 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2006Gravity - Caused by GR curvature or gravitons?
As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons are necessary. However, quantum field theory is said to predict the existence of a graviton (which is massless, like a photon) and it is through the interaction of gravitons that gravity is produced. On the surface it seems as if these are two totally imcompatible world views. One has go to go. Well, in discussions here and elsewhere we always get the same result. Some people say "Yes, these two views are really imcompatible" while another groups saus "No, you're crazy, they are totally compatible." Umm, both groups can't be correct. I would it appreciate it if people would look through the various answers to this question, and let me know what they think? One very interesting answer is here. Thoughts? http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-02/msg0014781.html Re: Gravity: Wave-Particle vs Space-Time Warpage Subject: Re: Gravity: Wave-Particle vs Space-Time Warpage From: baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (john baez) Date: 14 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Other answers came from a discussion on www.physicsforums.com. Some people there answered that GR's model of a curved space causing gravity is totally at odds with the graviton model of gravity. For instance: selfAdjoint states: "The graviton is a theoretical particle predicted by string theory but not yet demonstrated to exist. If it exists and is the cause of gravity it will do away with spacetime curvature and produce gravity the way the photon carries electromagnetism. Then gravity would be a (quantum) force in your sense." "At the present time however, our best theory of gravity is Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity. One of the basic propositions of that theory is the Principle of Equivalence: On a sufficiantly small scale, it is impossible to tell the difference between an imposed force and a gravitational one. Notice that the shape is the shape of spacetime, not just of space. Therefore a curved geodesic goes through time as well as space, and by curving, causes those travelling along it to experience an acceleration. Anything that produces an acceleration deserves the name force, no?" Nenad writes: "...because if the graviton is found, then there is no curvature of space time, the reson there is gravity will be because of the graviton. You cant have both explaining the same thing." However, some people come to exact opposite conclusion! They hold that the GR model is compatible with the graviton model of gravity. For instance: jtolliver writes: >> yes, if the graviton is found, General Relativity will be wrong. "Not really. Any lorentz-invariant interaction that preserves causality can be described in terms of particles. GR satisfies those conditions. Gravitational waves have many properties traditionally associated with particles (If you pretend spacetime is flat and you add gravitational forces to compensate), such as energy-momentum. Using curved space-time(the technique traditionally used in GR), and using flat space-time with an additional force that makes it act exactly as though it were curved(this was the technique used in classical mechanics, except that that force didn't quite make it act exactly as curved space-time) are just different ways of looking at the same thing. The first way is much more convient mathematically, and the second way doesn't really explain why we have this additional force. The graviton's only look like particles when we assume spacetime is flat. If we assume spacetime is curved we see it is really only an effect of the curvature of spacetime, even though it looks exactly like a particle." pmb_phy writes: ...It is not the curvature of spacetime that causes gravitational acceleration. Spacetime curvature causes two particles moving under to have a relative acceleration between them, i.e. spacetime curvature causes tidal accelerations. But you can have a gravitational force in the absense of spacetime curvature." > The graviton is a theoretical particle predicted by string theory > but not yet demonstrated to exist. It doesn't come from string theory. It comes from quantum gravity/quantum field theory. > If it exists and is the cause of gravity it will do away > with spacetime curvature ... That is incorrect. The graviton is responsible for producing gravitational forces, not just tidal forces. Therefore one should aslo be able to detect gravitons in a gravitational field even when the spacetime is flat. The graviton, if it exists, will have a relative existance in that sense. > yes, if the graviton is found, General Relativity will be wrong. > if the graviton is found, then there is no curvature of space time, > the reson there is gravity will be because of the graviton. You cant > have both explaining the same thing. That is very much incorrect. You can most certainly have both. If the graviton is detected then we will have the mechanism behind GR. Gravitons are certainly not inconsistent with general relativity. > Couldnt you say the graviton cause the curvature of spacetime...lol Absolutely. That is 100% correct. Gravity is not like other forces like the electric of magnetic forces. The gravitational force is an inertial force where the others aren't. --- Ok, so which view is correct? (References to peer-reviewed lit, or books by respected authors, would also be appreciated.) Thanks, Robert snip > Ok, so which view is correct? (References to peer-reviewed lit, or books by > respected authors, would also be appreciated.) > > Thanks, > > Robert The concept of a photon does not help you understand the propagation of light. It helps to understand atomic absorbtion and emission. http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html Likewise a gravi-photon would not help to understand gravity. It can be quatified however: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html The 'graviton', which high energy labs would like to find may need to be reconsidered if Tajmar and de Matos's experiment is repeated. IMHO the signal from LIGO has already forcast the outcome of Gravity Probe B but the proof is in the puddin'. http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Sue... > snip > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > propagation of light. It helps to understand atomic absorbtion > and emission. ----------------------------------- the photon cannot cause any attraction force since it moves in straight lines!! it isself contardictory if you will say that garvitins move matirally (repeat - naturally) in curved closed path than i will agree and suggest to call them Circlons !! a much more indicative name toits nature of behaviour and be tter unserstanding of any attraction force !! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------------- > > snip > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the photon cannot cause any attraction force since it moves in straight > lines!! Not so according to Einstein... Harald > it isself contardictory > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Y.Porat > -------------------------------- > > > > > Robert > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not so according to Einstein... > Harald ---------------------------------- did i said it is according to Einstein ??........ it is an original suggestion of an anonymous crackpot called Y.Porat (and it is not the only original idea and proof of that anonymous ......) Atb Y.Porat ----------------------------- > > it isself contardictory > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Y.Porat > > -------------------------------- > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to > describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons > are necessary. However, quantum field theory is said to predict the > existence of a graviton (which is massless, like a photon) and it is through > the interaction of gravitons that gravity is produced. A comprehensive theory of quantum gravity that actually works has never been found. It's still elusive. > On the surface it seems as if these are two totally imcompatible world > views. One has go to go. Well, in discussions here and elsewhere we always > get the same result. Some people say "Yes, these two views are really > imcompatible" while another groups saus "No, you're crazy, they are totally > compatible." Actually, they might not be as incompatible as they appear to be. There's an already established example, in electrodynamics. We can think of things in terms of electric and magnetic fields governed by Maxwell's equations or we can say that interactions occur through the exchange of virtual photons as described by quantum-electrodynamics. The two are fully compatible. > Umm, both groups can't be correct. I would it appreciate it if people would > look through the various answers to this question, and let me know what they > think? It's really quite hard to say. While it seems to work for electrodynamics, it may not actually work for gravity. One of the problems is that gravity is connected to the curvature of spacetime and is not a force in the conventional sense. Also, gravitons would have to be a quantization of gravitational waves, which are literally propagating oscillations of spacetime. This has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for quantum gravity. > > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to > > describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > propagating oscillations of spacetime. This has been one of the > biggest stumbling blocks for quantum gravity. Taking the quantum "vacuum" as a relativistic medium, eliminates the "stumbling block". Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion; "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum." Paraphrasing, he goes on to say that the only thing that remains fundamental in this viewpoint is hbar, Planck's reduced constant. Everything else is seen to be emergent. So all that is left is to figure out is what hbar is. ;-) Whether or not the detection of a photon can be considered to be evidence of the relativistic medium is purely interpretational. All that is required is to take "vacuum" polarization to tree level. And with the relativistic medium model, even EM can be seen as spacetime curvature although somewhat different from gravitational. FrediFizzx Quantum Vacuum Charge papers; http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110 http://www.vacuum-physics.com >> As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to >> describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A comprehensive theory of quantum gravity that actually works has never > been found. It's still elusive. Of course true. But the key word is comprehensive. Impose a cutoff at about the plank scale and no problemo: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024 Thanks Bill >> On the surface it seems as if these are two totally imcompatible world >> views. One has go to go. Well, in discussions here and elsewhere we [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > propagating oscillations of spacetime. This has been one of the > biggest stumbling blocks for quantum gravity. > Actually, they might not be as incompatible as they appear to be. > There's an already established example, in electrodynamics. We can > think of things in terms of electric and magnetic fields governed by > Maxwell's equations or we can say that interactions occur through the > exchange of virtual photons as described by quantum-electrodynamics. > The two are fully compatible. They are? What about light-light scattering? What about topological monopoles? -- Ben > > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to > > describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > exchange of virtual photons as described by quantum-electrodynamics. > The two are fully compatible. ---------------------------------- exchange of virtual photons is exchange of pomous crooks physics and it is good for virtual physics !! and a huge waist of human resources! (and very good for peole who make a nice living and income out of it not very difdferent than 500 years a go .) Y.Porat --------------------------------------- $$ Virtual-particles at-a-distance. $$ What is THEORETiCALLY between ADjACENT virtual particles?. $$ > > > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) > > > seems to describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Y.Porat > --------------------------------------- > > > > Re: Virtual-particles at-a-distance. Re: What is THEORETiCALLY between ADjACENT virtual particles?. Dear Robert: > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity > (GR) seems to describe gravity as being caused by > curved space-time alone. Right. Spacetime is modeled as a continuum, much as Maxwell's "aether" is a continuum. > No gravitons are necessary. However, quantum field > theory is said to predict ... "require" ... > the existence of a graviton (which is massless, like > a photon) and it is through the interaction of > gravitons that gravity is produced. Quantum theory deals with exchange particles. Any action requires an exchange, and space and time are not players. > On the surface it seems as if these are two totally > imcompatible world views. As are "wave" and "particle". > One has go to go. Not at all. Each has its strong points. And both are wrong. Any construct of our imaginations is only as good as the experiments it can describe. Nature decides which survive, and where they survive. > Well, in discussions here and elsewhere we > always get the same result. Some people > say "Yes, these two views are really > imcompatible" while another groups saus "No, > you're crazy, they are totally compatible." In some sense they are. They (attempt to) describe the same behavior from two different points of view. > Umm, both groups can't be correct. But they both can be right... in their own domain of applicability. > I would it appreciate it if people would look > through the various answers to this question, > and let me know what they think? Study more. It gets even stranger. > One very interesting answer is here. Thoughts? ... > Other answers came from a discussion on > www.physicsforums.com. Some people there > answered that GR's model of a curved space > causing gravity is totally at odds with the > graviton model of gravity. ... > However, some people come to exact opposite > conclusion! They hold that the GR model is > compatible with the graviton model of gravity. ... > Ok, so which view is correct? Yes. > (References to peer-reviewed lit, or books by respected > authors, would also be appreciated.) Wouldn't it? Your quotations are from a "sewing circle". I suggest you go to school for this, if it is interesting to you. David A. Smith snip > Your quotations are from a "sewing circle". I suggest you go to > school for this, if it is interesting to you. Harumph! Do you practice sewer analysis or sewer analysis ? I happen to know a few sewers that aren't to shabby when it comes to electromagnetism. But some complain it is just the work for the sewer. Suzysewnshow... :o) > David A. Smith Dear Sue: > snip >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But some complain it is just the work for the > sewer. And your point is? Do you think the OP is going to get nothing but the straight scoop here? Or is he going to have to learn to separate wheat from chaff AND something about physics? David A. Smith > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to > describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > From: baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (john baez) > Date: 14 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Hallo Robert I read the article and liked it. To me, the idea of gravitons is 'very suspect'. Last chrismas I started a thread and collected some (funny) arguments against gravitons. These 'things' are still suspect to me, since I think the approach of relativity is more valid. BUT relativity is very strange too! I started to take the idea of spacetime serious and tried to find out, how things would look like, if watched from the perspective of spacetime. If you do this, the universe is (for illustration purposes) reduced by one dimension, a sheet on the outside of a hypersphaere, that expands with c. A particle drags a sinus curve behind, same a swinging field. If you try to think about spacetime as something real, than suddenly space and time are something 'not real'. Those are observations of an other object (the observer =us). Since geometry is something that belongs to space (not to spacetime), geometry is something 'unreal' too. This is a very strange idea. But somehow it works. The reason to think like this is gravitation. Gravitation is a force that prevents us from floating away, so its an obvious observation. But we are objects in the same kind of expanding spacetime too, so we would observe spacetime as space and time. Since gravitation is proportional to inertia, its obvious to think about timeflow as equivalent to motion (as a real motion). But we are 'moving ' only in spacetime. (Something like riding a bullet.) Now it would be usefull to find a mechanism, that allow spacetime to expand, host fields and particles and to propagate energy. Me idea to do this is a bit strange. It goes like this: if you invert the relation between field and space and build the inverse of the wavefunction, you have a function x,t= phi'(S) (however that works) and can define space without knowing anything about spacetime at all, except that it is able to swing like the em-field. The advantage of this picture is, that fields wouldn't fill space. They obviously do, but only to us (observers observing space). But even the magnetic force in space is a really mysterious thing, same as gravity, and not explained at all. If you invert this picture you get a lot of new myteries, but those vanish. Thomas Heger > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to > describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons > are necessary. However, quantum field theory is said to predict the > existence of a graviton (which is massless, like a photon) and it is through > the interaction of gravitons that gravity is produced. Interesting topic, and I for one appreciate you having done some opinion-polling on it and posting it here for comparison. First, it is not a fact yet that photons are massless and IMO it will be seen in the end that they are not. That is not a topic here, I know, but it has relevance to the issue at hand. It has not yet been proven that light is massless, and my model of the universe explains that in more detail. The evidence that massless particles exist is based on conclusions made from effects observed, and not on more reasonable explanations than that. This is important when we talk of graviton particles. The concept of curved space is really not a good explanation at all, since it invariably causes more confusion than it dispells. The ball-on-a-rubber-sheet only shows that massive objects are heavy, and we already knew that. If space did curve around massive objects, it would not be seen as a rubber sheet being curved by the weight of a massive object. It would curve more at the equator of the object if the object is spinning on an axis, and less toward the poles. That could be seen as what we call frame-dragging, which should be seen like that or, if the object is not spinning, frame-dragging should occur behind the object as it moves throught space. If it is shown to occur, GRians will leap with joy at another "exoneration" of the much-maligned GRT. However, just to throw some cold water on that, that is not the only explanation available from those effects. My model suggests that there will be some frame-dragging observed, but that can also be seen as a response to the gravitational force affecting the Dark Matter that surrounds the object. DM is as invisible to us as is space, and the experiments cannot distinguish one from the other. My model agrees with Gamow that space is filled with a sea of Dirac's invisible negative-mass invisible particles, and those more likely are what we will see as the dragging-around of curved space. All the space of our universe is defined by the existence of such particles, and my model explains how we can have it as a mobile ether and also as a stationary one, to satisfy both camps around the ether fires. Gravitation surrounds massive objects, it does not lay at the "bottom" of an object. The rubber-sheet silliness ignores that fact, and the analogy does nothing to help understand what the curvature of space around an object would look like. It is said that empty space is curved and so massive objects can only follow or move within its curves. This curved-space episode will go down as AE's second greatest blunder, I'm afraid, once we accept the better explanations that my model provides. Finally, we get to the quantum graviton. As a "massless" particle, it can only carry a "signal" of mass, but not the mass itself. But since the effect is one of attraction between masses, there must be something in it to produce such an effect. Yet, invisible particles can have no positive mass, only negative mass, meaning they can have no energy of their own that would enable them to do anything. My model suggests that DM is the real player in the gravitational interactions between visible and invisible objects. Both contain mass, but only positive mass can contain