What if everyone missed the obvious?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by gentle, Aug 22, 2004.

  1. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    Subject: The missing link from Newton to Einstein to The correct framework to the theory of everything!


    I assume that for pure knowledge sake you might be interested in understanding the missing link. Spacetime is not the true way to understand the relationship between the concepts of matter, energy, time, space and speed. Relativity is the point of origin mass to energy transfer between matter, bound, and matter, free- the Gravity wave. That is to say that matter evaporates, decays, into the gravitational wave creating the actions of space, time and gravitational wave sychronization. Space is the gravitational wave being freed to its lowest form of matter. Time is the cosmological constant -the evaporation rate of matter. There is no real curved spacetime. It is gravitational wave sychronization, gravitational waves aligning through the path of least resistance that brings matter together, that is responsible time and space distortion as the waves elongate just as the dopler effect works in sounds. Instead of the sound wave being shortened or elongated when compared to moving objects the gravity wave is shortened or lengthened, red-blue shift which affects not the action of sound but the actions of time and space. Gravitational wave sychronization of bodies in motion change the relationship of the gravitational waves with respect to each other and the resulting actions of time and space change.Time and space are actions created by each discrete piece of matter as the matter evaporates into the gravitational wave. Space is the unfolding of matter. Time is the resulting action of the rate of evaporation of the gravitational wave. Relativity- Point of origin mass to energy transfer in wave form of bodies in motion Newton- Einstein- How it all works!
    When you have eliminated all other possibilities, Sherlock Holmes instructed, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer.
    Part of a paper-Copyright @ 2003, All Rights reserved.
    P.S.- no extra dimensions and no dark energy and dark matter. Gravity is a monopole wave alignment! Any Comments?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    What missing link?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. HallsofIvy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    307
    You mean "what if all physicists are complete idiots", and that everyone who has done REALLY HARD work couldn't see what you come up with offhand?

    Since no one has ever detected a gravity wave, you might have difficulty convincing people that they are the basis of everything. You seem to have chosen one of the few things in relativity that has NOT been experimentally verified to base your theory on!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Yet another guy who thinks he's made a physics breakthrough, but probably doesn't know a hamiltonian from a hamburger.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    Your words, not mine. Gravity waves have been detected! Black holes do evaporate. And yes I do believe everyone does have a mental block. I am just saying that if you assume that mass turns into the gravity wave then time distortions and space distortions can be explained in three dimensions and there is no need to have string theory's( m-theory) with 11 dimensions to 26. I am saying that as with sound or light (radiation) Gravitational relativity is a point of origin mass to energy transfer in wave form. Also this concept was not off hand and what you see is the tip. Interesting personal attacks.
    "High spirits encounter violent oppisition from mediocre minds."
    --------Albert Einstien
     
  9. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    A three dimensional alternative

    Hey your the only one that makes sense. If you are serious I will show it all to you concept and everything and then maybe the math!
    --- the Bi-Hamiltonian Hamburger
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2004
  10. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Putting an exclamation mark after an unsupported assertion doesn't make it any more convincing.

    "Oh look - he's added an exclamation mark! Obviously all the reliable sources that say otherwise are wrong, and this anonymous person on the Internet has it right!"
     
  11. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    You are right it doesn't. right is right indepentent of your opinion or mine. The earth is not flat, as once thought. The Universe had a begining contrary to what Einstien once thought. The thought that someone once saw the Earth to be round didn't make it round. The thought that the Universe has a begining doesn't make it have a begining. All of those thoughts were correct and found to be so eventually through observation. I have written a long paper on the subject I would be happy to share with anyone. It includes observational evidence. I see the Universe diffenent than most I agree. I see many of the problems answered through this one explaination.
    If you remember a story of a king with no clothes, who was too afraid to admit it until someone was brave enough to step up and say hey King you're naked. Sometimes it takes the mind of a child to point out the obvious. And with an ! I can say one thing for sure. I have a mind of a child!
     
  12. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    Here is some observations that convinced me that this thinking is correct. "Matter decays into the Gravitational wave creating the actions of time and space.
    1).Absolute Zero- evaporation (decay) stops.
    2). Time - cannot come in Quantum units.Proven!
    3). Black holes- evaporate over time.Stephen Hawking.
    4). All galaxies are increasingly accelerating away from the big bang.Hubble telescope.
    5). Gravity and acceleration working together distort time. (Relatively speaking). Matter generates space and time, which are actions of the evaporative gravitational wave being generated.
    Einstein’s relative time, defined!–This relative time is a function of the speed of gravitation ( c )and the thickness (density) of the gravitation wave measured from the center of each object, by two or more object’s accelerating position continuously relative to each other. In other terms, if an object accelerates (increases or decreases its velocity), time slows down for both objects by the disturbances in the thickness of each gravitational wave. The gravitational wave disturbances are the result of each condensation very gravitational action to follow the path of least resistance to the expanding evaporation gravitational wave. That thickness is dependent upon masses and overall acceleration in relation to the speed of relative gravitation. The change in relative time is the resulting action of the gravitational wave’s inherent properties of resynchronization due to the density wave differences. This is the key to understanding the elegant and simple theory of how this something works. Evaporating synchronizing waves of mass that create space and time, that is really all it, is….
    Space (gravity wave generation) is a thin blanket that’s generates from the mass itself, and it is within the most dense areas of gravitation that time and distance change the most. Remember that velocity equals flow and acceleration equals resistance when you are in the steady stream of gravitation.
    and space.
    The math T(v1,v2v3):R3-->R2=<v1+v2,v2-v3) as the best I understand.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2004
  13. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    gentle: You claim that gravity waves have been detected. Please provide a source.
     
  14. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    Gravity Waves:
    "Superficially, there are many similarities between gravity and electricity; for example, Newton's law for the gravitational force between two point masses and Coulomb's law for the electric force between two point charges both vary as the inverse square of the separation distance. Yet, in James Clerk Maxwell's theory for electromagnetism, accelerated charges emit signals (electromagnetic radiation) that travel at the speed of light, whereas in Newton's theory of gravitation accelerated masses transmit information (action at a distance) that travels at infinite speed. This dichotomy is repaired by Einstein's theory of gravitation, wherein accelerated masses also produce signals (gravitational waves) that travel only at the speed of light. And, just as electromagnetic waves can make their presence known by the pushing to and fro of electrically charged bodies, so can gravitational waves be detected, in principle, by the tugging to and fro of massive bodies. However, because the coupling of gravitational forces to masses is intrinsically much weaker than the coupling of electromagnetic forces to charges, the generation and detection of gravitational radiation are much more difficult than those of electromagnetic radiation. Indeed, since the time of Einstein's invention of general relativity in 1916, there has yet to be a single instance of the detection of gravitational waves that is direct and undisputed.

    There are, however, some indirect pieces of evidence that accelerated astronomical masses do emit gravitational radiation. The most convincing concerns radio-timing observations of a pulsar located in a binary star system with an orbital period of 7.75 hours. This object, discovered in 1974, has a pulse period of about 59 milliseconds that varies by about one part in 1,000 every 7.75 hours. Interpreted as Doppler shifts, these variations imply orbital velocities on the order of 1/1000 the speed of light. The non-sinusoidal shape of the velocity curve with time allows a deduction that the orbit is quite noncircular (indeed, an ellipse of eccentricity 0.62 whose long axis precesses in space by 4.2 per year). It is now believed that the system is composed of two neutron stars, each having a mass of about 1.4 solar masses, with a semimajor axis separation of only 2.8 solar radii. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, such a system ought to be losing orbital energy through the radiation of gravitational waves at a rate that would cause them to spiral together on a time scale of about 3 108 years. The observed decrease in the orbital period in the years since the discovery of the binary pulsar does indeed indicate that the two stars are spiraling toward one another at exactly the predicted rate.

    The implosion of the core of a massive star to form a neutron star prior to a supernova explosion, if it takes place in a nonspherically symmetric way, ought to provide a powerful burst of gravitational radiation. Simple estimates yield the release of a fraction of the mass-energy deficit, roughly 1053 ergs, with the radiation primarily coming out at wave periods between the vibrational period of the neutron star, approximately 0.3 millisecond, and the gravitational-radiation damping time, about 300 milliseconds.

    A cosmic background of gravitational waves is a possibility that has sometimes been discussed. Such a background might be generated if the early universe expanded in a chaotic fashion rather than in the smooth homogeneous fashion that it is currently observed to do. The energy density of the gravitational waves produced, however, is unlikely to exceed the energy density of electromagnetic radiation, and each graviton (the gravitational analogue of the photon) would be susceptible to the same cosmological redshift by the expansion of the universe. A roughly thermal distribution of gravitons at a present temperature of about 1 K would be undetectable by foreseeable technological developments in gravitational-wave astronomy. "
    I stand slightly corrected- I specifically mean indirectly through action. And that according to me is the only way since I claim everything is producing the gravity. Black holes evaporating, in older galaxies, is another example.
     
  15. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    "SATURN’S RINGS

    Short Summary

    Saturn’s rings, one of the solar system’s most mysterious phenomena, has puzzled astronomers for centuries. What could be the cause of planetary rings? Why is the presence of rings, only observed among the gas giants? What is the explanation for the gaps, grooves, and other anomalies such as spokes observed within the rings?

    Astronomers have put forth theories on how the formation of the ring system that surrounds Saturn is attributed to gravitational waves emanating from its moons."
    This is the tip of the iceberg of indirect evidence.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    I've never heard of such theories. I thought the explanation for the rings was that all the material making up the rings is inside the Roche limit for the planet, so that it could not possibly form a moon.

    Please cite your source.
     
  17. PhysMachine MALLEUS SCIENTIARUM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    I would just like to say that, as a student of physics who takes the subject pretty seriously, I'm rather tired of people popping up on this message board, which used to be a pretty good source for real physics work, and posting their wild-hacked ideas that they base on no physical knowledge and try to pass them off as a theory.

    First of all, there is are several experiments testing for gravity waves, but none of them have detected anything.

    Second of all, your first post makes less logical sense than this, and as far as I can tell is a conglomeration of lofty buzzwords that don't really amount to much, and frankly it killed any desire I might have had to read any of your future posts.

    Now, I don't like being particularly rude to people, and I love it when someone shows an interest in learning physics, but you have to learn before you can expand, and though I don't know you at all I sincerely doubt you've done the learning bit yet.
     
  18. Brandon9000 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    A real Physics paper starts with a few explicitly stated results or postulates, and then derives the results mathematically step by step. Someone with no slightest knowledge of Math or Physics is exceptionally unlikely to revise the topic.
     
  19. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    their eyes were opened

    I am through with attacks, especially the personal ones. Someday you may remember the things you said and compare it to things that were said about all new ideas that made leaps and bounds. Free gravitation= Bound gravitation times the speed of gravitation squared. It is a three to two dimensional change. Space is a monople two-dimensional construct that appears and for all practical purposes is three dimensional.
    The tensor, in general goes like this;T(V1,V2,V3):R3-->R2=<V1+V2,V2-V3). I am stating that the universe works in three dimensions only and I am showing how. In layman's terms. All the physics has been done already except two concepts. The gravitational cosmological constant of the decaying. Dark matter and dark energy are pretend, no math, no evidence other astrophysics needs a new force to show how everything. I am saying that the force is internal not external and that force is mass unwinding to the gravitational wave.No dark matter, no dark energy, no superstring theory, no 11 dimensions. I am sure my critics fully understand string theory and can demonstrate different dimensions- show me one extra dimension. I spend years before I saw the answer. I do this for fun. I suggest you attack the message and not the messenger. I am not the important thing here.I have tied everything in the universe to three dimensions and it is a one way ticket. The New Law of Gravitational Relativity;
    Point of origin, mass to energy transfer, in wave form. It explains everything in three dimensions. Also there is an extended paper and maybe someday I will submit it. Right now I enjoy the beating up of the messenger too much. The message is correct and I will protect it.----END TRANSMISSION
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2004
  20. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    Time is a baseline action of mass decaying into the gravitational wave. The distortion of time does not exist independent of comparisions of motion, except instances like when the decay process is stopped as in absolute zero. I think in terms of evaporation instead of decay. The most obvious instant when time is distorted other than absolute zero when the vibrational evaporation is halted is when two or more generated waves are distorted do to comparative mass movement. Time and space are actions as mass( potential energy) as it releases kenetic energy into the gravitational wave.
    Gravitational Relativity- Point of origin, mass to energy transfer in wave form. Actions are time, the unfolding of space and sychronization of mass through the path of least resistance of the monopole gravitational wave.
    Therefore time itself is an action of an entropic process as mass turns into the gravitational wave( space ). That is also why the mass in the universe seems to be accelerating. F=MA and the initial force is still constant and mass is getting smaller as space gets bigger so acceleration goes up.
     
  21. gentle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    the mathmatical tensor in general:t(v1,v2v3):R3-->R2=
    (v1+v2,v2-V3). Three to two dimensions
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2004
  22. Brandon9000 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    1. You are merely stating results, with none of the reasoning leading up to them that a real scientific paper contains. A real scientific paper starts with a few clearly stated postulates or accepted prior results and then derives its own result mathematically step by step.

    2. There are many unfortunate cases in the history of science in which new ideas are derided rather than considered, but this does not detract from the fact that someone with no knowledge whatever of Physics or Math is unlikely revise the field.

    3. Instead of stating your qualifications when challenged, you merely redouble your efforts to pretend to have them.
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Actually, other than some symantical changes I would agree with him 100%.

    No surprise there I guess. The point you seem to miss is that taking that view doesn't just provide a view of gravity. It also provides an alternate views of other aspects of Relativity which currently go unexplained.

    What is sad is that Relativists seem so sensative to providing such physical views. I mean the observation can be maintained and the data cross fits both views, so where is the problem adjusting our understandings from pure mathematics to mathematics as tested with limits based on physical underpinnings?
     

Share This Page