# Gravity is EMR

1. Aug 4, 2004

### Dook

Could gravity be a frequency of electromagnetic radiation?

2. Aug 4, 2004

***Nope***

3. Aug 4, 2004

### Vern

Fundamental cause of gravity

A fellow came up out of the LA backwoods the other day and told us what gravity was.

What Gravity Is

Makes as much sense as the mainstream stuff

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern

4. Aug 5, 2004

### Dook

Gravity travels at the speed of EMR and follows the inverse square law?

5. Aug 5, 2004

### Vern

Makes you suspect that there's a relationship between gravity and EMR. The Photon Theory solves the problem this way That looks like an off the wall guess but it is the result of about twenty years of brain storming.

It works for me

6. Aug 5, 2004

### kurious

If it is EMR then there's something wrong with quantum mechanics which says a graviton should be spin 2 and not spin 1.

7. Aug 6, 2004

### Vern

All the leading scientists know that QM is flawed.
When you make EMR produce gravity you don't have a gravaton, so the spin thing is not relevent.

Last edited: Aug 6, 2004
8. Aug 6, 2004

### Vern

Sorry about that. Dr. Greenberger is head of the Department of Physics, City College of the City University of New York, New York 10031. The quote above came from his preface to "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory in the Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, Volume 755

One of the reasons everyone is banging on QM theory so much is that everybody knows its going to come down one day.

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern

9. Aug 7, 2004

### Takereasy

Hey, what if the equation E=mc^2 (Energy equals mass times lightspeed squared) was really E=mcz (Energy equals mass times lightspeed times magnetspeed)?

That would allow two electromagnetic wave components to have simultaneously differing [multiples of] wavelength and/or frequency, as long as their nodes were coincident (at least at some common multuple).

This, according to an equation for wavespeed=frequency times wavelength.

It's just a crazy thought.

Last edited: Aug 7, 2004
10. Aug 7, 2004

### Vern

Well, Takereasy, the old E = mcc has worked very well ever since Henry Poincare wrote it down in 1900. Then Einstein picked it up and we're off to the races. I don't get where your improvement would let us see something we can't now see.

Am I missing something?

Vern

11. Aug 7, 2004

### Takereasy

I haven't the slightest clue what it would do. I just threw it out there to see if it would jog anything.

See, sometimes I giggle when I see all of the physical "laws" we rely upon these days, which are based on nothing more than pure assumptions and hastily drawn conclusions...big ones.

It would be an entertaining exercise to extract all of the theories we have accepted as truth up to now, and evaluate them with respect to an actually thorough scientific method. I'd be willing to bet we would filter out much less than we think we already have, don't you?

I mean, what of this E=mcc? the value for c is a "relatively" God-awful huge number. It would be easy to square it to get some even bigger number. It's all "relative" in a way, anyway.

Has anyone actually sat right down in the middle of a nuclear explosion, and time-after-time verified the amount of energy produced to within a reasonable certainty? So, what if it wasn't c squared? What if it was two identical (or similar) values multiplied together. Does anyone really know? Nope.

Vern?

12. Aug 7, 2004

### Vern

I share your skepticism but have to say that the boys that wear the physics hats know their stuff better than you might think. I am continously amazed at the amount of things they can deduce from simple observations.

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern