Thread: GWN's gravity

Does light exert a gravitational force?

No, a light photon or any photon cannot exert a gravitational force despite the magnitude of energy that is being propagated by the radiation. Radiation when intercepted delivers electromagnetic energy and therefore kinetic energy to the interceptor. The trouble in my opinion began with the ancient indecision concerning the fundamental dynamic nature of energy. The word mass was introduced to indicate the intrinsic kinetic and apparent static force essentially associated with the motion and inertial ability of that we call matter, and so we have the following various essential forms in which we find kinetic energy disguised by circumstances and time; rest mass, relativistic mass, gravitational mass, inertial mass, passive/active-mass. The dynamic nature of energy appearing in many diverse forms.

No, a light photon or any photon cannot exert a gravitational force despite the magnitude of energy that is being propagated by the radiation.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by GWN

No, a light photon or any photon cannot exert a gravitational force despite the magnitude of energy that is being propagated by the radiation.

It is easily shown that light can produce a gravitational field. The reference to the article in which this shown using general relativity is orovided in a previous post. Haven't you see it already?

I placed a version of the derivation on my website. The URL is at The Gravitational Field of a Directed Beam of Light

I then repeated myself recently on this point. I recommend that you browse through the derivatrion I just referenced. .

Anything that has stress, energy and momentum can generate a gravitaitonal fied and light has all those properties.

pmb
I accept that your reply to my post of the 17^th July is correct if complete reliance on the mathematics and conclusions derived from those mathematics and known as GR is to be the only arbitrator. Even so, I would refer you to my post of the 15^th July that is a reply to kodax question outlined in his reposting, and concerning the possible and special gravitational results of an electron accelerated to a higher orbital level relative to the nucleus it assists to neutralise.

The reasoning in my 17^th July post regarding the inability of a photon to generate a gravitational field is contained within the 160 page paper referred to titled Matter and Associated Mysteries and is available for free download from The General Science Journal. The information in the paper begins with a logical postulation to provide a fundamental dynamic base for physics involving an analysis of the properties of a unit of energy etceteras. The work concentrates on the fundamental dynamic nature of an electron involving how and why its gravity, charge and electric field are generated. The influence of a particle on the passage of a photon in the volume of space surrounding the particle is an automatic consequence of the forces acting on the particle and therefore explained and required.
The work requires that energy must be in a special amassed C² matter form to enable the generation of the various attributes such as gravity, (gravitation results from an interference to gravity) charge etceteras that are observed in our study of that we call an electron. All phenomena attempted to be explained in the paper are interconnected and interdependent.

GWN has repeatedly shown that he is completely ignorant of all and any science, has no ability to understand mathematics, and can't even describe his own Phantasy Phsyics in a coherent or consistent way. I would suggest anyone with the slightest interest in science just ignore his deluded comments.

Originally Posted by GWN

Does light exert a gravitational force?

No, a light photon or any photon cannot exert a gravitational force despite the magnitude of energy that is being propagated by the radiation. Radiation when intercepted delivers electromagnetic energy and therefore kinetic energy to the interceptor. The trouble in my opinion began with the ancient indecision concerning the fundamental dynamic nature of energy. The word mass was introduced to indicate the intrinsic kinetic and apparent static force essentially associated with the motion and inertial ability of that we call matter, and so we have the following various essential forms in which we find kinetic energy disguised by circumstances and time; rest mass, relativistic mass, gravitational mass, inertial mass, passive/active-mass. The dynamic nature of energy appearing in many diverse forms.

Completely wrong. It does exert a gravitational force, and is itself also affected by gravity, as clearly shown in a number of "Deflection of Light" observations.
Yet more evidence as to your complete ignorance of basic physics.

Originally Posted by GWN

pmb
I accept that your reply to my post of the 17^th July is correct if complete reliance on the mathematics and conclusions derived from those mathematics and known as GR is to be the only arbitrator. Even so, I would refer you to my post of the 15^th July that is a reply to kodax question outlined in his reposting, and concerning the possible and special gravitational results of an electron accelerated to a higher orbital level relative to the nucleus it assists to neutralise.

The reasoning in my 17^th July post regarding the inability of a photon to generate a gravitational field is contained within the 160 page paper referred to titled Matter and Associated Mysteries and is available for free download from The General Science Journal. The information in the paper begins with a logical postulation to provide a fundamental dynamic base for physics involving an analysis of the properties of a unit of energy etceteras. The work concentrates on the fundamental dynamic nature of an electron involving how and why its gravity, charge and electric field are generated. The influence of a particle on the passage of a photon in the volume of space surrounding the particle is an automatic consequence of the forces acting on the particle and therefore explained and required.
The work requires that energy must be in a special amassed C² matter form to enable the generation of the various attributes such as gravity, (gravitation results from an interference to gravity) charge etceteras that are observed in our study of that we call an electron. All phenomena attempted to be explained in the paper are interconnected and interdependent.

Are you actually for real ? Do you know anything about physics ?
Here is the evidence ( this is even photographic evidence ) that photons have indeed gravitational mass and thus interact with the gravitational field :

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strange and re. your 18^th July post. You come across as a concerned father instructing his children to beware of the big bad wolf. I am quite sure that those who are genuinely interested in the presently unknown concerning fundamental physics are capable of protecting their GR beliefs if they so desire.

