

    Hi

    My name is Michael Turner, not the astrophysics Michael Turner but an unknown Michael Turner.
    my understanding of the Mechanism of Gravity.
    I believe that I pieced the puzzle together in an unusual way that at first seems off the wall but upon closer look it seems so obvious that you won't believe it took till now to see the pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

    Here are some obvious pieces of the puzzle

    How exactly does gravity work?

    Why does acceleration effect gravity?

    How does time and space change due to relative speed?

    How is it that all the radiation in the Universe that comes into my reference frame is traveling at the exact same speed independent of the speed of of source?

    Why does the mass in the Universe increase in acceleration away from the big bang?

    Why are black holes smaller in older galaxies?

    I may have error in the proper presentation of these questions, but I think this is a good sampling of problems that I think I understand with my theory and slight changes in the math of tensors.

    I initially was curious and wondered if all the scientists missed a fundamental principle in three dimensions? I wondered if that is the reason that string theory, dark energy, dark matter had to be developed, because they missed the creative clues that made the underlying principles simple and beautiful

    I reviewed all of physics starting with Newton through today and yes they missed a conclusion that is so obvious to me that it is elementary.

    Here is an not so eloquent way to state in questions what I think is the obvious, but I have now been {potty} trained....

    What if gravity does not pull but it synchronizes acting as both constructive and destructive wave interference's?

    What if time and space are not warped by mass but created by matter as points of origin, electromagnetic radiation ( electrons- photons) decay into the monopole gravitational wave/field?

    Space= Bound Matter (Amount of radiation decay into the gravitational wave) times the speed of the gravitational wave squared times Q
    Hypothesis:

    This simply means that matter is ultimately decaying into space and synchronizing the gravitational waves in the process. The Universe is accelerating and moving closer to a two dimensional line through overall universal synchronization.

    Space, the ether, is the gravitational wave/ field, it is density dependent, it is generated from within matter and and actively aligning into an energy losing wave, a line. Time is the rate of transfer from mass to space via the gravitational wave.


    Here are some answers to obvious pieces of the puzzle

    How exactly does gravity work? (Synchronization)- Mass attracts not by pulling but by a synchronization of emitted wave through the path of least resistance, synchronizing waves bring the wave originating mass together.

    Why does acceleration effect gravity? Desynchronization of gravitational waves (resistance) is caused by motion between objects that generate the waves.

    How does time and space change due to relative speed? Since time and space are descriptions of rate and area of the generated wave then time and space work like sound and are also field density dependent.

    How is it that all the radiation in the Universe that comes into my reference frame is traveling at the exact same speed independent of the speed of of source? Gravitational wave synchronization, synchronizes all matter with it's generated gravitational field including all forms of radiation.

    Why does the mass in the Universe increase in acceleration away from the big bang? Since gravity synchronizes and doesn't pull then the force soon after the big bang stabilized and remains constant as mass decreases therefore according to Newton's law F=M times A.

    Why are black holes smaller in older galaxies? Black holes are smaller in older galaxies do to the transfer of mass to space, evaporation via the gravitational wave.

    Remember, a Noble prize was given for the indirect measure of energy loss do to gravitational waves from rotating binary stars in 1993.

    Does this interest you? A common sense way to explain the universe? No warping, no infinity, all matter going through an active process of decay with a beginning, middle and end.

    I believe that the puzzle is solved on the grand scale, this explaination also shows why gravity is weaker than the other forces and why it is different. I have written a large paper on the subject a few years back, explaining also why quantum theory and relativity are united and yet seperate in a very unique and understood rational way.

    Oh yea, one more thing- the reason the gravitational wave has a speed? Hint: Inert Gas escaping out of a bottle.

    Soon to be discovered, maybe next century- the breakdown of down quarks into the gravitational field. Sorry, I'm having fun with the string theory group.
    Hey lets freeze matter to almost absolute Zero and create pure attraction by minimizing the gravitational wave escaping and create super clumping mass!

    Ever wonder why we can't colaspe the closest electron shell?

    The story of the Universe in dimensions
    One, Two, Three, Two, One------------------------------------!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Heck, Einstien was similarly visual and imaginative, requiring the aid of others in order to successfully convert some of his theories into coherent mathematical models. Good luck to you Dr. Turner.


    Now my question so far is: What propogates the gravitational waves?

    I could envision a sound wave (or similar waves) synchronizing with interesting effects, but a gravity wave has to cross empty space. It doesn't seem to have a particle with it (or no one has detected one yet), so how does it do this?
    And that's THE big question! As far as we've determined so far, there's no particle associated with gravity nor energy, either. And it's that latter factor that causes many serious folks to oppose the thought of gravity 'waves' as there appears to be no mechanism with which to "generate" them. The real truth is (despite the "New Newton" here) that no one really has a clue as to what gravity actually is nor how it works. There has been a number of crackpot ideas (and a few rather interesting ones) floating around for year. But the bottom line is still that of today nobody has a good answer. ( Regardless of what they dream.)
    Well that is your opinion and it might be correct, I personally disagree because of my own understanding. Here is a glimpse
    Turner, allow me to try and make my position clear.

    I've no objection at all to imaginative thinking and conjecture for the purpose of trying to understand or explain something. After all, that's where most new things originated in the first place.

    But what I do object to is when people inject things like "EM wave decay" into the mix and make it very much of the basis for their presentation. Things like that - of which there is simply no evidence of it existing or even being possible. Although you don't seem to realize it, making up things like that is exactly like a child inventing Santa Claus to explain where the presents come from. No foundation to work from.

    As I've mentioned before, some light and other forms of EM waves have traveled billions of years in order to get to us - and all that time without even the slightest hint that they have decayed in any way.

    So unless you can provide some evidence of that, you'd be much better off to try a different approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Heck, Einstien was similarly visual and imaginative, requiring the aid of others in order to successfully convert some of his theories into coherent mathematical models. Good luck to you Dr. Turner.


    Now my question so far is: What propogates the gravitational waves?

    I could envision a sound wave (or similar waves) synchronizing with interesting effects, but a gravity wave has to cross empty space. It doesn't seem to have a particle with it (or no one has detected one yet), so how does it do this?
    And that's THE big question! As far as we've determined so far, there's no particle associated with gravity nor energy, either. And it's that latter factor that causes many serious folks to oppose the thought of gravity 'waves' as there appears to be no mechanism with which to "generate" them. The real truth is (despite the "New Newton" here) that no one really has a clue as to what gravity actually is nor how it works. There has been a number of crackpot ideas (and a few rather interesting ones) floating around for year. But the bottom line is still that of today nobody has a good answer. ( Regardless of what they dream.)
    Well that is your opinion and it might be correct, I personally disagree because of my own understanding. Here is a glimpse
    Turner, allow me to try and make my position clear.

    I've no objection at all to imaginative thinking and conjecture for the purpose of trying to understand or explain something. After all, that's where most new things originated in the first place.

    But what I do object to is when people inject things like "EM wave decay" into the mix and make it very much of the basis for their presentation. Things like that - of which there is simply no evidence of it existing or even being possible. Although you don't seem to realize it, making up things like that is exactly like a child inventing Santa Claus to explain where the presents come from. No foundation to work from.

    As I've mentioned before, some light and other forms of EM waves have traveled billions of years in order to get to us - and all that time without even the slightest hint that they have decayed in any way.

    So unless you can provide some evidence of that, you'd be much better off to try a different approach.
    To me, the concept of nothing means non-existance, if it is nothing it doesn't exist. And yet you seem to believe the construct of space is nothing, is that correct, Santa?
    On this point about no evidence of the decay of E-M radiation you are right, well except it does show evidence of a propolusion system that keeps it at a constant speed independent of the speed of the source in all reference frames, kinda strange, don't you think? Also, I didn't know that you were at the source when the energy of the E-M radiation was initially measured to determine the change? That also is my problem with your instanteanously transmitted gravity. Another point and it is a christmas kind of point to you. Imagine that E-M radiation energy loss is suplimented
    by the background radiation so the only way to tell is to measure the decrease in background radiation. Oh yea, If gravitational wave synchronization isn't the answer then why is space nearly at 7 degrees?

    You have a closed mind and no ability to form a crack and no way to explain with other solutions the puzzle that I have laid out, onlt to critize on a below basic level. Imagine your descussions with Einstein about his thought experiments and relativity. It sounds to be that you ignore the questions that observations indicate E-M decay which sheds decaying light on many unsolvable till now. Wow are you sensitive and not fun

    Imagime a pond with water coming in and water evaporating and you live on the bottom. To you the possibility of rain and evaporation does not exist.

