A different take on gravity

So far in this discussion, you have used "h" to represent a wavelength, a mass, an angular momentum, and a dimensionless constant. In a single paragraph, you use "h" to represent Planck's constant and the ratio c^2/b^2 (i.e., speed of light^2 / speed of gravity^2). Is that a theorem of yours; what do you base it on?

By the way, energy times time is action, not angular momentum; the difference is that one of the length units in angular momentum is perpendicular to the motion rather than parallel to it. They are not the same thing, though they must match to make stable atomic orbitals.

You seem to be saying that every SI unit is equal to every other SI unit. That is preposterous! Failure to explicitly state the units of measure will get you fluncked out of any physics class, at least on my side of the Atlantic, whether it's high school, undergrad or grad school. Are you saying it's different in the UK? As far as I'm concerned, you have flunked out of this forum. [xx(] From now on, I shall ignore you until you learn to express yourself clearly.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

<b>[JAaronNicholson]"Are tsunamis an exception, gaining power as they progress?"</b>

I am not aware of any physical wave that can behave that way, but many mathematical waves probably exist that can. Surface waves do behave differently in some ways as compared to bulk waves (they are primarily a 2D phenomena while bulk waves are a full 3D phenomena), but this is not one of them. Like all other waves, their amplitude falls as they propagate away from their origin. Power (per unit length of wave front) also falls.

If the wave front encounters an object its local characteristics can change, creating the appearance of "gaining power" for local observers. Watching the sea suddenly rise up "from nowhere" and surge inland certainly seems to suggest that the wave is gaining power as it progresses, but it is not.

Consider the situation where similar waves encounter similar objects at different distances from their origin. You should be able to see that the apparent power of the wave is an inverse function of distance, even though in each case the local characteristics of the wave show this rise-from-nowhere behavior.


Regards,
LB

<b>[Stoat]"As for explicitly stating that i work in the S.I. system, we all do, and have done for years."</b>

Sorry for the miscommunication here. When I say you need to "state the units" you are using I do not mean you need to tell us which system of measurements you use. I mean you need to explicitly tell us the specific units that you use for each term in your equation. If you use a symbol that has a widely understood meaning in other widely known theories, you should also explicitly state that you are re-defining that symbol.

I see now that you are indeed using the lower case letter h to mean something other than Plancks constant. In fact you are explicitly defining it to be a dimensionless number. Of course this means that its numerical value is something other than 6.62X10^-34, the numerical part of Planck's constant in other theories.

In fact it means that the actual numerical value of h (in your theory) is not know at this time because the numerical value of the speed of gravity is not know at this time. Sure, there is a tiny possibility that the speed of gravity will turn out to be just the right value to cause your "h" to be numerically equal to Planck's constant. But it would pure coincidence. And keep in mind that the speed of light is not constant. It is observed to vary as a function of the local gravitational potential field. Since your h is defined in terms of c, it will also be a variable.

===

All of this means that 2*h (in your theory, but not necessarily in other theories) still cannot be a length, <u>by your definition</u>. One <b>must explicitly</b> multiply a unit-less number by a number with the units of length in order to convert the unit-less number into a length.

Nor can h or 2*h be a mass, until you explicitly multiply it by a number that already has the units of mass.

Nor can it be an angular momentum, until you explicitly multiply it by a number that already has the units of angular momentum.

===

One very good reason why you should explicitly show the units for each variable (expecially while attempting to explain a new theory) is to avoid making this kind of mistake. If the units do not balance on each side of the equal sign, your equation cannot be valid.

And that means your theory is automatically falsified.

LB

<b>[PhilJ]"From now on, I shall ignore you until you learn to express yourself clearly."</b>

This is one way to handle someone that makes difficult or impossible to understand posts. I use it myself fairly often. But I hope you will reconsider in this case, for at least a while. I have no idea at this point what Stoat is trying to say, but it is possible that I am making some progress in that direction.

Try this. Hang around and throw in your two cents worth from time to time, as you see fit. It has been helpful in the past and probably will be in the future.

Thanks,
LB

Quoting: Larry Burford. . . <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I am not aware of any physical wave that can behave that way, but many mathematical waves probably exist that can. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Are you saying that it is possible for mathematics to represent a situation that is actually not in agreement with scientific observation? How then are we to relay on mathematics to "prove" Physical theories? Are you speaking of known examples that you have come across?


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Surface waves do behave differently in some ways as compared to bulk waves (they are primarily a 2D phenomena while bulk waves are a full 3D phenomena), but this is not one of them. Like all other waves, their amplitude falls as they propagate away from their origin. Power (per unit length of wave front) also falls. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is this true for your idea of gravity waves as well, or are you a particle man, too? But then don't Electro-Magnetic phenomenon behave in the same way, falling off the further they get from their source?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If the wave front encounters an object its local characteristics can change, creating the appearance of "gaining power" for local observers. Watching the sea suddenly rise up "from nowhere" and surge inland certainly seems to suggest that the wave is gaining power as it progresses, but it is not.

Consider the situation where similar waves encounter similar objects at different distances from their origin. You should be able to see that the apparent power of the wave is an inverse function of distance, even though in each case the local characteristics of the wave show this rise-from-nowhere behavior.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is it possible that something similar to this local 'rise from nowhere' is also happening in three dimensional bulk waves or with the gravity phenomenon as gravity waves or particles approach the 'shallows' (the hard destination) of existing massive objects or where mass is being formed (literally created under gravity pressure) in gravity 'wells'?



Larry, specifically, what do you think about the Force of solar winds, though? What category would you place this/these in? It seems to me that is significantly different from any of the other identified Four favorites -- gravity; electro-magnetic; the weak and the strong nuclear forces. Yet, it is clearly a major if not the dominant force in the cosmos. I think it is so obvious that is has simply been overlooked or ignored to the detriment of our understanding of how the forces might all be tied together.

Respectfully,
Aaron

"I see now that you are indeed using the lower case letter h to mean something other than Plancks constant. In fact you are explicitly defining it to be a dimensionless number. Of course this means that its numerical value is something other than 6.62X10^-34, the numerical part of Planck's constant in other theories."

No, Plank's constant is a dimensionless number, it doesn't have a numerical part and some other part, it's like pi or e. I am saying that it's a phase transition value. if the speed of light goes up or down in some region of space then the speed of gravity goes up and down to give us the value h.

Let's write the Lorentzian in terms of refractive index. From Tom's bottom line speed of gravity we would have sqrt(1 - 1 / 4E 20) With my speed of gravity it would be sqrt(1 - 1/1.5E 34) Newton would say it's the sqrt(1 - 1/infinity) An exponential curve.

We expand the Lorentzian by means of the binomial function to get E =mb^2 where b is the speed of gravity.

So how does this relate to angular momentum? A classical electron has a mass of about 9E-31 its angular spin is the speed of light, and its radius is about 2.4E-12 (I'll leave you to put in the units)It's angular momentum is going to be 6.6E-34 It cannot spin faster than light. However, this is based on the notion that the mass of a particle is purely electromagnetic in nature.

What's the gravitational energy of an electron then? E = mb^2 the energy value (in joules) comes out as having exactly the same numerical value as the electromagnetic frequency of the electron.

Now for the tricky it hf = E but we have exactly the same number on both sides. We could divide E by h and get a huge electromagnetic frequency, or we could multiply h by its reciprocal and get one. This really depends on how you want to approach the maths. As we are looking at the refractive index of space I prefer to keep the frequency constant and vary the wavelength. Now, is the reciprocal of h a natural number or a real?

This a problem, I want to look at the vacuum in terms of its permeability and permittivity, I want to hold the permittivity constant. This really comes down to whether you want to consider gravitational space to e bigger or smaller than electromagnetic space, to do the maths. The two are in actuality the same size, or rather in one to one correspondence.

Okay, energy comes in bundles of h. So let's look at the Lorentzian in terms of multiples of h and the zeta function. zeta(s) = PI /(1 - 1/p^s)

s = a +bi and from Riemann a =0.5

The two equations are related but I can't work out how. So I'll wait until someone solves the conjecture. My idea at the moment is that a particle accepts gravitational information, in a half key code format, and can then grab its required photon energy from the local space it's in.