# Thread: a speed of light question????

1. (The first of five questioning topics)

A). Is the speed of light the speed of all radiation?

B). If The constant speed of light (C) or (K) is independent of all reference frame velosity and or acceleration, and the same (C) is also independent of the speed or change in rate of speed of the source of the generated light, in question, then if two objects, the source and the reference frame are accelerating away from each other then in any instant in time what is the distance from the two objects?

C). From the source does the density of the source's mass, gravitational field, play a role?

D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?

2.

3. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
(The first of five questioning topics)

A). Is the speed of light the speed of all radiation?
Yes.

B). If The constant speed of light (C) or (K) is independent of all reference frame velosity and or acceleration, and the same (C) is also independent of the speed or change in rate of speed of the source of the generated light, in question, then if two objects, the source and the reference frame are accelerating away from each other then in any instant in time what is the distance from the two objects?
This question makes little sense. It's also very awkwardly written. And please note that the speed of light is always denoted by the lower-case "c" and never in upper-case.

C). From the source does the density of the source's mass, gravitational field, play a role?
No. Not upon the speed of light.

D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?
Obviously!

4. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
(The first of five questioning topics)

A). Is the speed of light the speed of all radiation?
Yes.

B). If The constant speed of light (C) or (K) is independent of all reference frame velosity and or acceleration, and the same (C) is also independent of the speed or change in rate of speed of the source of the generated light, in question, then if two objects, the source and the reference frame are accelerating away from each other then in any instant in time what is the distance from the two objects?
This question makes little sense. It's also very awkwardly written. And please note that the speed of light is always denoted by the lower-case "c" and never in upper-case.

C). From the source does the density of the source's mass, gravitational field, play a role?
No. Not upon the speed of light.

D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?
Obviously!
Explain how?

5. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
(The first of five questioning topics)

A). Is the speed of light the speed of all radiation?
Yes.

B). If The constant speed of light (C) or (K) is independent of all reference frame velosity and or acceleration, and the same (C) is also independent of the speed or change in rate of speed of the source of the generated light, in question, then if two objects, the source and the reference frame are accelerating away from each other then in any instant in time what is the distance from the two objects?
This question makes little sense. It's also very awkwardly written. And please note that the speed of light is always denoted by the lower-case "c" and never in upper-case.

C). From the source does the density of the source's mass, gravitational field, play a role?
No. Not upon the speed of light.

D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?
Obviously!
Explain how?
Which one? And please note that I don't have time to write an entire physics book here.

6. D).

7. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
D).
Very well. The question is:

"D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?"

It appears to from the viewers point of view in every reference frame. That's due to the relativistic shift in their measuring instruments (clock, meter stick).

For example, consider two sets of observers on individual points that are each moving away from each other at 90% c. Both sets of clocks will be sufficiently slowed and measuring sticks foreshortened to the point that they will each/both measure a beam of light passing between them as moving at c when it reaches them.

8. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
D).
Very well. The question is:

"D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?"

It appears to from the viewers point of view in every reference frame. That's due to the relativistic shift in their measuring instruments (clock, meter stick).

For example, consider two sets of observers on individual points that are each moving away from each other at 90% c. Both sets of clocks will be sufficiently slowed and measuring sticks foreshortened to the point that they will each/both measure a beam of light passing between them as moving at c when it reaches them.
Not why and not an image of how, but how?- the exact mechanism? How is it techincally possible for time and length traveled of light to compensate to keep speed the same for all sources and reference frames? What is the basis of time and space that makes this possible?
If time and space are not functions of a basic wave frequency and area then how do they change to keep speed the same?

9. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
D).
Very well. The question is:

"D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?"

It appears to from the viewers point of view in every reference frame. That's due to the relativistic shift in their measuring instruments (clock, meter stick).

For example, consider two sets of observers on individual points that are each moving away from each other at 90% c. Both sets of clocks will be sufficiently slowed and measuring sticks foreshortened to the point that they will each/both measure a beam of light passing between them as moving at c when it reaches them.
Not why and not an image of how, but how?- the exact mechanism? How is it techincally possible for time and length traveled of light to compensate to keep speed the same for all sources and reference frames? What is the basis of time and space that makes this possible?
If time and space are not functions of a basic wave frequency and area then how do they change to keep speed the same?
I didn't give you a "why" nor did I give you an "image" (whatever you mean by that, I'm not sure) - I gave you the very physical HOW in reasonable detail. In fact, it's the very most basic principles of the theory of relativity. Perhaps you might want to spend a little effort actually learning something about it? You would be doing yourself a great service, And most of it has been thoroughly tested over and over and proven to be correct.

10. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
D).
Very well. The question is:

"D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?"

It appears to from the viewers point of view in every reference frame. That's due to the relativistic shift in their measuring instruments (clock, meter stick).

For example, consider two sets of observers on individual points that are each moving away from each other at 90% c. Both sets of clocks will be sufficiently slowed and measuring sticks foreshortened to the point that they will each/both measure a beam of light passing between them as moving at c when it reaches them.
Not why and not an image of how, but how?- the exact mechanism? How is it techincally possible for time and length traveled of light to compensate to keep speed the same for all sources and reference frames? What is the basis of time and space that makes this possible?
If time and space are not functions of a basic wave frequency and area then how do they change to keep speed the same?
I didn't give you a "why" nor did I give you an "image" (whatever you mean by that, I'm not sure) - I gave you the very physical HOW in reasonable detail. In fact, it's the very most basic principles of the theory of relativity. Perhaps you might want to spend a little effort actually learning something about it? You would be doing yourself a great service, And most of it has been thoroughly tested over and over and proven to be correct.
My goal was to show you that you don't seem to be able to see that there is a big void between the formulas of general relativity and the mechanism of exactly how and why the formulas work. I am simply stating the mechanism by which they work. I am showing that by linking time and space to the frequency and area of a reference frame generated wave then the reference frame does actually modify or control the speed of objects with in it. As you say, obviously. In my opinion, a natural result of the observable and tested reality is to understand constructive and destructive wave patterns with this concept of generated waves creates the true force of gravity. If this concept were true, that time space and gravity are actions of the release of waves in all reference frames then it is the only way that my limited mind sees how Newton's, Einstien's discovered laws work in isolated reference frames and also reference frames in all forms of motion. You see, the mathmatical equations of reality now make since to me and they also explain other unexplainable data of observations with the universe such as lost information in black holes and increased acceleration observations. If the shoe fits?
I am not creating a theory and seeing if the facts fit, I am looking at it all and realizing that all the facts, the experiments, the observations, and the physics and math equations lead to this understanding. This was an feeble exercize to lead specifically you, old Geezer, into at least opening you mind to see that although I am grouped with stupid idiotic everybody has a theory morons, I do have something at the core that has merit. With the word tone of your writtings I think my attempts at penetrating your creative common sense are bouncing off like bullets on superman.

11. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
My goal was to show you that you don't seem to be able to see that there is a big void between the formulas of general relativity and the mechanism of exactly how and why the formulas work. I am simply stating the mechanism by which they work. I am showing that by linking time and space to the frequency and area of a reference frame generated wave then the reference frame does actually modify or control the speed of objects with in it. As you say, obviously. In my opinion, a natural result of the observable and tested reality is to understand constructive and destructive wave patterns with this concept of generated waves creates the true force of gravity. If this concept were true, that time space and gravity are actions of the release of waves in all reference frames then it is the only way that my limited mind sees how Newton's, Einstien's discovered laws work in isolated reference frames and also reference frames in all forms of motion. You see, the mathmatical equations of reality now make since to me and they also explain other unexplainable data of observations with the universe such as lost information in black holes and increased acceleration observations. If the shoe fits?
I am not creating a theory and seeing if the facts fit, I am looking at it all and realizing that all the facts, the experiments, the observations, and the physics and math equations lead to this understanding. This was an feeble exercize to lead specifically you, old Geezer, into at least opening you mind to see that although I am grouped with stupid idiotic everybody has a theory morons, I do have something at the core that has merit. With the word tone of your writtings I think my attempts at penetrating your creative common sense are bouncing off like bullets on superman.
I'll reply to that last statement first. No, not at all. Your attempts to bend already understood principles by introducing fanciful, non-existent ones (decay of EM radiation, supposed interaction of gravity waves) is bouncing off my common sense.

at least most of the time you are honest enough to admit that those ideas are your opinion. But you should be completely honest and state that they are really nothing more than the products of your imagination. And there is no basis for your claims other than imagination. Please show us some - ANY - evidence that EM radiation decays. Otherwise, it would be as equally valid to say it's all done by gnomes and banshees. My point being that without evidence it amounts to nothing.

12. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
My goal was to show you that you don't seem to be able to see that there is a big void between the formulas of general relativity and the mechanism of exactly how and why the formulas work. I am simply stating the mechanism by which they work. I am showing that by linking time and space to the frequency and area of a reference frame generated wave then the reference frame does actually modify or control the speed of objects with in it. As you say, obviously. In my opinion, a natural result of the observable and tested reality is to understand constructive and destructive wave patterns with this concept of generated waves creates the true force of gravity. If this concept were true, that time space and gravity are actions of the release of waves in all reference frames then it is the only way that my limited mind sees how Newton's, Einstien's discovered laws work in isolated reference frames and also reference frames in all forms of motion. You see, the mathmatical equations of reality now make since to me and they also explain other unexplainable data of observations with the universe such as lost information in black holes and increased acceleration observations. If the shoe fits?
I am not creating a theory and seeing if the facts fit, I am looking at it all and realizing that all the facts, the experiments, the observations, and the physics and math equations lead to this understanding. This was an feeble exercize to lead specifically you, old Geezer, into at least opening you mind to see that although I am grouped with stupid idiotic everybody has a theory morons, I do have something at the core that has merit. With the word tone of your writtings I think my attempts at penetrating your creative common sense are bouncing off like bullets on superman.
I'll reply to that last statement first. No, not at all. Your attempts to bend already understood principles by introducing fanciful, non-existent ones (decay of EM radiation, supposed interaction of gravity waves) is bouncing off my common sense.

at least most of the time you are honest enough to admit that those ideas are your opinion. But you should be completely honest and state that they are really nothing more than the products of your imagination. And there is no basis for your claims other than imagination. Please show us some - ANY - evidence that EM radiation decays. Otherwise, it would be as equally valid to say it's all done by gnomes and banshees. My point being that without evidence it amounts to nothing.
I full admit and take credit that everything I have concluded is an "Original Idea". It is definately a concept solely the product of my creativity and imagination. I proudly admit and say yes. I have cheated in the sense that I have used my observations from many sources of the history of physics and many different experiments that people other than I preformed. I have learned from the best and hardest working people and to them I give credit. To you and people like you too. Sometimes I need more than myself to play devil's advocate in order to see into the possible cracks of prediction that I have missed. And to that I thank you and a few others on Toequest, too. It is solely my prediction that the universe is narrowing as it is expanding, like a balloon expanding into a cigar and eventually a string, it is my prediction that background radiation is decreasing per unit area, it is my prediction that all matter, including quarks is going through a process of energy transfer. I believe evidence can be seen in the overall picture of the cosmos, black holes shrinking, the increase of acceleration of the Universe, the simple effect of gravity. I believe, my opinion, my creativity, my imagination, that everything is made of one thing and the one thing is going through a process of potential to kenetic energy. I believe that the laws of the universe work the same everywhere and the underlying process is simple and beautiful to see. I believe simply this- that matter decays into the gravitational wave and the essence of absolute time is the process, the essence of space is the volume, and the force is gravitational wave synchronization. Three actions of one process as matter decreases in dimensions. I believe the shoe fits! Remember every step of the way somebody said that there is no evidence, no evidence of molecules and atoms existing, no evidence that there is anything smaller than protons, electrons, and nuetrons, no evidence of all matter decaying into the gravitational wave, -yet. Actually there is indirect evidence so far...... as previously discussed.

13. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Actually there is indirect evidence so far...... as previously discussed.
Not that I can recall. Please refresh my memory about where you have presented any evidence at all - direct or otherwise - of your idea. All I remember is a large amount of nebulous "discussion" with no facts being given.

14. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Actually there is indirect evidence so far...... as previously discussed.
Not that I can recall. Please refresh my memory about where you have presented any evidence at all - direct or otherwise - of your idea. All I remember is a large amount of nebulous "discussion" with no facts being given.
"What binary star is producing gravity waves?

You might be referring to the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar.

