Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 52 of 52

Thread: The Universe is Otherwise - part 2 - Paeps (gravity particles)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    EEM, Ari, CC: paul schroeder's ATM idea, as presented in this thread, is not just any old infinite, static universe. He has made some quite specific statements concerning the expected microwave background, based on specific aspects of his idea. However, it's not clear to me why - assuming the specific details he presents - that microwave background should not be infinite ... hence my question.

    If you, or any other reader, can explain what the expected microwave background should be - based on the specific details of the ATM idea, as presented - by all means do so.

    Otherwise ...
    There are some similarities between my model and Paul's, so let me take a stab at it. But first, let me make a comment or two to Paul. Paul, you say your gravitational ether or field moves at velocity c and is a carrier for light. You also say that photons stretch out and become paeps. These things together imply that the paeps or gravitational ether are photons or virtual photons. If it runs as fast as a dog, runs with dogs and can even change into a dog, I say it's most likely a dog!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    Here's your ATM assertion (my bold): "Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is* the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox."

    Here are my questions on this (I've added numbering):

    1) Why isn't the intensity of the microwave background infinite?

    2) How does your ATM idea account for the actual, observed intensity of the microwave background?

    3) Why is the 'interim step in this process [...] the microwave background'?

    4a) Why isn't it a near-infrared one? 4b) or a far-infrared one? 4c) or a VLF radio one?
    On your point 1, the intensity of the background does not become infinite because, in a recycling type universe (static model), the photons have to degrade to 'paeps' (as Paul calls them) as well. In fact the amount of energy lost from paeps has to equal the energy lost from photons.

    On point 2, we also take note that the total quantity of radiation in a static model is constant. We know the rate at which stars emit light into space (approximately). We also know that the largest pool of photon energy is in the CMBR. If we apply the tired light redshift against the CMBR radiation, we find that the two rates are equal, as expected.

    On point 3, my explanation would go over too much to my model. But basically, if paeps are also degrading to photons, then we have another background of very long wavelength radiation which interacts with matter and generates the CMBR. I'll leave it to others whether this is getting too much off Paul's model.

    Point 4 relates back to point 2. What goes in must come out.

    The questions are difficult and not to be solved in a day.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53

    reply to nereid

    I hope this doesn’t just confuse the microwave issue more, but let me try another example. Consider a small square at a distance 1 somewhere in deep space from which radiation is coming. Assume first that the square is filled with 4 stars, one in each corner. We should receive equal forms of radiation from throughout the square and it should be infinite in its filling the radiation view for us. Now move one star to distance 2, another to 3 and another to 4. The amount of shift now received from each differs from the others. So, our total view consists of about 25% of each wavelength. Beyond that, as I have proposed, there is no ultimate loss of gravitation because the wavelengths continue to increase until they are infinite and the beams become paep streams. The more distant galaxies are sending radiation that has become gravitation.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53

    reply to ExpErdMann

    You said
    Paul, you say your gravitational ether or field moves at velocity c and is a carrier for light. You also say that photons stretch out and become paeps. These things together imply that the paeps or gravitational ether are photons or virtual photons. If it runs as fast as a dog, runs with dogs and can even change into a dog, I say it's most likely a dog!

    Essentially correct. I mentioned that probably my paeps are the fundamental elementary particle. Then all others are variations and the variation is the frequency within the wave. Basing thought on photons and calling paeps virtual photons is equal logic.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpErdMann View Post
    I don't think Philip's comments are totally OT. He is focusing on the Le Sage particle model, as modified by Van Flandern and Slabinski. Paul Schroeder's model involves particles too, but his differ quite a bit from the ones Philip is talking about. They go at the velocity c, for instance, and are carried by his gravitational ether. Paul has possibly caused the confusion himself, by using the particle term 'paeps', when his model seems closer to a Le Sage (Lorentz-type) wave model. So while I don't think Philip meant to "hijack" the thread, it would indeed be confusing here to talk about the Le Sage particle and wave models simultaneously.
    [Moderator Note]