energy, which satisfies E=mc^2 and the Principle of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. For an object to be visible to us, it must have energy, and to have that means it has temperature. Our visual sense responds to light as opposed to darkness. We can see through light, but not through the dark. Light brings the universe to us one light wave at a time, but so rapidly that we can discern a moving universe from the mosiac of pictures that light brings. Suppose we know the location of a negative mass, and we shine light at that place; yet we still cannot see it, why? Because our eyes cannot see objects of negative mass other than in the same way they see light - by seeing through it! And then, only when we have light through which to see. Otherwise, without light, we cannot see through DM, it is only darkness to us. > On the surface it seems as if these are two totally imcompatible world > views. One has go to go. Well, in discussions here and elsewhere we always > get the same result. Some people say "Yes, these two views are really > imcompatible" while another groups saus "No, you're crazy, they are totally > compatible." I submit that the basis of the confusion between the two groups lies in their thinking that there are no alternative explanations other than just those two. I will read your citations and post some > > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to > > describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > will be seen in the end that they are not. That is not a topic > here, I know, but it has relevance to the issue at hand. You didn't explain the relevance. > It has > not yet been proven that light is massless, and my model of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The concept of curved space is really not a good explanation > at all, since it invariably causes more confusion than it dispells. So if it causes more confusion in you than it dispels, then it does so invariably? You speak for everyone? > The ball-on-a-rubber-sheet only shows that massive objects > are heavy, and we already knew that. The ball-on-a-rubber-sheet is an *analogy*. Do not confuse an analogy with an explanation or a theoretical formulation. > If space did curve around > massive objects, it would not be seen as a rubber sheet being [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > throw some cold water on that, that is not the only explanation > available from those effects. But it is the only *quantitatively accurate* explanation so far. This part seems to elude you. > My model suggests that there > will be some frame-dragging observed, but that can also be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fact, and the analogy does nothing to help understand what the > curvature of space around an object would look like. That's because you're relying on it too much for an explanation, and you're not willing to do the work to understand a better explanation. So you are content to say that what little you've read on the matter is not satisfactory to you. > It is said > that empty space is curved and so massive objects can only > follow or move within its curves. This curved-space episode > will go down as AE's second greatest blunder, I'm afraid, once > we accept the better explanations that my model provides. You haven't shown that what AE was able to do. He was able to take his explanation and derive a mathematical model from it that enabled quantitative predictions that could be tested against experiment. You have an explanation and declared that you don't need to do the rest. > Finally, we get to the quantum graviton. As a "massless" > particle, it can only carry a "signal" of mass, but not the mass > itself. But since the effect is one of attraction between masses, > there must be something in it to produce such an effect. Why? A photon carries a signal between two objects with charge, but carries no charge itself. What makes you think there must be "something in it" to produce such an effect? > Yet, > invisible particles can have no positive mass, only negative > mass, meaning they can have no energy of their own that would > enable them to do anything. My model suggests that DM is the > real player in the gravitational interactions between visible and > invisible objects. Ah, so particles that can't do anything are the real player in gravitational interactions.... > Both contain mass, but only positive mass can contain energy, > which satisfies E=mc^2 and the Principle of the Conservation of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > other than just those two. I will read your citations and post some I can hardly wait. > > > As I understand it, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) seems to > > > describe gravity as being caused by curved space-time alone. No gravitons [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You didn't explain the relevance. Yes, I did, below. It confused you, so your brain thinks it is not an explanation of the relevance I asserted. The point was that gravitons are based on observed effects just like the "massless photon", and thus that explanation is no better than the one used to explain how particles can move at c. My model of the process of the creation of light is consistent with the Principle of the Conservation of Mass and Energy and with the formula E=mc^2+(energy of motion) while your massless photon concept contradicts them but does not even attempt to overthrow them - it merely ignores them. It also contradicts Newton's laws of motion but again makes no effort to ovethrow them. Thus, the explanation of a massless photon is as invalid an assertion as it can be, and still naked emperors persist in teaching such a fallacy and supporting it no less strenuously than those who insisted one would fall off the edge of the world. Reeed Myyyy Liiiiips!: Any explanation based on observed effects are logical conclusions that may or may not be true! Common sense alone tells you that, but all real scientists know that is true especially in their work. Almost every explanation of natural phenomena has been reworked, re-explained, revised, updated, etc. upon better observations of it, and the effects of what we call gravitation are treated the same. Explanations of observed effects are simply conclusions based on what is observed, and so they are likely to be rejected for better ones that come along. Mine are better than yours, but you fail to recognize better explanations even when they whack you on your head. Instead, you defend your explanations with a ferocity seldom seen outside an arena of battle, but with no logical support for them. You believe them because: P1. You cannot have an original thought of your own, therefore, C2. You must believe what others say, and so you must be selective of those whom you believe, regardless of the idea or the facts involved. C3. You are trapped in a world where new ideas abound, so you are doomed to forever defend the status quo, or risk cracking up. > > It has > > not yet been proven that light is massless, and my model of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So if it causes more confusion in you than it dispels, then it does so > invariably? You speak for everyone? No, again, I refer to your own confusion, which is evident since you claim to have no confusion over it but cannot begin to explain how it is that space could possibly perform a physical act like "curving". That was humdinger of all of AE's ideas, even the "static universe" one, and so it is the most vulnerable, yet those like you defend such nonsense to the max of your abilities! You selectively choose what to believe, and so you believe in the massless photon equation but ignore E=mc^2. You defend curved space as an alternative explan- ation to gravitation, but you reject my ideas that overthrow the curved-space concept with common sense and logical argument. > > The ball-on-a-rubber-sheet only shows that massive objects > > are heavy, and we already knew that. > > The ball-on-a-rubber-sheet is an *analogy*. Do not confuse an analogy > with an explanation or a theoretical formulation. I said it was an analogy - did you miss that too? > > If space did curve around > > massive objects, it would not be seen as a rubber sheet being [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But it is the only *quantitatively accurate* explanation so far. This > part seems to elude you. No, not so. My explanation of what is being "frame-dragged" is based on the same observations and the same "quantitative predictions" used to claim it is space that is being dragged and not the media sea of DM particles. > > My model suggests that there > > will be some frame-dragging observed, but that can also be [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That's because you're relying on it too much for an explanation, and > you're not willing to do the work to understand a better explanation. Wrong again. You're relying on it too much for an explanation and that is why you're confused about it. I did the work necessary to "understand" a better explanation, and came up with my own idea that satisfies my skepticism much better than the nonsensical idea of curved space. I believe others will find it easier to understand, and to be a much better explanation of the observed effects. > So you are content to say that what little you've read on the matter is > not satisfactory to you. You've read a lot on it, you claim, and still you cannot make one single solitary argument in favor of it. I have read more than enough about it to know it was the great man's final trick he played on those silly enough to fall for it. > > It is said > > that empty space is curved and so massive objects can only [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > quantitative predictions that could be tested against experiment. You > have an explanation and declared that you don't need to do the rest. I would need to do that inly if my "quantitative predictions" were different than his, but they're not. Only his conclusion that space is curved and can affect the paths of massive bodies, is wrong. Besides, I believe others - if not him - allowed as how his is an ALTERNATIVE explanation to the theory of gravitation. Some have said it goes farther than classical physics and so it is an extension of it. To hear you talk about it, one would almost think you believe he refuted all the laws of gravitation! > > Finally, we get to the quantum graviton. As a "massless" > > particle, it can only carry a "signal" of mass, but not the mass [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > carries no charge itself. What makes you think there must be "something > in it" to produce such an effect? Fine, let's work on that. This "signal" - of what is it composed? How is it "attached" to the photon, i.e., what process allows it to move along with the particle as if it were glued to it? What does it use to provide a "signal", and just what is the signal it provides? Read up on Higgs' explanation of such particles, mebbe you can use that as an answer. As you know, my model has no need of such signals or signal- carriers because it does not have photons moving along with em waves. The em waves simply turn DM particles on or off as they move through them. Of course, that means photons can have mass, so it also disposes of your massless-photon notion too. My model does not conflict with the principle and formula about energy and mass, either, like yours does. The "graviton" in my model is just another DM particle that reacts to the "pressure" created upon then when objects come near each other. Yes, here is my final answer to the puzzle of the universe - a better explanation for the observed effects of gravitation. Gamow's particle sea, which is filled with Dirac's negative-mass particles, exists in all the space of our universe, and so it defines the extent of our universe at any given instance. Negative-mass particles cannot be observed by us because they lack energy of their own - it is only when some energy is imparted to them that they are transformed into real matter (RM), which we can see. My model suggests that space is the medium for DM, and perhaps for em waves as well, and that DM is the medium for RM and again, perhaps for em waves too. If DM exists in all of the empty space of our universe, it could be that it is displaced by RM similar to the way RM displaces water and air. Not exactly the same, however. We would expect DM to exist even in the space of atoms, whereas water is not absorbed by all matter. Since we know there is a vast amount of space between the particles of atoms, we must count that as DM in addition to the space we tally between free particles and that of macro-sized objects. The point here is that displacement means the moving of something from a place, and a medium is certainly something that can be displaced. Since the medium of DM permeates the universe even into atoms, its displacement is not like a ship displaces water, but more like a "Whiffle ball" displaces air. We may say that RM moves through the DM medium with relatively little displacement of it. What little amount is caused by RM, however, is enough to cause some pressure onto the DM negative-particles, which gives them some energy, even if it is only the energy of motion. Such energy is not inherent energy and so the DM particle remains a negative-mass particle, but now it has some energy to it due to its motion. My model suggests that DM came out of the BB and "unrolled" into what has become our universe. Further, it is still "unrolling", or, expanding, at an increasing rate. My analogy of an unrolling carpet may be no better than that of exlaining curved space by using the ball-and-rubber-sheet analogy, but it does serve to show how it is consistent with AE's insistence that the ether must be immobile, as the MMX showed. It is immobile locally as the impetus of the BB has been used up in getting it to where we are, but it is still expanding farther out between galaxies. IOWs, the DM carpet is unrolled here locally, but it is still unrolling farther out. Thus, we can tell galaxies are moving away from each other, and that is attributed to the expansion of space, but locally, "space" is not expanding, and there is no explanation for that other than the one my model offers. > > Yet, > > invisible particles can have no positive mass, only negative [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ah, so particles that can't do anything are the real player in > gravitational interactions.... No, I did not say they can do nothing. They can interact with other DM and perhaps to some extent with RM. They can absorb energy and become transformed into something else. They can be put under pressure, "squeezed", and displaced by the motions of other particles. The question is, what are they transformed into so that they provide us the observed attractive force effect of gravitation? > > Both contain mass, but only positive mass can contain energy, > > which satisfies E=mc^2 and the Principle of the Conservation of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I can hardly wait. [...] Gee tom, it is yet another person on USENET is claiming to have revolutionized physics from the comfort of their computer chair. If you are so sure you are right, why are you posting your glorious theories on USENET when there are journals that would publish your work? Seto has been published, so has [Hammond] and Wacko Jacko - why haven't you? People have given the truly insane like "Dr." Gene Ray air time, same for Ed Conrad (I think. I don't care enough to see if he really did get on TV). Why haven't they given you the same consideration? Why are you even publishing on USENET? Oh thats right, all the revolutionary ideas in mathematics and physics have been developed and published on USENET.... > [...] > > Gee tom, it is yet another person on USENET is claiming to have > revolutionized physics from the comfort of their computer chair. Oh, didn't you know that's how theoretical physics is done? AE did not do any experiments, he just did the math and worked it out. So many tried to overturn his logic, but they could not. I have overturned some of it, in particular his space-time interdependence claim, but for the most part, I agree with SR. For you to stop my revolution, all you need to do is post some logic here in support for your claims, or find something I propose that is inconsistent with known observations, and we can haggle about that. > If you are so sure you are right, why are you posting your glorious > theories on USENET when there are journals that would publish your > work? Seto has been published, so has [Hammond] and Wacko Jacko - why > haven't you? I just wrote an answer to that to PD just before I got to this one. > People have given the truly insane like "Dr." Gene Ray air time, same > for Ed Conrad (I think. I don't care enough to see if he really did get > on TV). Why haven't they given you the same consideration? I wish I knew how to get their attention, but would it be any different than it is here? I mean, if no one here can find a way to overthrow my claim that my model offers better explanations to the observed effects, why should those who watch radio or TV be any more knowledgeable about physics? > Why are you even publishing on USENET? Oh thats right, all the > revolutionary ideas in mathematics and physics have been developed and > published on USENET.... No, that is not the reason. I have published here in hopes that I could get some real opposition to my ideas that would show me where I am in error. In the ten years I have been posting here, that has not happened yet. Your unbridled sarcasm shows that you believe math and physicists can do that for me, but so far, no soap. Those who respond to my posts are just now getting to the point where they are beginning to actually listen to what I'm saying in order to find a way to overturn it. No one would respond seriously before with any real arguments about my ideas, just about me personally and the fact that I am not a physicist. You seem to want to be thought of as one, so perhaps you can get serious about my ideas and with logical argument show that my ideas are not possible or that they are not better explanations for the effects observed. Bear in mind that I am not your enemy and I have wish to do anything more than to discuss my opinions with others here. I do not bite unless and until I am bit at, and then it's tit for tat, so if you want a civil discussion about my ideas here, hold your tongue, and I will hold mine, about anything that does not have to do with science. > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, didn't you know that's how theoretical physics is done? AE did > not do any experiments, he just did the math and worked it out. Actually, you're wrong about that. He did several experiments and filed a patent for a new kind of refrigerator based on some other work he did. But, aside from that, in each of his papers, he did the derivation of *quantitative predictions* of measurable quantities that could be tested in experiment. You seem blissfully unaware of that. > So > many tried to overturn his logic, but they could not. I have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > here in support for your claims, or find something I propose that is > inconsistent with known observations, and we can haggle about that. No, actually all we have to do is to let your half-baked ideas die on the vine. If you want your ideas to survive you, the onus is on you to do what scientists tell you is required of a new model. You may not like that, but it's so nonetheless. > > If you are so sure you are right, why are you posting your glorious > > theories on USENET when there are journals that would publish your [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I wish I knew how to get their attention, but would it be any different > than it is here? Gee, you'll never know until you do the work to try, will you? > I mean, if no one here can find a way to overthrow > my claim that my model offers better explanations to the observed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > could get some real opposition to my ideas that would show me > where I am in error. That's a vain and disingenuous approach. The onus is not on us to convince you of anything. You can simply close your ears and say it's not so, and no one has accomplished anything. If you want your ideas accepted, then the onus is on you to do the things that are required for acceptance. Just like basketball, TomGee. If you want to be part of the game, then you have to play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, you'll either be kicked out of the game, left to play by yourself, or be mocked. Your choice. > In the ten years I have been posting here, > that has not happened yet. Your unbridled sarcasm shows that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > here, hold your tongue, and I will hold mine, about anything that > does not have to do with science. > > > [...