Hello again to Markus Hanke.
The established physical fact that a Photon is subject to the compulsion of gravity (it is only indirectly affected by gravitation due to the fact that a photon does not generate a gravity field) is due to its realities and manner of propagation. All physical entities regardless of their attributes are subject to any gravity field that is active in their vicinity and therefore able to affect them.

GWN:

How about restricting your non-mainstream views to the New Hypothesis or Pseudo sections? And by the way, your chosen font is horrible. Why not stick to the default?

Originally Posted by GWN

Hello again to Markus Hanke.
The established physical fact that a Photon is subject to the compulsion of gravity (it is only indirectly affected by gravitation due to the fact that a photon does not generate a gravity field) is due to its realities and manner of propagation. All physical entities regardless of their attributes are subject to any gravity field that is active in their vicinity and therefore able to affect them.

You continue to gibber. Just because some notion seems to make sense to you does not mean that it actually makes sense. You have shown an appalling ignorance of science, an equally appalling resistance to learning, and a truly spectacular baseless confidence.

No math = no theory. Declare "facts" all day long. I can do it do. It's easy if you don't apply the constraints of science. Here are some:

1) Photons are all named Fred.
2) Photons exert gravitational forces through the exchange of virtual unicorns.
3) Electromagnetism and gravity are actually the same thing, only different.
4) There is no quantum.

Originally Posted by GWN

pmb
I accept that your reply to my post of the 17^th July is correct if complete reliance on the mathematics and conclusions derived from those mathematics and known as GR is to be the only arbitrator.

And it is. This forum is for mainstream physics which includes general relativity (GR). I have no interest in assertions that contradict GR. I'm also not interested in articles which are not peer reviewed and which are also contra-mainstream such as the one you referred to. Your comments don't belong in this forum but to the speculation subforum.

Not to be mean or anything like that but your posts have several of the trademarks of pseudoscience. My Logic text at home has a list of the trademarks of pseudoscience. Later on tonight when I get home I'll post that list.

One such trademark is to use created terminology or use terminology in a sense that nobody else does. Another trademark of pseudoscience is someone writing a very long article using strange terminology or terminology in a strange way and in a non-peer reviewed journal.

I'll post the entire list tonight.

1. GWN

How about restricting your non-mainstream views to the New Hypothesis or Pseudo sections? And by the way, your chosen font is horrible. Why not stick to the default?
Hello to you Kalster and I note your request regarding mainstream views and font. As you are the administrator, I will conform with your request, and if I continue to visit this forum I will comply although I find it hard to understand why I should be so restricted given the physical weirdness of phenomena expressed by several of those whom post concerning what is after all in the physical realm of fundamental dynamical phenomena. I will leave wondering if it was known to those whom post on this forum that gravity and gravitation are two differing physical phenomenon’s, and apart from GR, (attempt to define the fundamental physics of gravitation) are there any others whose work can provide a non-mathematical description of the fundamental dynamic physical attributes of both gravity and gravitation that have logical physical relevance to all of physics.

It has been made very clear to me that my work will not be read with any attempt to understand its message, and I have only continued to post out of appreciation to the owners of this forum for allowing the posting of where my work can be downloaded free of charge; also in defence against the propensity of posters to describe as rubbish, work that they are completely ignorant thereof.

Also, do I have your permission to answer the two posts concerning my scientific competence made on this thread since your request to restrict what you call my non-mainstream views?

Originally Posted by GWN

… if I continue to visit this forum I will comply although I find it hard to understand why I should be so restricted given the physical weirdness of phenomena expressed by several of those whom post concerning what is after all in the physical realm of fundamental dynamical phenomena.

You aren’t restricted. You are free to post anything that you want. You just have to post it in the correct section such as the forum labeled New Hypotheses and Ideas. And you’re the one telling us that you have a new idea/hypothesis.

Originally Posted by GWN

I will leave wondering if it was known to those whom post on this forum that gravity and gravitation are two differing physical phenomenon’s,…

That is your opinion. Not that of others. The terms are defined to mean the following

Gravity is the force extended by all objects having mass on all other objects having mass

Gravitation - a synonym for gravity

Logically one can never prove that a definition is wrong. The fact that you don’t recognize that is part of the reason why I won’t consider reading your paper.

That’s one reason not to read your paper. The second is that it purports to be different from a thoroughly tested theory, i.e. general relativity. Since its 160 pages long I have no plans to read something that long when I believe that you don’t agree on the most basic of definitions. When someone creates their own jargon, or redefines jargon already used for something else, then that’s a strong mark of pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by GWN

(attempt to define the fundamental physics of gravitation) …

Fundamental physics is not defined, its reasoned out from experiment/observations. That you don’t recognize that is another mark of pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by GWN

…are there any others whose work can provide a non-mathematical description of the fundamental dynamic physical attributes of both gravity and gravitation that have logical physical relevance to all of physics.