    Where is the evidence of proton decay? Because they can split it? Your reasoning is in my opinion flawed with the observations I have stated that lead to the conclusion that since light communicates with gravitational fields as shown in 1919 and that the speed of light is constant independent of the movement of the source or the reference frame, and the universe's mass is accelerating, and black holes shrink over time and gravity works on earth and yet the universe is accelerating and gravity seems to work differently in relationship to the big bang and time and space are relative and acceleration mimics gravity- Gravitational wave synchronization explains it all and the evidence has not yet started.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    My take is that you're more of an Einstein and less of a Newton. Newton invented derivative mathematics. He was more of a mathematical genius than a theorhetical physicist. (Granted, he was both)

    You're more like Einstein. You're going to need to find someone else to help you articulate your ideas. You have to figure out how to put it all into terms that are already accepted, and develop at least some cursory mathematical formulas. Otherwise, there's no way for anyone else to understand, or judge the validity of your work.

    It might be all correct, and even revolutionary, but it's all for naught if nobody else ever benefits from that understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    X=
    X= is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    12
    Question:

    How does the effect of Time dilation figure into your theory. If there is no Spacetime fabric to bend and only gravity waves?


    Why does gravity pull and not push if its the outcome of gravity wave syncronization? Two pieces of matter send out G-waves, they syncronize, that is all you have really stated, what is the mechanism that causes them to attract each other.

    Light waves syncronize and cause the light to be intensfied but the light wave still heads in the same direction, no reversal of direction due to syncronization . . .

    What causes gravity to be different if not the bending of spacetime?

    Gravity waves are all well and nice, but I dont see where you have made any kind of link to why this would be an attractive force.

    EM radiation is oppossing charges that cause attration, here you speak about sync, and desync. If in the same context as radiation interferance patterns then this would cause either an intesification of the wave, or a cancelation but how would it cause an attraction?

    Help me understand your theory/

    Also lets talk a bout wave cancelation. Lets use the same analogy you used early with the binary stars, you claim that matter decay causes this syncronization, so there would need to be a steady stream of matter decay if ever a lack of matter to decay in a given area then the waves could desync and cause a cancelation. If that happened we would see the two stars fly off away from each other . . .


    Am I missing something here?


    PS
    Also if matter is decaying why would that cause a syncronization in the first place, matter you say creates these gravity waves. If the matter annhilates then that matter is no longer creating a g-wave, so what causes the sync, an instantaneous disappearance of a source of g-waves doesnt make sence that it would have an effect on other g-waves, it makes sence that it would STOP having an effect once it was annhilated.

    I think you are searching for simple answers to a VERY complex set of problems. A single change in the dynamic of gravity and its interaction isnt going to create te bridge you seek. I admire your creativity but lets have some concrete examples, either with math or a break down of the relevant physics


    Word soup does not make physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by X=
    Question:

    How does the effect of Time dilation figure into your theory. If there is no Spacetime fabric to bend and only gravity waves?


    Why does gravity pull and not push if its the outcome of gravity wave syncronization? Two pieces of matter send out G-waves, they syncronize, that is all you have really stated, what is the mechanism that causes them to attract each other.

    Light waves syncronize and cause the light to be intensfied but the light wave still heads in the same direction, no reversal of direction due to syncronization . . .

    What causes gravity to be different if not the bending of spacetime?

    Gravity waves are all well and nice, but I dont see where you have made any kind of link to why this would be an attractive force.

    EM radiation is oppossing charges that cause attration, here you speak about sync, and desync. If in the same context as radiation interferance patterns then this would cause either an intesification of the wave, or a cancelation but how would it cause an attraction?

    Help me understand your theory/

    Also lets talk a bout wave cancelation. Lets use the same analogy you used early with the binary stars, you claim that matter decay causes this syncronization, so there would need to be a steady stream of matter decay if ever a lack of matter to decay in a given area then the waves could desync and cause a cancelation. If that happened we would see the two stars fly off away from each other . . .


    Am I missing something here?
    Yes you are missing something here. Matter that generates the waves align through the path of least resistance. Here is a concrete example from a thought paper I wrote some years ago.

    The bobber ripple experiment
    The experiment ………….
    A 1000 kg. Bobber automatically bobbing once every second in water, and a 1g. Bobber automatically bobbing once every second in the same water 1 meter apart. They both have the same bobbing force per unit time.
    The prediction…………….
    Both bobbers would come together and touch to form a uniform distribution of the ripples. The ripples represent the gravitation wave emitted from each object.
    The discussion…………..
    Gravitational wave synchronization predicts that the path of least resistance/ interference would be for both bobbers to have equal centers of e-wave distribution. Since both masses create the deepest waves closest to their respected masses they fall into the path of least interference as the waves synchronize. The masses touch without a actual force working directly on the other. They touch and remain that way. If the masses could, they would pass through each other until the centers align except the solid (other forces) stops the continuation. This represents a way Gravity might work without string theory by substituting matter decaying into the gravitational wave through the path of least resistance of each wave pattern. The waves themselves are generated outward at the speed of light, approx. but the matter generating the three dimensional wave’s remains.
    For this example the bobbers are acting as mass and the generated ripples of water are acting as the gravitational waves creating space. You could also imagine that water itself is being generating from the bobbers in wave form.

    Sometimes I feel like I need to knock some common sence into the world, not anyone personally, it is just that efveryone has been bait and switched. Look at sound as an example, the only way to change sound is really by movement of the source or movement of the reference frame, either way the frequency of sound changes to the reference frame. Sound is a point of origin, mass to energy transfer and it is a generated wave.
    Now through experiments I am shown that time and space change also the same way and you don't understand why i also think that time and space should also be functions of a generated wave like sound is a function of a generated wave? If time, and space and gravitational wave synchronization are all properties of a generated wave then the ether comes from within and all the misunderstood problems of physics all the sudden become clear. All radiation then should also generate a synchronizing wave and large masses should also bend all radiation as the speed of light radiation zips by. Black holes should shrink when they run out of matter to gobble up and yet they are still giving off a gravitational wave. And the Universe should be flattening but later...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    X=
    X= is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    12
    interesting you avoided every one of my questions . . .

    Water = space is all you just said

    The function of wave action on displacement is not going to be the same as gravity dood.

    First off the mass of each object as it bobs in the water(thus creating the wave action) is a function of the GRAVITY of the earth pulling the floating object into the water and the upward action is a cause of the air pressure differntial.


    Honestly you have finalized my assesment of your "understanding"

    You need to hit the books bud instead of wasting your time trying to convice amatuers like me on a science forum.

    Im an amatuer first year undergrad and can be fooled probably easier then most, but this is just plain garbage.

    Im not refuting g-waves, but your interpretation of why gravity acts the way it does it garbage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by X=
    interesting you avoided every one of my questions . . .

    Water = space is all you just said

    The function of wave action on displacement is not going to be the same as gravity dood.

    First off the mass of each object as it bobs in the water(thus creating the wave action) is a function of the GRAVITY of the earth pulling the floating object into the water and the upward action is a cause of the air pressure differntial.


    Honestly you have finalized my assesment of your "understanding"

    You need to hit the books bud instead of wasting your time trying to convice amatuers like me on a science forum.

    Im an amatuer first year undergrad and can be fooled probably easier then most, but this is just plain garbage.

    Im not refuting g-waves, but your interpretation of why gravity acts the way it does it garbage.
    No I am just in a time rush today- sorry the way you feel. Fooled? due you think that 4 dimensions and curving space time explains everything? Oh, how about 10 dimensions and string theory? or 96% of the universe is stuff that is invisible? Who has been fooled? I find this charming, thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    X=
    X= is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    12
    Michael please understand that no one is going to take you seriously when you fail to answer questions using relevent explanations, your illustration about bobers in water is so far from what we where talking about. The physics involved with the experiment you listed is no where relevent to the current topic and definatly not an answer to any of my questions.

    Since your understanding is so keen explain what resistance there is in space? and why two object would follow "the path of least resistance"
    IF resistance then deceleration would occur, why does newtons first law work if there is intrinsic resistance in "empty space"?


    I think your deal is you feel good that you think you have discovered somthing that great scientific minds have overlooked. Good for you I'll get warm and fuzzy feelings for you vicariously ; - ) (man that feels good)

    The real answer is that those same great minds KNEW they had to have concrete evidence before they voiced there "beliefs" becuse they KNEW there contemporaries would laugh there claims into the ground based on weak arguments.

    Its a very different thing to discuss ideas in the context of not being sure, but you come off having all the answers then not being able to answer a single question that doesnt conflict with current experiments or observations.

    Dont get caught up in your own hype, illustrate your concepts using math and known experimental results or stop posting,

    Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My take is that you're more of an Einstein and less of a Newton. Newton invented derivative mathematics. He was more of a mathematical genius than a theorhetical physicist. (Granted, he was both)

    You're more like Einstein. You're going to need to find someone else to help you articulate your ideas. You have to figure out how to put it all into terms that are already accepted, and develop at least some cursory mathematical formulas. Otherwise, there's no way for anyone else to understand, or judge the validity of your work.

    It might be all correct, and even revolutionary, but it's all for naught if nobody else ever benefits from that understanding.
    Listen to this guy...he knows what he's saying (I'm serious).
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 An original thought- where are the critics original thoughts 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My take is that you're more of an Einstein and less of a Newton. Newton invented derivative mathematics. He was more of a mathematical genius than a theorhetical physicist. (Granted, he was both)

    You're more like Einstein. You're going to need to find someone else to help you articulate your ideas. You have to figure out how to put it all into terms that are already accepted, and develop at least some cursory mathematical formulas. Otherwise, there's no way for anyone else to understand, or judge the validity of your work.

    It might be all correct, and even revolutionary, but it's all for naught if nobody else ever benefits from that understanding.
    Listen to this guy...he knows what he's saying (I'm serious).
    Sometimes if you are a lucky one everything seems to fall into place. You are maybe obsesed at knowing something and as a result you think about it 24/7 many times subcounsciously and the pieces of the puzzle finally fit together. Then you test it mentally, through previous experiments, through other peoples questions and observations and you ponder some more and you play devil's advocate and the pieces mold even tighter, then you see it and it becomes easy and you can't believe that it isn't all ready known and taught and it is so easy to see that you can't believe everyone can't see it. And when you tell people they don't understand and create falsehoods of your understanding and then critize their own falsehoods.

    If I gave you examples of every example of change in perception do to acceleration has to be a principle of wave/ frequency generation many of you would still not accept time and space as functions of relative generated waves. When such obvious principles to me are denied and example after example can be given with any form of generated wave with a speed lower than C then why should C be any different.

    Here is the most basic example that I can think of that started a new way to think that I do not believe in.

    If the definition for nothing means non-existent then even empty space should be something, an ether. Well many experiments were done between 1880 and the 1890's and no one could find an ether wind so it was determined that the ether did not exist. To make a long story short back then the universe always existed according to their thought and their was no ether. People today still argue the big bang existence. I believe space exists and is something and Michaelson and Morley never imagined a possibility that it could be generated from with in matter thereby no ether wind existing.
    When you apply the missing link of gravitational wave synchronization to the possibility of matter generating the gravitational wave then the result is an explaination of how a reference frame could modify, warp, synchronize other matter that generates a wave that it comes in contact with this reference frame. By generating a gravitational wave/ field each reference frame modifies, warps, synchronizes all matter that enters the gravitational field of that reference frame according to the mathmatical laws of Newton and Einstein which explain everything within and between reference frames. All the math has been done previously, not by me, except one special tensor which I have not yet chosen who I will allow to see. All I am doing is showing, in my opinion, how all the special pieces of nature from quantum mechanics, to inflationary theory, to the constant speed of all radiation in a vaccum independent of simultaneous sources of all movement of radiation to a single reference frame. Almost everything mathmatically has been done before me, I am just correcting and explaining, in my opinion, the way everything actually works. Many people have been hatefully brainwashed into thinking the king is wearing clothes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: An original thought- where are the critics original thou 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    All the math has been done previously, not by me, except one special tensor which I have not yet chosen who I will allow to see.
    Oh, dear.
    You say your background is medicine and cognition.
    You must therefore realise, with precision and concern, exactly what that single phrase conveys. For me, it was your fatal slip.
    Good luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 You misunderstand 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by X=
    interesting you avoided every one of my questions . . .

    Water = space is all you just said

    The function of wave action on displacement is not going to be the same as gravity dood.

    First off the mass of each object as it bobs in the water(thus creating the wave action) is a function of the GRAVITY of the earth pulling the floating object into the water and the upward action is a cause of the air pressure differntial.


    Honestly you have finalized my assesment of your "understanding"

    You need to hit the books bud instead of wasting your time trying to convice amatuers like me on a science forum.

    Im an amatuer first year undergrad and can be fooled probably easier then most, but this is just plain garbage.