The Taylor-Hulse Binary Pulsar has the following basic orbital elements:

Distance............................5 kiloparsecs
Orbital Velocity.................. 300 kilometers per second
Total mass ( M1+M2 )............ 2.8278 solar masses
Periastron Advance.............. 4.2261 degrees per year
Orbital Period.................. 27906.98161 seconds
Eccentricity.................... 0.617139
Pulse Period.................... 0.05902999527 seconds
Pulse Period change............. 0.000000000000000008628 seconds per second
The periastron advance should be compared to that of Mercury which is 42 arcseconds per century! The orbital eccentricity and period of the system imply a binary system which is emitting gravitational radiation. The increase in the orbital period that has been detected over the last 10 years is exactly the amount predicted by Einstein's general relativity as a result of the loss of energy due to gravitational radiation. This system is the widely acknowledged as the proof that gravitational radiation exists in nature, and serves as yet another test of Einstein's theory, upon which Big Bang cosmology and the existence of Black Holes now rests."
"GRAVITATIONAL WAVE DETECTION
Academic staff: Professor J Hough, Dr G P Newton, Dr N A Robertson, Dr H Ward

Research and Related Staff: Mr P W McNamara (part-time), Dr M V Plissi, Dr S Rowan, Dr K D Skeldon, Dr K A Strain, Miss S M Twyford (part-time)

Research Students: Miss M M Casey, Mr D A Clubley, Mr S A McIntosh, Mr D A Palmer, Mr C Torrie

The work of this group, supported by PPARC funding, is at present concentrated on the development of detectors to search for gravitational waves from astrophysical sources. Gravitational waves - waves in the curvature of space-time - are a prediction of General Relativity. In recent years there has been considerable progress towards the detection of these waves. Indirect confirmation of their existence has come from observations of the orbital motion of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, for which work Hulse and Taylor were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics. This evidence and the recognition of its importance has undoubtedly given a boost to the efforts of physicists worldwide involved in the development and construction of gravitational wave detectors. The group in Glasgow is one of the major research groups in this field."
*Internet sources

Personal comment- from my point of view, since time and distance, specifically time dialation and lenght contraction are observable facts they are then aspects of a generated wave that makes up space itself. The Doppler effect. Then to me it is a logical deduction to see that the generated waves themselves create the force of gravity through constructive wave patterns and destructive wave patterns which has an inherient trait to travel throught the path of least interference. Applying this Hypotheisis to Hawkin's radiation and relativity and quantum theory everything has a different explaination for the same observations and it is simple with out the magic of extra dimensions, or virtual particles or strictly probabilities. The Universe again becomes slanted towards Newtonian and matter decay creating space is the Universal clock.
From my point of view, everyone else is crazy for not seeing something so simple and beautiful. One process described with three actions. Time is the process of wave generation, space is the resultant area and gravitational wave synchronization is the force. Since the entire universe seems to follow this pattern and it matches all the experimental data so far that I can find althought I do have some problems with two Quantum experiments that I haven't had time to investigate. The king has no clothes!

15. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
(The first of five questioning topics)

A). Is the speed of light the speed of all radiation?

(reploes),
No. IMO, I think 'c' may vary very slightly in momentum due to the 'energy' levels of the photons.

B). If The constant speed of light (C) or (K) is independent of all reference frame velosity and or acceleration, and the same (C) is also independent of the speed or change in rate of speed of the source of the generated light, in question, then if two objects, the source and the reference frame are accelerating away from each other then in any instant in time what is the distance from the two objects?

Currently, the Cosmological Redshifts (CR) are used as distance indicators and transformed into recessional velocities (RV).
Since our motions through space are determined within our galaxy, the
objects RS would be determined from its RS. If the 'local space velocity' cannot be determined, than that would be the distance of the object.

C). From the source does the density of the source's mass, gravitational field, play a role?

In comparison to its RV, this would be disregarded becausr it is very small.

D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?
Since the reference frames are the two objects, yes.
I said the 'c' is relative to the rediating objects velocity. So to make adjustments for the local velocity, one would have to have other objects near that local sight to make any corrections

NS

16. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Actually there is indirect evidence so far...... as previously discussed.
Not that I can recall. Please refresh my memory about where you have presented any evidence at all - direct or otherwise - of your idea. All I remember is a large amount of nebulous "discussion" with no facts being given.
"What binary star is producing gravity waves?

You might be referring to the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar.

The Taylor-Hulse Binary Pulsar has the following basic orbital elements:

Distance............................5 kiloparsecs
Orbital Velocity.................. 300 kilometers per second
Total mass ( M1+M2 )............ 2.8278 solar masses
Periastron Advance.............. 4.2261 degrees per year
Orbital Period.................. 27906.98161 seconds
Eccentricity.................... 0.617139
Pulse Period.................... 0.05902999527 seconds
Pulse Period change............. 0.000000000000000008628 seconds per second
The periastron advance should be compared to that of Mercury which is 42 arcseconds per century! The orbital eccentricity and period of the system imply a binary system which is emitting gravitational radiation. The increase in the orbital period that has been detected over the last 10 years is exactly the amount predicted by Einstein's general relativity as a result of the loss of energy due to gravitational radiation. This system is the widely acknowledged as the proof that gravitational radiation exists in nature, and serves as yet another test of Einstein's theory, upon which Big Bang cosmology and the existence of Black Holes now rests."
"GRAVITATIONAL WAVE DETECTION
Academic staff: Professor J Hough, Dr G P Newton, Dr N A Robertson, Dr H Ward

Research and Related Staff: Mr P W McNamara (part-time), Dr M V Plissi, Dr S Rowan, Dr K D Skeldon, Dr K A Strain, Miss S M Twyford (part-time)

Research Students: Miss M M Casey, Mr D A Clubley, Mr S A McIntosh, Mr D A Palmer, Mr C Torrie

The work of this group, supported by PPARC funding, is at present concentrated on the development of detectors to search for gravitational waves from astrophysical sources. Gravitational waves - waves in the curvature of space-time - are a prediction of General Relativity. In recent years there has been considerable progress towards the detection of these waves. Indirect confirmation of their existence has come from observations of the orbital motion of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, for which work Hulse and Taylor were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics. This evidence and the recognition of its importance has undoubtedly given a boost to the efforts of physicists worldwide involved in the development and construction of gravitational wave detectors. The group in Glasgow is one of the major research groups in this field."
*Internet sources

Personal comment- from my point of view, since time and distance, specifically time dialation and lenght contraction are observable facts they are then aspects of a generated wave that makes up space itself. The Doppler effect. Then to me it is a logical deduction to see that the generated waves themselves create the force of gravity through constructive wave patterns and destructive wave patterns which has an inherient trait to travel throught the path of least interference. Applying this Hypotheisis to Hawkin's radiation and relativity and quantum theory everything has a different explaination for the same observations and it is simple with out the magic of extra dimensions, or virtual particles or strictly probabilities. The Universe again becomes slanted towards Newtonian and matter decay creating space is the Universal clock.
From my point of view, everyone else is crazy for not seeing something so simple and beautiful. One process described with three actions. Time is the process of wave generation, space is the resultant area and gravitational wave synchronization is the force. Since the entire universe seems to follow this pattern and it matches all the experimental data so far that I can find althought I do have some problems with two Quantum experiments that I haven't had time to investigate. The king has no clothes!
Yes, that's good information. But keep in mind that it's only indirect confirmation at this point that gravitational waves actually exist. And, as a result, the quest continues. We are still trying to produce positive proof.

