Unraveling the Connection Between Gravity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

[Sariaht]

Heisenbergs relations pushes the particles together! (And not just neutrinos)

This is a description of the second term in D(v_r).

That the ether particles moves causes all other particles to move aswell, But logically they move against each other.

My theory is that the higgsparticles crushes all particles held together with lower charge then themselves, and thereby makes electrones and protones move very rapidly. The higher speed the particles moves in, the quicker they push the particles moving slower together, illustrated in Micheal's flow pictures.

 

[russ_watters]

Dead link.

In an case, what you describe is simply not supported by physical evidence.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Originally posted by Sariaht
That the ether particles moves causes all other particles to move aswell, But logically they move against each other.

Rule number one: There is no ether.

Rule number two: There is no ether.

Rule number three: Don't get caught repeating yourself.

*vulcan grin*

\\//,

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

We already had a "Push Force from Space" theorist, Nigel in Astronomy and Cosmology, the thread "Proof of the Cause of Gravity"...runs into problems when you turn the "surface area" of a flat piece of steel 90° (to perpendicular) as a push force would change, dramatically, the piece of steels weight...not something that happens, sooo...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

There is also the very simply question of; "How does a push force from space presssurize the interior of the planet" in a manner that correlates "depth and pressure" such that, pressure INCREASES with depth, which is something that an "exterior pressurizing force" ("push force from space") cannot do, even though you (apparently?) can fool(?) some theoreticians/mathematicians this way, you will NOT fool the poeple with "Mechanical" knowledge as they know (from the MATH!) That is is simply unachievable.

The idea of the Center of the Earth being pressurized, and relativily proportional to increasing depth, is a well known, measured, tested, accepted, "presently (current) accepted theory", of Geo-physics, just slightly under 4 Mbars of pressure at the center...sooo "Push from Space" does NOT accommodate the observational facts of a pressurized center which alludes to (tells{?} us) that it is an "Attraction to a (common) Center" that is Gravity...

Mysterious isn't it...(?)

 

[Sariaht]

Why should I defend myself against fools?

Heisenbergs relations are applicable to higgsparticles!

 

[Deeviant]

Why should I defend myself against fools?

Real scientists don't attack people trying to prove their theory wrong. They welcome it as the added scrutiny will one way or another help their understanding of universe.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Why should I defend myself against fools? You shouldn't! but, "What you see in 'others', is the truth, as it arises from within you", so tell us all, who really is the "Fool" you are seeing...the one in the mirror??

Heisenbergs relations are applicable to higgsparticles!

And from what you describe, you would NOT be able to achieve the compression, needed, to generate a neutron star's densities, cause Neutrons stars are real, provable as existent, things...aside from that,...the linked site is about "Neutrino gravity" right?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Why should I defend myself against fools?

Real science is done by actively proving yourself to be correct. If you want to be a scientist, you have to follow the rules of the game.

Your idea does not fit the existing body of physical evidence.

 

[tanus5]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
There is also the very simply question of; "How does a push force from space presssurize the interior of the planet" in a manner that correlates "depth and pressure" such that, pressure INCREASES with depth, which is something that an "exterior pressurizing force" ("push force from space") cannot do, even though you (apparently?)

If all particles were standing waves in which the in wave was generated by every other particle in the universe wouldn't such waves be compressed apon creating a large mass. In the center of a traditional gravitational field there would be zero gravity due to the equal force in all directions. This could be explained by a depletion in wave intensity as waves form particles. To my knowledge the center of our planet is melted rock which would mean that a portion of the energy making up the in wave is getting converted to heat (E=MC2) and the difference between the incoming pressure and the outgoing pressure of these waves would cleanly explain gravity (note: outgoing pressure would be less due to a portion of the incoming wave becoming heat).

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by tanus5
If all particles were standing waves in which the in wave was generated by every other particle in the universe wouldn't such waves be compressed apon creating a large mass. In the center of a traditional gravitational field there would be zero gravity due to the equal force in all directions. This could be explained by a depletion in wave intensity as waves form particles. To my knowledge the center of our planet is melted rock which would mean that a portion of the energy making up the in wave is getting converted to heat (E=MC2) and the difference between the incoming pressure and the outgoing pressure of these waves would cleanly explain gravity (note: outgoing pressure would be less due to a portion of the incoming wave becoming heat).

Sorry for expanding on a tangent but...
Assuming this is true, wouldn't the out-wave also lose just as much energy? Besides, I believe the heat is a result of the pressure which is a result of gravity, not the other way around. As always, I could be wrong =) Remember that, when looked at from a relative viewpoint, heat is just kinetic energy. We don't perceive it as that because each particle is fighting against each other particle and the net force is zero, but each individual particle has an abundance of kinetic energy.

 

[tanus5]

Originally posted by Pergatory
Sorry for expanding on a tangent but...
Assuming this is true, wouldn't the out-wave also lose just as much energy?

My only possible explanation as to why the in wave loses energy in the form of heat is because it is being compressed and the standing waves (particles) would have an over-supply of energy which would be displayed as kinetic energy. The out wave would be undergoing expansion and wouldn't nessisarily reclaim the energy lost to heat, as is evident in the heat that exists in the center of the earth.

As for gravity creating heat, or heat creating gravity, this does appear to be a perspective issue. The incoming waves being compressed and giving off heat matches your mental model, what I am stating is that kinetic energy had to come from somewhere, and an incoming wave is a coherant explanation. The outgoing wave, lacking the energy given off as kinetic energy would be less intense giving rise to gravity.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by tanus5
If all particles were standing waves in which the in wave was generated by every other particle in the universe wouldn't such waves be compressed apon creating a large mass. In the center of a traditional gravitational field there would be zero gravity due to the equal force in all directions. This could be explained by a depletion in wave intensity as waves form particles. To my knowledge the center of our planet is melted rock which would mean that a portion of the energy making up the in wave is getting converted to heat (E=MC2) and the difference between the incoming pressure and the outgoing pressure of these waves would cleanly explain gravity (note: outgoing pressure would be less due to a portion of the incoming wave becoming heat).

How does a depletion in energy, create compression? (as particle formation would drive expansion, not compression)

 

[Pergatory]

Ugh my head hurts... let me think about this for a minute...

Ok, I've thought, and thought some more, and here is the question I arrived at:
If gravity is a manifestation of lost energy in the form of heat during this cycle, how is energy introduced into the system in order to perpetuate itself?

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
How does a depletion in energy, create compression? (as particle formation would drive expansion, not compression)

I believe Tanus is referring to something similar to a pressure differential across the incoming and outgoing waves. There is a net loss on the incoming waves versus the outgoing, thereby inducing a slight inbound force pulling other matter toward it. His reference to particle formation was a tangent to his primary postulation, suggesting that standing waves lose energy merely by existing in a particle state (because of gravity).

 

[tanus5]

I'm going to make some educated guesses here. First continuation of the energy cycle continues from the incoming waves from all the particles in the universe. To my knowledge the Earth radiates some of its heat, either through valcanic activity or convection back to the universe. Thus maintaining the energy cycle. I have no idea at what point radiated kenetic energy would re-form into a free wave to become part of the in waves used for future incarnations of particles.

For the other question about energy loss causing compression. First some portion (quanta) of the energy in a wave would be "used" in the formation of particles, ie. the "quanta" of energy can only be used once in a given instant. This was meant to demonstrate known behaviors of gravity, and not related to compression.

The theory I came up with is based entirely on the principles of conservation of energy and what I know of the standing wave theory. An incoming "quanta" of a wave would have 2 important possible destinations, either becoming kenetic energy, or the in-wave of a particle. Each "quanta" used for the in-wave of a particle would become an out-wave on the next cycle. This process in a large particle concentration would have more "free" waves coming in, than "free" waves leaving. While kenetic energy would still escape the process would be much slower than the formation and reformatoin of standing waves. In viewable terms, if two waves were traveling towards you in the ocean from two different directions such that they would impact you at the same time. The bigger wave would "win" in that it would push you in the direction it is moving less whatever force it lost from the smaller wave.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Pergatory
I believe Tanus is referring to something similar to a pressure differential across the incoming and outgoing waves. There is a net loss on the incoming waves versus the outgoing, thereby inducing a slight inbound force pulling other matter toward it. His reference to particle formation was a tangent to his primary postulation, suggesting that standing waves lose energy merely by existing in a particle state (because of gravity).

To the Emboldened, Funny I thought that that was called 'attraction to a common center', NOT a push force from space...right?

Oh yes, and aside from that, Particle formation is called Fusion, are you suggesting the the Earth is fusion powered gravity, cause where is the created matter going, the Earth would need to swell greatly over time...right?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by tanus5
I'm going to make some educated guesses here. First continuation of the energy cycle continues from the incoming waves from all the particles in the universe. To my knowledge the Earth radiates some of its heat, either through valcanic activity or convection back to the universe. Thus maintaining the energy cycle. I have no idea at what point radiated kenetic energy would re-form into a free wave to become part of the in waves used for future incarnations of particles.
For the other question about energy loss causing compression. First some portion (quanta) of the energy in a wave would be "used" in the formation of particles, ie. the "quanta" of energy can only be used once in a given instant. This was meant to demonstrate known behaviors of gravity, and not related to compression.
The theory I came up with is based entirely on the principles of conservation of energy and what I know of the standing wave theory. An incoming "quanta" of a wave would have 2 important possible destinations, either becoming kenetic energy, or the in-wave of a particle. Each "quanta" used for the in-wave of a particle would become an out-wave on the next cycle. This process in a large particle concentration would have more "free" waves coming in, than "free" waves leaving. While kenetic energy would still escape the process would be much slower than the formation and reformatoin of standing waves. In viewable terms, if two waves were traveling towards you in the ocean from two different directions such that they would impact you at the same time. The bigger wave would "win" in that it would push you in the direction it is moving less whatever force it lost from the smaller wave.

So, curiosity, 'push force from space' and a need of anisotrophic pressurization, Humm what you seem to be guessing at is telling of a mechanical pressure, ergo Isotrophic, but the observed is of an anisotrophic system, much greater pressure at the center...so How?

 

[Sariaht]

For really massive objects, the gravity should be proportional to the surface area.

I'm sorry I got out of hand by the way.

And I don't blame gravity on neutrino flows, for your knowledge.

Erik-Olof Wallman

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Sariaht
For really massive objects, the gravity should be proportional to the surface area. Well why then is gravity proportionate to the mass and not to surface area?

I'm sorry I got out of hand by the way.

And I don't blame gravity on neutrino flows, for your knowledge.

Erik-Olof Wallman

Don't think the rest of that applies to me, sooo...

 

[Sariaht]

Actually, it is for black holes;

R_s = 2GM/c²

So the mass of the black hole is K*R_s= k*(surface area)

 

[tanus5]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So, curiosity, 'push force from space' and a need of anisotrophic pressurization, Humm what you seem to be guessing at is telling of a mechanical pressure, ergo Isotrophic, but the observed is of an anisotrophic system, much greater pressure at the center...so How?

How could there be "much greater" pressure in the absolute center, when there would be gravetation pulling you in all directions counteracting the existing pressure? What you are saying doesn't make sense. But, in a wave theory the wave concentration at the center would be much greater, and with all standing waves being pulled inward the pressure would be greater towards the center less the energy in the waves which are already "used" in other standing waves.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by tanus5
How could there be "much greater" pressure in the absolute center, when there would be gravetation pulling you in all directions counteracting the existing pressure? What you are saying doesn't make sense. But, in a wave theory the wave concentration at the center would be much greater, and with all standing waves being pulled inward the pressure would be greater towards the center less the energy in the waves which are already "used" in other standing waves.

Which part greater pressure at the center, that is (to the best of anyones abilities) a measured fact...your expostulation of "zero gravity" at the center is what is in error, otherwise, as I have asked you to do, explain how that generates the Near 4 Mbars of pressure, seen to exist/be, at the center of the earth...?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Actually, it is for black holes;

R_s = 2GM/c²

So the mass of the black hole is K*R_s= k*(surface area) ]

WOW I am facinated, someone has discovered the physical structure of a BLACK HOLE, when? how? who? where? tell us all, now, cause I have never-ever, in all of what I have ever seen, read, been told, or know of, has anyone ever claimed to know what the surface area of a BLACK HOLE IS...NEVER, ANYONE

Yes they have estimations (good ones too) of just how much space is being seemingly evacuated, BUT that is NOT the surface area of a Black Hole G-u-a-r-a-n-t-e-e-d!-!-!-!-!-!-!

(a small error, in typing, was it?)

 

[russ_watters]

To put a finer point on it, Sariaht, virtually nothing of what you are saying matches with observation or is even logically consistent. I strongly recommend learning some accepted physics before trying to re-invent it on your own. You will likely find that re-inventing the wheel isn't necessary, or worse, is a waste of time.

 

[Sariaht]

This was proven theoretically by Schwarzschild.

Proven by Schwarzschild.

The radius squared, r² is as always MG/a.

But a = a_max.

a_max = c²/2r.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Actually, it is for black holes;

R_s = 2GM/c²

So the mass of the black hole is K*R_s= k*(surface area)

Sariaht... do you ever pause to consider what the equations you spout actually mean? This is true for black holes, and black holes only, because the "surface area" of a black hole is based on its event horizon, the distance at which light cannot escape, thus relating surface area directly to gravitation. The majority of objects in this universe lack an event horizon, and surface area is based on its atoms' e-m interactions etc.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Thank you FZ+! (many times, many many times...)

 

[Sariaht]

Originally posted by FZ+
Sariaht... do you ever pause to consider what the equations you spout actually mean?

Yes

This is true for black holes, and black holes only.

That's my *stars* point!

Because the "surface area" of a black hole is based on its event horizon.

That's my argument.

the distance at which light cannot escape

holy?

Thus relating surface area directly to gravitation.

Thus you're not kidding.

What the *stars* has that got to do with anything?

The majority of objects in this universe lack an event horizon.

Go *stars* yourself.

And surface area is based on its atoms' e-m interactions etc.

stars in ma pants

And Parkinson, If you have no ideas of what you're talking about, then don't.

 

[Sariaht]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sariaht
For really massive objects (like black holes), the gravity should be proportional to the surface area (higgs-particles cannot penetrate a black hole).

"Well why then is gravity proportionate to the mass and not to surface area?"

In other cases, it should not, cause I'm talking about vibrations causing gravity, not ether flows. The pressaure must be a paradox for you. pretend that the center of the Earth is in the midle of three pizza slices, attracting each other. Were is the pressaure at the highest? In the oven.
"Well why then is gravity proportionate to the mass and not to surface area?"

Don't think the rest of that applies to me, sooo...

*Stars* you sooo...

Never underestimate the Power, of Underestimation!

Best advice for the 21'st century, Help!"

...Now is that a cry (from me?) for "sh"it" or a respectfully suggested (do whatever you want to, you are responcible for it, sooo...) instruction to do "sh"it"

 

[FZ+]

Sariaht, please do not reduce this to a swearing contest. If you are unable to modify your attitude, this thread will be locked.

The most important point to realize is that the equation you used is an extremely specialised equation for situations where "surface area" is defined in extremely specialised terms. You cannot throw it out randomly, without any theoretical justification. The equation you used has simply no physical significance in almost all cases. The special circumstance of a black hole is not due to its mass, but its great density, which makes the determination of the normal idea of surface area impossible. In a "singularity" model of a black hole, the standard surface area value is 0.

 

[Sariaht]

Originally posted by FZ+
Sariaht, please do not reduce this to a swearing contest. If you are unable to modify your attitude, this thread will be locked.

The most important point to realize is that the equation you used is an extremely specialised equation for situations where "surface area" is defined in extremely specialised terms. You cannot throw it out randomly, without any theoretical justification. The equation you used has simply no physical significance in almost all cases. The special circumstance of a black hole is not due to its mass, but its great density, which makes the determination of the normal idea of surface area impossible. In a "singularity" model of a black hole, the standard surface area value is 0.

Yes, but i ment the surface area of the black hole.

 

[FZ+]

Then you will note it has no relevance to your claim that gravitation is based on surface area for any entity of greater mass.

Additionally, I think you are abusing the idea of higgs particles. They do not crush - in fact, the concept of crush has no meaning at the scales in which they operate.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Pretend that the center of the Earth is in the midle of three pizza slices, attracting each other. Were is the pressaure at the highest? In the oven.

Classic. So you're just screwing with us, is that what you're trying to say?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Isn't it obvious what he/she/it is doing, look at the signature, mine corrupted! not even intelligent to come up with there own, Ha ha hahahahahahahaha whadda rube!

EDIT this one, posted above

Never underestimate the Power, of Underestimation!

Best advice for the 21'st century, Help!"

...Now is that a cry (from me?) for "sh"it" or a respectfully suggested (do whatever you want to, you are responcible for it, sooo...) instruction to do "sh"it"


Last edited by Sariaht on 02-25-2004 at 09:41 AM