    Im not refuting g-waves, but your interpretation of why gravity acts the way it does it garbage.
    Hello X= Here is what you wrote--------and my answers
    "Joined: 14 Jun 2007
    Posts: 12

    Question:

    How does the effect of Time dilation figure into your theory. If there is no Spacetime fabric to bend and only gravity waves?
    1) the essence of time is change and the essence of change is the decay of matter into a monopole gravitational wave/field. Time is the process of decay and space is the area.


    Why does gravity pull and not push if its the outcome of gravity wave syncronization? Two pieces of matter send out G-waves, they syncronize, that is all you have really stated, what is the mechanism that causes them to attract each other.
    2) I believe a fundemental law that drives the gravitational wave to less density is the same law that synchronizes the waves as other radiation has been shown to cause constructive wave interference, except the other examples where unidirectional and gravity is spherically dimensional so it shows the true effect of constructive wave interference, gravity. Now simply put I believe gravitational waves are monopoles, which I will skip for now, but they are driven as an inert gas is driven escaping a bottle. Einstein understood gasses very well and how their principles apply to radiation I might add.

    Light waves syncronize and cause the light to be intensfied but the light wave still heads in the same direction, no reversal of direction due to syncronization . . .
    3). You are stuck thinking two dimensional, a planet for example does not have gravity in one direction but it is spherical and the waves are in all three dimensions- this is the basic example of the bobble example I gave you. It shows that energy is released in one direction and mass comes together in the opposite direction, there is no reversal of direction as you summized incorrectly.

    What causes gravity to be different if not the bending of spacetime?
    4) I think I have explained this but it is the path of least resistance to gravitational wave distribution, it is monopole so if you are asking why it it different than the other forces then my answer is it is non binding and the other forces are different degrees of binging forces, I assume you know those models.

    Gravity waves are all well and nice, but I dont see where you have made any kind of link to why this would be an attractive force.
    5) I think I answered this one too. But here is another one of my examples that you seem to hate. Water evaporating from your skin creates an artificial or indirect attractive force on your skin by an energy release which cools the skin and with skin, the colder the more condensed until 4 degrees above freezing. This is an example of energy release causing a tighter knit of remaining molecules. (ie Photon loss leads electrons to fall closer to the center of the atom.

    EM radiation is oppossing charges that cause attration, here you speak about sync, and desync. If in the same context as radiation interferance patterns then this would cause either an intesification of the wave, or a cancelation but how would it cause an attraction?
    6) I believe I have explained this too. The synchronization of three dimensional wave patterns brings the objects generating the waves together. See above too.

    Help me understand your theory/
    All Matter decays into the gravitational wave, time and space are functions of the process and gravitational wave synchronization or space itself runs the conforming process of gravity.

    Also lets talk a bout wave cancelation. Lets use the same analogy you used early with the binary stars, you claim that matter decay causes this syncronization, so there would need to be a steady stream of matter decay if ever a lack of matter to decay in a given area then the waves could desync and cause a cancelation. If that happened we would see the two stars fly off away from each other . . .
    7) Yes I believe that the decay of E-M radiation is the cosmological constant and it is directly proportional to how much potential energy the matter has.


    Am I missing something here?


    PS
    Also if matter is decaying why would that cause a syncronization in the first place, matter you say creates these gravity waves. If the matter annhilates then that matter is no longer creating a g-wave, so what causes the sync, an instantaneous disappearance of a source of g-waves doesnt make sence that it would have an effect on other g-waves, it makes sence that it would STOP having an effect once it was annhilated.
    8) The generating waves, space itself. Matter does not annhilate the way you are thinking even according to standard theories and I believe all background radiation is continuing to form space as it is decreasing.
    I think you are searching for simple answers to a VERY complex set of problems. A single change in the dynamic of gravity and its interaction isnt going to create te bridge you seek. I admire your creativity but lets have some concrete examples, either with math or a break down of the relevant physics
    I am a little different than you think, you questions show conflict. No I was not searching for simple, I was searching for an understanding that made sense to be and it did work out to be simple and beautiful


    Word soup does not make physics.
    One solution that relates everything together or many unrelated solutions, it is just my thoughts and opinions and I have played devil's advocate more than you will know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If the definition for nothing means non-existent then even empty space should be something, an ether. Well many experiments were done between 1880 and the 1890's and no one could find an ether wind so it was determined that the ether did not exist. To make a long story short back then the universe always existed according to their thought and their was no ether. People today still argue the big bang existence. I believe space exists and is something and Michaelson and Morley never imagined a possibility that it could be generated from with in matter thereby no ether wind existing.