    EEM, PJ, and anyone else considering posting their own ideas (not paul's) in this thread - whether on Le Sage gravity, or the price of eggs in Taiwan - please read New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section, by Fraser. In particular, note:
    Tell us your idea, that's fine. But we're not going to allow the forum to turn into a marketing vehicle for them. 30 days should be plenty of time to present your concept, deal with objections, answer anything else.
    For avoidance of doubt, BAUT's ATM section is not the place to engage in collaborative development of your ATM idea. Nor is it a place to keep pushing your idea ("Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist [once the 30 days have run their course] will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted."; note that the door is always open if there are significant new developments, such as a new arXiv preprint).

    If any reader needs further clarification of this ATM policy, please PM a moderator.

    [/Moderator Note]

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpErdMann View Post
    [snip]
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    Here's your ATM assertion (my bold): "Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is* the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox."

    Here are my questions on this (I've added numbering):

    1) Why isn't the intensity of the microwave background infinite?

    2) How does your ATM idea account for the actual, observed intensity of the microwave background?

    3) Why is the 'interim step in this process [...] the microwave background'?

    4a) Why isn't it a near-infrared one? 4b) or a far-infrared one? 4c) or a VLF radio one?
    On your point 1, the intensity of the background does not become infinite because, in a recycling type universe (static model), the photons have to degrade to 'paeps' (as Paul calls them) as well. In fact the amount of energy lost from paeps has to equal the energy lost from photons.

    On point 2, we also take note that the total quantity of radiation in a static model is constant. We know the rate at which stars emit light into space (approximately). We also know that the largest pool of photon energy is in the CMBR. If we apply the tired light redshift against the CMBR radiation, we find that the two rates are equal, as expected.

    On point 3, my explanation would go over too much to my model. But basically, if paeps are also degrading to photons, then we have another background of very long wavelength radiation which interacts with matter and generates the CMBR. I'll leave it to others whether this is getting too much off Paul's model.

    Point 4 relates back to point 2. What goes in must come out.

    The questions are difficult and not to be solved in a day.
    I can't see how this answers the specific questions I asked, about the concrete, specific statements made by paul schroeder, on the ATM idea presented in this thread.

    More exactly, the ATM idea, as presented, is quite unambiguous ("An interim step in this process is the microwave background", my bold) - no 'might be', no 'could be', no 'perhaps', ... not even 'there will be an EM background, of unknown SED'!

    So, please explain how your post answers my questions, based on the ATM idea, as presented.

    Also, you called the ATM idea "Paul's model". In what sense are you using the word 'model'? If it's the normal, scientific one, please give the post numbers, in this thread, where it was presented.
    Last edited by Nereid; 2007-Nov-26 at 07:20 PM. Reason: emphasis re 'the' (microwave background) added

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    I hope this doesn’t just confuse the microwave issue more, but let me try another example. Consider a small square at a distance 1 somewhere in deep space from which radiation is coming. Assume first that the square is filled with 4 stars, one in each corner. We should receive equal forms of radiation from throughout the square and it should be infinite in its filling the radiation view for us. Now move one star to distance 2, another to 3 and another to 4. The amount of shift now received from each differs from the others. So, our total view consists of about 25% of each wavelength. Beyond that, as I have proposed, there is no ultimate loss of gravitation because the wavelengths continue to increase until they are infinite and the beams become paep streams. The more distant galaxies are sending radiation that has become gravitation.
    What happens once the wavelengths increase to the plasma frequency of the part of space they are crossing?

    Specifically, what happens:
    a) near the Sun (where the IPM plasma frequency is quite high)?
    b) in the IPM near the Earth?
    c) near the heliosheath?
    d) in the different phases of the ISM, in our part of the Milky Way (MW) galaxy?
    e) in the MW halo?
    f) in the IGM of rich clusters?
    g) in the inter-cluster medium?
    h) in voids?

    Note that the plasma frequencies differ by many OOM in these different environments.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    What happens once the wavelengths increase to the plasma frequency of the part of space they are crossing?

