Aether, mass and gravity in QWC

Nice work. You use this to avoid answering any of the rest of my post. Just FYI I'm neither spoiled nor an only child and I've had to work hard for everything I've achieved in my life, not that any of this is your business of course. I've met plenty of people who both know their stuff and whose personalities make me want to hit them with a blunt instrument yet I am mature enough to work with them on work, and not belittle their perceived character flaws. Frankly, I don't care about your opinion of me - it certainly changes nothing about your theory which I maintain is crap. Why don't you actually try and have a science discussion now, including answering the most important question: Please post a numbered list with the physical postulates of the theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, please point to where I refer to it as theory. That makes three times you have come at it from the angle that I was proposing QWC as theory and three times I have said they are ideas that are posted for discussion purposes.

Second, I welcome anyone to read the ideas in the thread and discuss them by referring to what I have posted.

Prometheus, if I could put a probability on the chance that you have any interest in these “crap” ideas, it would be about 15%. Go ahead and make me sound stupid for making it so high.

If I could put a probability on the chance that you have an agenda and no matter what I post you will label it as stupid crap based on your authority as a PhD student (that is school), wail about some detail of science theory and deride me for not trying to enter into science at the level of respected professionals I would put it at 85%.

IMHO there is a 2% chance that you and I will ever get over the history we have established on this thread and actually move into any discussion in the spirit of what I have said is my intention.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I often ask myself why I bother to get involved with this stuff, and I think a partial answer is the following: Why is it that people like yourself feel that with no physics background whatsoever, you can make a contribution to physics? It's like me trying to revolutionise the construction of internal combustion engines - a subject of which my only knowledge is that if I turn the key in my car the aforementioned device makes an impressive noise and the pipe at the back smells funny. I do admit to feeling annoyed that people like yourself can have the ridiculously large ego to think you can walk into a subject that I and everyone else that has made any sort of contribution, subject changing or not, have studied for years and years. You expect to walk in and turn it in it's head - I'm amazed you can fit through doors with a head that big.

What makes it fun for me is that for the most part people like yourself really do have no knowledge of physics and the errors they make are comically funny. I'm not sure you fall into this category because, despite the amount of words and time you must waste on this polished turd of an idea, you manage to say surprisingly little. Having now read the first few postings of this thread it seems that what you're suggesting is the following:

1) mass is made of something unmentioned, and out of it we magically get quantum waves. I know you bandy this phrase "quantum action" around but I have yet to find anything close to a definition of this. Where you do say "this is quantum action" it says nothing about where the waves come from inside a spot of maximum energy density.

2) I'm not sure if these masses are particles or universes, because you seems to suggest in one place that they are dense, and also they can cause a collapse and bounce of some sort that you seem to want to call a model for the big bang.

3) In all of this mystery, we have the aether which does something. You at one point say that the aether carries gravity, but It's not clear that the quantum waves are waves of aether. Anyway, by my reckoning your idea implies that gravity should do nothing at all - ("For any given mass the push and pull are equivalent for each quantum time increment.")

4) You say that the aether supplies the energy that is radiated away by the quantum waves, but where does that energy come from?

At the end of the day you want people reading it to take your word for it about your claims that something causes gravity and mass, although I cannot find anywhere where you say "mass is caused by this in QWC." You make up something for gravity as if something you made up is in some way an answer to "we don't know how space is curved in GR. I'd rather take the explanation from something that has been theoretically probed and experimentally tested thoroughly to explain gravity and mass and I think anyone who has any sense at all will do the same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Using your words, this “turd” of an idea from such a “stupid egotistical” vendor of pure “crap” can’t possibly be of any interest to you except as you point out, to make fun of.

You have just wasted a few minutes reading my "stupid turd crap" as you call it. Your agenda is clear and all I can hope is that you will stop wasting your time.

You’re wrong about what I want but you do seem to relish twisting my intentions into an animal that you can slay instead of slaying the animal that it is.

