Russell E. Rierson
Jul4-04, 01:09 AM
I am searching for a reasonable description of "scalar waves" for gravity but everything on the internet regarding scalar waves appears to be labeled "crack-pot". So this will be posted at TD.
Is Nikola Tesla considered to have crackpot ideas also???
I certainly hope not.
I did find this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9910/9910032.pdf
Here is a debate of sorts, about the "speed" of gravity:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/debate
[Note added 1 SEPT 2000: This file arose when I ran my newsgrep algorithm in 1998 to obtain sci.physics.research discussions dating back to 1995 between Tom Van Flandern and gravitation physics experts like Steve Carlip.
The result was unenlightening until I ran the algorithm again, this time
grepping only responses by others to posts by TVF, because of TVF's
obfuscatory style. I then discovered that many posts by experts correcting various misconceptions actually contained a great deal of valuable insight into gtr (and other gravitation theories), quite independent of rebutting the particular misconceptions of TVF.
An interesting article by Tesla:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/wireless.htm
It will be of interest to compare my system as first described in a Belgian patent of 1897 with the Hertz-wave system of that period. The significant differences between them will be observed at a glance. The first enables us to transmit economically energy to any distance and is of inestimable value; the latter is capable of a radius of only a few miles and is worthless. In the first there are no spark-gaps and the actions are enormously magnified by resonance. In both transmitter and receiver the currents are transformed and rendered more effective and suitable for the operation of any desired device. Properly constructed, my system is safe against static and other interference and the amount of energy which may be transmitted is billions of times greater than with the Hertzian which has none of these virtues, has never been used successfully and of which no trace can be found at present.
Here are some more interesting people with different ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_Motion_Theory
Relative Motion Theory.
Robert Dicke http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q1/0304dick.html claimed that many relative motion theories for the invisible forces had been put forth but Dicke insisted that gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was then we would see interference fringes and we do not.
There is some interest now, however, in a wave related, relative motion, unified field theory that would not produce any interference fringes which were Robert Dicke's main objection to this type of theory.
This new wave related, relative motion, unified field theory is based on the scalar wave resonance of particles with their surroundings that Milo Wolff http://www.quantummatter.com/ discovered and on Caroline Thompson's http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ discovery that repulsive force is always generated with out of phase waves but never with in phase waves.
Repulsive force = out of phase waves
Interesting.
The expanding infinity of natural numbers exactly corresponds to the
number of fractions from zero to one.
An infinite expanse of space is equal to a finite but infinitely
divided space.
Reverberating standing waves double with every overlap and the total
space-time is finite.
The Universal Geometric Set:
2^0 = 1
2^1 == [.......]
2^2 == [[.....]]
2^3 == [[[[.]]]]
2^N == [[[[[[[[...2^N...]]]]]]]]
If the waves become "compressed", they become smaller and smaller
with each overlap/intersection.
If we are "co-shrinking" it would look like the universe is
expanding. A relativistic perspective effect that is in accordance with Einstein's theories.
Russell E. Rierson
Is Nikola Tesla considered to have crackpot ideas also???
I certainly hope not.
I did find this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9910/9910032.pdf
Here is a debate of sorts, about the "speed" of gravity:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/debate
[Note added 1 SEPT 2000: This file arose when I ran my newsgrep algorithm in 1998 to obtain sci.physics.research discussions dating back to 1995 between Tom Van Flandern and gravitation physics experts like Steve Carlip.
The result was unenlightening until I ran the algorithm again, this time
grepping only responses by others to posts by TVF, because of TVF's
obfuscatory style. I then discovered that many posts by experts correcting various misconceptions actually contained a great deal of valuable insight into gtr (and other gravitation theories), quite independent of rebutting the particular misconceptions of TVF.
An interesting article by Tesla:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/wireless.htm
It will be of interest to compare my system as first described in a Belgian patent of 1897 with the Hertz-wave system of that period. The significant differences between them will be observed at a glance. The first enables us to transmit economically energy to any distance and is of inestimable value; the latter is capable of a radius of only a few miles and is worthless. In the first there are no spark-gaps and the actions are enormously magnified by resonance. In both transmitter and receiver the currents are transformed and rendered more effective and suitable for the operation of any desired device. Properly constructed, my system is safe against static and other interference and the amount of energy which may be transmitted is billions of times greater than with the Hertzian which has none of these virtues, has never been used successfully and of which no trace can be found at present.
Here are some more interesting people with different ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_Motion_Theory
Relative Motion Theory.
Robert Dicke http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q1/0304dick.html claimed that many relative motion theories for the invisible forces had been put forth but Dicke insisted that gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was then we would see interference fringes and we do not.
There is some interest now, however, in a wave related, relative motion, unified field theory that would not produce any interference fringes which were Robert Dicke's main objection to this type of theory.
This new wave related, relative motion, unified field theory is based on the scalar wave resonance of particles with their surroundings that Milo Wolff http://www.quantummatter.com/ discovered and on Caroline Thompson's http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ discovery that repulsive force is always generated with out of phase waves but never with in phase waves.
Repulsive force = out of phase waves
Interesting.
The expanding infinity of natural numbers exactly corresponds to the
number of fractions from zero to one.
An infinite expanse of space is equal to a finite but infinitely
divided space.
Reverberating standing waves double with every overlap and the total
space-time is finite.
The Universal Geometric Set:
2^0 = 1
2^1 == [.......]
2^2 == [[.....]]
2^3 == [[[[.]]]]
2^N == [[[[[[[[...2^N...]]]]]]]]
If the waves become "compressed", they become smaller and smaller
with each overlap/intersection.
If we are "co-shrinking" it would look like the universe is
expanding. A relativistic perspective effect that is in accordance with Einstein's theories.
Russell E. Rierson