    Specifically, what happens:
    a) near the Sun (where the IPM plasma frequency is quite high)?
    b) in the IPM near the Earth?
    c) near the heliosheath?
    d) in the different phases of the ISM, in our part of the Milky Way (MW) galaxy?
    e) in the MW halo?
    f) in the IGM of rich clusters?
    g) in the inter-cluster medium?
    h) in voids?

    Note that the plasma frequencies differ by many OOM in these different environments.
    Plasma is a subject I haven’t focused on. It seems partly like an extension of the buildup/creation of mass submitted in part 4. There are various options for relating to mass creation.

    1. It can be the ‘fracturing of empty space’ by bent paep stream creating offsetting positive and negative rotating sections representing mass.
    2. It can be the wraparound of an extensively bent paep stream giving an orbital effect to a section of space which ultimately becomes the nucleus.
    3. It can begin as an enclosure created between intersecting oppositely bent paep streams coming from different sources.
    4. It can be electromagnetic rays interacting with a series of other bent streams yielding ever greater frequency and shorter wave lengths in the original ray. The growing amplitude ultimately appears like spin or becomes actual spin leaving some trapped section of space. This intersection of paeps, with radiation, with mass is a spectrum of existence.

    In any case, the observed output from the region will represent the activity that produced the mass plasma. The longer electromagnetic rays travel through a plasma media, the more shortened their waves become. The amount of shortening depends on the length of the plasma and on its density. So passage through the dense but smaller area sun gives light frequencies while passage through tenuous but extensive plasma gives other frequencies.

    Within the plasma the creation of mass is often not complete. In fact it seems to begin and end frequently. The location of a particular creation is determined at the source of the beam. If there are things that vary for the source, like location or relation to interference sources, the electrons defining mass at that point may relocate.

    Please note that your specific question asked about wavelengths increasing to the plasma frequency. I think few if any waves start out with higher frequencies. Paeps certainly don’t. Their frequency is increased to equal the frequency of the plasma as the pass through it and contribute to the creation of it.

    I don’t know enough about the mediums of plasma you mentioned to address any of them specifically.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    What happens once the wavelengths increase to the plasma frequency of the part of space they are crossing?

    Specifically, what happens:
    a) near the Sun (where the IPM plasma frequency is quite high)?
    b) in the IPM near the Earth?
    c) near the heliosheath?
    d) in the different phases of the ISM, in our part of the Milky Way (MW) galaxy?
    e) in the MW halo?
    f) in the IGM of rich clusters?
    g) in the inter-cluster medium?
    h) in voids?

    Note that the plasma frequencies differ by many OOM in these different environments.
    Plasma is a subject I haven’t focused on. It seems partly like an extension of the buildup/creation of mass submitted in part 4. There are various options for relating to mass creation.

    1. It can be the ‘fracturing of empty space’ by bent paep stream creating offsetting positive and negative rotating sections representing mass.
    2. It can be the wraparound of an extensively bent paep stream giving an orbital effect to a section of space which ultimately becomes the nucleus.
    3. It can begin as an enclosure created between intersecting oppositely bent paep streams coming from different sources.
    4. It can be electromagnetic rays interacting with a series of other bent streams yielding ever greater frequency and shorter wave lengths in the original ray. The growing amplitude ultimately appears like spin or becomes actual spin leaving some trapped section of space. This intersection of paeps, with radiation, with mass is a spectrum of existence.

    In any case, the observed output from the region will represent the activity that produced the mass plasma. The longer electromagnetic rays travel through a plasma media, the more shortened their waves become. The amount of shortening depends on the length of the plasma and on its density. So passage through the dense but smaller area sun gives light frequencies while passage through tenuous but extensive plasma gives other frequencies.

    Within the plasma the creation of mass is often not complete. In fact it seems to begin and end frequently. The location of a particular creation is determined at the source of the beam. If there are things that vary for the source, like location or relation to interference sources, the electrons defining mass at that point may relocate.

    Please note that your specific question asked about wavelengths increasing to the plasma frequency. I think few if any waves start out with higher frequencies. Paeps certainly don’t. Their frequency is increased to equal the frequency of the plasma as the pass through it and contribute to the creation of it.

