Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?
From: Ben (ben.b2_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: My mistake on Time Dilation?"
- Previous message: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Feb 2005 12:02:36 -0800
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1108058172.867888.128250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> Ben wrote:
> > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<1107955732.710482.306110@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<1107887843.127385.237990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> > > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<1107809499.787661.123740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
> > > > > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > > I would like to offer a question to the masses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If gravitational waves are a ripple of space-time, caused
> by
> > > a
> > > > > > > > colossal event, then space-time will contract and expand
> > > along
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > path.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If electromagnetic waves were a ripple of space-time,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, but they're not.
> > >
> > > The signals are different. The LIGO interferometer is sensitive to
> > > spacetime ripples and is not sensitive to electromagnetic waves.
> Your
> > > FM radio is sensitive to electromagnetic waves and not to spacetime
> > > ripples.
> > >
> >
> > Yes the LIGO interferometer is sensitive to space-time ripples
> > produced by the distortion of space-time by a massive event (binary
> > stars systems etc.)
> > And my radio is sensitive to electromagnetic waves caused by QED.
> > But these are two totally different distortions of space-time.
> > In the same way that the pressure of a weather system is different to
> > sound waves. You would not expect to measure sound waves with a
> > barometer!
>
> The difference between a weather system oscillation and sound waves is
> only in the frequency and magnitude of the oscillation. With a
> barometer of sufficiently fast response time and sensitivity, I could
> very well measure sound waves.
>
> On the other hand, the LIGO/FM radio dichotomy is complete. It is not a
> matter of one being not sufficiently sensitive in the range of the
> other. Gravity and electromagnetic field distort DIFFERENT THINGS, not
> the same thing in a different way.
LIGO is based on measuring distance in perpendicular directions. They
hope that a ripple of space-time will cause one to contract and the
other to expand. This is predicted by General Relativity and widely
accepted.
Your FM radio and your eyes work in a slightly different way. They
detect the increased energy state of an electron when it absorbs a
photon.
But how are these apparatus related, you may say?
Well if you need me to tell you that then you should study another
subject.
Here's a hint " a photon can cause movement "! Surely you can start to
work this out for yourself. In fact, you started yourself off by
referring to your sensitive barometer. Try to think along the same
lines, but in terms of the apparatus we've been discussing here.
> >
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > caused by a
> > > > > > > > minor event, then space-time would also expand and
> contract
> > > along
> > > > > > > > their path.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If a photon decays into an electron, a positron and a
> > > neutrino.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, but it doesn't.
> > >
> > > This would violate at least two conservation laws that have NEVER
> been
> > > seen to be violated in zillions of interactions: lepton number and
> > > angular momentum. Moreover, electron-positron pair production from
> > > photons have been studied in recorded interactions numbering into
> the
> > > billions. If even a tiny fraction of those interactions also
> included a
> > > neutrino, the energy carried by the neutrino would have been
> recognized
> > > as energy not trapped in the detector, and this "energy defect"
> signal
> > > would have stood out like a sore thumb. No such signal has been
> seen.
> > >
> >
> > Lepton number and angular momentum can be conserved.
> > Electron-positron annihilation results in two photons being produced,
> > travelling in opposite directions maintaining conservation of energy.
> >
> > Electron-positron production needs a minimum of 1.022MeV (twice
> > electron rest mass energy). This results in a high energy photon.
>
> Fine up to here.
>
> >
> > The point is, there is an interaction of matter with antimatter to
> > produce energy. To dissipate this energy without force requires a
> > vibration of the space-time continuum (expansion and contraction).
>
> And the paragraph above is where you just made stuff up. No vibration
> of the space-time continuum is required to dissipate energy, and I
> don't know where you got that idea.
>
You're joking, made stuff up. I thought these were well founded
theories
(sarcasm, but I'm sure you can work that out for yourself).
A force acts through What? With gavity particle physics states a
graviton, but this could be right or wrong, and no-one in their right
mind would state this to be fact. I offer the same type of
explanation, but referring to a vibration of the space-time continuum
as the medium for energy transfer.
There's no need to overreact by the introduction of a new idea. It has
happened in the past.
> >
> > Yes you are right no neutrino, my mistake.
> >
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > being contracted space-time; one being expanded
> space-time
> > > and a
> > > > > > > > neutrino being residual energy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, but that's not what an electron, a positron, and a
> > > neutrino
> > > > > are.
> > >
> > > Spactime does not carry electric charge, lepton number, or spin,
> all of
> > > which would distinguish your candidates from being spacetime.
> >
> > Electric charge is the expansion and contraction of space-time.
> > Positive and negative being expansion and contraction respectively
> (or
> > it could be vice versa. I do not know the answer to this.)
>
> And this is hogwash. If this were so, then the expansion of the
> universe since the Big Bang would have made the universe electrically
> charged (either positively or negatively, you don't know the answer to
> this). It is demonstrably not.
>
No, no, no. What are you talking about. You have completely missed the
point again. It is a question of scale.
You need to use your imagination to understand these concepts.
I have derived these hypotheses on experimental facts. That is where
the ideas have come from. I have not just decided that this seems like
a good way of looking at things.
> > Lepton number and spin relate to the amplitude and form of the
> > expansion or contraction(it is either expansion or contraction, but I
> > have not progressed that far).
>
> If you have not gotten that far, then you can't say they relate at all.
> If you are building a theory to support your preconceived notions, then
> that is not science, pal. This is important, Ben. Theorists do NOT
> build a theory thinking to themselves, "This must be true, it seems so
> right. Now all I have to do is build a theory to prove it." If you
> think that's the way science is done, you're in the wrong bus.
>
These are not preconceived notions, they are based on experimental
evidence.
And theorists DO build a theory based on experimental evidence,
careful analysis of the results, and a commonsense approach. Oh, and
the thing you seem to be lacking: just a little bit of imagination.
> >
> > You have to see matter and energy as either expansion or contraction
> > of space-time. Light can travel as pure energy by flitting between
> > these two states and relinquishing itself of mass or rather charge.
>
> Mass and charge are NOT the same thing. Charge is quantized, mass is
> not. Charge can repel or attract. Mass only attracts. You can't convert
> mass to charge or vice versa -- they are conserved separately.
>
Not again. Can't you just think before you reply. Why is your
statement true and yet what I am saying is also true. Remember
experimental evidence, analysis of the results and commonsense. Now
just add the little bit of imagination.
> >
> > Now you may ask why does a neutron have mass. Or why a proton and
> > electron have the same charge, but a different mass. Well, in truth,
> > I'm uncertain. But it may be due to the width of the expansion or
> > contraction. Or whether or not there is a combination of expansion
> and
> > contraction in electrically neutral particles.
> >
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then would this elementary theory explain the basis of
> mass,
> > > > > energy,
> > > > > > > > electromagnetic waves and a myriad of other connections
> > > between
> > > > > > > > quantum mechanics and relativity?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, but it's wrong.
> > >
> > > See the above.
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps trying to think about what I have posted would be an
> > > > > > interseting alternative to dismissing it. That way you might
> > > > > > understand it.
> > > > > > Of course your response will be dismissive and you will not
> try
> > > to
> > > > > > understand anything, so just don't reply.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did think about it. I just didn't give you all the reasons
> why I
> > > > > dismissed it. Your mistake was thinking that it's proper to
> sketch
> > > out
> > > > > a new, from-the-ground-up concept, without worrying about
> whether
> > > any
> > > > > of the concepts match up with anything that's already known.
> This
> > > is a
> > > > > common mistake made by amateur or very young (perhaps that's
> the
> > > same
> > > > > thing) physicists; they think that progress is made by coming
> up
> > > with
> > > > > the Big Idea, the Novel Insight, and the details will follow
> later;
> > > > > they think the big hurdle for getting acceptance of a new idea
> is
> > > > > getting people to let go of their traditional thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you like, I can go into the details about how I KNOW each of
> the
> > > > > points you made are dismissable. Not *believe* they are
> > > dismissable;
> > > > > *know* they are dismissable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PD
> > > >
> > > > Yes, please go into the details of how you KNOW each of the
> points I
> > > > made are dismissable. It would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Gladly. See above.
> > >
> > > PD
> >
> > Does this seem to be more acceptable.
> >
> > Ben
>
>
> No, and this, too, is a bad way to do science. You don't build a theory
> and tweak it until nobody objects. And I won't continue to pursue that
> approach with you.
>
No, "Does this seem to be more acceptable" is a statement made through
sarcasm. Don't you catch anything.
And feel free not to reply.
> Learn some physics before you try to rebuild from the ground up.
>
Understand some physics and try to understand some new concepts. You
might actually learn something.
Funny how my first reply to you would still have been the best place
to leave this discussion.
Regards Ben
- Next message: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: My mistake on Time Dilation?"
- Previous message: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
