Researching Quanitifying Gravity.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The simplist thing in physics is to explain the Big Bang
Next: Scientific American: Light losing energy! (reposted because SOMEbody omitted alt.astronomy)
From: Ken S. Tucker on 28 Jun 2010 22:26 On Jun 28, 5:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > To Charles, Richard and all. > > Hey look another Ken Tucker post that was rejected from SPF. Hmmm.... The fella's I had the opportunity to learn from were quite advanced, more so than today in many ways, http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&ha... It was a different time and attitude. Ken ....
From: BURT on 28 Jun 2010 22:27 On Jun 28, 7:04 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Jun 28, 5:56 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:53 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > To Charles, Richard and all. > > > > On Jun 28, 3:52 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Thus spake Richard D. Saam <rds...(a)att.net> > > > > > >On 6/27/10 4:25 PM, Oh No wrote: > > > > > >Yes 'there are many consistent ways > > > > >of constructing a stress energy tensor > > > > >to model different physical systems' > > > > >but can one be constructed to make the grand leap between GR and QM? > > > > > >Currently, unification between GR and QM is unknown > > > > >(although valiantly sought after as something that surely exists) > > > > >but could that unification be explained in part > > > > >by establishing a stress energy tensor > > > > >with Planck's constant(h) explicitly making a dimensional appearance > > > > >along with c and G? > > > > > No. In their standard formulations, GR and QM are conceptually > > > > different, and not amenable to unification simply by writing down an > > > > equation. Unification must come by looking at the conceptual foundations > > > > of both theories (but of course, these days physicists decree that > > > > conceptual foundations are not physics). > > > > I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily > > > unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands. > > > We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on > > > the > > > problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert > > > 'geometrist', > > > Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough > > > guy. > > > Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co- > > > authorship, > > > >http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&ha... > > > > From this point, I'll have to take responsibility: After some slave > > > time we > > > pulled together a brief to provide a simplified snapshot of a > > > Quantized > > > Unified Field Theory as suggested using GR, see Eq.(4) from this link, > > > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > > > Note the " a*b " in Eq.(4) and then equate that to Plancks "h", > > > using the dimensional Action == Charge^2, then Eq.(4) becomes > > > > S^2 = X^2 + h . > > > > So that reasoning finds GR 'predicts' Plancks h, by deduction, very > > > pretty and elegant. > > > Now the search is of course is to find experimental evidence (apart > > > from the fact it is in agreement with everything we know) that > > > convinces > > > beyond reasonable doubt. > > > Regards > > > Ken S. Tucker > > > .> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and > > > > braces) > > > >http://www.rqgravity.net > > > > Cheers- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > xxein: Beware of circular reasoning. You need much more to prove a > > physic with such a math. > > > For instance. Why can light only circularly orbit a BH at 3M while no > > passing light can escape a BH if under 3M and it will fall into the > > Schwarzschild radius (2M) with no escape thereafter? > > > I can make the argument that light only travels in it's orbital path > > according to a math that says that says it's circular orbital > > velocity^2 + escape velocity^2 === c^2. You can extend this further > > into deriving the predicted Newtonian time DELAY to be half the > > Einsteinian time delay for light's arrival to us during an eclipse > > occultation (Eddington was an imperfect start). You will find that > > ANY bending of light will follow the general rule that says that light > > will slow down (2x Newton's delay) if passing nearby a mass at greater > > than 3M (distance). But it is nothing Einstein understood beyond > > Alice in Wonderland. He figured it to have twice the curvature. > > > Einstein had this theory of space-time that is remarkably workable, > > but he misses the physic of it all in declaring that light always > > travels at c within his concept. His dx/dt did not (and cannot) > > account for the actual speed of light. > > > The Newtonian path is probably correct but light slowed down to mimic > > double the curvature and hence the observed delay in arrival time > > according to my guess. But my guess has shown itself to be consistent > > to BH's with 2M and 3M in mind. > > > I can't (and you know it) do the math for non-circular gravitational > > paths for light. But you can. You're the mathematician. Just don't > > let it fool you into believing the Newtonian path is wrong and see if > > you come up with what I got from it. > > > Start with light's circular orbit at 3M around a BH and go from > > there. You should develop your own program to analyse such things > > without utilizing any presented theory. Hard work. But I did it for > > the macro consideration. I still wonder about the micro though. > > > So ask yourself why "3M" around a BH for a circular orbit of light? > > Why "2M" for the limit of escape for light? Put them together. We > > cannot observe such things but we can extrapolate from them. > > > At 3M the Keppler circular orbit velocity of light squared is > > 2.99585059578937E+16 m/s. The escape velocity squared is > > 5.99170119157874E+16 m/s. Doesn't that sum equal c^2? What a strange > > coincidence, or not? > > > Learn how to put your math skills into a realizable physic instead of > > somebody else's magical dream. > > So-called BH's is other peoples theories, if you enjoy that > subscription, then good for you. > We've run programs on them, fun stuff. > We figure we have a Royal Flush against 4 Aces where the physical > facts are, but we're not ready to tip our hand yet, especially > when there's lot's of Full Houses coming out, makes me laugh. > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The strength of gravity is quantified by an acceleration limit. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 28 Jun 2010 23:35 Ken S. Tucker wrote: [...] > So-called BH's is other peoples theories, if you enjoy that > subscription, then good for you. Ken, when you can't even acknowledge local observation that contradicts your assertions what point is there in discussing objects like black holes with you? You won't understand. [...stupid poker analogy]
From: xxein on 28 Jun 2010 23:36 On Jun 28, 10:04 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Jun 28, 5:56 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:53 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > To Charles, Richard and all. > > > > On Jun 28, 3:52 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Thus spake Richard D. Saam <rds...(a)att.net> > > > > > >On 6/27/10 4:25 PM, Oh No wrote: > > > > > >Yes 'there are many consistent ways > > > > >of constructing a stress energy tensor > > > > >to model different physical systems' > > > > >but can one be constructed to make the grand leap between GR and QM? > > > > > >Currently, unification between GR and QM is unknown > > > > >(although valiantly sought after as something that surely exists) > > > > >but could that unification be explained in part > > > > >by establishing a stress energy tensor > > > > >with Planck's constant(h) explicitly making a dimensional appearance > > > > >along with c and G? > > > > > No. In their standard formulations, GR and QM are conceptually > > > > different, and not amenable to unification simply by writing down an > > > > equation. Unification must come by looking at the conceptual foundations > > > > of both theories (but of course, these days physicists decree that > > > > conceptual foundations are not physics). > > > > I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily > > > unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands. > > > We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on > > > the > > > problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert > > > 'geometrist', > > > Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough > > > guy. > > > Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co- > > > authorship, > > > >http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&ha... > > > > From this point, I'll have to take responsibility: After some slave > > > time we > > > pulled together a brief to provide a simplified snapshot of a > > > Quantized > > > Unified Field Theory as suggested using GR, see Eq.(4) from this link, > > > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > > > Note the " a*b " in Eq.(4) and then equate that to Plancks "h", > > > using the dimensional Action == Charge^2, then Eq.(4) becomes > > > > S^2 = X^2 + h . > > > > So that reasoning finds GR 'predicts' Plancks h, by deduction, very > > > pretty and elegant. > > > Now the search is of course is to find experimental evidence (apart > > > from the fact it is in agreement with everything we know) that > > > convinces > > > beyond reasonable doubt. > > > Regards > > > Ken S. Tucker > > > .> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and > > > > braces) > > > >http://www.rqgravity.net > > > > Cheers- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > xxein: Beware of circular reasoning. You need much more to prove a > > physic with such a math. > > > For instance. Why can light only circularly orbit a BH at 3M while no > > passing light can escape a BH if under 3M and it will fall into the > > Schwarzschild radius (2M) with no escape thereafter? > > > I can make the argument that light only travels in it's orbital path > > according to a math that says that says it's circular orbital > > velocity^2 + escape velocity^2 === c^2. You can extend this further > > into deriving the predicted Newtonian time DELAY to be half the > > Einsteinian time delay for light's arrival to us during an eclipse > > occultation (Eddington was an imperfect start). You will find that > > ANY bending of light will follow the general rule that says that light > > will slow down (2x Newton's delay) if passing nearby a mass at greater > > than 3M (distance). But it is nothing Einstein understood beyond > > Alice in Wonderland. He figured it to have twice the curvature. > > > Einstein had this theory of space-time that is remarkably workable, > > but he misses the physic of it all in declaring that light always > > travels at c within his concept. His dx/dt did not (and cannot) > > account for the actual speed of light. > > > The Newtonian path is probably correct but light slowed down to mimic > > double the curvature and hence the observed delay in arrival time > > according to my guess. But my guess has shown itself to be consistent > > to BH's with 2M and 3M in mind. > > > I can't (and you know it) do the math for non-circular gravitational > > paths for light. But you can. You're the mathematician. Just don't > > let it fool you into believing the Newtonian path is wrong and see if > > you come up with what I got from it. > > > Start with light's circular orbit at 3M around a BH and go from > > there. You should develop your own program to analyse such things > > without utilizing any presented theory. Hard work. But I did it for > > the macro consideration. I still wonder about the micro though. > > > So ask yourself why "3M" around a BH for a circular orbit of light? > > Why "2M" for the limit of escape for light? Put them together. We > > cannot observe such things but we can extrapolate from them. > > > At 3M the Keppler circular orbit velocity of light squared is > > 2.99585059578937E+16 m/s. The escape velocity squared is > > 5.99170119157874E+16 m/s. Doesn't that sum equal c^2? What a strange > > coincidence, or not? > > > Learn how to put your math skills into a realizable physic instead of > > somebody else's magical dream. > > So-called BH's is other peoples theories, if you enjoy that > subscription, then good for you. > We've run programs on them, fun stuff. > We figure we have a Royal Flush against 4 Aces where the physical > facts are, but we're not ready to tip our hand yet, especially > when there's lot's of Full Houses coming out, makes me laugh. > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: Laugh now before it's too late to enjoy it.
From: Ken S. Tucker on 1 Jul 2010 14:15
On Jun 28, 6:58 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: To Fred, Charles, Richard and all. > I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily > unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands. > We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on > the > problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert > 'geometrist', > Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough > guy. > Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co- > authorship, > > http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&ha... > > From this point, I'll have to take responsibility: After some slave > time we > pulled together a brief to provide a simplified snapshot of a > Quantized > Unified Field Theory as suggested using GR, see Eq.(4) from this link, > > http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > Note the " a*b " in Eq.(4) and then equate that to Plancks "h", > using the dimensional Action == Charge^2, then Eq.(4) becomes > > S^2 = X^2 + h . Eq.(4a). > > So that reasoning finds GR 'predicts' Plancks h, by deduction, very > pretty and elegant. > Now the search is of course is to find experimental evidence (apart > from the fact it is in agreement with everything we know) that > convinces > beyond reasonable doubt. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker Of interest is the "h" in Eq.(4a) above as it tends to zero, As h=>0 , S=>X, G_uv=T_uv => 0 . IOW's the gravitational field (and of course EM-relations) vanish as h=>0, now that leads to a sort of inductive conclusion: we require an h > 0 for the requirement G_uv = T_uv > 0, that is the universe. In view of GR, the existance of a universe requires h >0, now that is quite fundamental, GR can only existance in a universe where h > 0. Regards Ken S. Tucker |