Fields - Science Forum

Mentor Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 94

I am sure many of you have wondered about this topic I for sure have. The characteristics of fields are very much like a form of radiated light. All fields have an inverse square of the distance relationship in terms of their strength. But what really bothers me is the issue of a continuous radiation without decay of mass from the source of the field. I came up with an idea. Considering mass is an attribute of matter then it should behave very much like all other attributes quantum mechanically. This means that mass is in determinant until measured. If a particle of mass were more like a standing wave as Hemetis predicts then mass would be more like a noisy pulse. If you look at an electrical spike on an oscilloscope you'll notice a main source of energy and a slew of harmonics that resulted from the spike. Mass could be very much like the electrical spike with harmonic standing waves. The harmonic waves or noise are actually mass states of a particle. Each mass state can represent the various fields of a particle. In effect a particle radiates outward indefinitely but the mass density obviously lessens with distance from a loci. Looking at fields from this approach explains why particles can radiate fields without losing mass to power the fields. This approach could also explain how gravity comes about since it could be viewed as a harmonic wave with a very long wavelength; this would mean that at the quantum scale gravity is effectively non-existent.

Also consider that if gravity were a harmonic wave with a considerable wavelength then black holes would have limits as to how small they could get. Effectively as the black hole’s event horizon shrinks to approach quantum scales it would eventually loose out to other forces. Such a collapse of gravity could cause a massive expansion. To me this provides a better scenario of black hole death as opposed to Hawking’s evaporation model. IMHO the evaporation model would end up being a much slower expansion process that would not lead to a violent end.

Expert Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Egypt

Check this out, it should be very interesting for you.
<http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm>
_________________
Hemetis

Mentor Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 94

Hemetis:

Very interesting site there is a lot to absorb. I have a few questions though. You claim that gravity is a result of wave pressure from the shading effect, but such pressure to produce acceleration would result in resistance to the pressure, in other words under gravitational acceleration one would feel the push from wave pressure. But if you have ever gone skydiving you would realize that such resistance to gravity does not exist, there is no pushing feeling when gravity accelerates you. Also wave pressure would result in different acceleration rates for different masses but gravity has a constant acceleration rate for any mass. How can this be explained?

The aether seems to be a continuous medium extending to infinity, this is probably my misunderstanding, but it can be initialized with energy without loss. The aether supports the wave structures but I didn't get how a standing wave comes about since the aether has no walls per say. Are standing waves a product of wave interaction only?

Expert Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Egypt

Hello Franki, Smile

The site is not mine, and I did not claim what gravity is, {yet Smile

}.
To understand what the site owner is saying demands great knowledge of wave mechanics, so let me try to help you grasp some difficult points.
||Gravity||
{Metaphor #1}
A pebble falls beside a cork in a still-water pond;
the surface water waves propagate in circles outwards from the point of pebble penetration of the surface where the disturbance occurred;
The cork's vertical position fluctuates up and down but does not move along the surface radially in the direction of the wave.
{Metaphor #2}
A very small meteor falls in the ocean beside an island;
the surface water huge waves propagate in circles outwards from the point of meteor penetration of the surface where the disturbance occurred;
A surfer on his board is not aware of the shape of the waves but he took the first wave that arrived and used its momentum to give him a free ride to the shore.
The surfer moved in the radial direction of the wave along the surface.
{Questions}
Why did the cork and the surfer behave differently in the waves?
When can the wave vibrate its substrate?
When can the wave "push" or carry its substrate along the direction of propagation?
What is a vector-splitter?????
If a body was pushed from all directions, what does that body "feel?"
If all waves reflected inwards onto two parallel plates, is there a dead-zone where waves could not push the two plates? What relation then is expected between the plates and the dead zone? Why would there be any concept of resistance! In what form is that resistance if there are no forces representing it?

||Standing waves||
There are two types of standing waves:
1- Open standing waves, and they demands external reflectors to sustain the limits within which the wave is standing.
2- Closed loops standing waves, like tops, tornados and vortices, and they are self referenced by anchoring a spatial axis and closing a time period.
We call this type of standing wave, particle.
_________________
Hemetis

Mentor Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 94

Expert Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Egypt

If you are talking about a specific makeup such as free falling within the atmosphere, then certainly there is a macro-world resistance imposed by friction with air molecules.
I was under the impression that you were analysing fields in a pure state, such as gravitation between the earth and the moon, that is why I had no "falling" concepts implied.
An extremely interesting thing to notice is the inherent characteristics of fields to build up.
When current is passed in a single wire winding of a coil, the number of turns indicate the multiplier of the field such that the resulting field is the sum of all the single turn fields.
The same thing applies to any intrinsically spinning particle with magnetic momentum, because the particle connectedness through fields must add up to give net results. Mass is an abstract concept of inertial mass or simply inertia, which is an integral part in the calculation of gravitational acceleration.
As per Mach, {if bodies did not have the property of inertia they would not gravitate}.
In other words, they are the vectors of inertial forces that modify the field vectors between bodies and cause gravitation.
_________________
Hemetis

Mentor Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 94

Moderator Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 279

I believe Einstein said energy gravitates.
Or light falls.

Mentor Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 94

Expert Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Egypt

Frankinstien,
Of course your feeling must differ between free falling acceleration and car-seat acceleration.
The first case is between all the particles of earth on one side and all your body particles on the other side interacting simultaneously and in parallel, but the accelerative effect of a force is present.
In the second case, the care is being accelerated, and for that force to be transmitted to your body particles from one side of contact between you and the seat the force per area is felt as pressure. Now add to that obvious difference that you are under gravitation also while being car-seat-accelerated. You feel your weight too at the same time. This means that your mass is still being accelerated towards the centre of earth, and there is pressure between your body and the surface under it. Why do you wrongly compare between two different setups and come out with wrong conclusions!
_________________
Hemetis

Mentor Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 94

Expert Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Egypt

Mentor Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 94

Expert Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Egypt

Moderator Joined: Jun 21, 2005 Posts: 279

· Encyclopaedia · Wikipedia

· Encyclopaedia
· Wikipedia