    Are you suggesting that the ether exists and a gravity wave is a perterbation of the ether?

    If so, then why does a perterbation/wave in the ether affect an object of mass, if the ether doesn't act on objects of mass for other purposes, such as impeding their motion through space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If the definition for nothing means non-existent then even empty space should be something, an ether. Well many experiments were done between 1880 and the 1890's and no one could find an ether wind so it was determined that the ether did not exist. To make a long story short back then the universe always existed according to their thought and their was no ether. People today still argue the big bang existence. I believe space exists and is something and Michaelson and Morley never imagined a possibility that it could be generated from with in matter thereby no ether wind existing.

    Are you suggesting that the ether exists and a gravity wave is a perterbation of the ether?

    If so, then why does a perterbation/wave in the ether affect an object of mass, if the ether doesn't act on objects of mass for other purposes, such as impeding their motion through space?
    Remember that in my opinion space is density dependent and the strongest density is closest to the space generating matter thus gravity.

    If you mean- deviation of a celestial body from a regular orbit about its primary, caused by the presence of one or more other bodies that act upon the celestial body. Yes. I can't be any more clear- space is the gravity wave field and it is density dependent in the sense that it is generated from all matter and it effects other field generating matter. it is a two way street. Everytime matter interacts with matter you have at least two reference frames generating their own synchronization, their own time and space and it is the interaction of these reference frames and the degree or density of space that dictates how they will behave.

    It does impede their motion through space, it bends light, but light doesn't give off much of a wave do to it's small amount of matter, it bends light around strongly dense ether and it modulates the speed of E-M radiation to be constant in all reference frames. Look at black holes and see the dense waves and see that it even stops light.
    To me this should not be a forgien language but it is the duh factor, once you see it and make the eye opening break through in thought you wonder why it took untill now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I guess my question was more how it relates to momentum. If a perterbation of space/ether around an object can move it toward another, then what effect is there on an object that is simply being carried by its own momentum in empty space, and far from any other objects of mass?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38 Good question 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I guess my question was more how it relates to momentum. If a perterbation of space/ether around an object can move it toward another, then what effect is there on an object that is simply being carried by its own momentum in empty space, and far from any other objects of mass?
    Wow, that really gets to the heart of the matter and I think i understand your question.
    Let me first give you some background info on what you call empty space. And for authority sake, let me quote from Walter Isaacson's book , Einstein, pg, 320, because it is hard to agrue with Einstein for both the direct and indirect reasons.
    " The best way to eliminate the need for an ether that existed seperately from matter, he concluded, would be to find his elusive unified field theory. What a glory that would be! "The contrast between ether and matter would fade away", he said, "and through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought.""

    Back to me, so the good old boy thought space had to be something and he knew it had to be connected to matter but he couldn't see the forest through the trees.

    I phrased your question to myself differently. What is the governing force that can make a tennis ball fall to the earth and yet also make the Universe expand at an increasing rate of acceleration.
    The answer is F=M times A, Sir Isaac Newton comes through at last.
    The Tennis ball- the force stops the moment the ball leaves my hand and therefore the ball, which doesn't statistically change mass, instantly starts to deaccelerate. it is a direct proportion.
    With over all space, on the other hand I hypothesis that gravity synchronizes ( in both cases) but since there is no pulling action the force from the big bang, after inflation, is constant so as matter decays into the synchronizing gravitational wave/field the equation is still F = M times A but F is constant and M is decreasing so A in increasing. Acceleration increases do to the constant force acting on a decreasing mass.
    Answer
    Now for the aspect of synchronization. As mass through out, matter generating, space is accelerating and synchronizing at the same time what would be the overall effect? Think of a round ballon accelerating from two ends, the ballon would be elongating and flattening. The individual effect is neglegible but the overall effect is profound. In a unique Newtonian way, the Universe should be decreasing in size.
    Specifically, since I believe space is density dependent and the greatest density is closest to mass such as the sun, then as a photon passes near dense space around the denser gravitational field then the momentum of the photon would become angular momentum during the dense field encounter. (Red shift) When a photon approaches a black hole, depending upon the event horizion, the field is so great that the photon cannot escape and its momentum is lost to the force of synchronization as it combines its matter into the black hole. (Disappearing shift) In space with decreasing density the photon would have no noticeable shift.