However:

It's a GIANT (and unwarranted) leap from the possible existence of gravitational waves to what you are proposing - that resonance and constructive/destructive interference of gravitational waves explains everything.

And what's even worse is your claim of EM radiation decay. There's absolutely nothing upon which to base that idea. We clearly know that EM radiation can be absorbed and re-emitted, but saying that radiation 'decays' is bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid.

17. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Actually there is indirect evidence so far...... as previously discussed.
Not that I can recall. Please refresh my memory about where you have presented any evidence at all - direct or otherwise - of your idea. All I remember is a large amount of nebulous "discussion" with no facts being given.
"What binary star is producing gravity waves?

You might be referring to the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar.

The Taylor-Hulse Binary Pulsar has the following basic orbital elements:

Distance............................5 kiloparsecs
Orbital Velocity.................. 300 kilometers per second
Total mass ( M1+M2 )............ 2.8278 solar masses
Periastron Advance.............. 4.2261 degrees per year
Orbital Period.................. 27906.98161 seconds
Eccentricity.................... 0.617139
Pulse Period.................... 0.05902999527 seconds
Pulse Period change............. 0.000000000000000008628 seconds per second
The periastron advance should be compared to that of Mercury which is 42 arcseconds per century! The orbital eccentricity and period of the system imply a binary system which is emitting gravitational radiation. The increase in the orbital period that has been detected over the last 10 years is exactly the amount predicted by Einstein's general relativity as a result of the loss of energy due to gravitational radiation. This system is the widely acknowledged as the proof that gravitational radiation exists in nature, and serves as yet another test of Einstein's theory, upon which Big Bang cosmology and the existence of Black Holes now rests."
"GRAVITATIONAL WAVE DETECTION
Academic staff: Professor J Hough, Dr G P Newton, Dr N A Robertson, Dr H Ward

Research and Related Staff: Mr P W McNamara (part-time), Dr M V Plissi, Dr S Rowan, Dr K D Skeldon, Dr K A Strain, Miss S M Twyford (part-time)

Research Students: Miss M M Casey, Mr D A Clubley, Mr S A McIntosh, Mr D A Palmer, Mr C Torrie

The work of this group, supported by PPARC funding, is at present concentrated on the development of detectors to search for gravitational waves from astrophysical sources. Gravitational waves - waves in the curvature of space-time - are a prediction of General Relativity. In recent years there has been considerable progress towards the detection of these waves. Indirect confirmation of their existence has come from observations of the orbital motion of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, for which work Hulse and Taylor were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics. This evidence and the recognition of its importance has undoubtedly given a boost to the efforts of physicists worldwide involved in the development and construction of gravitational wave detectors. The group in Glasgow is one of the major research groups in this field."
*Internet sources

Personal comment- from my point of view, since time and distance, specifically time dialation and lenght contraction are observable facts they are then aspects of a generated wave that makes up space itself. The Doppler effect. Then to me it is a logical deduction to see that the generated waves themselves create the force of gravity through constructive wave patterns and destructive wave patterns which has an inherient trait to travel throught the path of least interference. Applying this Hypotheisis to Hawkin's radiation and relativity and quantum theory everything has a different explaination for the same observations and it is simple with out the magic of extra dimensions, or virtual particles or strictly probabilities. The Universe again becomes slanted towards Newtonian and matter decay creating space is the Universal clock.
From my point of view, everyone else is crazy for not seeing something so simple and beautiful. One process described with three actions. Time is the process of wave generation, space is the resultant area and gravitational wave synchronization is the force. Since the entire universe seems to follow this pattern and it matches all the experimental data so far that I can find althought I do have some problems with two Quantum experiments that I haven't had time to investigate. The king has no clothes!
Yes, that's good information. But keep in mind that it's only indirect confirmation at this point that gravitational waves actually exist. And, as a result, the quest continues. We are still trying to produce positive proof.

However:

It's a GIANT (and unwarranted) leap from the possible existence of gravitational waves to what you are proposing - that resonance and constructive/destructive interference of gravitational waves explains everything.

And what's even worse is your claim of EM radiation decay. There's absolutely nothing upon which to base that idea. We clearly know that EM radiation can be absorbed and re-emitted, but saying that radiation 'decays' is bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid.
A couple hundred years ago saying the Earth is round was also bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid. As a matter of history I think many great leaps of thought had people thinking that they the thoughts were ridiclulous. I find many personalities interesting, especially the ones that clearly don't know the answer but exclude posibilities with out merit behind the exclusion. I believe that matter decay beyound current thinking will evolve through experiments of unique magitudes. History also shows that everytime we thought we were at the elementary particle we were mistaken.

18. Turner said: "A couple hundred years ago saying the Earth is round was also bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid. As a matter of history I think many great leaps of thought had people thinking that they the thoughts were ridiclulous. I find many personalities interesting, especially the ones that clearly don't know the answer but exclude posibilities with out merit behind the exclusion. I believe that matter decay beyound current thinking will evolve through experiments of unique magitudes. History also shows that everytime we thought we were at the elementary particle we were mistaken."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first part of that is true, the last is patently false. Ever since the beginning of particle physics, they have always suspected there were more subatomic particles and continued the search. So if you can't be accurate at least don't be dishonest in an attempt to make your own musings more plausible.

I certainly agree that there is still plenty to be discovered - and probably always will be. But scientific progress is measured in inches, not in unqualified leaps of faith. That was true even for Einstein who built his mathematical works on those before him. Your idea, however, is based entirely upon two suppositions that have absolutely no basis in fact.

19. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Turner said: "A couple hundred years ago saying the Earth is round was also bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid. As a matter of history I think many great leaps of thought had people thinking that they the thoughts were ridiclulous. I find many personalities interesting, especially the ones that clearly don't know the answer but exclude posibilities with out merit behind the exclusion. I believe that matter decay beyound current thinking will evolve through experiments of unique magitudes. History also shows that everytime we thought we were at the elementary particle we were mistaken."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first part of that is true, the last is patently false. Ever since the beginning of particle physics, they have always suspected there were more subatomic particles and continued the search. So if you can't be accurate at least don't be dishonest in an attempt to make your own musings more plausible.

I certainly agree that there is still plenty to be discovered - and probably always will be. But scientific progress is measured in inches, not in unqualified leaps of faith. That was true even for Einstein who built his mathematical works on those before him. Your idea, however, is based entirely upon two suppositions that have absolutely no basis in fact.
What two suppositions are you accusing me for the bases of my unqualified leap of faith?

20. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Turner said: "A couple hundred years ago saying the Earth is round was also bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid. As a matter of history I think many great leaps of thought had people thinking that they the thoughts were ridiclulous. I find many personalities interesting, especially the ones that clearly don't know the answer but exclude posibilities with out merit behind the exclusion. I believe that matter decay beyound current thinking will evolve through experiments of unique magitudes. History also shows that everytime we thought we were at the elementary particle we were mistaken."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first part of that is true, the last is patently false. Ever since the beginning of particle physics, they have always suspected there were more subatomic particles and continued the search. So if you can't be accurate at least don't be dishonest in an attempt to make your own musings more plausible.

I certainly agree that there is still plenty to be discovered - and probably always will be. But scientific progress is measured in inches, not in unqualified leaps of faith. That was true even for Einstein who built his mathematical works on those before him. Your idea, however, is based entirely upon two suppositions that have absolutely no basis in fact.
What two suppositions are you accusing me for the bases of my unqualified leap of faith?
The same two as in the very beginning and ever since. Gravitational wave interaction and EM radiation decay. They form the very cornerstone of your idea. And it's not "bases", it's "basis" - that of which you have none. :wink:

21. Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Turner said: "A couple hundred years ago saying the Earth is round was also bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid. As a matter of history I think many great leaps of thought had people thinking that they the thoughts were ridiclulous. I find many personalities interesting, especially the ones that clearly don't know the answer but exclude posibilities with out merit behind the exclusion. I believe that matter decay beyound current thinking will evolve through experiments of unique magitudes. History also shows that everytime we thought we were at the elementary particle we were mistaken."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first part of that is true, the last is patently false. Ever since the beginning of particle physics, they have always suspected there were more subatomic particles and continued the search. So if you can't be accurate at least don't be dishonest in an attempt to make your own musings more plausible.

I certainly agree that there is still plenty to be discovered - and probably always will be. But scientific progress is measured in inches, not in unqualified leaps of faith. That was true even for Einstein who built his mathematical works on those before him. Your idea, however, is based entirely upon two suppositions that have absolutely no basis in fact.
What two suppositions are you accusing me for the bases of my unqualified leap of faith?
The same two as in the very beginning and ever since. Gravitational wave interaction and EM radiation decay. They form the very cornerstone of your idea. And it's not "bases", it's "basis" - that of which you have none. :wink:
Lets call it gravitational field interaction or synchronization but I thought you were going to talk about my concept that time and space are functions of the generated gravitational wave. Me Bad---
You are right, I must be crazy to think of a wave/field as having interactive qualities, it is not like sound oh wait I can't use that one because----
*
"How Sound Waves Interact with Each Other
When different waves collide (e.g. sound from different sources) they interfere with each other. This is called, unsurprisingly, wave interference.

Phasing
The following table illustrates how sound waves (or any other waves) interfere with each other depending on their phase relationship:

Sound waves which are exactly in phase add together to produce a stronger wave.
Sound waves which are exactly 180 degrees out of phase cancel each other out and produce silence (this is how many noise-cancellation devices work).
Sound waves which have varying phase relationships produce differing sound effects."
or light oh wait again---

"Radio Wave Interaction With External Fields

Question - How are radio waves (or other forms of EM radiation)
affected by external electric and magnetic fields?
For example, passing radio waves through parallel plates or by a magnet (or
even the Earth's magnetic field). Are the waves bent, deviated? Is the
amplitude or wavelength altered? Will there become any noise and what is
this noise, and why does it occur?
-----------------
Strangely, physics has it that in a vacuum, photons do nothing to photons.
So radio waves (electromagnetic waves) are nominally unaffected by magnetic and electric fields.

But you're not always in a vacuum.
Radio and light waves passing by matter are affected by matter:
slowed down, bent, absorbed, maybe even distorted into other frequencies of wave.

Electric and magnetic fields can modify these interaction parameters of a substance,
depending a lot on which substance it is..

Out in space is very thin gas, but it's almost all somewhat ionized, a plasma.
Earth's ionosphere and radiation belts are a somewhat denser plasmas.
Plasmas are affected by magnetic fields: given cyclotron resonance frequencies and a
directionality
for
conducting slow waves along magnetic field lines.
Some very low frequency radio waves are strongly bent by the magnetized plasma surrounding Earth.
sometimes are bent to
travel 1/3-way around the world following a magnetic field line."
and
"Interference
For other uses, see Interference (disambiguation).

Interference of two circular waves - Wavelength (decreasing bottom to top) and Wave centers distance (increasing to the right). Absolute value snapshots of the (real-valued, scalar) wave field. As time progresses, the wave fronts would move outwards from the two centers, but the dark regions (destructive interference) stay fixed.Interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a new wave pattern.

As most commonly used, the term interference usually refers to the interaction of waves which are correlated or coherent with each other, either because they come from the same source or because they have the same or nearly the same frequency.

Two non-monochromatic waves are only fully coherent with each other if they both have exactly the same range of wavelengths and the same phase differences at each of the constituent wavelengths.

The total phase difference is derived from the sum of both the path difference and the initial phase difference (if the waves are generated from 2 or more different sources). It can then be concluded whether the waves reaching a point are in phase(constructive interference) or out of phase (destructive interference).

Contents [hide]
1 Theory
2 Experiments
3 Interference patterns
4 Constructive and destructive interference
5 General Quantum Interference
6 Examples
8 References

 Theory
The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant displacement at a point is equal to the sum of the displacements of different waves at that point. If a crest of a wave meets a crest of another wave at the same point then the crests interfere constructively and the resultant wave amplitude is greater. If a crest of a wave meets a trough of another wave then they interfere destructively, and the overall amplitude is decreased.

This form of interference can occur whenever a wave can propagate from a source to a destination by two or more paths of different length. Two or more sources can only be used to produce interference when there is a fixed phase relation between them, but in this case the interference generated is the same as with a single source; see Huygens' principle.

 Experiments
Thomas Young's double-slit experiment showed interference phenomena where two beams of light which are coherent interfere to produce a pattern.

The beams of light both have the same wavelength range and at the center of the interference pattern. They have the same phases at each wavelength, as they both come from the same source."
and magnetic fields don't form any kind of field alignment either, especially on matter, wait ----

"Magnetic Field Alignment of the Cholesteric and High Density Mesophases in Liquid Crystalline DNA - In the presence of a magnetic field, the liquid crystalline nematic director vector will tend to align relative to the field. Because DNA has a negative anisotropy in diamagnetic susceptibility, the molecular helices align perpendicular to an applied magnetic field, which orients the twist axis of the cholesteric phase in a manner parallel to the field. The links below lead to photomicrographs and discussions of magnetic field effects on liquid crystalline DNA.

Magnetically aligned samples subjected to controlled drying were used to obtain initial measurements of the cholesteric helical pitch change with concentration in calf thymus liquid crystalline DNA. In the transition region, these samples exhibited a continuous increase in pitch from about 2.5 to 5 micrometers. With further increase in DNA concentration, the morphology becomes disordered and difficult to interpret. These regions exhibit a high degree of birefringence and higher order interference colors. At still higher DNA concentrations, the morphology once again appears cholesteric, with the twist axis again parallel to the direction of applied magnetic field and varying from 8 to 10 micrometers.

This research was conducted in collaboration with Dr. Randolph L. Rill of the Department of Chemistry and Institute of Molecular Biophysics and Dr. David H. Van Winkle of the Center for Materials Research and Technology at the Florida State University.

Magnetic Field Alignment of the Unwinding Region - X-ray scattering and optical microscopy studies have revealed a dramatic increase in the cholesteric helical pitch of liquid crystalline DNA in the transition region to a higher density mesophase. The image in this section illustrates the formation of batonnets within the confines of an unwinding cholesteric phase that has been aligned with a 7 Tesla magnetic field.

Magnetic Field Effects on Cholesteric Helical Pitch - The image in this section illustrates the effects of a high magnetic field (7 Tesla) on the cholesteric helical pitch at the cholesteric/high density transition boundary. Orientation of the cholesteric phase by the magnetic field has resulted in an increase in the helical pitch of this phase to approximately 10 microns.

Magnetic Field Alignment of the Liquid Crystalline DNA Cholesteric Phase - Long-range orientation of cholesteric liquid crystalline DNA mesophases occurs at magnetic field strengths exceeding 2 Tesla. The image presented in this section illustrates this long-range order in DNA solutions approaching 300 milligrams per milliliter.

Batonnet Formation in Magnetically Aligned DNA Liquid Crystals - Orientation of the transition region with a 5 Tesla magnetic field increases the helical pitch of the unwinding cholesteric mesophase, which is spontaneously forming batonnets during the phase transition as is evident in the image presented in this section.

Perturbations of the Cholesteric Mesophase - Miniature gas bubbles trapped in the liquid crystalline DNA sandwich between a microscope cover glass and slide disturb orientation of the cholesteric phase by high magnetic fields.

Chevron Structures in the Cholesteric Mesophase - When cholesteric liquid crystalline DNA is oriented in a magnetic field, the regions containing low-density mesophases acquire a texture that resembles a repeating chevron structure.

Batonnet Alignment by High Magnetic Fields - During controlled drying experiments, batonnets formed at the interface between cholesteric and high density liquid crystalline DNA are oriented with respect to externally applied magnetic field direction vectors.

Phase Transitions in High Magnetic Fields - Phase transitions between the cholesteric and high density liquid crystalline DNA phases occur with the formation of batonnets during unwinding of the cholesteric mesophase.

Unusual Phenomena in Cholesteric Mesophases - An ordered phase of indeterminate structure occurs in the cholesteric mesophase in liquid crystalline DNA samples exposed to high magnetic fields. This phase exhibits a high degree of birefringence with higher order colors that suggests a complex structure that does not appear to occur in the absence of the magnetic field.

Birefringent Regions in Cholesteric Mesophases - Birefringent regions of indeterminate structure occur in the cholesteric mesophase of liquid crystalline DNA samples exposed to high magnetic fields. The photomicrograph presented in this section illustrates a region having strong birefringence and exhibiting a wide spectrum of higher order colors, which may be due to thickness variations.

Phase Transitions at Low Magnification - Phase transitions in magnetically aligned liquid crystalline DNA specimens are dependent upon the direction of the phase transition with respect to the magnetic field director vector and concentration gradient.

Cholesteric Unwinding in the Phase Transition Region - The cholesteric liquid crystalline DNA phase begins to unwind and form batonnets at the interface between this phase and the higher density hexatic phase."
* Internet references
and what about the waves of water--- and their interactions on the surface and deep. It looks like fields are in partnership with everything and help really run the show in a hidden kind of way- what do you know!

So it is not to crazy for me to think that if matter decays, and it doesn't have to be all matter, just the stuff affected by gravity, okay everything, then the gravitational wave will have field interactions. Even an alignment of matter as you see throught the DNA studies is not out of the question.
Gravitational waves come from matter and align matter- crazy idea, nothing simular to compare, but 4,5,6,11 dimensions now that is rock solid! Yea I will bet the house on that one, not! Dark energy, dark matter invisible crap that we make up because we can't explain field theory properly, that is my take, sorry you don't see it as easy as I do. Like I said before, to me it is obvious, it screams out, and from my reference frame everyone else is wearing a veil.

Oh one more thing, can you name a wave and tell me is didn't start out with a source? If I am correct and waves, gravitational waves, exist, it is not a big jump to believe there is a source and that they manifest as field interactions and I see fields to be energy transfers too, both short and long distance transfers, but transfers all the same. Now if electro- magnetic radiation is affected by gravity, which it is, then I believe another jump in thinking is necessary that it to produces the graqvitational wave/field for that interaction to occur. Thus synchronization of waves and an extended field energy transfer of radiation.
or you could just think I made this stuff up with no real thought behind it.
Obviously you have decredited me in your mind with the later.

22. Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Originally Posted by Dr. C. Michael Turner
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Turner said: "A couple hundred years ago saying the Earth is round was also bordering on the ridiculous, I'm afraid. As a matter of history I think many great leaps of thought had people thinking that they the thoughts were ridiclulous. I find many personalities interesting, especially the ones that clearly don't know the answer but exclude posibilities with out merit behind the exclusion. I believe that matter decay beyound current thinking will evolve through experiments of unique magitudes. History also shows that everytime we thought we were at the elementary particle we were mistaken."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first part of that is true, the last is patently false. Ever since the beginning of particle physics, they have always suspected there were more subatomic particles and continued the search. So if you can't be accurate at least don't be dishonest in an attempt to make your own musings more plausible.