This is another mark of pseudoscience, i.e. the claim that no math is used. Math is the language of physics. With it one can precisely state the physics in a quantitative sense. Without it all there is left are quaitative comments which are vauge. Yet another mark of pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by GWN

It has been made very clear to me that my work will not be read with any attempt to understand its message,

Since it has many of the makrs of pseudoscience there’s no logical reason for anyone to read it. You seem to think that people will arbitrarily read 160 page papers merely because the author claims it will change all of physics. Nope. Sorry. That’s not the way life works. Heck! Even when a paper is straight mainstream physics there really aren’t people who actually want to read scientific papers. Many of the people here are not educated enough to understand the mathematical physics that goes along with a physics argument. Since your paper has no math then I’m guessing that you’re not trained in mathematical physics. As such you’re not skilled enough to understand general relativity. Why don’t you first learn math and physics so that you can converse on that level and then demonstrate why GR is wrong? Then if we accepted that then there just might be a reason for someone to read your article.

Myself? I have a ton of reading otherwise. There’s not enough room for me to fit in articles from an author who seems to be peddeling pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by GWN

, work that they are completely ignorant thereof.

You’ve given us no reason to read it. You’ve never given us the short version, i.e. the hypotheses on which your theory is based. Why not just state the postulates and let us decide if you may have something there?

Now its your turn to be openminded. Read this article. [0709.0687] On the concept of relativistic mass
It’s the article on the subject of mass in relativity. Let’s see how you like being challanged to read a paper from someone you don’t know when you’ve prejudged that the content must be wrong. After all that’s what you’re asking us to do. Let’s see if you can take your own advice!

And please stop using that font and start using normal font. Is that really too much to ask from you?

GWN:

Once I am back at my PC, I'll move all your posts and responses to them to the New Hypothesis section and the discussion can continue there (unless one of the other mods would like to oblige). Until then, I suppose you can continue here for now for the sake of continuity. I will post the link to the new thread at the time. Thanks.

Originally Posted by tk421

No math = no theory. Declare "facts" all day long. I can do it do. It's easy if you don't apply the constraints of science. Here are some:

1) Photons are all named Fred.
2) Photons exert gravitational forces through the exchange of virtual unicorns.
3) Electromagnetism and gravity are actually the same thing, only different.
4) There is no quantum.

You the man.

On the flip side I wonder if dark has a potential gravitational force?

Originally Posted by GWN

I find it hard to understand why I should be so restricted given the physical weirdness of phenomena expressed by several of those whom post concerning what is after all in the physical realm of fundamental dynamical phenomena.

The only person who postulates any "weirdness" is yourself. Everyone else keeps telling you that what you consider weird is in fact perfectly well understood by mainstream science - which you of course reject, but that is your own problem.

Originally Posted by tk421 on July 20

You continue to gibber. Just because some notion seems to make sense to you does not mean that it actually makes sense. You have shown an appalling ignorance of science, an equally appalling resistance to learning, and a truly spectacular baseless confidence.
No math = no theory. Declare "facts" all day long. I can do it do. It's easy if you don't apply the constraints of science. Here are some:

1) Photons are all named Fred.
2) Photons exert gravitational forces through the exchange of virtual unicorns.
3) Electromagnetism and gravity are actually the same thing, only different.
4) There is no quantum.

tk421.
You do not make those statements truthfully because you only spent minutes quickly leafing through the paper. I was tempted to answer the above by reference to your own behavior.
1) tk421. Try providing one named Fred.

2) A typical example of your present belief regarding the fundamental physical dynamic nature of that phenomenon that you refer to as gravity. And even so, you made a mistake because as Strange would know, unicorns, virtual or otherwise are educated and would know not to even attempt to fraternize with photons.

3) Congratulations on your attempt, and I would advise you to keep trying because you were close to physical reality with regards the phenomenon from which all are derived. You were correct when you stated that they are differing phenomena, and now all you have to do is differentiate between them by explaining the nature of electric and magnetic energy, also the fundamental nature of gravity and how and why that phenomenon fits into the physical scheme of science.

4) If that was so, my work would deserve your scorn. From the attempt to provide a logical fundamental dynamic physical base for science, throughout the various attempts to explain phenomena, all references in the paper are to quanta that originate from that theoretical physicists would refer to as quantum waves.

To pmb and others above excepting KALSTER.
If you all believe that gravitation is only as pmb states and I quote: Gravity is the force extended by all objects having mass on all other objects having mass, and that Gravitation - a synonym for gravity. Unquote; then most definitely there is no use me attempting to explain the physical differences as I have stated before on threads.

I did not come to this forum to attempt to eternally attempt to defend against abuse or win a no -account argument. Your charges are all false, I believe in the value of mathematics as I do in conceptual concepts when the unknown is involved. GR is valuable when needed. My work explains time and also demands and explains why matter can cause a photon passing close by to undergo curvature of its trajectory; and no, I never had any ambition to become a practicing physicist and take up a specialized career researching one small portion of physics; my interest has always been the fundamental theoretical understanding of physics.

The manner in which I view gravity is; if there were no such cardinal phenomenon as gravity, then all other physical phenomena that we are aware of including ourselves, would not exist. You people haven’t got a clue regarding that which you claim to completely understand. If I am wrong in that regard then I am the crackpot you declare me to be. I hesitate to state Prove Me Wrong as Strange did prior to being proved to be wrong, however, I would be pleased to defend or explain any of my work if there is a genuine attempt to read and understand the work.

1) tk421. Try providing one named Fred.

There's one now.

Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by GWN

If you all believe that gravitation is only as pmb states and I quote: Gravity is the force extended by all objects having mass on all other objects having mass, and that Gravitation - a synonym for gravity.

The official definition is : gravitation or gravitational force is the force with which every object attracts every other object in the universe. Gravity refers to the gravitational force of the earth only.
Look it up in any dictionary.

I did not come to this forum to attempt to eternally attempt to defend against abuse or win a no -account argument.Your charges are all false,

So you keep saying, yet you dismiss all already presented proof and evidence, both mathematical and experimental, that the photon does indeed have gravitational mass; instead you keep referring all the time to your so-called "paper", which no one here is interested in reading. How can you expect not to be tackled on this issue ?
Face it - no one on this forum will waste his or her time to go through your 160+ pages.

The manner in which I view gravity is; if there were no such cardinal phenomenon as gravity, then all other physical phenomena that we are aware of including ourselves, would not exist.

Guess what - I agree ! Without the gravitational force the universe could not have evolved as it is, and we wouldn't be here right now.

You people haven’t got a clue regarding that which you claim to completely understand.

Well, the way I see it is - there is only one person on this ( and the other ) thread which has repeatedly shown complete ignorance of even basic physics.
And it is not one of us...

GWN:

Please have a look at your posts above. I have edited them and fixed fonts and formatting in some cases. Please try and post them like that in the future. Just remove any colour and font formatting from now on.

Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by GWN

Does light exert a gravitational force?

Of course it does. Light has energy in the form of momentum and as such it contributes to the stress-energy tensor, which results in the curvature of space-time. So light exerts a gravitational "force". Interestingly, gravity itself also contributes - so gravity gravitates!

The gravity of gravity Einstein Online

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by GWN

Does light exert a gravitational force?

Of course it does. Light has energy in the form of momentum and as such it contributes to the stress-energy tensor, which results in the curvature of space-time. So light exerts a gravitational "force". Interestingly, gravity itself also contributes - so gravity gravitates!

The gravity of gravity Einstein Online

Yes, but does gravity's gravity have gravity?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Yes, but does gravity's gravity have gravity?

Yes it does. Not sure if you are aware of it, but this is one of the reasons why thus far we have failed to formulate a consistent theory of quantum gravity; if you translate this self-interaction into the language of quantum field theory, you get infinite values which cannot be renormalized.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Of course it does. Light has energy in the form of momentum and as such it contributes to the stress-energy tensor, which results in the curvature of space-time.

The quantity = c² is called the mass-energy density. It reflects the fact that mass and energy are the same thing. Light has mass in the form of mass-energy. Because mass and energy are the same thing it follows that the stress-energy-momentum tensor is the mathematical object which serves as the source of gravity in Einstein's Field Eeuations.

Pressure is a source of gravity too. In fact it can be shown that for a relativistic fluid



The effective gravitational mass density for such a fluid is given by

GWN - I have now given you a few days to read the short article that I wrote on mass and I see no evidence that you read it. Tell us, why should we read your article when you refuse to read one of ours? Why don't you follow your own advice?

Up until now there is nothing in any of your posts that forms a cogent arguemet for the non-gravitational field generated by light. We have no reason to accept that light doesn't generate a gravitational field as you claim. Its a fact that light is delfected by objects and if light itself didn't attract those objects then the total mometum of light plus object would not be conserved. So what you're suggesting would violate the law of conservation of momentum.

Originally Posted by GWN

tk421.
You do not make those statements truthfully because you only spent minutes quickly leafing through the paper. I was tempted to answer the above by reference to your own behavior.
1) tk421. Try providing one named Fred. {snip}

You either don't read very carefully, or you don't comprehend the written word particularly well. The whole point of my post was that the assertions you continue to make have the same evidentiary and quantitative quality as the four absurd assertions I made. The purpose of the exercise was to highlight the fundamental flaw of your entire enterprise.

Anyone can have an opinion. In science, though, that's not nearly enough. As I've said repeatedly, just because something happens to make sense to you does not mean that it makes sense. But you seem to think that making sense to you is sufficient, and show frustration when we demand more than that. Unless and until you conform to the strictures of science, you won't find anyone taking you seriously, no matter how much and how often you assert, no matter how much you complain about our harsh treatment of you. You fail to understand that you are fully deserving of this harsh treatment. In science, posers are scorned. Don't like scorn? Stop posing. It's really that simple.

Or, as they say in many neighborhoods around here, put up or shut up.

Hi to pmb.
Yes I read and noted your reply of July 23^rd 2012, and must congratulation you on your statement regarding the belief that energy and mass are the same thing. By thing I understand that mainstream science believes that energy and mass are exactly the same phenomenon only at various times being referred to by the use of differing names. In that regard I would redirect your attention to my July 17^th 2012 post at the beginning of this thread. Also to other posts located on the thread Electrons and Energy when I stated that a unit of virtual matter results from the amassing, or condensing or conglomeration of energy.

The information contained within my paper is mainly based on what I refer to as primeval energy in the form previously referred to by mainstream science as quantum waves. The entire work is derived from a postulated fundamental dynamic base for physics in the form of recognising that; The ability to move and the intrinsic energy transmitted thereby is the only basic phenomenon that humans have an ability to sense.