    Here is another tidbit of how momentum is effected by the density dependent ether in space
    http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."
    I hope this answers your question completey. ps here is a situation that I have the answer to.

    Strange Setup: Andromeda's Satellite Galaxies All Lined Up
    By Ker Than
    Staff Writer
    posted: 23 January 2006
    06:12 am ET


    An unusually high number of galaxies are aligned along a single plane running through the center of the giant Andromeda galaxy. Scientists don't have a theory to explain why.

    Galactic cannibalism or dark matter may be responsible, researchers say.


    The Andromeda galaxy is located at a distance of 2.5 million light-years away and is the nearest spiral galaxy to the Milky Way. Like our own galaxy, Andromeda is surrounded by numerous dwarf galaxy satellites. Many of these satellites are within 1.3 million light-years or less of the galaxy's main disk.

    Using the Hubble Space Telescope, Eva Grebel and Andrew Koch from the University of Basel in Switzerland found that nine out of Andromeda's fourteen dwarf galaxy satellites reside in a single plane. The plane is about 52,000 light-years wide and is aligned perpendicular to Andromeda's own galactic plane, within which the galaxy's stars orbit about the center.

    That nearly 80 percent of Andromeda's satellite galaxy mass is located within a single plane is highly unusual and can't be accounted for by traditional theories of galaxy formation, Grebel said.

    The finding was announced recently at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

    The Milky Way was found to contain two similar planes of satellite galaxies in the late 1980s, but with nothing to compare them to, astronomers couldn't tell if such planes were a general property of galaxy formation or whether they were just a statistical fluke.

    "One of the open questions was always 'Do such planes of satellite galaxies exist around other galaxies?'" Grebel said. "If they do, it might indicate that it's more than just chance."

    The researchers aren't sure what might be responsible for the strange alignment but they offered two possible scenarios.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Dr. C. Michal Turner

    I am sure you are not the Michael Turner that wrote a book by himself and Rocky Kolb?

    Just curious.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 Re: Good question 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    I phrased your question to myself differently. What is the governing force that can make a tennis ball fall to the earth and yet also make the Universe expand at an increasing rate of acceleration.
    The answer is F=M times A, Sir Isaac Newton comes through at last.
    The Tennis ball- the force stops the moment the ball leaves my hand and therefore the ball, which doesn't statistically change mass, instantly starts to deaccelerate. it is a direct proportion.
    This will come as a great surprise to anyone familiar with Newtonian mechanics.
    The ball will not deaccelerate (sic) unless it is acted upon by an external force. any decelleration is related to the application of forces such as air resistance, not to the cessation of application of the force applied by your hand.
    Tell me you meant something else, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Re: Good question 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
    I phrased your question to myself differently. What is the governing force that can make a tennis ball fall to the earth and yet also make the Universe expand at an increasing rate of acceleration.
    The answer is F=M times A, Sir Isaac Newton comes through at last.
    The Tennis ball- the force stops the moment the ball leaves my hand and therefore the ball, which doesn't statistically change mass, instantly starts to deaccelerate. it is a direct proportion.
    This will come as a great surprise to anyone familiar with Newtonian mechanics.
    The ball will not deaccelerate (sic) unless it is acted upon by an external force. any decelleration is related to the application of forces such as air resistance, not to the cessation of application of the force applied by your hand.
    Tell me you meant something else, please.
    I am talking about the external force of gravity acting as a synchronization of generated waves (A constructive and destructive gravitational rules) instead of a pulling force and I am giving two examples as how a different way to think of gravity opens up the possibility to explain how two observations that appear to be in conflict may actually be showing that they are not and also exposing hints to the real mechanism behind gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Well, you aren't doing it very well, since I have bugger all idea what you think you have just 'explained'.

    Now you can adopt the viewpoint that I am just thick. Evidence would tend to refute that argument. Therefore, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do a mnuch better job of explaining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Well, you aren't doing it very well, since I have bugger all idea what you think you have just 'explained'.

    Now you can adopt the viewpoint that I am just thick. Evidence would tend to refute that argument. Therefore, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do a mnuch better job of explaining.
    I appreciate you critique, I do not think I am incorrect, I do believe matter decays at the quark, lepton level into the gravitational wave/field-call that the prediction of my hypothesis and I don't have the time to explain more although when time premits I will try. If photons could be considered a long range binding dipole then gravitions- could be considered a non-binding monopole. ( If they exist )
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •