Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
trevor borocz johnson

Theory of Space-time,gravity,energy,magnetism

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Merc14
On 7/26/2017 at 5:30 PM, trevorhbj said:

My theory for energy production using explosives was true, doesn't mean this is true, just saying I deserve more credibility then to be written off so fast as "someone who doesn't even understand science"

Is english a second language for you?  I'd like to know before I say anything else.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
5 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Is english a second language for you?  I'd like to know before I say anything else.

Well, that doesn't matter, word salad is word salad no matter language. Sepu covered issue in full extent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
6 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Well, that doesn't matter, word salad is word salad no matter language. Sepu covered issue in full extent.

I understand, just wanted to know.  Maybe we should invite weitterducks over so the two geniuses can join forces.  :D

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I understand, just wanted to know.  Maybe we should invite weitterducks over so the two geniuses can join forces.  :D

No, just no.

Haven't you seen trainwreck cubed already?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
16 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

No, just no.

Haven't you seen trainwreck cubed already?  

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
On 7/28/2017 at 1:15 PM, trevorhbj said:

That's what I'm saying is that space-time has properties like density which is how it has waves, the OP is just an attempt to explain how those properties could co exist in a 3d universe.

 

mmm I don't know what you definition of conductive is but I meant electricity not matter. How would space conduct matter? anyways its proof enough in my mind that  space-time is a substance, that it can conduct electricity by itself. As you know element's and molecules vary on how well they conduct electricity. Has anyone ever answered why elements and molecules conduct electricity?

 

I'm not going to say I think one way or the other on the grid concept because its just a loosely structured idea and I've had those in the past and they were wrong later on. So I'll just throw it out there that you create gravity waves in the grid if you're moving and if you're standing still you don't. I thought of detecting gravity waves by using an elastic microphone or a quartz gyroscope in a vacuum jar and setting off a large explosion far away. Maybe one of the two would pick up gravity waves. I even put a provisional patent on that.

Space-time is most likely NOT a substance, that argument has been gone through many, many times in the last hundred years or so and everything indicates that there is no substance to space, it really is just 'space'.

Electrical arcing in a vacuum is due to either thermionic emission, or if the electric field is strong enough to cause field electron emission. Basically an electric field is a measurable quantifiable thing and an electric field does not need a medium to propagate (just like a photon does not need a medium as well), and so it can bridge the gap between electrodes in a vacuum (since it does not require a medium) and result in an arc.

Has anyone ever answered why elements and molecules conduct electricity? Yes, this is very well understood for the most part now, in fact this understanding is what has allowed us to develop semiconductors, and directly has led to the modern information age.

 

That is an interesting idea for detecting gravitational waves? What did you calculate as the precision and accuracy of your proposed detector technology?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
4 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

[...]

That is an interesting idea for detecting gravitational waves? What did you calculate as the precision and accuracy of your proposed detector technology?

 

Really?

Guy have imagination only. I'm not sure he is familiar with numericals...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
4 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

 

That is an interesting idea for detecting gravitational waves? What did you calculate as the precision and accuracy of your proposed detector technology?

Are you asking how sensitive a gyroscope is? The one's they use on NASA space shuttles are very sensitive. They use vibrating quartz to measure for changes in direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

Space-time is most likely NOT a substance, that argument has been gone through many, many times in the last hundred years or so and everything indicates that there is no substance to space, it really is just 'space'.

Electrical arcing in a vacuum is due to either thermionic emission, or if the electric field is strong enough to cause field electron emission. Basically an electric field is a measurable quantifiable thing and an electric field does not need a medium to propagate (just like a photon does not need a medium as well), and so it can bridge the gap between electrodes in a vacuum (since it does not require a medium) and result in an arc.

Has anyone ever answered why elements and molecules conduct electricity? Yes, this is very well understood for the most part now, in fact this understanding is what has allowed us to develop semiconductors, and directly has led to the modern information age.

 

That is an interesting idea for detecting gravitational waves? What did you calculate as the precision and accuracy of your proposed detector technology?

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
26 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

Are you asking how sensitive a gyroscope is? The one's they use on NASA space shuttles are very sensitive. They use vibrating quartz to measure for changes in direction.

rf_fp.gif

To be clueless as that, thats... thats mind boggling. Ever heard of LIGO?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
3 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

To be clueless as that, thats... thats mind boggling. Ever heard of LIGO?

do you even know what LIGO stands for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
4 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

do you even know what LIGO stands for?

I know, do you?

What NASA gyroscopes have to do with detection of gravitational waves, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

I'm talking about calculating the momentum it would take to equal the force of a gravity field say earth's. And then from that understand how density of the field relates to distance traveled at that momentum.

Well...

  1. Momentum is something completely different from force; so a momentum can never be equal to any force.
  2. Force of a gravity field is dependent on ones' location, so saying ``force of a gravity field'' is completely ambiguous.
  3. ``Density of a field'' only has meaning in your theory, since you have never offered full definitions of the words you use I have no idea what it means.
  4. The distance travelled at a given momentum is arbitrary, and typically not physically meaningful... how long a period of time are we talking about? Where is the object travelling, in empty space or in a gravity field?

These issues are part of the reason why people don't take your theories seriously.

If you want to refute or even just modify current physics, you have to understand the theories you are trying to replace!

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

I know they told us these things were unexplained in the nineties when I was in grade school. I ve thought about them ever since. The past six years I've really stepped up that thinking and these are some results. Do you understand them? 

It depends on what you mean by ``unexplained''.

  1. We understand the behaviour of all of the fundamental forces very well.
  2. We understand the properties matter must possess to generate these forces.
  3. We generally know what to do if you want to observe a particular effect.

We may be lacking a good philosophical reason for why these forces exist, and why matter has those properties. (Or we may not; what constitutes a satisfactory philosophy is rather subjective.)

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Well that sounds wickedly silly if Einstein predicted gravity waves move at light speed. First off they haven't been measured so you can't say for sure if that's true just because Einstein says so.

Einstein waffled considerably on the subject of gravitational waves. Gravitational waves were predicted first by Poincare (1905) after reading Einstein's theory of special relativity, Einstein was dubious but checked the math (1916) and concluded there were 3 types of gravitational waves; subsequently Eddington (1922) showed that Einstein made some math errors and that 2 of his types were false. Feynman, Pirani, and Bondi were the ones who finally worked out the details in 1957; providing a prediction of gravitational waves that was complete enough to allow Bondi to start constructing gravitational detectors. (Prior to this, people weren't even sure what to look for.)

Note that Feynman, Pirani, and Bondi's work was completed 2 years after Einstein had died. This is the benefit of reducing a theory to equations; other people can fully understand the theory without having to check with the original source (Einstein).

Finally, gravitational waves have been detected twice, and the speed of these waves is within 10-16% of the speed of light.

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

I know you will agree that waves should be detectable from a very large explosion, they currently use lasers which I'm sure is good, but wouldn't it make more sense to use a gyroscope? since you're looking for gravity and weight not energy? Do you understand? What do you think of doing that instead of looking through telescopes at black holes light years away? I don't know how you would determine there speed from that.

It would have to be a very large explosion in a vacuum in deep space, and your detector would also have to be in deep space. Any type of explosion on earth would send regular shock waves and ground tremors that would completely overwhelm any gravitational signal (by a factor of trillions and trillions). Even a quartz detector in a vacuum jar, as you previously suggested, would not work - the vacuum jar is on the ground, and in the air itself, and obviously shaking the jar would induce tremors in the quartz. Even if the quartz were electromagnetically suspended in the centre of the jar, you still could not reduce outside vibrations sufficiently to detect gravitational waves.

This is the reason why a gyroscope will not work.

If we could take a space ship all the way out to deep interstellar space, maybe there we would have more options for detecting gravitational waves. But here on Earth we must use something insensitive to mechanical vibrations - that is why we use laser interferometry.

We can detect the speed of gravitational waves by several methods. Obviously if there is a major astronomical event that generates a burst of gravitational waves we can check if we detect the waves at the same time we can see the event in a telescope. In the two observed cases, the event was the merger of two binary black holes; this merger was not expected to generate a significant amount of X-ray or gamma rays, and very few were detected. The assessment of the speed of the gravitational wave was based on the frequency dispersion of the wave.

------------------

EDITED TO ADD: You do know that the video you posted of two dice doesn't actually show two dice moving together due to gravity, right? You know it is not real footage, it is all computer generated, right? 

 The video says IF you could put two dice, at rest, in deep space, 1 cm apart, they would move together due to gravity in about 1 hour. This is true.

 However, IF you tried such an experiment anywhere in the solar system, the influence of electromagnetic radiation and the solar wind would almost certainly overpower the weak gravitational attraction between the two dice.

Edited by sepulchrave
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
12 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

[...]

If you want to refute or even just modify current physics, you have to understand the theories you are trying to replace!

[...]

Thats the main problem with "inventors" and "geniuses".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
17 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

It would have to be a very large explosion in a vacuum in deep space, and your detector would also have to be in deep space. Any type of explosion on earth would send regular shock waves and ground tremors that would completely overwhelm any gravitational signal (by a factor of trillions and trillions). Even a quartz detector in a vacuum jar, as you previously suggested, would not work - the vacuum jar is on the ground, and in the air itself, and obviously shaking the jar would induce tremors in the quartz. Even if the quartz were electromagnetically suspended in the centre of the jar, you still could not reduce outside vibrations sufficiently to detect gravitational waves.

Yeah but the gravity waves would get to the sensor long before sound waves or seismic waves, so there would be a few seconds to detect them before everything started shaking. I have another invention called a free fall box. If you'll observe a slinky held vertically by its end up in the air will cause a free fall for something light attached at the bottom when dropped. From this I created a free fall box which may give a person an out of body experience if they stood on one. but anyways if you don't have the sensor attached to anything there's no way to tell if it moves. But with a gyroscope the moving part, quartz as we were saying, creates its own artificial gravity in relation to the law of an object in motion stays in motion. So you could put the gyroscope in a free fall state and a few seconds after the explosion you could measure from all different distances.

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
4 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

Yeah but the gravity waves would get to the sensor long before sound waves or seismic waves, so there would be a few seconds to detect them before everything started shaking. I have another invention called a free fall box. If you'll observe a slinky held vertically by its end up in the air will cause a free fall for something light attached at the bottom when dropped. From this I created a free fall box which may give a person an out of body experience if they stood on one. but anyways if you don't have the sensor attached to anything there's no way to tell if it moves. But with a gyroscope the moving part, quartz as we were saying, creates its own artificial gravity in relation to the law of an object in motion stays in motion. So you could put the gyroscope in a free fall state and a few seconds after the explosion you could measure from all different distances.

I'm all on my ears. Any specifics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
10 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

I'm all on my ears. Any specifics?

coming to a carnival near you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
2 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

coming to a carnival near you!

Heh, I'm waiting.

Anyway, Earth is nearly perfect gyroscope in constant free fall, plus massive. Think about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:01 AM, sepulchrave said:

Philosophic? al question, I guess. Is a zero-field "something"?

From an experiential or experimental point of view, we can observe forces: Take a small particle, carefully place it in a region of space and let go... does it begin to move? If it does, there is a force acting on that particle. In modern physics we prefer to say there is a ``field'' in that region of space (an electric field, magnetic field, gravitational field, etc. depending on the nature of the force), and what we really mean is that the magnitude of the field is non-zero in that region of space.

A wave (gravitational, electromagnetic, or even a sound wave in air) is a positive/negative oscillation in a field; this oscillation typically averages to zero.

So we might say that there is a gravitational field (or electric field, or magnetic field, or temperature field, or pressure field, or whatever...) at every point in space, but in ``empty'' space this field takes the value of zero. As the particles of the universe do their thing and exchange energy, this may manifest in the various fields as changes to positive or negative values, etc.

I would say that until someone can figure out how to prevent the various forces from existing in a region of space - which is like removing the field from that region - we can say that space is ``nothing'' or ``empty''. Space, and the fields within it, are the background on which ``things'' (matter and energy) move around. Space, and the fields within it, are not matter and do not possess any accessible energy of their own accord - so they are not ``things''.

But this is a bit of a philosophical issue or even just a choice of definitions.

If you take the view that a zero-field and/or zero-point-energy are ``things'' there are many other scientists who would support you.

Electricity is the flow of charge; charge is a property of matter; conducting electricity means moving matter. In solids, conducting electricity means moving electrons. In liquids and gases it is also possible for positive ions (or even lone protons) to move.

Yes, the fundamentals of conducting electricity are pretty well known. It is very difficult to predict the conductivity of a material by using pure quantum mechanics, because conductivity can be dominated by small defects, impurities, and surface states. However in many cases we can predict whether a material will be a good or bad conductor by using pure quantum mechanics (i.e. you tell me the atomic arrangement of a material, and I use quantum mechanics to predict whether it will be a good conductor or not).

can you explain the electric flow in Silicon using quantum mechanics? I would appreciate it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
5 hours ago, kartikg said:

can you explain the electric flow in Silicon using quantum mechanics? I would appreciate it. 

Probably... where do I have to start from?

Are you happy with electron flow in metals? Do you mean pure silicon or doped silicon? Are you talking about electron flow in solids in general, or in a field-effect transistor specifically?

Are you familiar with the Schrodinger equation? With a free electron gas? With momentum space? With Bloch waves?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg
37 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Probably... where do I hato start from?

Are you happy with electron flow in metals? Do you mean pure silicon or doped silicon? Are you talking about electron flow in solids in general, or in a field-effect transistor specifically?

Are you familiar with the Schrodinger equation? With a free electron gas? With momentum space? With Bloch waves?

I am ok with metal and silicon as I know about band theory , valence electrons typical semiconductor text book stuff . I'm familiar with Schrodinger equation to  some extent  not about the rest of things . it will be great if you explain the behavior of transistor wrt quantum mechanics  and if you have time on pure and doped silicon too . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson

I'm not arguing that space has an ether in it. I think the idea of the ether was introduced because people could relate sound waves as being what like light waves  and gravity waves were like. Apart from saying conductive grid rather then energy grid, I stick with the OP. Space-time is a medium and waves travel as changes in density. 

On 8/1/2017 at 10:32 PM, sepulchrave said:

We can detect the speed of gravitational waves by several methods. Obviously if there is a major astronomical event that generates a burst of gravitational waves we can check if we detect the waves at the same time we can see the event in a telescope. In the two observed cases, the event was the merger of two binary black holes; this merger was not expected to generate a significant amount of X-ray or gamma rays, and very few were detected. The assessment of the speed of the gravitational wave was based on the frequency dispersion of the wave.

Seriously? why would you look for waves created by matter with instruments that detect energy like lasers. It sounds mixed up. They know gravity fields don't create magnetic fields and vice versa, yet they would use techniques like that. That's like using a microphone to detect for temperature. And that you're a top scientist here and you still argue that gravity waves and light waves move at the same speed because some math junky wrote up a bunch of equations, just ridiculous.

Again they say there are four dimensions to give the location of an object, x,y,z, and time. time being relative to the speed of light if you stood far enough away an objects visible light wouldn't represent it's x,y,and z dimensions. So some of the 'accepted' knowledge and theories out there aren't even worth my time. Its basically the classical minds that do the best work, a lot of which is imagination. and what if I found something by sense of hearing or the sound waves it emitted? when that also 'give' its location? so a fifth dimension. And a dog that finds something by smell? 6 dimensions?

But I love hearing more about classical thought as I keep stumbling across experiments by classical minds like Da Vinci and Huygens who had worked on the same stuff that I have out of the blue.

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

How come nobody mentioned Higgs' god d^mned particle ... ?

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On ‎2‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 6:03 AM, Einsteinium said:

Space-time is most likely NOT a substance, that argument has been gone through many, many times in the last hundred years or so and everything indicates that there is no substance to space, it really is just 'space'.

What is expanding then? How does space move faster then light if it's really just space? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
On Friday, August 04, 2017 at 11:31 PM, trevorhbj said:

Seriously? why would you look for waves created by matter with instruments that detect energy like lasers. It sounds mixed up. They know gravity fields don't create magnetic fields and vice versa, yet they would use techniques like that. That's like using a microphone to detect for temperature. And that you're a top scientist here and you still argue that gravity waves and light waves move at the same speed because some math junky wrote up a bunch of equations, just ridiculous.

Again they say there are four dimensions to give the location of an object, x,y,z, and time. time being relative to the speed of light if you stood far enough away an objects visible light wouldn't represent it's x,y,and z dimensions. So some of the 'accepted' knowledge and theories out there aren't even worth my time. Its basically the classical minds that do the best work, a lot of which is imagination. and what if I found something by sense of hearing or the sound waves it emitted? when that also 'give' its location? so a fifth dimension. And a dog that finds something by smell? 6 dimensions?

I don't really know what to say...

  1. Laser interferometry is an extremely sensitive technique used in many situations, and if you understood general relativity you would see why it is a good choice for detecting gravitational waves.
  2. When the math junky gives a clear description of what gravitational waves should look like, and 50 years later when we finally have sensitive enough detectors we find gravitational waves matching that description, we believe the math junky.
  3. Sound, smell, mass, luminosity, etc. are all dimensions. They help describe an object. They do not give an object its "location" because that word means "position in space-time".

******************************

@kartikg: Don't have time to give a full answer now, hopefully in a day or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.