Gravity's mechanism

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by quantum_wave, Feb 4, 2013.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    After writing this post I came back to the beginning to say that I suspect that if moderation were to be pending on this thread because of its non-science content, then this post could be the stimulus for such action. Oh well, I will say my views so they are here to be refuted, or remarked on by the members and dealt with as the moderators see fit.

    I find it interesting how having a personal view of gravity's mechanism can be used to derive the mechanics of other phenomena. In the case of the refractive index and the refraction of light through a transparent medium, the "gravity hypothesis" requires the equalization of the wave energy density within the medium because of the nature of how the presence of particles is maintained; directional inflow and spherical out flow. The spherical out flow assures energy density equalization throughout the medium and makes the entire medium respond to the introduction of light in a consistent and uniform way.

    In a couple of threads recently, the so called explanation for the refractive index that says that refraction slows light by photon absorption/re-radiation has been discussed. I'm not surprised that there is some misunderstanding about what causes the refraction that occurs in various mediums like glass or water with invariant consistency. Until I became familiar with and evaluated the various sources of information on the topic I didn't know how to argue the subject when others "assumed" that the right answer is the absorption/re-radiation. That is the intuitive answer if you don't have some conviction that there are other more uniform forces present in a transparent medium like water or glass.

    My conviction, before the answer to the cause of refraction was accepted in the threads I mentioned, was that absorption/re-radiation would be too inefficient to produce the invariant results that are observed. Sure, some of the light would be absorbed and re-radiated but that is referred to as scattering, and it is not likely to occur with perfect consistency throughout the medium.

    Bolstering my conviction was the contemplation I have given to the nature of matter and gravity, the presence of particles, and the forces that maintain them. I derived my independent view of the wave nature of space from my study and contemplation of gravity; all space is continually being traversed by wave energy associated with the presence of particles and gravity.

    I'm not referring to the wave nature of the light spectrum, I'm referring to the wave energy content of space that is carried in all directions and represents the energy density of space. It sustains the presence of standing wave particles. It determines the motion of standing wave particles. And once standing wave particles are present, their spherically out flowing wave energy component becomes the directional wave energy inflowing component of other standing wave particles. It is a continual gravitational absorption and re-emission of wave energy in space.

    My personal conclusion is that light traverses the wave energy density of space as a particle composed of packets of wave energy quanta radiated by electrons as photons. A photon receives all of its inflowing wave energy component from one direction, the direction in which it was radiated because it is radiated at the speed of light in the local medium, whether that medium is space, or glass or any substance that light can pass through.

    Addressing the duality of light, that directional radiation of quanta packets accounts for the particle nature of light. The directional motion of a light particle also explains the wave nature of light, because the light particle, just like any other particle, is a standing wave that has a spherical out flowing wave energy component in addition to the directionally inflowing component.

    More on that in another thread since it goes beyond the discussion of gravity's mechanism.
    (5138)
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. JJM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    319
    Howdy.....Hello.....Mr.Quantum_wave.....Consider sphere R and sphere r are colliding spheres of momentum (kinetic energy) density. Like two baseballs, colliding, producing a flattened disk (that place where the two balls meet) with as much pressure as possible by the balls collisional force geometrically. Rf into/through/back scatter/periodicity rf, as rf into/through/back scatter/periodicity Rf. Through geometrical evolution of the forces the disk becomes, eventually, a 'sphere'.(through evolutionary oblate to sphere.) Now consider the force pressure density of R,r, through the lifetime of the mechanical duration of the collision etc. as 'standing waves' of compressed compression pressure density,ccpp'. At e=mc^2 density, then gravity may be. Note collision may be very soft and never reach mc^2 density,(not enough density) or extremely large and must radiate ccpp' before mc^2 density is allowed. The collisions must fall within a range of number for the proper density to exist......So m/m', two disks gravitationally 'feeling' each other. The properties between m to m', and m' to m. is that which is allowed by larger space properties, which are the same as the properties of m to m'. That is very interesting. Also interesting is the relationship of Fpp' to ccpp'.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    feeling each other?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page