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a patent for a new kind of refrigerator based on some other work he > did. Oh yaz, and he tried out different ways of tying his shoes too. > But, aside from that, in each of his papers, he did the derivation of > *quantitative predictions* of measurable quantities that could be > tested in experiment. You seem blissfully unaware of that. And you seem blissfully unaware that I said he did the math, or else you think "doing the math" is better than "doing the logic", or that it constitutes empirical research. > > So > > many tried to overturn his logic, but they could not. I have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > do what scientists tell you is required of a new model. You may not > like that, but it's so nonetheless. Which scientists in particular do you refer to, PD? > > > If you are so sure you are right, why are you posting your glorious > > > theories on USENET when there are journals that would publish your [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Gee, you'll never know until you do the work to try, will you? Apparently not. > > I mean, if no one here can find a way to overthrow > > my claim that my model offers better explanations to the observed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's a vain and disingenuous approach. That's a vain and unsupported personal opinion, thus it's worthless. > The onus is not on us to > convince you of anything. Of course it is, dummy, if you want me to agree with you. Are you saying that is not the reason you respond to me posts? Ask your therapist about that. > You can simply close your ears and say it's > not so, and no one has accomplished anything. But in the face of logical argument, it can be determined whether or not my ideas are as valid as those now in place, and from there, you can choose to believe those you like better. I simply want a choice to believe in one or another, and not to be dictated to by naked emperors. > If you want your ideas accepted, then the onus is on you to do the > things that are required for acceptance. I have done that already. It is the reader who must take it from there. S/he must decide if my argument is valid and if so, then decide which to believe. > Just like basketball, TomGee. If you want to be part of the game, then > you have to play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, you'll > either be kicked out of the game, left to play by yourself, or be > mocked. Your choice. That is a really bad analogy because I have no desire to be part of the "game", as you put it. That's something you want to be, a player. I just want to give out my ideas for others to think about and reject or accept them. Soon as I get through with my gravitation explanation, I will be able to die a happy man, knowing I have cracked the many mysteries that many men, even great men, have been unable to better explain. The evidence that I am correct in my explanations will not come in my lifetime, as there is too much brainwashing to try to overcome, but I have faith that the human spirit will not soon lose its curiosity, and hope that posterity will eventually vindicate my ideas as a most progressive event in science. What would you like to be remembered for? > > > > [...] > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Oh yaz, and he tried out different ways of tying his shoes too. I take it that's a comment of incredulity. Dannen, Gene. "The Einstein-Szilard Refrigerator". Scientific American. January 1997. 6 pages. > > But, aside from that, in each of his papers, he did the derivation of > > *quantitative predictions* of measurable quantities that could be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > else you think "doing the math" is better than "doing the logic", > or that it constitutes empirical research. That's right, he did the math, which you have not done. And with the math he made a *quantitative prediction* of a measurable quantity that distinguished his theory from other prevailing theories, something else that you have not done. > > > So > > > many tried to overturn his logic, but they could not. I have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Which scientists in particular do you refer to, PD? Practicising scientists, TomGee. Those that do physics for a living. Like those at research universities, government research labs, and commercial research labs. > > > > If you are so sure you are right, why are you posting your glorious > > > > theories on USENET when there are journals that would publish your [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > Of course it is, dummy, if you want me to agree with you. I don't care if you agree with me or not. You haven't hired me, by enrolling in a class that I teach or by private arrangement, to give you enough information to get you to agree with me. I certainly am not going to invest in the time and effort required to do that here in this forum for free. > Are > you saying that is not the reason you respond to me posts? Of course it isn't. The reason I respond to your posts is to point out to the others in the group that you don't know what you're talking about, and to get you to talk enough so that you yourself demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. Every once in a while, I will point out a factual error you are making, and every once in a while correct some egegrious mischaracterization of science and how scientific truth is arrived at. You certainly don't warrant mustering a concerted effort to convince you of anything -- certainly not for free -- and I haven't really expended much effort in responding to you. > Ask your therapist about that. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whether or not my ideas are as valid as those now in > place, No, they can't. That's a mistake. Determination through logical argument is not how physics is done. I don't know where you got the ridiculous idea that it is. Validity of physical models is done on the basis of developing a model sufficiently to be able to derive quantitative models that enable specific quantitative predictions of measurable observations. If the model is successful in that entire chain, that's what determines its validity --- NOT logical argument. Logical argument is for debate club and philosophy, not physics. You're in the wrong department. Try the 7th floor, behind washers and dryers. > and from there, you can choose to believe those > you like better. I simply want a choice to believe in one > or another, and not to be dictated to by naked emperors. You don't understand that there is a middle ground. You don't want to be dictated to by naked emporers. Fine. So when they make an assertion, ask them how they know that. Keep in mind that, in order for that dialog to be worthwhile to both parties, you'll have to enter into a formal arrangement whereby you earn the right to consume some of their time and expertise. This is commonly called "tuition" or "royalties", which is what you must invest to take a class or read a book. Keep in mind that taking a class entitles you to NOT be dictated to by emporers but to ask a lot of questions -- that's what you're paying for. In response, your hired emperor may choose to make some of his points by encouraging you to see for yourself in the laboratory and by making measurements for yourself, so that you will learn how it is he knows what he knows. Part of your emperor's objective in this arrangement will be to show you exactly what you want to learn -- how to find out what you should believe in, and how to determine the truth of an idea, regardless where it comes from. That also is included in the price -- you will be equipped with the resources to perform enough experiments to test whether ideas are sound or not. Now, if you can't put yourself in the company of an emperor and use them for your advancement without suffering a clench reflex or a gag reflex, then I guess you're hosed. > > If you want your ideas accepted, then the onus is on you to do the > > things that are required for acceptance. > > > I have done that already. No, your ideas have been returned for you with comments that they are not presented in a format suitable for evaluation. You have ignored those comments apparently. > It is the reader who must take it > from there. S/he must decide if my argument is valid and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > eventually vindicate my ideas as a most progressive event in > science. I'm afraid, TomGee, this will not happen with your ideas in their present form for precisely the reasons I've given you and the reason that others have given to you. You have not developed them in the fashion that allows them to be scientifically evaluated. This is what I mean by half-baked. You have taken your ideas part of the way, but you have not taken them far enough for them to have any lasting impact whatsoever. The part that is required to get them to the point where they will have some longevity requires some hard work, which you have not yet invested. > What would you like to be remembered for? Oddly, not for my ideas. Stumbling on ideas is a gift afforded by nature. I've been lucky to have a few good ideas, but the reward for innovation comes from the execution and follow-through, not for the idea itself. What I want to be remembered for has little to do with physics. Being part of physics is just something I feel fortunate about. PD > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > the most part, I agree with SR. Then it will be easy for you to show not only a repeated experiment that verifiys SR being incorrect, but how your theory adequately explains what SR can not. > For you to stop my revolution, all you need to do is post some logic > here in support for your claims, or find something I propose that is > inconsistent with known observations, and we can haggle about that. What revolution? All I see is some guy babbling on USENET about topics he doesn't fully grasp. Physics isn't going to run to your doorstep because you are mumbling about how wrong everyone is... > > If you are so sure you are right, why are you posting your glorious > > theories on USENET when there are journals that would publish your > > work? Seto has been published, so has [Hammond] and Wacko Jacko - why > > haven't you? > > > I just wrote an answer to that to PD just before I got to this one. ...and it was bullshit. In the 10 years you have been posting to USENET, what progress have you made? What experiments have you ran that prove SR and/or GR wrong? How many times have your so-called "revolutionary" theories been published in journals? I have already established there are journals that will publish ANYTHING as long as the English is moderately correct - and even that is up for debate. > > People have given the truly insane like "Dr." Gene Ray air time, same > > for Ed Conrad (I think. I don't care enough to see if he really did get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > effects, why should those who watch radio or TV be any more > knowledgeable about physics? Of course it would be different. Instead of people laughing you on a small scale, people would be laughing at you on a large scale. Imagine [Hammond] on a talk show with an actual physicist and a theologian? Gawds, that'd be just *fun*. > > Why are you even publishing on USENET? Oh thats right, all the > > revolutionary ideas in mathematics and physics have been developed and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > respond seriously before with any real arguments about my ideas, > just about me personally and the fact that I am not a physicist. It doesn't take 10 years for people to get to the point where they begin to "actually listen" to what someone has to say. If you are not a physicist and have neither the mathematical training or the theoretical understanding of the current theories used in physics, who are you to say you know more than actual physicists? Why go through four years of training for the BS then another 2 for a Masters or 4 for a PhD when we can just sit down and think really really hard? > You seem to want to be thought of as one, so perhaps you can > get serious about my ideas and with logical argument show that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > here, hold your tongue, and I will hold mine, about anything that > does not have to do with science. Fine. You think your theory, whatever it may be, can revolutionise physics? Thats nifty. You have to do two things though: Predict something new that isn't covered under the current banner of SR, GR, and the mess of quantum theories I don't understand. Then replicate every prediction ever made by every theory you seek to replace. If you think your theory replaces SR, I don't think it would be asking too much of you to derive Compton scattering. If you think your theory replaces GR, I think explaining Mercury's orbit would be a great start. If you think your theory replaces one of the quantum theories....well I don't know enough or care enough about them to argue about it. If you find these tasks below you or if you find them too difficult, you haven't revolutionized anything except the strength of your ego. > > > [...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that verifiys SR being incorrect, but how your theory adequately > explains what SR can not. I have, several times, but here it is again. See what logic you can muster up to defeat mine. P1. Time is a property of matter, and as such, it passes only for matter. C2. Therefore, time does not accrue to space, and as a property of matter, it has no spacial properties and thus needs no medium of its own. P3. Space is a property of the universe and of whatever exists beyond it, and space holds the medium of mass and energy which we call Dark Matter, which in turn defines the current extent of our universe. C4. As a property of the universe, space exists independent of anything that uses space and DM as a medium, including matter and energy. C5. If C2 and C4 are true, there is no interdependent relationship between space and time as AE asserts in his GTR, since space can exist without matter and where it does so, there is no passage of time. > > For you to stop my revolution, all you need to do is post some logic > > here in support for your claims, or find something I propose that is > > inconsistent with known observations, and we can haggle about that. > > What revolution? The one you accuse me of causing in physics from the armchair of my computer. > All I see is some guy babbling on USENET about topics he doesn't fully > grasp. Physics isn't going to run to your doorstep because you are > mumbling about how wrong everyone is... They would if they had the capacity to recognize a good idea when it whacks them on the head. Since you don't think my ideas have value or validity, you have no such capacity. > > > If you are so sure you are right, why are you posting your glorious > > > theories on USENET when there are journals that would publish your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...and it was bullshit. In your unsupported opinion, it can be whatever you want it to be. >. > In the 10 years you have been posting to USENET, what progress have you > made? Quite a lot. I've learned a lot from the arguments offered against my ideas, and for that, I'm grateful to all those who have responded to my ideas with some attempt at providing logical or reasonable arguments. I asked for and got many different arguments against my ideas, and some of those gave me cause to modify them, but all of them have given me cause to re-examine them. Along with everyone else here, I have looked for ways that will invalidate my ideas not on the basis of who I am or what I know, but on the basis of each idea that has come to me in my search for the reality of the universe. I already knew a lot about different groups, as that is my field of study, but I have learned even more from those who post here - not all of it bad, either. I now feel much more comfortable with my ideas than i did when I first began to post here. That is because no really logical or reasonable argument has been offered that will make any one of my ideas wrong. Oh, there's been a lot of huffing 'n puffing, raving 'n ranting, and charges and counter- charges, but nothing that has even shaken even one of my ideas. I have asked for you all to take my ideas to your mentors and teachers and to use their arguments against mine, and if anyone has done that, they have not prevailed. Most posters - like you, e.g. - do not argue about my ideas, either because they can't, or because they lack the knowledge necessary to do so, or the capacity for the prose required to properly argue their cases. Take your statement immediately below: "> What experiments have you ran that prove SR and/or GR wrong?" You erroneously assume that I am trying to prove Relativity wrong, even though I have shown where I support some of its elements but not all of them. You are not addressing a single one of my ideas, you are talking about something you have made up in your mind and believe it to be true. Since you are wrong in your assumption, it is false, and that shows you have misunderstood what I have said, or worse yet, accepted as the truth what you have read others post here as to what I have said, as if they are a meaningful number or an authoritative source. Who you believe is your choice, but when those you side with are wrong, you are too, and when they behave badly or as the poorest of scientists, that reflects on you too. > How many times have your so-called "revolutionary" theories been > published in journals? I have already established there are journals > that will publish ANYTHING as long as the English is moderately correct > - and even that is up for debate. When did you do that? You must be dreaming you've done that. > > > People have given the truly insane like "Dr." Gene Ray air time, same > > > for Ed Conrad (I think. I don't care enough to see if he really did get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Of course it would be different. Instead of people laughing you on a > small scale, people would be laughing at you on a large scale. Why would you want that to happen to me? I don't know you, have never met you, and thus you have no reason to wish that onto me. Unless, of course, your character is such that you wish harm to strangers and you act that out when you feel safe from any repercussions to your body due to the relative anonymity allowed us here. I must tell you, if that's the case, that you are not safe from the repercussions of that unsavory behavior from the fact that you know you have acted badly, and that will haunt you to your grave if you have even a shred of any positive quality left to your personality. > Imagine [Hammond] on a talk show with an actual physicist and a > theologian? Gawds, that'd be just *fun*. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It doesn't take 10 years for people to get to the point where they > begin to "actually listen" to what someone has to say. Well, that's your unsupported opinion, but if you were to wade through all of the replies to my posts to try to find one that addresses one of my ideas directly, you would see how wrong you are about that. > If you are not a physicist and have neither the mathematical training > or the theoretical understanding of the current theories used in > physics, who are you to say you know more than actual physicists? There are many things I know more about than any physicist can be expected to know about, just like there are many things you know about than I do, but whether anyone believes me or you depends on their ability to find reasonable cause as to which argument to believe and which one to discard, and not on the basis of who is making the arguments. To decide who is wrong or right on that basis is a matter of faith in the person chosen to believe in, and not a matter of science nor of reasonable thought. > Why > go through four years of training for the BS then another 2 for a > Masters or 4 for a PhD when we can just sit down and think really > really hard? I don't think it really works that way. The film, "A Beautiful Mind", as well as other works, show that talent has a lot to do with one's brain make-up. We see many examples of that from history in the fact that the ideas of relatively few men have survived the test of time and of those, we cannot deny that they had a talent for the work they created. From the poorest of the poor and wretched have emerged great men of history who were able to move man forward using the talent with which they were born. There are several levels of talent of a specific type that we can be born with, and we may have more than one that is outstanding or just more evident. When nurtured, human talent will more easily develop, but even when suppressed, as happens so much in this world, talent will out! Talent is not a measure of the worth of one person against another. One's man's talent can also be another man's unresolved crime. I would guess that everyone is born with some talent, but most of us are born with the same talents and most often at the same level. We achieve a level of success with that talent dependent on the effects of our environment throughout our lives. Occasionally, we are born with a talent that is so well-developed at birth or soon thereafter that it is quite evident and so it is often nurtured to maturity. At other times, it may develop late and remains hidden until it finds an avenue for exit from our brains to our acts. There are many reports of what I am saying here and so the evidence is overwhelming that what I am saying is true. My point is that it is possible and historically true that scientific progress comes in leaps and bounds when certain talents are applied that can determine the current level of progress based on what has been done before, their brains are arranged such that they can analyze the evidence and offer alternative explanations from the current ones that do not work that well. Human talents belong to Mankind, and that is my talent that I offer to the world. If I am wrong in calling it that, or if any of my ideas are later shown to be wrong, I would not be offended. I have done what little I could as a member of the human race, and if my ideas can survive the tests of time they can do so only because we can stand on the shoulders of giants and look at their ideas. > > You seem to want to be thought of as one, so perhaps you can > > get serious about my ideas and with logical argument show that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > quantum theories I don't understand. Then replicate every prediction > ever made by every theory you seek to replace. I appreciate your comments, but that is not what I wish to do. My ideas only change the conclusions that physicists have drawn from what they observe. My ideas do not change the results of their observations, only their conclusions, or I go further in explaining the phenomenon than does the current explanation. I accept the work that has been done by others, to the extent that I can without argument, but from there I reserve the right of all human beings to question that which I doubt is the better explanation. > If you think your theory replaces SR, I don't think it would be asking > too much of you to derive Compton scattering. My ideas do not replace SR. I disgree with AE's assertion about space and time interdependence, and so I make a logical argument against it. Much of SR is built around that premise, so if the premise is false, that may affect more of SR, but that is not my fault. I believe AE himself tried to make it clear that his interdependence claim applied only to the s-t diagrams used to measure the world line of objects, and not to real space and time. I'm not sure about that, though. > If you think your theory replaces GR, I think explaining Mercury's > orbit would be a great start. My ideas do not replace GR. I disagree with GR's claim about curved space, and so I offer a better explanation than that as to what gravitation is. Mine takes off where classical physics left off, which is where GR begins too, but mine bases its explanation as a consequence of the rest of my ideas that have led me to this point, which in fact support each other, and not on a separate fictional unrelated-wrt the universe event of unobservable curved space. My explanations flow from one to the other and support each other, while most theories stand alone as if the rest of the universe is of no consequence. > If you think your theory replaces one of the quantum theories....well I > don't know enough or care enough about them to argue about it. That is not a bad position to take. That is better than to try to argue as if you knew a lot about them, so we should all do the same as you. > If you find these tasks below you or if you find them too difficult, > you haven't revolutionized anything except the strength of your ego. I agree that if I acted that way, it would indicate I'm on an ego trip. I hope I have been able to show you what I am really about here, and that what you assumed above was just something encouraged by what others have used to try to keep from arguing my ideas directly. > > > > [...] > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of matter, it has no spacial properties and thus needs no medium > of its own. The isolation between electrical paths depends on the degree the shared volumes are separated in SPACE or TIME. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/dipole.html#c2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral Sue... http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm snip > > > > > [...] > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Sue... > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm Um, Sue, did you mean to say something relevant to the topic by your post above? > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Um, Sue, did you mean to say something relevant to the topic > by your post above? I just offered the fundamenl reason SR has to be applied to time independent Maxwell's equations and it is a clear refutation of your claims. I can see why you might want to consider it 'irrelvant'. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > > > > I have, several times, but here it is again. See what logic you can > > > > muster up to defeat mine. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > refutation of your claims. I can see why you might want > to consider it 'irrelvant'. Consider what irrelevant? Your "fundamental reason"? Is anyone supposed to be able to decipher that from your cryptic statement? I thought you may have mis-posted to the wrong topic, since you gave no explanation as to what you were talking about. Not all of us are always smart enough or psychic enough to read between your lines and figure out what you're saying. I usually don't even try to do that, and I just move on. But since yours is a direct response to what I said, I will try to figure out what it is you're saying. "The isolation between electrical paths depends on the degree [to which] the shared volumes are separated in space or time". You refer to "shared volumes" as being separated in time. You also make the same reference about the same volumes or of other shared volumes being separated in space. I cannot tell if you mean the same volumes or other volumes. Let's assume you mean two or more volumes in time, and also two or more different volumes in space. That means two or more shared volumes separated in time, in which the paths of electricity are separated to some degree, and that degree corresponds to the amount of their isolation. And then you say the same thing about volumes being separated in space. I have no idea what you mean by "volumes", especially how they could be shared, and shared by what? Objects do not share space, and so they are always separated in space to some degree or another. We speak of events as being separated in time, but I don't see how events can be referred to as volumes. You mention "electrical paths", so perhaps your volumes are electrical amounts? But then how could they be shared? I appreciate you taking the trouble to respond to my post, but do you mind spending a little more time on it to make clearer what it is you're talking about? Many of us here are laypersons and have not yet learned all the codewords you physicists use to communicate with each other. > > > > > I have, several times, but here it is again. See what logic you can > > > > > muster up to defeat mine. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > You refer to "shared volumes" as being separated in time. Is it reasonable that two bodies can occupy the same space but not at the same time? Their associated fields represent a gradient. The field must be described in 3d, so we evaluate volumes. > You > also make the same reference about the same volumes or of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > which the paths of electricity are separated to some degree, > and that degree corresponds to the amount of their isolation. Right. We don't concern ourselves with an electron in the next galaxy. We don't concern ourselves with an electron that was closeby... yesterday. > And then you say the same thing about volumes being separated > in space. I have no idea what you mean by "volumes", especially > how they could be shared, and shared by what? Objects do not > share space, and so they are always separated in space to some > degree or another. We speak of events as being separated in > time, but I don't see how events can be referred to as volumes. They can't that is why QM is a formalism not a theory. > You mention "electrical paths", so perhaps your volumes are > electrical amounts? But then how could they be shared? Maxwell's time independent equations and multiple integrals and any prerequisites you need to understand them gives you this basis. > I appreciate you taking the trouble to respond to my post, but do > you mind spending a little more time on it to make clearer what > it is you're talking about? Many of us here are laypersons and > have not yet learned all the codewords you physicists use to > communicate with each other. Normally a first-aid merit badge doesn't qualify one to barge into an operating room and delclare he is going to demonstrate revolutionary tools unless they can be shown faulty. :o) QM works by replacing complex field effects with statistical models that approximate the mechanism. You are trying to replace complex fied effect with statiscal models where consideration of the mechanism is *inconvenient^. A gaussian distribution is what allows field gradients to be represented as probabilities. If you want to understand gravity and electromagentism, no amount of metaphysics about psuedo_particles can substitute for an understanding of of what is being modeled. Most of the posters here, even if their POV varies, will offer you better than trying to play 20 questions with 20 new_and_improved_economy_sized paradigms and redefinitions. You were trying to translate space to time for your reasons. (Einstein made the same mistake LOL ) Nature has its own reasons and won't pay any attention your's or Einstein's reasons. If you want to do physics you have to learn natures reasons: Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Sue... http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral > > > > > > I have, several times, but here it is again. See what logic you can > > > > > > muster up to defeat mine. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > fields represent a gradient. The field must be described > in 3d, so we evaluate volumes. Oh. > > You > > also make the same reference about the same volumes or of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > galaxy. We don't concern ourselves with an electron that was > closeby... yesterday. Okaaay.... > > And then you say the same thing about volumes being separated > > in space. I have no idea what you mean by "volumes", especially [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > an operating room and delclare he is going to demonstrate > revolutionary tools unless they can be shown faulty. :o) But that's not true of physics. The naked emperor fairy tale is a good example of what I mean by that. An innocent child can see the evident truth even when some alleged authority asserts that the truth is not what is evident before it. One may argue that is a fairy tale, but it is a fairy tale only so that the naked emperors do not have to be named and so that they cannot tell their vaingloriousness is all so evident. I had a hunch that was the basis for your discontent, but I hoped you were better than that. > QM works by replacing complex field effects with statistical > models that approximate the mechanism. Sure, nothing wrong with that. > You are trying to replace complex fied effect with statiscal > models where consideration of the mechanism is *inconvenient^. No, I'm not. I am trying to offer and support better explanations than those that use complexity to hide the fact they cannot come up with something better than magic, or that ol' handy disclaimer, "Science does not say why, only how." There is a move afoot to unite what we know about science into a single major or fundamental theory. Such a search would not come up unless there is a need for it. Most theories are distinct from each other, much like blind men would come up with varying explanations of an elephant. Their tenets are vaguely connected but very clearly disconnected from each other. Apparently, most scientists are no less territorial than cats and dogs. I like to think that is an expected consequence of an educational system that narrows learning to more specific areas at the expense of other areas the higher up one goes in the system. AE was a prime example of what's wrong with that, in that he escaped the strict confines of conformity that prevented others from thinking outside the box, but there have been others. An educational system that pays lip service to thinking in a non-conformist way but demands acquiesence to conformity produces territorial cats and dogs and little social and scientific progress. > A gaussian distribution is what allows field gradients to be > represented as probabilities. If you want to understand gravity > and electromagentism, no amount of metaphysics about > psuedo_particles can substitute for an understanding of > of what is being modeled. I already understand those enough to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes (to hide their nakedness). Why should I think that probabilities are reality anymore than any other math construct? You don't have to be a physicist to know that a theory exists purporting to model the effects known as classical gravitation into a magical model of curved space. You have only to read the reviews of GTR to learn that. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that SR claims that time and space are interdependent wrt each other. You have only to read a synopsis of SR to learn that little tidbit. No one, except physicists, apparently, are required to believe that math models the reality of the universe and that magic is what happens when science doesn't yet have the answer. The rest of us know what magic is, even though we may not know how it's done. We know magic is a put-on by magicians who specialize in fooling us. We do not have to believe the magic is real, even when it comes from the most authoritative sources. We can have the courage of a small child that dares to tell it like it is. > Most of the posters here, even > if their POV varies, will offer you better than trying to play > 20 questions with 20 new_and_improved_economy_sized > paradigms and redefinitions. > > You were trying to translate space to time for your reasons. No, you are wrong about that. I was trying to separate space from time and I succeeded. > (Einstein made the same mistake LOL ) Yes, he did, but I explained in detail the error of his ways, but you simply make that statement with no support for it. We're supposed to believe your unsupported opinion against AE's well-developed argument? I don't think so. > Nature has its > own reasons and won't pay any attention your's or > Einstein's reasons. Nor to yours either. What's your point? > If you want to do physics you have to learn natures reasons: > > Time-independent Maxwell equations > Time-dependent Maxwell's equations > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html If I want to do that type of physics, sure. Rest assured I don't. > > > > > > > I have, several times, but here it is again. See what logic you can > > > > > > > muster up to defeat mine. Subject Musings: P1. Time is a property of matter, and as such, it passes only for matter. C2. Therefore, time does not accrue to space, and as a property of matter, it has no spacial properties and thus needs no medium of its own. Refuted by: "The isolation between electrical paths depends on the degree [to which] the shared volumes are separated in space or time". > > > You refer to "shared volumes" as being separated in time. > > > > Is it reasonable that two bodies can occupy the same > > space but not at the same time? Their associated > > fields represent a gradient. The field must be described > > in 3d, so we evaluate volumes. Tomgee exclaimed: Oh. Sue added: !!! snip > > Right. We don't concern ourselves with an electron in the next > > galaxy. We don't concern ourselves with an electron that was > > closeby... yesterday. Tomgee briefly gets one foot back on the ground: "Okaaay.... " > > > And then you say the same thing about volumes being separated > > > in space. I have no idea what you mean by "volumes", especially [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > You mention "electrical paths", so perhaps your volumes are > > > electrical amounts? But then how could they be shared? > > Maxwell's time independent equations and multiple integrals > > and any prerequisites you need to understand them gives [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > hunch that was the basis for your discontent, but I hoped you > were better than that. 'Store wars' launch summer fashion - Fashion - www.smh.com.au http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/09/1091903492222.html?oneclick=true There was no clothing involved. A child in diapers can see by you referenences # P1 & C2 that you are willing to accept 2 bodies which occupy the same place at the same time. Why should anyone read further? > > QM works by replacing complex field effects with statistical > > models that approximate the mechanism. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > up with something better than magic, or that ol' handy disclaimer, > "Science does not say why, only how." J.C. Maxwell was not a big bad politician so put your conspiracy theories back on the shelf an try to comprehend a truly enlightning work: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node28.html fashion statement snipped > Yes, he did, but I explained in detail the error of his ways, but > you simply make that statement with no support for it. We're > supposed to believe your unsupported opinion against AE's > well-developed argument? I don't think so. Einstein never answered Paul Langevin's refutation. In science, that is sufficient to strip away any such description as 'well developed'. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf 'Well kludged' would be a better term. > > Nature has its > > own reasons and won't pay any attention your's or > > Einstein's reasons. > > > Nor to yours either. What's your point? Unless you honestly believe two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time, some study of Maxwell's equations might enlighten you how nature ensures that can't happen. Of course if you do believe it. Then you are worthy of of all the derision you seem to be receiving. Sue... > > If you want to do physics you have to learn natures reasons: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > If I want to do that type of physics, sure. Rest assured I don't. > > > > > > > > I have, several times, but here it is again. See what logic you can > > > > > > > > muster up to defeat mine. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "The isolation between electrical paths depends on the degree > [to which] the shared volumes are separated in space or time". You have yet to show why you think that is a refutation of my logical premise and conclusion. Show why you believe my premise is false, or show why you believe my conclusion does not follow from my premise. I'm sure that in your mind your "refutation" above makes sense, but one cannot make sense of a refutation unless and until it makes sense to the reader. > > > > You refer to "shared volumes" as being separated in time. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Tomgee exclaimed: > Oh. If that had been an exclamation, it would have had an ! at the end. You see, one can know a lot about one subject, but that does not mean they know a lot about everything. > Sue added: > !!! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Tomgee briefly gets one foot back on the ground: > "Okaaay.... " Actually, that was meant as a little sarcasm wrt to your couching such a simple fact in words that require you to explain them as a simple fact anyway to your audience. > > > > And then you say the same thing about volumes being separated > > > > in space. I have no idea what you mean by "volumes", especially [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > and any prerequisites you need to understand them gives > > > you this basis. Not unless you can explain why you think it does that. Otherwise, your above is just an unsupported opinion. > > > > I appreciate you taking the trouble to respond to my post, but do > > > > you mind spending a little more time on it to make clearer what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > an operating room and delclare he is going to demonstrate > > > revolutionary tools unless they can be shown faulty. :o) By "revolutionary tools" I assume you meant to say "unless the current tools in use can be shown to be faulty. That shows you do not understand that I am not proffering new tools, I am instead claiming that the explanations invented from conclusions drawn from the use of our current tools are too close to the realm of fantasy (like the emperor's clothes analogy) to be any closer to reality than a fairy tale. Please try to understand that, as it is the reason why I undertook such a task. > > But that's not true of physics. The naked emperor fairy tale > > is a good example of what I mean by that. An innocent child [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There was no clothing involved. Quite true, and that's the point of the analogy. The emperor's strong vanity forced him accept his tailor's claims that the new clothes were there even though he could not see them. The tailors represent the teachers of men, and the emperor is their students who replace the previous inhabitants of the "ivory towers" of education and science. Vanity was seen as the basis for their corruption when the tale was invented, but we know it is more than that today. We know it as conformity, > A child in diapers can see > by you referenences # P1 & C2 that you are willing to accept > 2 bodies which occupy the same place at the same time. > Why should anyone read further? I must be totally naked then |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message