Originally Posted by GWN

The information contained within my paper is mainly based on what I refer to as primeval energy in the form previously referred to by mainstream science as quantum waves. The entire work is derived from a postulated fundamental dynamic base for physics in the form of recognising that; The ability to move and the intrinsic energy transmitted thereby is the only basic phenomenon that humans have an ability to sense.

And my opinion regarding this post is based on what I would refer to as pure nonsense.
Where does mainstream science deal with "quantum waves" ? References please.

To Markus Hanke.

Try. phys.org/news/2012-4-quantum-functon-reality.html
You can find others if you try.

Originally Posted by GWN

To Markus Hanke.

Try. phys.org/news/2012-4-quantum-functon-reality.html
You can find others if you try.

The link doesn't work, but I would imagine it refers to quantum wave functions. Things would be much easier if you could refer to things by their generally accepted names.
So what kind of wave functions are you referring to ?

The link should be phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.html
(missing 0)
Does the quantum wave function represent reality?

Originally Posted by GWN

To Markus Hanke.

Try. phys.org/news/2012-4-quantum-functon-reality.html
You can find others if you try.

Based on the below, how do you attribute energy to a wave function representing a probability density ?

Checking back over the posts on the thread Electrons and Energy, I find that Strange was unable to understand (his post of the 12^th June on electrons and energy thread) my attempt in the paper to explain amassing of energy to approximately C² density per unit volume. Therefore and because he requires quantities, then to make the example more clear, and because the wavelength of a proposed primeval wave is presently unknown and so short, I will magnify the concept to place the idea within the more easily imagined level of reality by the use of the 7.35 cm wavelength of the microwave background radiation. Then by reducing C to slow-motion, the reader may be better able to understand the concept of the dynamic amassing of energy by spherical waves, virtual mass that cannot generate a gravity field, positive and negative, equal and opposite, why like repel and the quantum nature and duration of time should be more easily recognised. Those concepts were all contained in the attempted explanations in the first few chapters of my paper that was supposed to have been read and not understood by Strange and described as gibberish by Markus Hanke June the 16th on the thread electrons and energy.
However, the essay will need to be written and will require approximately 3, 4, or 5 pages, so it will be published separately and as an add-on to the paper Matter and Associated Mysteries at The General Science Journal.

Also, checking back over my posts I found that I have wrongly used the word gravity where it should have been gravitation that according to GR is not a force, and therefore an illusion that results because matter is compelled to follow geodesies. The wrong use of gravity instead of gravitation presented an opportunity for a poster to suggest I jump off a bridge to find if gravity is an illusion.

Whilst on the subject of gravity or gravitation, I will state again that gravitation results from the interference to the gravity field of a particle by the interfering presence of other particles and the requirements of their gravity fields.
The Cavendish experiment was a measure of the interference between four bulk bodies. WE can sense the gravitation effect of the Earth acting on the particles comprising our body and refer to it as our weight, whereas we cannot sense the total gravity that ensures the continuing realty of existence and amassed energy of the particles that form the matter of our body.

I'm not quite sure why you have brought this up in this thread, rather than the original one but, whatever ...

Originally Posted by GWN

[COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]Checking back over the posts on the thread Electrons and Energy, I find that Strange was unable to understand (his post of the 12^th June on electrons and energy thread) my attempt in the paper to explain amassing of energy to approximately C² [SIZE=3]density per unit volume.

Note that the main reason that your description is hard to follow is your rather verbose and convoluted writing style (as evidenced in this post); your use of non-standard terms without defining them (e.g. "amassing of energy"?) and your use of standard terms in non-standard ways.

Therefore and because he requires quantities, then to make the example more clear, and because the wavelength of a proposed primeval wave is presently unknown and so short, I will magnify the concept to place the idea within the more easily imagined level of reality by the use of the 7.35 cm wavelength of the microwave background radiation.

I suppose that looking at a specific example like that may help to make your meaning clear. But rather than leaping from vague generalizations to specific numerical examples, it might be more valuable (to your readers as well as yourself) to explain the concepts more clearly first.

For example, take this passage, which is pretty much where I found myself grinding to a halt like wading through treacle.

To further the definition of primeval energy relative to that which we know regarding matter, would require the referred to units of primeval energy to be encompassed in or influencing a spherical volume of space with a radius such, that if all the available energy in that volume of space were to condense into a volume approaching the infinitesimal, it would then constitute a C2 quantity of amassed energy, and representing a unit of virtual matter.

That is one incredibly convoluted sentence which might be better expressed as three (or maybe even 10) shorter and simpler sentences. There seem to be several different ideas jammed together in a very confusing way.

• It is not clear (even from the previous context) what "primeval energy" means.
• The phrase "the definition of X relative to that which we know regarding Y" is an incredibly convoluted way of saying ... well, what exactly: "X is related to Y by ..." or something else?
• You say, "the referred to units of primeval energy" but you don't say what these units are (even in the preceding context as far as I remember - or if you did, it was as hard to understand as this sentence).
• And in "encompassed in or influencing a spherical volume":
  
  • is it "encompassed in" or is it "influencing"?
  • And what does this mean anyway; are you attempting to define the volume occupied by an amount of energy? (Even though you haven't clearly defined what the amount of energy is.)
• Then we get to the definition of the radius of this volume and it gets really difficult (impossible) to follow.
  
