Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: field energies
In electromagnetic oscillations energy is equally partitioned in the electric and magnetic fields. They pump each other along. The Earth's magnetic field is a low level phenomenon, we think from slow massive circulation of iron in the core.
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject:
Again, all the phenomina you mention is linked to matter. Let go of the matter! Embrace energy!
I believe all matter reacts to energy transactions. The neutral energy I mention is the same "low level phenomina" you speak of. You see, I believe gravity and this neutral energy is the same thing, but instead of manifesting itself in very specific and powerful ways like the polar energies (I.E. Light, and magnatism), this neutral (gravity) energy effects all matter... that quite litterally, all matter is its carrier particle.
I also believe neutral energy is not as strong as the polar energies, but that neutral energy is overwhelming in volume. Hence, the reason polar powers eventually give in to this gravity/neutral force. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: good clean fun
I like your first line and certainly deserve it! As for the end part, in the large polar charge has found other charge with which to neutralize. All forms contribute to gravitational sourcing equally (or to the tune of 'c^2' ratio for mass; or light or pressure).
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:08 am Post subject: Re: good clean fun
Albersawa wrote:
I like your first line and certainly deserve it! As for the end part, in the large polar charge has found other charge with which to neutralize. All forms contribute to gravitational sourcing equally (or to the tune of 'c^2' ratio for mass; or light or pressure).
Thats why I believe that gravity is a manifestation of a much more fundamental energy. You see, it effects everything the same way. If its matter, its effected by gravity. There isnt different types of gravity, there is only a constant pull.
The concept of neutral energy presents a possible explanation for this event. As I've displayed above, with some very hard to refute math (because it is so simple), that all neutral energies are attracted to each other, while ignoring polar forces altogether. This is exactly how gravity works.
All this may explain why we've never found a graviton. It doesnt exist! What we're looking for in gravity is much more fundamental. Its an action which occurs on every bit of matter we see, which is dissimilar to polar forces that seem to enjoy carrier particle manifestations. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 am Post subject:
You are speaking at the point where our understanding is stuck. I like your statement about gravity being throughout a local region, smoothly. This is the whole bug-a-boo with QM! Relativily is built on the assumption that we can create a calculus of smooth changes from point to point. I suspect we share the same inclination to look for changes more in the QM direction. Thus you might understand my excitement to see my result that our representation of the quantum vacuum is not complete! It sounds like you are saying more that there is a deeper understanding to be had around electrodynamics. I have spent time musing on the possibility that gravity is like an ultrahigh frequency AC interaction between all manifestations, regardless of polarity. I haven't been able to pull out any field pictures but it is a fun idea.....I do not understand your use of the word mass. I don't like using it at all!
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:14 am Post subject:
Concerning the word 'particles', what I am doing in my math is showing why we can throw that word away also. Think rather of a particular collection of energy which is stably so.
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:53 am Post subject:
Albersawa wrote:
You are speaking at the point where our understanding is stuck. I like your statement about gravity being throughout a local region, smoothly. This is the whole bug-a-boo with QM! Relativily is built on the assumption that we can create a calculus of smooth changes from point to point. I suspect we share the same inclination to look for changes more in the QM direction. Thus you might understand my excitement to see my result that our representation of the quantum vacuum is not complete! It sounds like you are saying more that there is a deeper understanding to be had around electrodynamics. I have spent time musing on the possibility that gravity is like an ultrahigh frequency AC interaction between all manifestations, regardless of polarity. I haven't been able to pull out any field pictures but it is a fun idea.....I do not understand your use of the word mass. I don't like using it at all!
Mass=matter. I dont like to use it either when discussing energy. I'm trying to get people away from associating energy with matter and to start thinking of energy itself, as an entity which is independant of matter.
I believe this neutral energy is the most prevalent energy... and exists throughout the universe, without matter. This is why bodies in space are effected by gravity, even though there appears to be no carrier capable enough to effect that body in deep space. Gravity is everywhere, and exists without matter. It effects matter when its there to be effected. The rest of the time, its always in a state of zero, or attraction, to other neutrals. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Gravity is everywhere, and exists without matter. It effects matter when its there to be effected. The rest of the time, its always in a state of zero, or attraction, to other neutrals.
I'm sorry but we do receive other images from space these days. They do say it's not that fact but
it was spoken about weightlessness, antigravity or microgravity regarding the fact no body was
pulled or pushed down.
Which can also in regions were it was spoken about gravity, gravitation was effecting bodies not be
being a fact causing gravity gravitation.
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:43 am Post subject:
I'm sorry, that didnt make sense to me Steve. Mind refrasing that? _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Earth must have been laying somewhere must have had some connection to some background
that would not allow earth moving the way it does or giving earth an other shape. The universe
needed to be two dimensional. But, as we know, earth is not falling thus is not effected by any
kind of gravity but remains on it's eternal path around the sun.
Where is the gravity that would effect earth? As far as I can go using the impression which were
delivered through TV spaceships leaving the earth, diving into weightlessness and getting back
to some other kind of gravity when landing on the moon.
There are regions that do have non gravity and objects, as the spaceships was one, are not
effected by gravity when the enter that regions. They but should be when you are right. First if
they do land on an other planet like object like the moon gravity was back some mysterious way.
And those two kinds of gravity do I know today, there also might be gravity on martian soil which
I now do not have in mind but what we can say today was gravity was, and this was a straight
statement, associated to planets only not to regions in space.
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject:
Whoa, is it just me, or is that entirely abstract?
I disagree with your statement (given that I understand it correctly) that gravity doesnt exist in all areas of space. In fact, its well accepted theory that it does exist in even the deepest space, where even whole galaxies have an attraction to each other. There has been many astronomical examples of why scientists think this.
In fact, I can offer a very simple reason why I think this. Attraction. We all know positive and negative energies are attracted. We've also established that neutral entities would also attract to other neutral energies. Think about the concept of attraction for a moment...
Is there a limit to this attraction?
Whos to say attraction between 2 attracted entities begins here, but not there? For all we know, a positive particle at the end of the universe can be just as attracted to a negative entities on the opposite end of the universe.
So, you tell me. What is the distance of energy attraction? At what point does it end? _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:
Excuse me? TV? Why is it when I make a good point, people have to evade the question and go after my education? Use your debate skills dude!
Further more, answer the question!
x-rays, radio signals, and solar winds have nothing to do with gravity. Nothing whatsoever. Apples and oranges. The other data you speak of does not disprove anything I've said. The other data which you refere to merely says is that when we point x-ray, radio, or other similar devices at various celestial bodies, we see manifestations of that kind of energy from them.
Yes, other sources of energy do exist in space. That doesnt mean gravity doesnt exist in deep space.
Actually, it goes back to Einstien. The whole universe is in a state of motion. You may think the universe revolves around our little planet, but the truth is, we're just one of billions of celestial bodies all moving, all being pulled, pushed, and effected by gravity and other forces. Einstien onece postulated that there may be an "end" to the universe. Sometimes I've wondered if gravity doesnt play the boundry. You see, he mused that if you took a ship, and tried to travel in a straight line across the universe, you'd actually end up in the same place.
Think about gravity in regards to that. Here you have a force which has been known to bend trajectories of objects in space (even light!), influencing them, changing their course, even if they dont realize its being changed.
Do you realize how impossible it would be to know your course was being changed by gravity in deep space? You could be traveling along, thinking you're going in a straight line, but its not as easy as that. Inertia will only allow you to stay in motion until an outside body effects you... Your only hint to the alteration of your course would be the billions of other bodies which are all in motion around you as well. So here comes gravity, slowly sneaking a few degrees alteration in your course over the zillions of miles you have to travel. Next thing you know... you're right back where you started.
I really cant see how you can say there is no gravity in certain spots of space. There is no conclusive proof of that whatsoever. Not even close. Its been proven that there are other forms of energy manifestations in deep space, that is true. Gravity however, is a sneaky thing! We find it in the most unlikely places, effecting objects so distant from each other that it boggles imagination.
Makes me think gravity is the universes boundry keeper.
Regardless. You still havent answered the question, since you seem to be the expert on the topic. Whats the range of attraction? When do entities just cease to be attracted?
I think you know the answer as I well as I do. There isnt a range. Its constant. Attraction is attraction... period. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
As for as I have got you got non tv respectively have not have seen the astronauts in weightlessness, yet.
What but is thrilling you have a, as I said already, as far as came, you have got contact to some positive
charged particle that you know personally by name of course at the one end of the universe, and there is
an other one that has got a charge at the other end of the universe. Those two attract each other making
gravity = Einstein and the universe was safe.
Joined: Feb 15, 2006 Posts: 4 Location: Auburn, AL
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:52 am Post subject:
I could be wrong, but I think the astronauts do actually experience gravity while in the "weightless" state. It's just the gravity they experience is much lower than the gravitational field on earth. As to there being different types of gravity, I think there is only a gravitational force. The magnitude of that force may be greater or smaller in different regions. This is because F = ma, where a = the acceleration due to gravity. Even the gravitational field on the earth is not constant and is slightly different in different places on earth.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Mind refrasing that?