The answers to every one of your “observations” are in the thread. If it is such a waste of time to read it and direct a question or observation to a specific post, why should I waste any more of your time with my crap statements? Don’t think I am encouraging you into discussion any more, quite the contrary, since you have stated that your intentions are to make fun of me.

Notice that I haven't used any abusive ad homonyms, and I"m not interested to being so poorly treated by someone like you. The thread is here to read and it contains the answers to your questions so far. Make your future statements "abusive ad homonym" free (though if you have no more questions or comments that's fine too).

 

But the thing is it isn't 'school' in the sense its compulsory education everyone receives, it's education far beyond anything 99.99% of people ever receive in the sciences.

Saying "but you're still in school" only works when that then means that person hasn't received the level of education which is expected of the education system and which you yourself have received. Yes, Prom (and I and Ben and a few others) are still in education but we aren't being taught in lectures or in classes. We are spoon fed no more information than actual professors. We got the same seminars as professors. We give talks to and listen to talks from those professors. We publish in the same journals. Our work is held to the same standards as professors.

Being a PhD student is about being given a bit of help when it comes to producing original work. In school and being an undergraduate it's about simply learning the things other people have already done. I'm sure the stuff Prom is working on is not something which has been taught to him or he just read in a book and is reproducing in a different notation, it's new additions and extensions to published work. Work sufficiently cutting edge you won't find any textbooks on it. And unlike you with your avoidance of questions and inability to produce concrete results, our 'schools' require our work to be of a particular standard. If it's not then we don't get published and we don't get PhDs. We have this opportunity because we've proven ourselves capable in simpler things.

And you'll also find we help teach to undergraduates material which is completely beyond your grasp.

Prom, I've asked him about QWC before. He couldn't answer my questions either. And since then he's done nothing to develop his 'work' to the point where he can answer yours. He's spun his wheels because there's nothing of any substance in his 'work'.

 

OK, noted.

BTW, you missed the point about "school". Prom gave me 10 crack pot points for saying something like, "just because a prediction is right, that doesn't make the theory fact". I remembered he had mentioned he was working on a PhD and so I gave him 10 crack pot points from his own link which allows 10 points when someone mentions that they have gone to school.

But it is nice that you guys are getting educated and that you stand up for each other. I would do the same with all of my crack pot buddies (don't be tempted to twist that around to mean I am saying that your buddies are crack pots because I am not saying that; I was being self-deprecating because I knew you two would like that).

 

Actually I gave you the crackpot points for saying something to the effect of "Don't you know that GR is only a theory, not a fact." - such a stupid thing to say I couldn't contain myself.

I may have called you many things but egotistical wasn't one of them. It clearly demonstrates your penchant for twisting the truth.

What exactly do you want then? If you wanted to genuinely learn how the universe works you'd go and learn some proper physics which you have clearly never done. It's a typical crackpot desire to want to be patted on the back by whoever will.

The real centrepiece of this little display is the fact that you haven't actually answered a single question that I have asked you. You've got to take a look out of the window of the care home for the endearingly naive and see this: people are sometimes rude and spiteful just because they are, and it's up to you to promote your idea above that. Not having ever worked on proper physics is not going to help either. If you really believe what you say is right and you are genuinely trying to advance human understanding of the way the universe works then the proper response would be to make me look bad by answering my questions patiently to the best of your ability. What could I say to that ehh? However, if you're more like how I think you are and how AN sees you then all you need to do is carry on avoiding the issue and the rest of us can continue to laugh at you. It's that simple.

You've used plenty of ad hominems.

"That is gravitational time dilation which means that if you stand still, as I bet you are prone to do, you head ages faster that your feet. That might explain your dismal attitude. Your haughty approach to addressing a few ideas makes me think you were a spoiled only child."

"I'm betting "spoiled only child" is what set you off. Right on wasn't I? So the best you can come back with is that I'm stupid? Amateur."

Ring any bells?

I repeat. The best thing you can do now to make me look brash and uneducated is to answer my questions. Bet you can't do it.

 

I said that BBT didn’t address “before”. You said “before” is a meaningless concept. Am I correct that you are saying that you have some higher authority to say what is and is not meaningful? If you are not saying that, can you explain for everyone who wonders what caused the initial expansion that we observe, why it is meaningless? Aren’t you saying that “before” the Big Bang is meaningless because BBT doesn’t address “before”?

Are you saying that I want to invoke some illegitimate idea that BBT is incomplete just for the sake of scoring some kind of truly meaningless point? That is absurd.

Here is the paragraph where you linked us to the “crackpot points”. This is the site you used to rack up points against me that comes up several times in subsequent posts.

Here is the paragraph where you let us all know you were working on a PhD which I equate to “having gone to school” in a subsequent post where I awarded you 10 crackpot points. Go to the link you gave us all, and look on the list and you will see that the 10 points I awarded you were legitimate.

Here is the line that I quoted later. You took my response to this statement and gave me 10 crackpot points which I did not earn. I revisit this later in this post.

The LHC will create high energy density in the extreme. If mass emerges from high energy density then that is consistent with QWC where the idea is that a big crunch preceded the expansion that we observe in our known universe, and the big crunch idea in QWC is characterized by the maximum possible energy density.

This comes up again later in our discussion but I want to point it out here because this is an instance where you use the phrase, ”We know that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity”. The “We know” part sounds like it is put to bed and anyone who doesn’t like it should lump it. I thought there was still some work to do on the subject of gravity so I would like you to confirm that when you say “We know”, that we do in fact know. I asked you for a link that establishes this as fact. So far you have seen fit to ignore that request. Is that because you couldn’t provide such a link?

I refer to BBT as GR, inflation, and the Cosmological Principle. I’m sure that you can make a squirrelly case that I don’t know what I’m talking about by saying that. Would you mind responding to this?

When you say that a “full description will come with the theory of quantum gravity” you are contradicting yourself. You just said that “We know that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity”. Which is it? Is it the curvature of spacetime or is the as yet incomplete theory of quantum gravity? I would appreciate it if you would clear up this apparent contradiction.

I let you off too easily on this statement earlier. I maintain there is a clear difference between protoscience and pseudoscience. Protoscience is the earliest point in the scientific process after observation and before hypothesis. It is from ideas about observations that hypotheses are spawned. I said before that pseudoscience is non-science and protoscience is pre-science. I stand by that. Do I need to provide a link or can you take the time to look at the Google list I already gave you on the subject? It seems to me that by denying that there is any merit to ideas, you are not only very short sighted, but are actually ignoring the fact that ideas play an early role in science.

This is from my response to what I pointed out above where you said …

Now you said. “despite the fact that GR is right and GR treats spacetime as something that can curve in the presence of matter and energy, we should disregard that.” How am I saying that we should disregard regard that when I say, “didn’t you forget that GR is theory and not fact?

And there it is, the exact words I said, in the context that they were said before you awarded me the crackpot points.

Here is my quote:

And here is the paragraph where you awarded me the points …

I never said it was only theory. I said …

And I said that in response to your statement …

and later

I don’t think you can award me crackpot points for what I said without awarding you the same points for making theory into fact and insisting that the evidence prove it is fact.

Yikes, I have seen many of them. Perhaps you think that you have to be, what did you say, in school working on a PhD" in order to access books on GR. This is just an example of the narrow view you have of others and the inflated view you have of yourself in regard to the books you see and that you think are the only books that count.

Can you explain to me how someone can follow various science forums, many science related topics on the internet, and read various blogs without ever coming across material on GR. In retrospect don't you feel silly having said that now? Of course you don't. Maybe you really believe your own self aggrandizement.

Here you mention your physics degree. You get 10 crackpot points every time you say that.

You said this when I awarded you the points for mentioning that you went to school. I have pointed out two or three times you referred to your physics degree and your work on your PhD.

Did I fulfill you request for a link to where you said that or do I need to repeat it?

I have repeatedly offered to discuss and explain what I have said. Please ask me to explain any of the “words I have typed” that you think I don’t understand or tell me about what I typed that I don’t understand.

Here you go again. Please show me where I call QWC anything but ideas. Specifically show us where I call it theory, or get off of this boring and repetitive “challenge” that is baseless.

There is irony and lie combined here. I raised the question of why you are elevating theory to fact because it looked like you are the one that does not understand the difference.

So if you were to ask me to jump through some hoop, would you expect me to do so? This is exactly what you are asking when you repeatedly ask me to explain my “stupid crap” theory. Just wait around while I work up a complete response to that request.

What exactly is the contribution that you claim I am making? This is just you flapping your jaws so to speak. You equate my threads to me telling the scientific community what is, instead of what I am actually doing and that is presenting some ideas for discussion. I have called them ideas right along and have encouraged discussion. An appropriate response is to point to something from my posts, preferably something from the place where you find what I say to be inconsistent with accepted science, and then discuss what makes it inconsistent.

Here is where you accuse me of having such a huge ego that you are amazed I can fit my head through the door. Later when I said you referred to this as ego, you asked me to show you where you said it. This is the third time I have been able to go back and show you where you said things that you deny saying. Do you have trouble remembering what you say or are you thinking that I am too stupid to be able to go back and find them? Either way, it makes you wrong. And this is also a character issue. If you deny saying the things that I can then go back and show you where you said them, one has to wonder why you feel the need to make the denial?

Mr. Personality. Do you entertain any idea that I am going to jump for you? Keep thinking that.

You didn’t bother to look up where I answered those things later in the thread did you? You didn’t look because maybe it isn’t on your agenda to get the answers, but instead your agenda is to make fun of me from you authoritative position of having a physics degree and because you are working on you PhD. I’m glad you get a laugh from me, because I get plenty of them from what you say. The really funny thing is that if there is another level below what science can now observe, it is very likely that all of the rigor you are putting in and all of the haughty ranting that you do will be totally wasted by what is to be discovered at that level of order.

There are several things wrong with this paragraph. I don’t want people to take my word for it. Do you miss where I am looking for discussion of these ideas? If they are so easily dismissed, why have you not addressed specifics and shown where I am violating your view of what the limit is of any future science that will be developed? In addition, when you say you can’t find anywhere I say mass is caused by this …, that just highlights the fact that you haven’t read it.

Actually, I have gone back and put the exact words said by both of us leading to the crackpot point issue. Anyone and everyone can see what we both really said though I am pretty certain that no one cares.

Above in this post I quoted your exact words that lead me to claim you called me egotistical. For you to then boldly accuse me of twisting the truth when nothing could be further from the truth is just another of the type of character flaws that people like you, over inflated blow hards, suffer from.

I know you don’t mean this. It is so cruel. I thought you were sincere in reading my posts and discussing them, and then you say something like this. I’m hurt but in spite of that I am going to go to work to answer your questions. Hang around while I put a complete response together for you. In a short reply like this one it is hard to cover all of the territory.

There are several things wrong with this statement. I’m not in a care home yet. What do you mean that sometimes people are rude and spiteful? Who are you referring to except yourself. There is no reason under the sun why I should promote my ideas to you now is there. Or am I wrong that you intent is to make fun of me?

By know, you could have read the thread and the several previous threads and have all the answers about my ideas. It is completely disingenuous of you to characterize your continual request for answers and clarification when you haven’t read the thread and when you have said that you intended to make fun of me.

And for me to sum up may concern for what you think of me after your very unfriendly and confrontational accusations is easy. I don’t care what you think until you actually ask a question about what I have said. You can pretend like AN does that I am not answering you, but your demands are for support of some imagined theory that you say I am expecting people to believe just because I say so. This is not true. I don’t call it theory because it is ideas about a level of order too small to investigate with today’s technology on the one hand, and too big at the level of the greater universe to investigate with our current tools. So as unimpressive as it is for you and AN to wave you hands, and jointly claim that I am not responding to some question is rude, untruthful, and is not fooling anyone.

Of course I am going to respond in kind. But I was the one that took the high road and posted without ad homs. You didn’t pick up on that you just continued with the belittling language as if you were talking from authority about realms where only ideas exist, i.e. the realms that I discuss and the realms that will have to be investigated in the future when technology permits.

Not really; would you please take a minute and explain for my benefit what your point is?

I could if you were to ask something related to what I have posted. If you ridicule me and then expect me to look up in my thread where I have already answered the questions you must have forgotten the tone of your posts toward me. Read the thread first and then I will discuss it with anyone who has real questions and not just some supposed accusations about claims you say I am making without ever responding to my request for you to show me where I made those claims. But I am patient so go ahead and address my posts appropriately, meaning read them and refer to specific words I use to initiate discussion that will help me fill out my ideas.

In the mean time there are seven requests for you to respond to in this post that should help clear the air and show that you have some interest in the intended reason for my thread.

 

Oh dear, the inevitable deflection and nonsense posting commences. I said this, you said that. blah blah blah. You could have made such a good post too, and I actually told you precisely what to do to make the debate yours. Instead you post a long posting of rubbish. What a shame.

Well, by posting this thread at all you are promoting your idea to the board and since I am a member of this board you are promoting it to me. If you don't want to have people comment on you "idea," don't post it in public.

And on the other hand, from the self same post you say "I’m hurt but in spite of that I am going to go to work to answer your questions." I'm still waiting.

On the other hand. I've read a few of your posts now and nothing I have found answers my previous questions and a few others are raised. I would like to comment that your claim that you can explain mass is completely erroneous and your claim that you can explain gravity is extremely shaky. It's closer than the mass thing because there is something (that is wrong) that you say causes gravity but the mass is completely absent.

This is your thing - I don't see why you can't answer my questions. I have read a lot of your posts now (they are long) and I can't find satisfactory answers. I see there is another thread you have posted which I'm going to have a look at now.

 

Cranks advertise their pet theories hoping they'll fool other cranks into thinking they are intelligent and right. When someone with actual knowledge comes along suddenly it's our fault for asking questions.

It's also ironic that often a major whining point from cranks is how physicists think they know it all, but you'll be hard pushed to find a physicist who is taken seriously by the majority of other physicists who proclaims "My work is the right perfect model of phenomena X, Y an Z in Nature![/i]". But when a crank proclaims they've got a simple theory of everything which doesn't need a Higgs, GR or knowledge of mathematics it's supposedly okay?

Quantum_wave, give me one, just one phenomena your work can model to an accuracy of say 10% and demonstrate that. No chit chat, no whining, just imagine you'd written a school textbook based on your work and give me a page from that book where you show your work actually models nature. If you can't, shut up whining.

 

I take it you are again asking for quantification? And that you don't care what I quantify from QWC, you just want me to pick a phenomenon that I describe and quantify it within 10% accuracy? And if I can't you want me to suppress my own first amendment rights?

None of QWC is quantified. Would you please pick a phenomenon that I mention so I can explain why it is not yet quantified.

 

The problem being that if you remove the requirement that you can model something in a quantitative way then you can come up with anything. Gravity is invisible fairies pushing things together. That's qualitatively coherent but it's also extremely absurd. Basically you've got nothing other than a conceptual explaination you prefer over the mainstream physics, which is too hard for you to grasp. Boo hoo.

And you don't have first amendment rights on a website you don't own. And even then there's limits to what people are allowed to say.

 

Try: quantum gravity; construct an ansatz for a mass function; embed ansatz in causal structure, check model conforms to the real universe at quantum level etc.

 

I understand that. The lack of quantification may be refereed to as the "gremlin Catastrophe" in that if there is none, the standing of the model among all models, responsible and fanciful cannot be established to the community. The only thing going for such an idea is the reasonable and responsible speculation that makes it up.

If the ideas are developed in a step by step process where each step is scrutinized by a group of forum members with some interest in science and some knowledge on the subject, the resulting ideas, even though unquantified, can be more responsible that the lesser "gremlin" group.

 

I started a new thread in which I will present updates to QWC. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92736
Anyone who has subscribed to this thread is encouraged to subscribe to the "QWC Updates 2009" thread.

 

Quantum Wave Cosmology and Gravity Aether

I know some of the clichés about who cares and who doesn’t care what I think, and I acknowledge the position that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric are taking. It can simply be summarized by saying that under current theory there is no need for aether and the fact that is has not been detected after carefully designed experiments means that there is no detectible aether using the current tools we have to look for it.

I acknowledge that. The part that there is no need for gravity aether is true if mass curves space time. If mass does not curve spacetime it is not true.

My threads approach the issue of aether from the fall back position that mass does not curve spacetime and therefore the need for gravity aether is renewed.

No one else describes gravity aether like I do as far as I know. That alone is maybe cause for disbelief. But gravity aether (and the central characteristic of the process of quantum action that creates the gravity aether) is logical, it makes connections between mass and gravity that no one else is making, it describes a mechanism that could guide mass through space in the same way that curved spacetime does, and it does much more.

On the surface then QWC is based on a force involving energy quantization that establishes and continually refreshes the presence of mass. That idea when explored with thought explains the movement of mass as simply the relocation of the high density spot of every energy quanta in the mass (quantum action at work) as the presence of mass is re-established every quantum period (every instant) in a slightly different place. The change in the focal point of the quanta, i.e. the change in the location of the mass is determined by the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass. During each quantum period (the length of time it takes for all quanta within mass to be refreshed once) the momentum of the mass has caused movement. That movement is determined by the momentum and the energy density surrounding the mass. Momentum carries mass through space in the path of lowest energy density. The net of the low energy density emanating from every mass in the universe exists at all points in aether that occupies space and reaches every other mass. As our mass moves based on its momentum, the place that it move to next is the path of lowest energy density in the aether surrounding the mass.

I am smart enough to know that is not a dumb idea. You can’t understand the detail from such a brief overview, but if you were to talk with me about it and ask questions pertinent to it, maybe it would seem less than dumb to you too. Or maybe by using valid arguments about why it can’t work or why it can’t even stand on its own merits you would actually be setting me free.

It isn’t hard to understand why aether theories got moved to the back seat of the buss. After Einstein came up with the field equations that are still the best we can do at predicting gravitational effects, the physical need for aether was removed. It didn’t matter if there was aether because we can predict gravity from the GR perspective with curved spacetime.

And I can accept curved spacetime if I know what causes it to curve. I know; mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. But how? What is it that transmits the presence of mass to other mass across space, or what is it about the energy that lets it reach out to occupy space around mass. What is the nature of that energy? QWC deals with gravity as if there was aether composed of energy density and the energy density is emanated from the mass and has an infinite reach as the quantum waves that carry the energy expand spherically across space. (I hate to make analogies because they never stand up, but an analogy is that mass sucks in aether as part of the process of quantum action, consumes part of it to re-establish all of the high density spots caused by quantum action, thus moving and maintaining the presence of mass, and emits the unused, i.e. lower energy density aether back into space with a time delay that occurs while the aether is being distributed throughout the mass).

I don’t claim to understand spacetime math but there is really some pretty sophisticated math involved that takes the events that occur as time passes (i.e. motion) and ties them to the space that is occupied by mass. It is an ingenious way to put the physical universe into a 4-D geometrical coordinate system where math can be used to tie the history of motion to the time frame of the motion. Do that for multiple objects and you can relate the combined motion to the effect it has on individual objects in the coordinate system. It is quite beautiful and I certainly understand how mathematicians can make a career out of it and how theorist can do whatever they want with it to test theories and the like. None of that is going away even if there is gravity aether.

My point about the mainstream theory of gravity is that it says what gravity does, but not how it does it. QWC says how it does it and accepts the EFEs as the best we can do to say what it does.