Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Dec 2005 04:15:52 -0800
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> Gravity waves?
>
> Gravity is not like normal forms of radiation such
> as light. It is more like heat being carried by
> particle motions. But even this is not a good enough
> description, since heat is itself an addition of
> actual energy. Gravity does not require any
> additional energy or any change in energy for it to
> exist. (Due to the effects of its force, of course,
> there is a large amount of energy that can be
> produced by its force.)
> One way to look at gravity is if you had a space
> (an ether) in which there were three general sizes of
> particles, a, b, and c. And these particles were all
> different in size, with a > b > c. If these
> particles were interacting with each other, and they
> do, then they would show equal potential of kinetic
> energy, so that c would move the fastest, and a the
> slowest.
> Now after these particles interacted with a large
> body, then let these three sizes of particles become
> 'fuzzy' in size. That is, you end up with particles:
> a +/- e, b +/- e, and c +/- e, where e << c. The
> plusses and minuses of these e's are all equal so
> that the average mass of a, b and c remains constant
> for all these particles. Please note, the number of
> individual particles also remain the same, only their
> distribution in size has changed. And as was said,
> even their total energy is very much the same.
> Gravity can be said to be the gradient that exists
> in these e's. And since these e's are being carried
> by particles having different velocities, then their
> gradient becomes spread out with time and distance.
> Their total numbers might remain constant over some
> finite distance, but their 'boundary' becomes less
> and less evident by the very nature of their
> distribution. Any frequency effects can be quickly
> lost ounce these spread in boundaries is larger than
> their effective 'wave lengths,' etc.
>
> With light, there is a release of energy of known
> particles with mass and all moving with the same
> basic velocity, and thus this effect is then able to
> be easily detected at remote locations. Now light is
> not perfect. Its lack of perfection is obvious in
> that we do not have a white night-time sky! Many
> areas are black, showing that many photons never make
> it across the intervening space.
> So as we can see, gravity is not a situation where
> energy is being added to or removed from our reality
> at some point in space. It is only a change in the
> gradient mix that can exist in the ether, a change in
> the distribution of the form of the normal mix of
> energy in the ether. And this mix, this change in
> form, is not detectable as a change in total energy.
>
> And since ether particles have different
> velocities, then this mix can quickly spread out so
> that the mix has no sharp boundaries. Thus, the fine
> features in the mix can quickly degrade in time and
> in distance, even if the average gradient remains at
> a more normal level. Its sharpness is quickly
> destroyed. Even when the total effect (the total
> attraction) remains the same, it is spread out so
> that any specific arrival time becomes more and more
> undetectable.
>
> If a point in a free gas released a large amount
> of heat energy over a very short period of time that
> was of a pure kinematics form, could this heat
> release be detected? Yes! If you were close to this
> point, you would see very suddenly a large number of
> atoms reaching you that had higher than normal
> velocities. But as you moved farther and farther
> away (in terms of a large number of mean free paths),
> the ability of detection would get more and more
> difficult. The heat front would spread out, and
> become so broad that its arrival would no longer be
> seen as a distinct event.
> Now if the heat source was cyclic, releasing heat
> in pulses on a fixed time schedule, how would this
> cycling be seen? As you got farther and farther
> away, the cycling action will quickly become
> undetectable, even when you are still able to measure
> the average amount of heat being released. The
> cycling action would fall off much faster than the
> 1/r^2 function, even though there are no losses in
> the average energy gradient. This is much like what
> we are faced with in trying to detect gravity waves!
> Gravity has this kind of a feature, and therefore
> it will be difficult to see any distinct front, any
> distinct signal, anything to which one could see as a
> frequency, unless one is fairly close to the
> rotation, etc.
That is not a bad allusion to multipole ensembles
interacting over a long distance. If you have a spread
spectrum cell-phone, it probably has no frequency
either... but it works anyway. LOL
Sue...
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- References:
- Latter Day MMX
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Latter Day MMX
- Prev by Date: Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- Next by Date: Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- Previous by thread: Re: Latter Day MMX
- Next by thread: Re: Latter Day MMX
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