I certainly agree that there is still plenty to be discovered - and probably always will be. But scientific progress is measured in inches, not in unqualified leaps of faith. That was true even for Einstein who built his mathematical works on those before him. Your idea, however, is based entirely upon two suppositions that have absolutely no basis in fact.
What two suppositions are you accusing me for the bases of my unqualified leap of faith?
The same two as in the very beginning and ever since. Gravitational wave interaction and EM radiation decay. They form the very cornerstone of your idea. And it's not "bases", it's "basis" - that of which you have none. :wink:
Lets call it gravitational field interaction or synchronization but I thought you were going to talk about my concept that time and space are functions of the generated gravitational wave. Me Bad---
You are right, I must be crazy to think of a wave/field as having interactive qualities, it is not like sound oh wait I can't use that one because----
"How Sound Waves Interact with Each Other
When different waves collide (e.g. sound from different sources) they interfere with each other. This is called, unsurprisingly, wave interference.

Phasing
The following table illustrates how sound waves (or any other waves) interfere with each other depending on their phase relationship:

Sound waves which are exactly in phase add together to produce a stronger wave.
Sound waves which are exactly 180 degrees out of phase cancel each other out and produce silence (this is how many noise-cancellation devices work).
Sound waves which have varying phase relationships produce differing sound effects."
or light oh wait again---
A poor attempt. Most of us (over the age of 20, anyway) are aware of the effects of constructive/destructive interference of sound and EM waves. As well as the famous Michaelson/Morely experiments which laid to rest the concept of an "ether" needed to transmit light.

And I say 'poor attempt' because you are STILL relying on the existence of gravity waves - and their interaction - while the hunt is still on to prove they even exist. It may turn out that they do - and it may turn out that they don't. Too soon to say either way.

And now that you blew that one, how about addressing - and giving evidence - of your other great break-though in physics? That of decaying EM waves. Simple 'thinking' is far, far from enough.

23. Michaelson-Morley did not look at the possibility of the source of the ether from with in matter itself nor did they even think that the ether could have synchronization of reference field properties or universal synchronization properties. You really do accept things for given when I believe an accidental bait and switch has been done. I would like you to show me that they checked and how for ether generated from with in matter. You can't because it is one place they never thought of looking.

Back to finishing up with water synchronization-*
However, anyone that has dropped something in a pool of water can picture the waves radiating out from the source with a circular wave front. If two objects are dropped a short distance apart into the pool of water, their waves will radiate out from their sources and interact with each other. At every point where the waves interact, the amplitude of the particle displacement is the combined sum of the amplitudes of the particle displacement of the individual waves.
Einstein even knew that there was a connection between matter and space that he didn't understand.

My theory did not come from nothing, nor have you seen the tip of the iceburg but I do not seem to get it through to you that it is a theory that has predictions and had predictions and so far I feel it is intact, at least dimensionally so. Sometimes nature, if looked at with out preconcieved notions will reveal itself and all you have to do is extract the principles and laws the govern the revelation. Hey maybe I completely missed the boat, but boy it really makes sense in more ways than you will ever realize. but i do give you credit for your time and abilities in playing the devil's advocate. Thank you for your seeing, even that you entirely discount it, that I pulled an original thought out of my patuties. It is funny because to you it is unthinkable and to me it is second nature. We are like poles on a magnet.

24. Rather than take time to establish common principles of wave field generation and wave field interaction and then apply the principles to gravity and reference frames as I did people would rather believe in extra dimensions and create strange new explainations for the simple behavior of generated waves of matter. They even put down and ignore the obvious. They would rather believe in nothing than look into the exact mechanism of why the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. It is obvious even if I am wrong in some aspects of my beliefs that it is synchronizing fields between a photon and a reference frame that governs the action, (speed of light), of a photon with in a reference frame.

ps -finishing with the topic!

25. Very well. The question is:

"D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?"

Relativity with light.

You need to imagine the system of space-time ENTIRE, as the "constant" reference.

Then imagine that light can "adapt" to a UNIQUE reference in that overall reference of light in space-time.

The "way" light "adapts" to a unique reference, with all other references in the system considered, is how in fact light is "distorted" either by wavelength (red or blue shift) or direction (in being BENT). Basically, when light is bent, it behaves as though it is actually not travelling at the speed itself of light, but undertaking an "acceleration", compared to another reference.

This is not a very widely understood "way" of appreciating relativity, I admit (if you are interested, there is a download explaining this "explanation" on the www below).

When you see the forest for the trees, it is very simple...........the effect, of seeing the forest for the trees, is like one of those "magic eye" pictures.

26. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Very well. The question is:

"D). If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames then does the constant speed of light adapt to the reference frame?"

Relativity with light.

You need to imagine the system of space-time ENTIRE, as the "constant" reference.

Then imagine that light can "adapt" to a UNIQUE reference in that overall reference of light in space-time.

The "way" light "adapts" to a unique reference, with all other references in the system considered, is how in fact light is "distorted" either by wavelength (red or blue shift) or direction (in being BENT). Basically, when light is bent, it behaves as though it is actually not travelling at the speed itself of light, but undertaking an "acceleration", compared to another reference.

This is not a very widely understood "way" of appreciating relativity, I admit (if you are interested, there is a download explaining this "explanation" on the www below).

When you see the forest for the trees, it is very simple...........the effect, of seeing the forest for the trees, is like one of those "magic eye" pictures.
That's a rather lengthly way of not saying much.

The invariance of c in different frames of reference is due to the relativistic effect on the clocks and measuring devices in each frame. Just that simple.

27. So you agree with me in the suggestion that light is BENT due to relativistic effects, and not only that, undergoes red and blue shifting?

28. Originally Posted by streamSystems
So you agree with me in the suggestion that light is BENT due to relativistic effects, and not only that, undergoes red and blue shifting?
Certainly. That's just basic Relativity-101. But it's more accurate to say that it's path is curved rather than "bent."

29. Would you be interested in an algorithm that explains what we both know in a way that links quantum mechanics with gravity...........it's a prototype, obviously, but all the equations in it check-out.

30. To All

The M-M experiment has proven that 'space' has NO influence on the light. The curvature of light around a gravitational source is the result of the 'gravity' because it is an imbalance in the EM forces.

Since it is an EM anomaly and the light photons move through the electric fields that surround the charged particles that permeate space, there is a slight interaction between the gravitational field and these EM fields.

This refutes Einsteins 'curvature of space' as the cause.

NS

31. Could the "perceived" curvature of space "actually" be the "need" for light to be "warped" (bent) in it's movement relative to other references in space of time of light.......owing to relativistic effrects?

In saying this, I "am" technically also saying that space has no effect on the light, that the bending of light is owing to relativistic effects of light with other references of itself in the overall space-time soup of light......I am not refuting what we know of the findings of Mich-Morl.

I do agree though that the concept of space being "curved", well, it does leave a lot to be explained.

32. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Could the "perceived" curvature of space "actually" be the "need" for light to be "warped" (bent) in it's movement relative to other references in space of time of light.......owing to relativistic effrects?

In saying this, I "am" technically also saying that space has no effect on the light, that the bending of light is owing to relativistic effects of light with other references of itself in the overall space-time soup of light......I am not refuting what we know of the findings of Mich-Morl.

I do agree though that the concept of space being "curved", well, it does leave a lot to be explained.
Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Relativity perfectly predicts that spacetime will be warped (curved) by the presence of a massive object and numerous observations have found the amount of curve to be precisely what the math predicts it to be.

About all the MM experiments did was to dispel the thought that light required a medium (the infamous "ether") in order to travel. There were other side factors as well (like showing it had wave-like properties) but proving/disproving the existence of the ether was the primary goal.

33. The great fallacy of physics currently is the "concept" of the "curvature of space-time" by the presence of a massive object while dispelling the concept of ether and not taking into account relativistic features of light. We all know what "happens" in theory to light owing to the different frames of reference it can receive, in theory, and what "mass" is required to make that event of curvature "happen". My point is, in dispelling space is an ether, space is not curved, there is nothing to curve, LIGHT is curved, bent, owing to it;s relativistic features caused by differing frames of reference in it's own holistic system. Space is not curved. Light behaves as though it is though.

34. Originally Posted by streamSystems
The great fallacy of physics currently is the "concept" of the "curvature of space-time" by the presence of a massive object while dispelling the concept of ether and not taking into account relativistic features of light. We all know what "happens" in theory to light owing to the different frames of reference it can receive, in theory, and what "mass" is required to make that event of curvature "happen". My point is, in dispelling space is an ether, space is not curved, there is nothing to curve, LIGHT is curved, bent, owing to it;s relativistic features caused by differing frames of reference in it's own holistic system. Space is not curved. Light behaves as though it is though.
That is a totally unsupported idea. You will have to back it up with something substantial before it would even come close to being accepted.

Ideas like that are a dime a dozen, there are a lot of them out there. But none of them have anything to support them. Just ideas - thoughts - nothing more.

35. Yes, it IS a totally unsupported "idea", however it doesn't contradict what we OBSERVE of space-time.

As an idea, as a "way" of interpreting what we observe, yes, it is a "new interpretation". But "as" a new interpretation, it offers better glipses into other aspects of space-time contemporary theories lack confidence in explaining.

As for my need to back it up with something "substantial", go to my post in the "philosophy" discussion regarding "when do we forge ahead with science": NOTE in particular the resposes I have received there.

36. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Yes, it IS a totally unsupported "idea", however it doesn't contradict what we OBSERVE of space-time.
But what you fail to understand is that very, very few of the "alternative" ideas contradict observations. So that buys you nothing at all.

As an idea, as a "way" of interpreting what we observe, yes, it is a "new interpretation". But "as" a new interpretation, it offers better glipses into other aspects of space-time contemporary theories lack confidence in explaining.
Please point out for us where it offers any "better glimpses" than realitivty does.

[qupte]As for my need to back it up with something "substantial", go to my post in the "philosophy" discussion regarding "when do we forge ahead with science": NOTE in particular the resposes I have received there.[/quote]

I've read it - in fact, I've responded to it. In no way does that relieve you of backing up your claims here. Either support it or drop it as being unsupported. It's just that simple.

37. Chat rooms are not places for introducing new theories, as I am told. As you can tell though, I am flirting with the idea of trying to present a new theory, which is why sometimes I direct someone to the download on my website (I have been requested by powerful people to find peer review with my work, so I am honoring that: consider what I am doing as "community service").

38. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Chat rooms are not places for introducing new theories, as I am told. As you can tell though, I am flirting with the idea of trying to present a new theory, which is why sometimes I direct someone to the download on my website (I have been requested by powerful people to find peer review with my work, so I am honoring that: consider what I am doing as "community service").
A forum is not a chat room but that fine distinction seems to have evaded you.

It's also no place to get a peer review. If you really believe your idea has merit, there are MUCH more appropriate places to get that. Any number of publications would be the proper places to start - not on forums OR in chat rooms.

39. OK, let me repharse my point.

I am not going to make believers out of anyone, no one will understand what I am talking about, because if I have new theory, no one has been taught that "syntax", that algorithm, even if it explains the same reality.

Do you know what a foreign language is?

Actually, some languages are more PRECISE with their account of reality, believe it or not.

I have been requested to expose my thoughts to this arena, whatever you want to call it, however great you see it's distinction.

Have you actually seen what I am referring to, that new algorithm?

When you ask me for proof, you cross the line and then request me to request you to read my work.

40. Originally Posted by streamSystems
OK, let me repharse my point.

I am not going to make believers out of anyone, no one will understand what I am talking about, because if I have new theory, no one has been taught that "syntax", that algorithm, even if it explains the same reality.

Do you know what a foreign language is?

Actually, some languages are more PRECISE with their account of reality, believe it or not.

I have been requested to expose my thoughts to this arena, whatever you want to call it, however great you see it's distinction.

Have you actually seen what I am referring to, that new algorithm?

When you ask me for proof, you cross the line and then request me to request you to read my work.
You've already offered to let me see your work but I simply don't have the time to analyze it. You say you know "powerful people" - good! Get them to help you submit it the proper places to have it reviewed and THEN come back and tell us the results. Menawhile, there's nothing here but spinning wheels.

41. I could make a diagnosis, in having studied medicine, but I won't.

42. Originally Posted by streamSystems
I could make a diagnosis, in having studied medicine, but I won't.
You need to explain that off-the-wall comment.

43. You basically created a conversation that had me inform you that you need to read my book, when all along you knnew you never had the time.

For me to explain what a diagnosis is with that pathology of time-wasting, I fear I am also gfoing to fail in explaining.

I am not saying there is anything the matter with you, it is just that it is confusing as to why you would communicate with me if you are not genuinely interested in what I have to offer: are you "angry"?

44. Originally Posted by streamSystems
why you would communicate with me if you are not genuinely interested in what I have to offer
You got my attention. What do you have to offer?

45. I am offering a "different language" to contemporary science that nevertheless explains not just the same reality, yet appears to come to the same conclusions about the main features of space-time (relativity, and so on), in an easy-to-understand fashion.

My axe is Medicine, and what I did was combine a theory of space-time to the logic of our reasoning ability.

It IS though a "big read".

I have a couple of institutions already wondering what to do about it, both left field and right wing classical.

Think of it as a science fiction novel at first, until you reach the conclusion of the read at the Appendix sections when you will undobtedly ask yourself, "is it for real".

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement