Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
137 online now:
marc9000, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 135 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,516 Year: 1,264/23,288 Month: 1,264/1,851 Week: 388/320 Day: 88/72 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another Way of Looking at the Michelson-Morley Experimental Results
Percy
Member
Posts: 19264
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 16 of 35 (366963)
11-29-2006 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by baloneydetector#zero
11-29-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Reply to Son Goku.
baloneydetector#zero writes:

You also wrote: What in particular do you find faulty with the explanation that light is oscillating electric and magnetic fields?*

I have no trouble with that at all. It’s as natural as apple pie (is apple pie natural in Ireland?)..What I have trouble swallowing is it’s supposed ability to travel unsupported by anything. It’s a crime against nature.

Gravity propagates through space at the same speed as light. If the sun were to suddenly magically disappear this instant, it would take 8 minutes for the absence of its gravity to be felt here on earth. If theory holds up, one day soon they'll even detect gravity waves. Anyway, the question is, what medium does gravity travel through?

In other words, you've just replaced one problem with a nearly identical problem.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 11-29-2006 6:07 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-01-2006 12:05 PM Percy has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 35 (367253)
12-01-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
11-29-2006 7:33 PM


Reply to Percy.
Ah Percy, I do love those magically disappearing large masses, those super-velocity collisions where we create momentary energy traps we call particles, virtual particles and their associated forces and all those other beautifully engineered tests that we use in science today to prove almost anything we want.

Originally, everything we consider as matter and their associated forces were all originally energy that inhabited a massless realm that had no dimensions and no time. When some of these energies became trapped into massy particles, their associated forces, which remained energy, still operated through this dimensionless, timeless realm.

In fact, all our forces are unified through this realm. The unifying mathematics already exists. All we are trying to do is copy it into our own formulae.

How does our formulae or even all our forces survive when our very weak gravitational force is made strong enough through huge collections of masses to implode all these masses into a black hole whose associated dimensions and time approach the dimensionless, timeless realm of energy. Our formulae are reduces to an alphabet soup and our particles condensed into dimensions where none of these forces can stilloperate. Further increases in mass would eventually implode our black hole into the realm of energy, if that is possible. For all we know, that has been, is, and will continue to go on and our universe could be recycling itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 11-29-2006 7:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by fallacycop, posted 12-01-2006 1:05 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 12-01-2006 1:06 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 18 of 35 (367263)
12-01-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by baloneydetector#zero
12-01-2006 12:05 PM


Re: Reply to Percy.
Would you care to answer Percy`s question, if you don`t mind?
He (Very sensibly) asked why do you declare that electromagnetic waves propagating throught empty space is a crime against nature, but also seem completely non-plused by the fact that gravitation does exactly the same thing?? How come?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-01-2006 12:05 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-01-2006 5:21 PM fallacycop has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19264
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 19 of 35 (367264)
12-01-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by baloneydetector#zero
12-01-2006 12:05 PM


Propagation by way of a Medium
Hi Baloney,

There's no need to title a message "Reply to so-and-so." The board software already keeps track of who you're replying to. You may have noticed the little "This message is a reply to" and "Replies to this message" links.

It isn't clear how your reply is related to the topic. your position as stated in your Message 15 seems to be that you don't believe that electromagnetic waves can travel if unsupported by a medium. Your proposal is that gravity is the medium. I only pointed out that gravity also travels (at the speed of light, just like electromagnetic waves) and therefore requires a medium.

If there really is any medium then it is the fabric of space/time, but it isn't a medium in the way that you would normally think of one.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-01-2006 12:05 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-01-2006 5:19 PM Percy has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 35 (367342)
12-01-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
12-01-2006 1:06 PM


Re: Propagation by way of a Medium
Sorry for the time required to respond to the last message. Had to move my rocker inside for comfort.

Gravity is a force but, is not a waveform. To my way of thinking (flawed I'm sure), waveforms modulate a medium on which they travel. This does not mean that the medium does any traveling no more that the ocean water does when it is used to carry a wave. When energy is converted to massy particles, the particle retains it's relationship to all of the other massy particles which appears to us in the form of a gravitational force. This force does not travel hither and yon. It just represents the relationship that exists between one massy particle and all of the others its related to. I can't think of any other way of explaining it.

I know that I do run on, but, I can't wave my arms and make all the other motions and facial expressions that I normally use to express myself. It's dangerous to stand close to me when I talk.


baloneydetector#zero

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 12-01-2006 1:06 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-01-2006 9:38 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 35 (367344)
12-01-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by fallacycop
12-01-2006 1:05 PM


Reply to fallacy cop
Is a fallacy cop another type of baloney detector?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by fallacycop, posted 12-01-2006 1:05 PM fallacycop has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19264
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 22 of 35 (367383)
12-01-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero
12-01-2006 5:19 PM


Re: Propagation by way of a Medium
baloneydetector#zero writes:

Gravity is a force but, is not a waveform.

Maybe. Maybe not. As I said in my Message 16 that posed the original question:

Percy writes:

If theory holds up, one day soon they'll even detect gravity waves.

So how does your theory hold up if gravity *is*, as suspected, a wave?

Or, considering another possibility, the Higgs Boson is postulated as the particle which imparts mass to objects. How does gravity as the medium for electromagnetic waves hold up if mass is actually negotiated through exchanges of Higgs Bosons? Do photons of light ride on Higgs Bosons?

At heart your feeling that electromagnetic waves require a medium to propagate is based upon analogy with sound and water waves. Your proposal doesn't take into account the dual wave/particle nature of electromagnetic radiation. Your analogy completely breaks down as gravity increases, since sound waves increase in observed speed as the density of the medium increases, while increasing gravity does not affect the speed of light at all. Perhaps your idea boils down to general relativity, which doesn't postulate a medium.

The most important questions, of course, concern what evidence led you to your conclusions, and what testable predictions do your ideas have?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-01-2006 5:19 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-02-2006 11:05 AM Percy has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 35 (367442)
12-02-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
12-01-2006 9:38 PM


Back to you Percy, it's your serve
Your right Percy, if gravity is found to be a wave, I’ll have to turn in my spurs and put my rocker out to pasture. Of course, that will happen soon anyways. I’m surprised that my mind hasn’t gone as far south as my body has–yet. That’s only my opinion. Some of you must think that I should be doing my rocking in a rubber room because of my wide-open spaced (LOL) ideas.

The particle called Higgs boson is supposed to be the quantum of one of the components of a Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field acquires a non-zero value, which permeates every place in the universe at all times. You already know what I think about fields. Doesn’t this empty space stuff reminds you somewhat of that dimensionless, timeless energy realm.

The dual wave/particle nature of electromagnetic radiation is explained by the fact that it is a wave and that this wave is not a continuous wave but consists of a fixed pulse which makes it also appear and act as a particle.

The speed of light is fixed because it is transferred through our energy realm. In fact, in this realm, light itself does not take any time to travel from one place to another. Its instantaneous. Its apparent velocity is only detected from outside of this realm.

This brings out another point. If light rides piggy back on gravity through our marvelous dimensionless, timeless energy realm, and, if it is an instantaneous transfer within this realm, then we can also suppose that this transfer is not willy-nilly. It is intentionally (can’t think of another word at the moment) transferred between two points. One point or particle that feels the need to radiate and because it senses another particle that needs that exact amount of energy to attain a higher energy level. These seperate particles could be at either end of the universe. In this realm that is not an impossibility since the energy levels of ALL is constantly sensed by ALL.

I’m afraid Percy that I have no idea what evidence led me to my conclusions. There is so much data stored up there, that I can’t consciously separated the relevant from the irrelevant. As far as testable predictions are concerned, they have to come from better men than I am--like Charley Brown likes to say.

You can order up the rubber room anytime you want Percy. If you do, my rocker goes with me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-01-2006 9:38 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-02-2006 3:03 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19264
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 24 of 35 (367474)
12-02-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by baloneydetector#zero
12-02-2006 11:05 AM


Re: Back to you Percy, it's your serve
baloneydetector#zero writes:

I’m afraid Percy that I have no idea what evidence led me to my conclusions. There is so much data stored up there, that I can’t consciously separated the relevant from the irrelevant. As far as testable predictions are concerned, they have to come from better men than I am--like Charley Brown likes to say.

It's fine if you're just throwing ideas out there to see if anyone like them, but if you want to persuade other people then you need to explain how you arrived at your conclusions from the available evidence and current theoretical knowledge.

Look at this way. Say I liked your idea and wanted to convince other people over to it. How would I do that if I had no idea how you arrived at your conclusions? If someone asked me, "What makes you think so?", what would I say?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-02-2006 11:05 AM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-02-2006 7:26 PM Percy has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 35 (367514)
12-02-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
12-02-2006 3:03 PM


Some nutter said....
No Percy, I’m not just throwing out ideas but golly Percy, how do you define Eureka? These ideas are not really new to me. I used to live in East Pepperell, MA and had to drive a minimum of 45 minutes to work at whatever Raytheon plant that they wanted me at that day. Very seldom did I remember my drives because all of these ideas would occupy the aware part of my mind. Once they settled, I’d sit in the Spa on Saturday mornings and write them down. After they were down on paper, I’d store it with all the other articles I’d written and then wait from someone else to publish. I already had a mountain of rejection slips.

Now, I’m tired of waiting and my waiting time is running out. I’d better scatter a few of these ideas around to see if they germinate in more fertile grounds.

You can always say that you met some nutter.......who thinks sideways instead of forward. For instance right now, I’m being amazed at your, and mine and all those other living organisms which have an ancestral family tree that has no holes whatsoever going back to the first stirring of life. Considering the hazards that these beings encountered, that is absolutely unbelievable. And yet we ponder other inconsequential things. Yes, we are all related. We are recycling atoms and molecules that Jesus, dinosaurs, microbes, viruses etc. have also used. How proud can we be when we are reusing particles that the most evil of humans have also used not only in their bodies but even in their feces.

So Percy, what would you say if someone asked you about me? Some nutter.......some real nutter...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-02-2006 3:03 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 12-03-2006 2:51 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19264
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 26 of 35 (367572)
12-03-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by baloneydetector#zero
12-02-2006 7:26 PM


Re: Some nutter said....
baloneydetector#zero writes:

No Percy, I’m not just throwing out ideas but golly Percy, how do you define Eureka?

How do you validate that it actually was eureka?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-02-2006 7:26 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-05-2006 10:19 AM Percy has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 35 (367758)
12-05-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
12-03-2006 2:51 PM


A Cosmological Christmas Story
Hi Percy.

I’ve enjoyed our visits very much. I don’t know any other way of contacting you. There were times during my first thread when the traumatic moments overwhelmed me because I took myself too serious. In appreciation, I’m writing you my first Christmas story. This is not a Eurika but, it is original.

Once upon a time, back before Moses was a pup, a super massive gas giant of a star visited our galactic neighborhood. Back then, our neighborhood was nothing to brag about. It was just a vast conglomeration of gas clouds consisting of almost nothing but hydrogen and space. It had not even developed a noticeable gravitational centroid.

This star gave us our first Christmas by dying in the form of a supernova. This supernova created new elements and scattered these blessing components throughout our neighborhood which seeded our clouds with something besides hydrogen and space. In response, our conglomeration of gas clouds developed a gravitational centroid. This gave our neighborhood the courage to start collapsing towards this centroid.

This collapsing within the gravitational gradients of our galaxy gave our clouds their first spin. As it spun down, the most massive of the gas clouds became know as our proto-sun while the second was later to be named, proto-Jupiter. If these two protos had been alone, they would have loved it. They would each have revolved around a common center of mass which would have gone on happily orbiting around the galactic center in its own vast arm. This orbiting common center of mass would not have had any hitches in its git-along if they had been alone in the neighborhood.

But, no, they were not alone. A few other smaller neighborhood gas clouds were also falling towards the gravitational centroid which was the common center of mass of the proto-sun and proto-Jupiter. These other smaller gas proto-planets caused hitches in the git-along of the two massive protos. The two massive protos would not gladly accept these hitches so, they changed things.

First, the vast masses of the two largest protos started pulling the other smaller protos in a line which started flattening the 3-dimensional collapsing gas clouds towards the 2-dimensional form or a disc. This flattening evolutionary control of the solar plane would continue until the associated fluctuations in the solar system’s git-along had been reduced to zero. This has not yet happened and is still going on.

Flattening of the clouds into the form of a disc started to cause other hitches in the evolving solar system’s git-along. The flattened orbits of the proto-planets were ellipsoids and not only that, but a few captured protos had the temerity of orbiting counter to the revolution of the two pro-giants and, the others had orbital periods that tended to cause conjunctions of the protoplanets. All of these motions caused hitches or oscillations in the proto solar system’s center of mass. The massiveness of the solar mass could not respond to these hitches so, it fought back by re-imposing the necessary modifying motions to the offending members.

Our first Christmas was not over. By the time that the largest gas cloud had collapsed to the point where the gravitational pressure became sufficient to start our life giving thermonuclear fire at the center of the proto-sun the other gas clouds had also condensed. The lighting of that thermonuclear candle caused rush an outblowing commotion that most of remaining gas of the solar system’s gas cloud was blown away to reveal the presents under our first tree. These were the nuclei of the proto-planets. The inner planets were now bared to reveal the gifts of our first star, it’s remnants in the form of its ashes.

For the next few billion years, Mrs Santa was kept busy with her gravitational broom sweeping the smaller stellar ashes under our galactic Christmas tree where their masses were added to the planets in the form of meteoric ornaments.

By the way Percy, is this a legal addition to our thread? If it is, do you want to hear the rest of the story? If you do, I'll continue it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 12-03-2006 2:51 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 12-05-2006 10:35 AM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19264
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 28 of 35 (367761)
12-05-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by baloneydetector#zero
12-05-2006 10:19 AM


Re: A Cosmological Christmas Story
Thanks for the story, I'll give it a read when I have some time. My focus is kind of narrow in this thread, primarily any substantiating evidence or argument for your gravity-as-medium proposal that you might have.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-05-2006 10:19 AM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-05-2006 5:07 PM Percy has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 35 (367820)
12-05-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
12-05-2006 10:35 AM


Reconstructing the reasons for a Eureka
OK Percy, I’m going to try to resurrect the reason for that gravitational medium Eureka.

It occurred in my youth when I was about 35. I was in the throes of a particularly stressful period when my mind wouldn’t let me alone. It kept trying to find a logical explanation for the apparent negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Even though I had delved into all the reasons proposed at the time, I still could not accept that some type of ether did not exist. It was like trying to swallow an elephant sideways.

Once I’d disregarded the possibility of any relativistic changes to the measuring apparatus and re-defined the probable ether as one that had to be dragged along by the earth at earth’s velocity, I happened upon the coincidence that the formulae for the gravitational force and electromagnetic radiation had some particular interesting similarities. F=Gm1m2/r2 and F=ke1e2/r2 are too particulary similar to be accidental as far as I was concerned. The /r2 part specially.

Next, I started to reconstruct the other specifications that would fir the experimental result for our medium. It had to be perfectly elastic and permit itself to be dragged around at the exact velocity of each body in the universe. Again, gravity popped into my head because it does relate every body in the universe with every other body and it is perfectly elastic. This elastic quality seemed to be the last straw. As bodies move relative to each other, the gravitational force seems to contract when bodies move towards each other and it seems to stretch out when the bodies move apart. If light waves traveled on this medium, it’s wavelength would contract and stretch in the exact response as the weakening and strengthening of the medium. This would give us a Doppler effect for light.

That was enough for me. I was sure I had posited a medium that would do the trick. Of course, that would mean that light would only travel between points that had a gravitational force in common. Light could not be radiated unless there was already an end point picked out.

Right now, I can’t think of any other reasons for that particular Eureka. Is this enough reconstruction for the moment?


baloneydetector#zero

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 12-05-2006 10:35 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 12-05-2006 8:05 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19264
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 30 of 35 (367857)
12-05-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by baloneydetector#zero
12-05-2006 5:07 PM


Re: Reconstructing the reasons for a Eureka
baloneydetector#zero writes:

F=Gm1m2/r2 and F=ke1e2/r2 are too particulary similar to be accidental as far as I was concerned. The /r2 part specially.

Any two dimensional spherical surface increases in area proportional to the square of the distance from the origin. It could not be any other way.

Can you think of any test for your idea? For example, what do you think would happen to light equidistant between two equal masses at the point where gravity cancels out? There are probably any number of other tests you could think up, including a vast number involving relativistic effects that would affect light differently since gravity's effect on light must be different from it's effect on matter, since in current theory light and matter are influenced by gravity in the same way, while in your theory matter is influenced by gravity while for light gravity is the medium.

And here's a sort of meta-issue to think about. If you're right, then scientists have missed the most simple and obvious of answers for well over a hundred years.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-05-2006 5:07 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 12-06-2006 5:09 AM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020