  1. The radius is defined in terms of all the energy in a sphere of this radius but isn't that the "primeval energy" you started with; making this a circular definition?
  2. You then compress this into a volume "approaching the infinitesimal" but
     
     1. how is "approaching the infinitesimal" different from "approaching zero"?
     2. how close to "the infinitesimal" does it get? This is so vaguely defined as to be meaningless.
     3. doesn't this make the radius you are attempting to define equal to zero (or nearly zero)?
• What is a "C²" quantity of energy (whether primeval, amassed or any other sort)? I assume this is a reference to e=mc²; but as the "m" is undefined then so is the energy
• And, finally, you end with a "unit of virtual matter"; but what is "virtual" matter?
• And (post-finally) what is a "unit"? 1 atom? 1 gram? 1 ton?

I hope that makes it clearer what the problems are with the way you express your ideas. I suspect I spent longer trying to understand this sentence than you did writing it. That is never a good thing; it should always be the other way round. And it is not just a problem with one isolated sentence. You have hundreds of pages written in exactly the same way.

If you were able to write this one sentence in a way that makes it possible to understand what you are trying to say, then it might be possible to comment on the ideas behind it. As it is, this kind of confused communication suggests (perhaps wrongly) that the ideas behind it are equally confused.

Originally Posted by GWN

Hi to pmb.
Yes I read and noted your reply of July 23^rd 2012, and must congratulation you on your statement regarding the belief that energy and mass are the same thing.

That's not just me. That was also stated in a physics journal too. Are you saying you read my entire article? Every single word?

Hello again Strange and thanks very much for the first attempt by anybody (with the exception of my family) to provide helpful comment that I have received since writing the paper. Your comments are much appreciated; yes it would appear that I may have to rewrite the first 2 or 3 chapters of the work to make the principal idea on which the entire work is based much more understandable. I have already outlined in my previous post how that may be achieved.
As the work appears in its present form, it was designed to be read continuously without individual criticising as the reader (interested members of the general public) developed an overall idea of how the message contained within all the interconnected and interdependent statements contributed to an understanding of now unknown phenomena.

With regards to your other questions concerning that which you are honestly unable to understand due to there not being sufficient explanation, I have taken particular notice of them and will provide more detail in the rewrite. If the confusion is as you state, then it would be futile to attempt an explanation now.Even so and because you made such an effort to assist I can attempt an answer – although much abbreviated – when it comes to the concept of what my idea of approaching the infinitesimal means.
The way I understand infinitesimal regarding a volume, it is the smallest volume that can exist in the natural world beyond which it ceases to have internal dimensions and becomes as the geometrical definition of a point which has position but no magnitude. The question then becomes what does approaching mean. In the case I was referring to, the presently unknown wavelength of the referred to primeval energy is to indicate the diameter of the spherical volume. All this explanation is as clear as mud without all other supporting argument to assist to explain it.
As I have previously stated, the 160 page paper is a condensation of the all-over idea concerning my concept of physics; the main endeavour was meant to promote a renewal of interest in its message regarding gravity and gravitation other than that of GR, and principally to get the experiment performed with regards the validity of the GTE.

Energy encompassed within a volume is also influencing that volume with regards the physical realities of energy density relative to that volume, and also the duration of occupancy of that volume by that energy relative to the belief that the energy has speed C and also has an influence; the energy density is fluctuating relative to the diameter of the volume and the speed C of the energy.

Hello again Strange and continuing to answer your questions.
Your question? What is a "C²" quantity of energy (whether primeval, amassed or any other sort)? I assume this is a reference to e=mc²; but as the "m" is undefined then so is the energyAnd, finally, you end with a "unit of virtual matter"; but what is "virtual" matter?And (post-finally) what is a "unit"? 1 atom? 1 gram? 1 ton?

Strange, had you continued reading you would have found what amounted to a chapter devoted to the reason for and the explanation for the use of the word amassed; also why I would then conform to convention and thereafter use the word mass with the understanding that it meant the meaning previously given.

Energy and mass when referred to the fundamental level of reality and according to my work do not refer to the same phenomenon; however, when considered as having an identical meaning when pertaining to the various phenomena encountered in the study of matter, therein is the reason why the understanding of physics becomes difficult for a student. The trouble in my opinion began with the ancient indecision concerning the fundamental dynamic nature of energy. The word mass appears to have been introduced to indicate the intrinsic kinetic and apparent static force essentially associated with the motion and inertial ability of that we call matter, and so we have the following various essential forms in which we find kinetic energy disguised by circumstances and time; rest mass, relativistic mass, gravitational mass, inertial mass, passive/active-mass. The dynamic nature of energy appearing in many diverse forms of mass.

E=MC² is the equation that provides a measure of the energy content of a particle or a body of matter when matter is considered to be at relative rest. C² provides a measure of the energy content of a unit (as in one or singular) of virtual matter. Use of the letter M becomes superfluous. Virtual matter because although containing a specific quantity of amassed (refers only to the E density in a given volume) energy, then as explained in the paper, virtual matter has no possibility of developing the attributes such as gravity that is essential for the continued existence of matter. A vital parameter is missing and so denies to virtual matter the abilities of matter.

GWN - Is there a reason why you ignored my last post?

Hello at last to pmb.
Yes I read both your posts of the 23^rd July and noted the content. Your post of the 20^th was read and noted. I have now reverted back to your 21^st of July post and will attempt to supply answers with regards to the following.
You state. That is your opinion. Not that of others. The terms are defined to mean the following.
Gravity is the force extended by all objects having mass on all other objects having mass.
Gravitation is a synonym for gravity.

Your definition of gravity and gravitation being synonymous as in one and the same thing, then I cannot agree with that version of the word. If you intend by the use of synonym to mean that it refers to differing circumstances that are associated with the phenomenon we call gravity then I agree. I have stated several times that gravitation is simply interference to gravity. If the former version were to be correct, then the GR version would have to be considered to be incorrect if gravitation is only an illusion.

You state that; logically one can never prove that a definition is wrong.
The fact that you (you refer to me) don’t recognize that is part of the reason why I won’t consider reading your paper.

My answer to indicate the validity of that statement regarding a definition is simply because the human concept of the ongoing of time enables time to extend to our version of infinity. Now that is cleared up, what are the other parts? I am quite sure that most people have read quite a number of works of fiction that have extended to hundreds of pages. The conviction that the paper is the rambling delusions of a crackpot as hinted at in your post of the 20^th July and eloquently stated by tk421 is the principal reason for the reluctance.

Your other part reason for not reading my paper is as follows: That’s one reason not to read your paper. The second is that it purports to be different from a thoroughly tested theory, i.e. general relativity. Since its 160 pages long I have no plans to read something that long when I believe that you don’t agree on the most basic of definitions. When someone creates their own jargon, or redefines jargon already used for something else, then that’s a strong mark of pseudoscience.

By own jargon I believe you are referring to my use of words like AMASSED or CONDENSED that Strange found difficult to understand when I was referring to the amassing or coming together or conglomeration (the dictionary version) of energy to form a unit (dictionary version) of virtual (as used many times by physicists) matter. How does one explain unknown interconnected and interdependent concepts such as the fundamental nature of that which one believes underlies all of physics and stay conventional. Especially to those with a preconceived conviction they are dealing with the deluded ravings of a crackpot and begin the demolishing of that which they have no conception of by implying the stupidity of the author. A tone of contempt permeates the attack postings that abound in the content of a large number of postings associated with the category New Hypotheses and Ideas.

Although there is no complicated mathematics in the paper, (it was designed to be readable by the interested members of the general public) I have done the arithmetic to arrive at the quantitive arguments that are proposed in the paper.

I clicked on your challenge reference and all I founds was a few minutes of reading that I agree with.

then the GR version would have to be considered to be incorrect if gravitation is only an illusion.

Where are you getting that idea that gravitation/gravity is an illusion ? GR says no such thing - all it states is that within its formalism gravity is no longer a force in the classical sense of the word. The term 'illusion' suggests that it is not real, which clearly isn't the case.

I address this reply to the 31^st July reply by Markus Hanke that pertains to my 31^st July reply to pmb.
Markus, you statements appear to be misleading. Your reply: Where are you getting that idea that gravitation/gravity is an illusion? GR says no such thing - all it states is that within its formalism gravity is no longer a force in the classical sense of the word. The term 'illusion' suggests that it is not real, which clearly isn't the case.

I will state that the version of gravity and gravitation presented in my paper demands that gravity and gravitation each involves the force provided by energy in the classical sense of the word.
With regards GR, gravity involves energy in the classical sense of the word although disguised and represented by mathematics. Gravitation is presented as not involving force and results because classical matter is compelled to follow the path dictated by geodesies.According to elementary physics, to accelerate or compel any change in the state of matter requires that an unbalanced force is acting on that matter. You know, when in motion a particle will continue in its rate of motion and in the direction of that motion unless .......

I will again attempt to make my beliefs clear. My paper recognises that the phenomenon we call gravity results from the process of the amassing (coming together, conglomeration) of a specific quantity of that phenomenon we call energy to form the matter (energy density per given unit volume) of an electron. That statement requires that there is an eternal ongoing interaction between matter with that from which it is created; and yes that requires much further explanation.
If you would like to understand my version as to why there is an amassing or for a definition of energy, there is a need to read my paper because post space is far from sufficient. Also, there would be a need to read the paper in its entirety before attempting a fair criticism.

The manner in which I regard gravitation requites that it is the results of the interference to the magnitude of energy available during the gravity process, and results from the presence of varied amounts of other matter particle in a particular volume of space, and on the separation distance. Also gravity and gravitation is subject to change due to circumstances and the varying of other essential parameters.

My paper recognises that the phenomenon we call gravity results from the process of the amassing (coming together, conglomeration) of a specific quantity of that phenomenon we call energy to form the matter (energy density per given unit volume) of an electron.

The proton produces no gravity?

Hello to you AlexG. 1. Your statement is correct. The proton produces no gravity. However it is the product of gravity and its gravitational ability depends on the magnitude of its gravity, and on the following extract from my reply to Markus Hanke.
2. The manner in which I regard gravitation requires that it is the results of the interference to the magnitude of energy available during the gravity process, and results from the presence of varied amounts of other matter particle in a particular volume of space, and on the separation distance. Also gravity and gravitation is subject to change due to circumstances and the varying of other essential parameters.

How about neutrons. Do they produce gravity?

Originally Posted by GWN

The proton produces no gravity.

So you acknowledge the proton has mass, but you say that it does not have a gravitational field ?
What complete nonsense. I am really sorry, but there is just no excuse for such ignorance.

Markes Hanke.
Apart from refusing to read my paper, you now refuse to read the information provided in my posts. Either that or you are deliberately misunderstanding such information concerning my concept of gravity and gravitation therein provided. You demand replies to your posts and if I am to reply further to yours, then please stop such nonsense as indicated by your last post where you state as follows.

So you acknowledge the proton has mass, but you say that it does not have a gravitational field?
What complete nonsense. I am really sorry, but there is just no excuse for such ignorance.

The following is an extract from my 31^st July post to you.

The manner in which I regard gravitation requires that it is the results of the interference to the magnitude of energy available during the gravity process, and results from the presence of varied amounts of other matter particle in a particular volume of space, and on their separation distance. Also gravity and gravitation are subject to change due to circumstances and the varying of other essential parameters.

Of course all matter particles have what is referred to by mainstream science as mass.

Matter particles are the byproduct of gravity; they don’t create or produce gravity. Gravitation results from the physical process as described immediate above.

Originally Posted by GWN

Matter particles are the byproduct of gravity; they don’t create or produce gravity. Gravitation results from the physical process as described immediate above.

That's complete nonsense, and you know it. Matter is not a byproduct of gravity, but rather it the gravitational field that is a result of the presence of all forms of energy, and thus also of matter.

Apart from refusing to read my paper, you now refuse to read the information provided in my posts. Either that or you are deliberately misunderstanding such information concerning my concept of gravity and gravitation therein provided.

There is nothing to misunderstand - I reject your concepts outright because they are not in accordance with mainstream science's understanding of these matters. Thus far you have failed to provide any evidence that your concepts are anything else but idle speculation, so I see no reason to just sit back and let you ramble away about your delusions.
If you are stating things like "the proton produces no gravity", then you must expect that people will respond and tell you precisely what they think about such hogwash. And I will not be shy about doing the same again !

Hello again to John Galt.
I address this my last post on the Science Forum to you because I am now convinced that my original belief was correct regarding the unsuitability of people who demand compliance to mainstream believed concepts of physic, to be fair-minded referees of concepts that disagree with those long believed mainstream concepts.

My opponents with the exception of Strange (he read several pages and provided constructive criticism) have refused to read even a part of my work and they exhibit a closed mind mentality similar to a closed wolf trap when it comes to debating physical concepts that do not conform to that which they believe to be unassailable. Had they been prepared to read the paper, there would have been plenty of opportunity for debate and material to create other threads. Despite their value to the owners of this forum, in the case of New Hypotheses and Ideas, their attack and rubbish a crackpot attitude does the owners of this forum a disservice.

Despite the teachings of Professor Albert Einstein and I am sure he was considerably assisted in his deliberation by his brilliant first wife (she achieved high grades in both physics and mathematics) regarding the evolution of the equation E=MC² from the equation K_e=one half MV², (They became aware that the one half could be logically removed to represent the total energy comprising matter at relative rest) my opponents have maintained a chicken preceded the egg approach to matter and energy as indicated by their last few posts.

Although I do not support Professor Einstein’s statement that acceleration by an applied force from without the system is physically exactly similar to acceleration resulting from gravitation, (my paper supplies the quantity of the slight E difference) or his geometrical based mathematical description of gravitation, even so my paper supplies the fundamental dynamic physical conceptual explanations that complements and complies with most of his work.

Despite the claim that I am arrogant and conceited made by tk421, I at no time claim that my work is correct. However, after reading the posts supposed to be complying to mainstream science on this and other forums, I feel a little more convinced that my concept of the fundamental dynamic nature of Matter and Associated Mysteries as outlined in my paper is more logically correct than the idea that Matter creates Gravity; especially so when those who hold that dark-age view haven’t got a clue with regards such longstanding mysterious physical phenomena.

I will now return to spend my remaining time attempting to get the proposed experiment performed to test the validity of the concept of the existence of a GTE that may supply the reason as to why our great oceans can undergo anomalous rapid heating or cooling and so have a profound effect on our climate; also on volcanic activity.

I bet 400 quatloos this is not his last post.

No bet.

Originally Posted by GWN

and they exhibit a closed mind mentality similar to a closed wolf trap when it comes to debating physical concepts that do not conform to that which they believe to be unassailable

Ah yes...the usual 'closed mind' argument. I was waiting for it.

Matter creates Gravity; especially so when those who hold that dark-age view haven’t got a clue with regards such longstanding mysterious physical phenomena.

So you keep saying

I will now return to spend my remaining time attempting to get the proposed experiment performed to test the validity of the concept of the existence of a GTE that may supply the reason as to why our great oceans can undergo anomalous rapid heating or cooling and so have a profound effect on our climate; also on volcanic activity.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by GWN

I address this reply to the 31^st July reply by Markus Hanke that pertains to my 31^st July reply to pmb.

This constant changing of the font size makes it very difficult to read our posts.

I challenged you to carefully read my article from the first page to the last. My intention was to see if you'd do exactly what you keep criticising other people for not doing, i.e. reading a paper the poster wrote and placed a reference to it in a thread. Since you never did then you now understand why I won't read yours. You're a hypocrit and I just proved it.