The "fifth" force of nature

[flip]

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Bo ... uantum.htm

This is a good summary.

[vision]

This is a good summary.

This is incoherent nonsense. That page says nothing.

Let me know when you create an experiment to test your hypothesis and get it published.

[flip]

Well, see, I was blessed with a great memory. I read something or I hear something, I remember it. So, I'd just as soon take the conclusions of the detail oriented and then see how it all fits together. Oh yeah, by the way, why you gotta be a pissy little ★■◆● all the time? I just do this because it's interesting and fun and people like you will never innovate, you will just continue repeating the experiments of old and going "AHhhh." Maybe your mind is too cluttered with info from 20 years ago, that you have no idea of recent discoveries.

EDIT: Just for your information, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Hawkings Radiation and gravitational waves have no known way to test for yet.

[Top Gun]

Flip...you can't just mash together random topics that you yourself don't have a good foundation in, come up with some pasted-together thought experiment based on a misunderstanding of most of them, and then treat that as some sort of grand statement about how the universe operates. It just. doesn't. work. You do this every time you post a thread like this, and every time multiple people tell you why you're wrong, and every time you utterly ignore them or dismiss them for reasons I don't pretend to understand. It's like you have some sort of mental block over finding out that you're fundamentally wrong about something.

What are you even talking about with that whole "never innovate" thing? Are you criticizing the very idea of repeating correct knowledge that you've learned? Because that's just kind of crazy. Here's the thing: people do experiments. They look at data. They come up with models to fit what they're seeing. They test those models, and refine them, and expand on them, and connect them to stuff we knew before. And over time, over years and decades, we get a good system for describing how some chunk of the universe works. And the people who did all that work write about what they did and what they learned, and that gets taught to everyone, and we all understand things a bit better, which is awesome. What myself, or vision, or anyone else explains in here is the result of all of that work and thought by very smart people who have spent their whole lives working on certain problems and learning everything they can about them. But somehow they're wrong, because they're not "innovating." Don't you see something messed up with that attitude?

I mean, that link you posted is just garbage. Literally every concept that person is writing about is dead wrong. Do you really not have any discernment for the sources you're looking at? Like...do you look at a page like that and think, "Man this person really knows what they're talking about"?

[flip]

First off TopGun, nothing I have posted so far has been out of the realm of possibility. It's just a concept I am developing and that link must be the only thing you can home into. I used it mainly for the pictures, which are observations of wave propagation and scanned the text. Fact of the matter is that you have nothing to offer here except criticism. For instance, what is your basis for believing in Dark Matter? What is your basis for believing in Dark Energy? Is it possible that zero-point energy is in fact what we assume is dark energy? Are there gravitational waves being strewn throughout space? Does the Universe have a center? How does the immense spectrum of electromagnetic energy in space affect the formation of matter?

See, Here's your problem TG. Nobody has answered those questions yet, but everything I consider, comes straight from credible sources. Sometimes, it's a dead end. Sometimes it leads to a different idea, but the only thing you got is to tell me it's beyond my understanding. Unbelievable! You don't even know me or what I'm capable of. Fact is, your an unoriginal snob with no creativity of your own. That's why you teach, and only teach what you were taught. Because you got nothing but an education that told you exactly what to think. You act like you have some kind of monopoly on science, and of all the things I've posted so far, you and the slug choose to criticize an article that I used for the pictures! LOL!

Flip...you can't just mash together random topics that you yourself don't have a good foundation in, come up with some pasted-together thought experiment based on a misunderstanding of most of them, and then treat that as some sort of grand statement about how the universe operates. It just. doesn't. work

That's because I have done nothing of the sort. I am asking questions, I have made no declarations. This is not even an honest statement you made, it's a knee-jerk reaction. Every direction I have went so far has all been centered on the question if wave energy is responsible for the structure we see in space. So, another dishonest assessment. Either that or your daft.

[flip]

Now, the next direction I would choose to go is if there really is any interaction between gravity waves and electromagnetic energy, and any type of formation or signature could be found of that interaction.

In physics, gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that propagate as a wave, travelling outward from the source. Predicted to exist by Albert Einstein in 1915[1] on the basis of his theory of general relativity,[2] gravitational waves theoretically transport energy as gravitational radiation. Sources of detectable gravitational waves could possibly include binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes. The existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. Gravitational waves cannot exist in the Newtonian theory of gravitation, in which physical interactions propagate at infinite speed.

Although gravitational radiation has not been directly detected, there is indirect evidence for its existence.

[Top Gun]

I'm not going to touch most of this bull★■◆●, because frankly it's not worth it anymore, but one or two things:

First off TopGun, nothing I have posted so far has been out of the realm of possibility. It's just a concept I am developing and that link must be the only thing you can home into.

Dude, the vast majority of what you're saying here is completely outside the realm of possibility, and you're not developing anything. You can't create some "concept" whole-cloth just because it sounds good in your head. You have no evidence, no data, no nothing. It's quackery.

You act like you have some kind of monopoly on science, and of all the things I've posted so far, you and the slug choose to criticize an article that I used for the pictures! LOL!

Let me quote you directly from when you posted that link: "This is a good summary." Don't try to pretend after the fact that you were only looking at the pictures, because we both know that's false.

[flip]

It is a good summary of an idea of gravitational waves interacting with electromagnetic waves, but again mostly I was just trying to picture it. So, besides being a douchebag, your also a mind-reader! Must suck to be you.

[snoopy]

TG... I see this as akin to science fiction....

We take some theories and ideas and play around with them a bit, see what kinds of ideas we can come up with. Most of it is useless from a hard science standpoint... and then every once in a while crazy ideas turn into valid leads for hard science.

[Jeff250]

EDIT: Just for your information, Dark Matter, Dark Energy,... have no known way to test for yet.

For instance, what is your basis for believing in Dark Matter? What is your basis for believing in Dark Energy?

The "dark matter" and "dark energy" terms are used to formalize unexplained phenomena like why our galaxy has extra pull or why the expansion of the universe is accelerating. They are more like questions than answers, so I don't know what evidence one could provide for them, other than that these open problems exist. If someone tried to answer these questions by saying "dark matter is X" or "dark energy is Y," then I would expect evidence.

[flip]

Well, again, this whole idea was born from the idea of watching a tone generator with salt being poured on it! Fascinating!. A medium set to a certain vibration actually forms, from Capm says, the actual image of the wave itself. So, I imagined it on a grand scale and wondered how those vibrations, frequencies, tones, pitches, energy, waves.........all worked together to form and hold the order of space together. I can't help but think they do, but I never once said they did. These so far have 100% been clues and mainly me trying to educate myself on all the factors involved, just to get a clearer picture of the idea. I'm not so sure why 'some' people, like TG, get their panties in a bunch over it. It seems like a plausible idea to me. His responses are always akin to "THAT"S NOT WHAT THEY SAID!!!!" Then he spits vitriol. Those kind of people in my opinion are the reason for the Dark Ages. I like trying to figure things out, using facts, and I like coming up with my own ideas, but that doesn't mean I'm just gonna believe in pink elephants just because I want to. Jeez, The guy gets all pissed off if you question stuff, something I don't claim to even begin to understand.

[flip]

EDIT: Just for your information, Dark Matter, Dark Energy,... have no known way to test for yet.

For instance, what is your basis for believing in Dark Matter? What is your basis for believing in Dark Energy?

The "dark matter" and "dark energy" terms are used to formalize unexplained phenomena like why our galaxy has extra pull or why the expansion of the universe is accelerating. They are more like questions than answers, so I don't know what evidence one could provide for them, other than that these open problems exist. If someone tried to answer these questions by saying "dark matter is X" or "dark energy is Y," then I would expect evidence.

Well, a great deal of what you believe now is only supported by indirect evidence. First though you would have to develop the idea and learn the mechanics of all things involved

[Top Gun]

Those kind of people in my opinion are the reason for the Dark Ages.

You're shitting me.

[Jeff250]

Well, a great deal of what you believe now is only supported by indirect evidence.

All scientific evidence is indirect. It's just a matter of magnitude.

[flip]

No, I absolutely believe that. Back when the majority believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the Universe, people like you were the epitome of those who prevented free thought. Either by discouragement or violence. Put you in the right circumstances and atmosphere, and you are dangerous. I just want to ask you a simple question, because aside from that one article you decided to attack, what quote do you have an issue with? Why is it impossible that space takes on the shape of the electromagnetic and gravitational radiation(if this even exists) that is so prevalent in it? How is that impossible?

[flip]

Well, a great deal of what you believe now is only supported by indirect evidence.

All scientific evidence is indirect. It's just a matter of magnitude.

Jeff, I don't really want to turn this discussion into what science is. I think there's more than enough compelling evidence that the Universe is effected by wave energy of all sorts. It's just to what degree and how that I am questioning. I have nothing against physics, in fact, everything I've quoted thus far except for one article that fits the way I think, has been direct quotes from Wikipedia. Lol. Let's not turn this into a religious fanaticism over the validity of current research, because that again would be a mischaracterization. It's with all the current research that I am trying to develop my ideas. Although, even in the research there are admitted flaws and alternatives suggested. Which is why I like Wikipedia and true scientists, they are honest without too much zeal.

[Krom]

Indeed, as long as you have a high enough Midi-chlorian count you too can sense The Force.

[Capm]

You know, you guys could have taken a different approach in your replies. But you chose to be pricks about it. You guys would make awful teachers.

[Pumo]

Yeah, I agree with capm.
If flip is coming here asking for opinions in the subject, it is because evidently he wants to expand his knowledge for better understanding of both the scientific theories and his own ideas/theories, not just to see how everyone mocks him about his ideas.

So I think the best thing would be to help him so he can better make his own criterium and conclussions.

[vision]

If he wants to learn more about physics and the scientific method, he should try taking some classes and reading some books. When you post ridiculous ideas on a public forum and people respond with "no, that's ludicrous" you can't get all mad and rage, "whaaa you don't get what I'm saying" then try to change your ill-conceived story. Yes, we don't understand what you are meaning because what you are saying is nonsense.

Granted, the concept he is trying to form is very, very deep and complicated. But, he's not the first to conceive of it and his time would be better spent learning why some of his ideas don't work in reality rather than accusing people of being brainwashed by science. The scientific method is the best tool we have for understanding the world. Flip doesn't seem to understand that:

Jeff, I don't really want to turn this discussion into what science is. I think there's more than enough compelling evidence that the Universe is effected by wave energy of all sorts.

He has a vague, preconceived idea of how the universe is and he's just looking for things to confirm his view, regardless of how asinine it might be -- thus the link to the "Gravity quantum" page he says is "a good summary." Music of the spheres? Give me a break. Same category as numerology.

Please, go be curious about the world, but use the right tools for the job. A video game forum is no substitute for proper scientific education. Also, I have no interest in coddling a grown man. Besides, I didn't get mean until my third post, long after flip had started to freak out, haha.

[flip]

Pfft. It's a sound concept, just complicated. On top of that, I think I was very clear from the very beginning I hold no value at all in yours or TG's opinion. I just wondered how energy contained in waves was responsible for creating shape and form. There are an immense amount of waves, in many different forms and it was their common characteristics that I was searching for, and ideas of what directions to go to narrow the search down. Again, up till this point, you call this nonsense and ludicrous, but neither of you can answer my question either. I don't know why you bother to comment, you were asked nicely from the very beginning to stay out. I just wanted constructive input, not the normal circle jerk you guys normally create and to this point, have maintained. This discussion is not about me. It's the effect that wave energy has on form and structure. A more developed idea and precise question than at the very beginning, despite your repeated attempts to derail .

[flip]

In fact, I think this explains the concept to a T.

What you have in your video is someone simply showcasing the interaction of these physical fields on other matter in a way that reveals the shape of that particular field as it is in that particular plane. (A 2D slice if you will, of a 3d form) Its not "creating" the shape, you're just seeing the shape of the wave field itself.

Meaning, if a tone generator with salt on it can reveal the 2D shape of a wave field, on a much broader scale, is matter in the Universe structured in such a way as to reveal these many different wave fields, all interacting with each other?

EDIT: It should be clear that I'm not saying salt is poured directly onto the tone generator, but I feel it necessary to point that out /sarcasm

[Top Gun]

You know, you guys could have taken a different approach in your replies. But you chose to be pricks about it. You guys would make awful teachers.

Um, I AM a teacher (of a sort, anyway), and I'll have you know that I do a damn good job at it. The difference from here is that the students I teach tend to understand that I'm more experienced in the subject than they are, and so they take advantage of that to gain a better comprehension of the topic we're talking about. And if I'm having trouble conveying the information at first, then I do my damnedest to take a different approach, or relate things to what the student already understands, until they get that "A-ha!" moment and the topic clicks for them. The only thing I need for this to happen is for the student to be willing to learn from me, and I'll try to see them through.

You're acting like this is some random thing, as though I got snarky at flip out of nowhere. We've been having pretty much this exact type of thread for years now, and while I tried to be as polite and accommodating as I would to any student at the beginning, I'm sorry to say that I don't have the patience of a saint, and it's been long since exhausted in this case.

[flip]

No, that's not entirely correct either. The only 2 theoretical type threads I've ever started was this one and the 150 year discrepancy between finding the last naturally occurring element, Uranium and then finding Neptunium in nature 12 years after creating it in a lab. 2 topics, separated by more than a year or 2. You guys mischaracterize in every response. I've been here for around 7 years now. 2 topics/7 years. Do the math . I still find that interesting, but I don't want to open that other can of worms. So, here's an interesting thought I had when I woke up.

The whole time I was in school, we were basically taught that the Sun was static and the planets orbited around them elliptically, but the orbits were so uniform that you could predict any one of their position mathematically far into the future. That's not entirely a correct way to visualize it though, because in fact, the Sun is moving to and we are kinda being carried along with it, yet we keep that mathematically predictable orbit without the Earth, or Mercury even being sucked into it. So I wonder exactly what role the Solar Wind, which is a huge wave of energy contributes in our equilibrium around the Sun.

EDIT: Also, if you were to go back to that thread about Neptunium, you will also find no explanation, only snarky responses from the very beginning.

[vision]

That's not entirely a correct way to visualize it though, because in fact, the Sun is moving to and we are kinda being carried along with it, yet we keep that mathematically predictable orbit without the Earth, or Mercury even being sucked into it. So I wonder exactly what role the Solar Wind, which is a huge wave of energy contributes in our equilibrium around the Sun.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You think the Solar Wind might push against the planets just enough to keep them from falling into the Sun?

[flip]

It has to exert some amount of force I would think. Taking into account the negative force from the Sun dragging the planets with it.

[Krom]

The problem here is we can politely and flatly tell flip that the answer to his question is "No." and he will not listen. He will just dismiss you as brainwashed, insult you and then continue to quote random articles from Wikipedia or absurd blog articles from people that were either totally manic or under the influence of drugs (or both) as if they support his impossible ideas.

If it wasn't for the different layout and color scheme flip would not be able to tell the difference between the physics section of Wikipedia from the physics section of Memory Alpha. And everyone that has seen flips science postings before knows that it is a waste of time to argue with a brick wall, so you should just paint graffiti on it instead.

[flip]

Heh, more of the same drivel. I think you guys just can't see the big picture. The sun is traveling through space, dragging the planets with it, it is also blasting energetic particles against the planets it is dragging with it. It must be accounted for. You guys had rather make this personal and I can't help but think it's just because you don't know.

EDIT: What it really is, you can't see it

[flip]

You know what, sometime tomorrow I will condense every single link I have made in this thread into one post. Then I will show you how every single one of them fit into the one question, does wave energy have anything to do with form, structure and order of the Universe on a cosmological scale. I'll lay the whole thought process out for you and show you what you think is random, all work together on different levels.

EDIT: Oh and Krom, the only answer you have ever given is no. Not one explanation, ever, just no.

[flip]

If I was you, I would have said, that the Neptunium was created by a neutron capture released from the Uranium. Then I would respond how do you slow the neutron down to facilitate the capture?

[vision]

Ok, I'll give it a shot.

Flip, you have two things right. First, you are correct that electromagnetic waves can have an effect on physical objects. Second, the Solar Wind does push on celestial bodies in our Solar System. This is why the dust of a comet is always pointes away from the Sun. So that much you have going for you. However, when it comes to planets and gravity.... No, not our Sun and not in the way you propose. I will try to explain.

Note to other readers: this is sloppy because I'm trying to make a simple point, so please don't judge if I get something wrong!

Ok, Flip. According to Wikipedia the Solar Wind at 1 AU is between 1 and 6 nano Pascals. "AU" is the distance between the Sun and Earth, and "nano Pascal" is a unit of measure. So that means the Solar Wind at the point it reaches Earth is between 1 and 6 nano Pascals. Are you with me so far? Good.

Now, how large is a nano Pascal? Well, you see the word "nano" so you can assume it is pretty small. In fact, a nano Pascal is a 1 with 8 zeros in front of it and looks like this: 0.000000001. Even a large gust from the Solar Wind is 0.000000006 Pascals!

So how do you compare this number with something you can experience? I'll tell you...

If you are sitting outside on a still evening with no wind you are experiencing somewhere in the neighborhood of 100000 Pascals per inch of your body. Now think about that a moment and look at the two numbers. These are measures of pressure.

Code: Select all

100000.000000000  Sitting outside with no wind.
     0.000000006  The Solar Wind at maximum.

And here is the big question: Do you think the Solar Wind is strong enough to push the Earth away from the Sun in a meaningful way?


Edit: For fun, a comet diving into the sun!

[flip]

No, not on it's on. There is still the fact that the sun is basically dragging the Earth with it at the same time and this is just one factor to consider. To make this easier I think instead of trying to encompass the whole Universe, it might simplify things to keep the discussion within our own galaxy at this point. It's all those forces combined that helps create equilibrium. We have to take into account the collective push and pull of all electromagnetic energy within this whole galaxy, with the Galactic center probably exerting the most force, and however negligible the Solar Wind is, it still has a profound effect on our magnetosphere, although within the scope of this discussion, the Solar wind would be a very small factor in the bigger view of things, but contributory.

EDIT: And at this point, we are not even considering Gravitational energy, if such a thing even exists, because then you would have to factor in how gravitational waves interact with electromagnetic energy.

EDIT: In fact, Snoopy's mention of magnetic fields probably enters the discussion right here. The Earth itself is basically a huge magnet.

[vision]

I still don't understand where this mystical equilibrium is. The universe is terribly disjointed everywhere you look. Not only do planets not follow circular orbits around stars, they don't even follow ellipses, but more like ovals. The speed and distance changes over single rotations and over a lifetime of rotations. The revolution of our planet's core changes speed. Gravity isn't even a constant on our plant as it varies from place to place and year to year. Where is this static Universe? Where is the equilibrium? The Galaxy looks less like a collection of beautiful shapes and more like a bowl of spaghetti -- that's why it's so hard to figure out!

It is easy to fall in love with the mind and it's ability to abstract meaning from the world around it. This is why Mathematics is so powerful and numerology is so addicting (and dangerous). But the more we learn about the Universe, the more complicated the math becomes because things aren't "perfect." It's one of the reasons why we currently need two sets of math, one for the macro-universe and one for the micro-universe.

Aside: There was a year or two of my life when I decided to "exercise my mind" while at the gym. Instead of listening to music or watching TV, I went to the local library and systematically checked out nearly every physics book they had. I'm sure I was quite a sight, straining to hold a 500 page hardcover book on black holes in my gym shorts on a treadmill. Maybe you should do the same? Go to the library and see if they have "Six Easy Pieces" by Richard Feynman. If not, buy it (worth every penny) After that, just start grabbing whatever looks interesting off the shelf.

[flip]

That's why I figured it would be a good idea to concentrate on our own galaxy and work out from there, because your right, to find any sense of order in the Universe right now is an overwhelming task and frankly, a lot of the data just doesn't exist yet. As far as energy fields and wave interactions on a grand scale go. I'll look sometime today how much of that data exists for our own galaxy and try to concentrate my efforts there. Our Galaxy does contain a certain symmetry and don't mistake my use of the word equilibrium to mean perfect circles or perfectly defined shapes. Going back to the earlier example of the magnetosphere. It would technically be a perfect sphere if not for the Solar wind distorting it's shape and although our orbit around the Sun is not perfectly shaped, it still does so in a certain amount of time. Another thing you are right about, is a lot of this will only make sense on a quantum scale, since we are talking about energy fields and energy carried by waves. Not only do you have the field itself as a whole, but also the packets of energy that make up the whole, which on their own exhibit waveforms. Basically a huge waveform made out of many waveforms. So a certain amount of abstract visualization is going to be necessary. I mean, when I look at a piece of wood, it just looks like wood to me but in reality the deeper you look at it you see that it is made up of these little packets of energy, and their moving!

EDIT: I guess another way of looking at it is that energy still has mass and matter still carries energy, they are never completely without the other.

[Krom]

EDIT: Oh and Krom, the only answer you have ever given is no. Not one explanation, ever, just no.

You have been given through and detailed explanations in the past and you have ignored or dismissed them and verbally lashed out at the people posting them for disagreeing with your interpretations. So you will get "No." as an answer without an explanation because the people who even bother to answer already know that you will not acknowledge a proper explanation anyway so to write one would be wasted effort.

[flip]

That's just an outright lie. Go back to the only other thread like this one and pull just one quote from you that was an explanation. You guys jumped down my throat from the very beginning. That is basically when I lost all respect for you, but these posts you are making now, outright lies and misrepresenting what really happened, just helps fortify that feeling. Do it. Go to the Neptunium thread and pull one quote from yourself that was helpful. Without any kungfool edits If I remember correctly, I ended up taking this over to .com just to expose the bull★■◆●.

[Ferno]

I ended up taking this over to .com just to expose the bull★■◆●.

And by doing so, you probably insulted their intelligence, too!

[flip]

No, Ferno, if you would remember correctly, I actually proved you to be a liar on .com when you deleted my post in the multiplayer section and then lied about the reason. Hehe. You know, I was just looking that thread over, it did get out of hand, but I was just looking at that as a mechanic of how all elements formed from a molecular cloud. At one point, it's just one huge cloud of molecular gas and over time it starts to bond into molecules and then eventually into the elements that exists on Earth. It was getting from that cloud to the Earth we see today that was interesting, and Neptunium looked like it may have been a key to reverse engineer that process. I was mainly just wondering if atomic explosions had somehow broken these atoms into fragments and then if those fragments could have somehow found there way back to the Uranium. Which is something similar to how this whole planet of ours formed out of a molecular cloud. I still for the life of me don't understand how one element decays into a heavier one and I'm still not completely convinced that it is not possible for atoms that have been broken into pieces to reform themselves.

[flip]

Though traces of neptunium have subsequently been found in nature, where it is not primeval but produced by neutron-induced transmutation reactions in uranium ores

Maybe I'm still reading this wrong, but every source I read concerning Neptunium, it says that the amount found in nature is not primeval and there by neutron-induced transmutation and as far as I can tell, that is not a natural process.

Decay is the natural process of transmutation and neutron-induced is an artificial process. I don't know.

EDIT: Yeah, as far as I can tell, even though U-235 is fissionable, the only time that has happened naturally was around 2 billion years ago, and sustained itself for about 200 million years. By then Neptunium would have long decayed and been gone, explaining it's non-existence for so long. Although U-235 is fissionable it must be induced by artificial means. It is also my understanding that free neutrons must be produced by fission and/or fusion and have a very low half-life.

[Capm]

This topic is all over the place, from waves and energy to elements and nuclear decay rates.

I'm going to postulate something here for you, now this is entirely pulled out of my own ass, and I have nothing to back it up with -

Regarding the apparent balance you are looking for in regards to the push and pull effects on the earth and how it stays in orbit without crashing into the sun, or flying into space..

Is it possible that, over the course of the billions of years or so that the earth has been orbiting the sun, in nearly the same place, the gravitational field has somehow "warped" the fabric of space to create a kind of "track" in space that the earth now follows, which would require a "significant" altering force to knock us out of? Of course, for this to make sense, since the galaxy itself rotates, one would have to postulate that space itself moves, and can be compressed and stretched, and molded... sort of gelatinous ?

Discuss why or why not this could be.