    I don’t know enough about the mediums of plasma you mentioned to address any of them specifically.
    This does not, it seems, answer my direct, pertinent question about the specific ATM idea that you posted.

    Let's review it, shall we (PS = paul schroeder; N = Nereid; my bold)?

    ================================================== ===
    PS: as I have proposed, [...] the wavelengths [of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by objects such as galaxies] continue to increase until they are infinite and the beams become paep streams

    N: What happens once the wavelengths increase to the plasma frequency of the part of space they are crossing?
    ================================================== ===

    Let's first make sure we have the same understanding of basic terms, shall we?

    For electromagnetic radiation, the frequency and wavelength are related in that their product is c (the speed of light), assuming compatible units.

    The astrophysical plasmas of interest here are those which comprise the IPM (inter-planetary medium) - the space between the planets; the ISM (inter-stellar medium) - the space between the stars; and the IGM (inter-galactic medium) - the space between galaxies. The IGM may be within a cluster, or between clusters, etc.

    The electron is the particle in these plasmas of interest to this question; the density of free electrons in these plasmas spans many OOM (orders of magnitude), from millions per cc (cubic centimetre) to but a few per cubic metre.

    'Plasma frequency' is a standard term in (classical) electromagnetism, and, for our purposes here, refers to the lowest frequency that an electromagnetic wave can have and still propagate through a plasma. That frequency is proportional to the square root of the (free) electron density of the plasma.

    If, in your ATM idea, any aspect of the above does not apply, or has an alternative description/explanation, please say so.

    If, on the other hand, you claim your ATM idea is consistent with the above, them please explain what happens to electromagnetic radiation when its wavelength increases to the plasma frequency of the medium it is propagating through.

    For avoidance of doubt, this is, principally, a question of logic ... either your ATM idea can explain what happens, or it can't; if it can, it can do so within the framework of classical electromagnetism, or it can't.

    To telegraph: I think this part of your ATM idea shows a fatal inconsistency, either with electromagnetic physics that is well-established in the lab, or with the obvious failure of a simple 'anti-gravity' device, based on your idea, that anyone could build.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    [Moderator Note]

    Post by BaDboD split from this thread, to start a new thread, BAUT's ATM section is not a place for collaborative development, in the About BAUT section.

    [/Moderator Note]

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53

    response to nereid about plasma

    Terminology is not the reason we are having trouble connecting on your question, but rather the point of the question itself. I have struggled with the intent of your question. You asked about waves stretching (redshifting) to then match the frequency of a plasma region. This suggests addressing a specific wavelength which must come from some source far distant in space. It would not be intense enough to matter. Starlight from the most distant star we can see has diminished via R(2) to almost zero intensity and light with significant shift has traveled likewise far. Conversely, the radiation that arrives at any specific point in space is mostly all shifted into gravitation. Gravitation is by far the most intense radiation at any point. The next most shifting we detect is the full range of microwave background. I expect these frequencies all propagate through plasma. To focus on a specific wavelength arriving anywhere provides little value to any system.

    Stretching (redshift) and bending are totally different properties. Bending occurs near the source and plays a role in plasma. That is why I answered like I did with discussion about bent paep streams. Here are some other attempts I have been making to answer your questions.

    There are two principal subjects in my threads. The first is that gravity causes redshift currently ascribed to Doppler. The second topic is pushing gravity and my paep streams. One does not require the other, so they are somewhat independent. You have made two statements that each address different topics.

    The first statement is that electromagnetic radiation frequency times wavelength equals C (the speed of light). For dense mediums such as water the speed is less than C. Similarly for medium which are directional such as in gravity the speed of light varies by direction. If radiation is traveling at a different speed, say .99C, then we should observe the same frequency when the wavelength is .99 times what we expect. Given such speed variations, at what speed would such a beam no longer represent electromagnetic radiation we are familiar with?

    When addressing gravitational redshift, I explained that the blue shift of incoming light is due to a gravitational increasing speed of the radiation which exceeds the effect from the gravitational increase in separation (wavelength) of two adjacent photons. I can’t explain or argue further for this. My question to you, is there any way of testing that frequency shifted light comes to us at other than the speed of C? Blue shifted incoming light might provide a test, or possibly quasar redshifted light. Unfortunately, other redshifted light slows and then resumes speed as the source gravitational drag is replaced by the observer’s gravitational pull.

    Your main question is ‘what happens to electromagnetic radiation when its wavelength increases to the plasma frequency of the medium as it is propagating through?’ In response I tried to provide a more topic oriented answer by addressing where the plasma might come from. You have radiation arriving at some existing plasma. Since most space contains hydrogen and plasma it suggests mass creation, which logically occurs by action of my paeps. Otherwise, some direct response would be that solar/stellar radiation, increasing in wavelength with distance, mostly arrives at the plasma with wavelengths greater than that of the plasma so they don’t increase in wavelength in the part of space they are crossing.

    High frequency output from plasma kind of mimics what we receive from the sun. This begs a similar response I tried before about mass creation and destruction. My lowest frequency wave is gravity. As with the sun, some gravity paeps come through plasma unchanged, but less than went in the other side. Somehow paeps knock electrons out of possible atom formations within the sun creating free electrons. I gave various possibilities of paep particle interactions. Paeps bending around to a loop could become a particle identified by rotation possibly defining electrons. Coincidentally other paeps might bump electrons out of atoms or the streams might move, canceling and rebuilding themselves.

    The frequency of radiation emitted is going to be higher when the plasma has more density of electrons which cause more interference.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    Terminology is not the reason we are having trouble connecting on your question, but rather the point of the question itself. I have struggled with the intent of your question. You asked about waves stretching (redshifting) to then match the frequency of a plasma region. This suggests addressing a specific wavelength which must come from some source far distant in space. It would not be intense enough to matter. Starlight from the most distant star we can see has diminished via R(2) to almost zero intensity and light with significant shift has traveled likewise far. Conversely, the radiation that arrives at any specific point in space is mostly all shifted into gravitation. Gravitation is by far the most intense radiation at any point. The next most shifting we detect is the full range of microwave background. I expect these frequencies all propagate through plasma. To focus on a specific wavelength arriving anywhere provides little value to any system.

    Stretching (redshift) and bending are totally different properties. Bending occurs near the source and plays a role in plasma. That is why I answered like I did with discussion about bent paep streams. Here are some other attempts I have been making to answer your questions.

    There are two principal subjects in my threads. The first is that gravity causes redshift currently ascribed to Doppler. The second topic is pushing gravity and my paep streams. One does not require the other, so they are somewhat independent. You have made two statements that each address different topics.

    The first statement is that electromagnetic radiation frequency times wavelength equals C (the speed of light). For dense mediums such as water the speed is less than C. Similarly for medium which are directional such as in gravity the speed of light varies by direction. If radiation is traveling at a different speed, say .99C, then we should observe the same frequency when the wavelength is .99 times what we expect. Given such speed variations, at what speed would such a beam no longer represent electromagnetic radiation we are familiar with?

    When addressing gravitational redshift, I explained that the blue shift of incoming light is due to a gravitational increasing speed of the radiation which exceeds the effect from the gravitational increase in separation (wavelength) of two adjacent photons. I can’t explain or argue further for this. My question to you, is there any way of testing that frequency shifted light comes to us at other than the speed of C? Blue shifted incoming light might provide a test, or possibly quasar redshifted light. Unfortunately, other redshifted light slows and then resumes speed as the source gravitational drag is replaced by the observer’s gravitational pull.

    Your main question is ‘what happens to electromagnetic radiation when its wavelength increases to the plasma frequency of the medium as it is propagating through?’ In response I tried to provide a more topic oriented answer by addressing where the plasma might come from. You have radiation arriving at some existing plasma. Since most space contains hydrogen and plasma it suggests mass creation, which logically occurs by action of my paeps. Otherwise, some direct response would be that solar/stellar radiation, increasing in wavelength with distance, mostly arrives at the plasma with wavelengths greater than that of the plasma so they don’t increase in wavelength in the part of space they are crossing.

    High frequency output from plasma kind of mimics what we receive from the sun. This begs a similar response I tried before about mass creation and destruction. My lowest frequency wave is gravity. As with the sun, some gravity paeps come through plasma unchanged, but less than went in the other side. Somehow paeps knock electrons out of possible atom formations within the sun creating free electrons. I gave various possibilities of paep particle interactions. Paeps bending around to a loop could become a particle identified by rotation possibly defining electrons. Coincidentally other paeps might bump electrons out of atoms or the streams might move, canceling and rebuilding themselves.

    The frequency of radiation emitted is going to be higher when the plasma has more density of electrons which cause more interference.
    Actually, I'm beginning to think that many more of the key terms in the ATM idea you have presented, both in this thread and the other two in this ATM section, differ sufficiently from their standard, textbook, physics meanings that there's little communication actually taking place, much less questioning and challenging of the ATM ideas.

    For example: "Similarly for medium which are directional such as in gravity the speed of light varies by direction. If radiation is traveling at a different speed, say .99C, then we should observe the same frequency when the wavelength is .99 times what we expect."

    I can't understand this at all ... on the one hand, you seem to be declaring (albeit somewhat indirectly) that your idea rests on a postulate that is different than the second postulate of special relativity ("Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."); on the other hand, you seem to be using principles (postulates? conclusions?) that are inconsistent with thousands of very good experiments and observations.

    Perhaps an easy way to break this apparent mis-communication is the classic experimental test of gravitational redshift, the Pound-Rebka experiment. Two questions here:
    1) to what extent do you consider this experiment to have yielded unambiguous results?
    2) how, within your ATM idea of gravitational redshift, do you account for these results?
    My definition is that space, the field, or the ether, is gravitation moving in all directions at speed C. It carries radiation which is the reason that electromagnetic phenomena travel at speed C in space.
    (my bold)

    That's from the opening post (OP) of this thread. It seems (to me at least) that your latest post is in direct contradiction to this ("in gravity the speed of light varies by direction")!

    Do you see my confusion? Can you please clarify this apparent contradiction?

    Back to the logic of your ATM idea, as presented:
    You asked about waves stretching (redshifting) to then match the frequency of a plasma region. This suggests addressing a specific wavelength which must come from some source far distant in space. It would not be intense enough to matter. Starlight from the most distant star we can see has diminished via R(2) to almost zero intensity and light with significant shift has traveled likewise far. Conversely, the radiation that arrives at any specific point in space is mostly all shifted into gravitation. Gravitation is by far the most intense radiation at any point. The next most shifting we detect is the full range of microwave background. I expect these frequencies all propagate through plasma. To focus on a specific wavelength arriving anywhere provides little value to any system.
    Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps.
    The first is from your last post in this thread; the second from your second post in this thread (post #8).

    Here's the point: if 'stretched back light' ceases to propagate through space, as its frequency falls below the plamsa frequency of the medium through which it is propagating, then it cannot become paeps; if that cannot happen, then 'the radiation that arrives at any specific point in space' cannot be 'mostly all shifted into gravitation'. In other words, my question goes to the heart of the mechanism you propose for the creation of paeps.

    Worse, it's a question of logic: if paeps are created only by light (electromagnetic radiation) being redshifted (stretched, shifted) to zero (in frequency; infinity in wavelength), and if light cannot be redshifted beyond the plasma frequency of the medium through which it is propagating, then paeps cannot be created!

    Can you please clarify?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53
    x
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Actually, I'm beginning to think that many more of the key terms in the ATM idea you have presented, both in this thread and the other two in this ATM section, differ sufficiently from their standard, textbook, physics meanings that there's little communication actually taking place, much less questioning and challenging of the ATM ideas.

    For example: "Similarly for medium which are directional such as in gravity the speed of light varies by direction. If radiation is traveling at a different speed, say .99C, then we should observe the same frequency when the wavelength is .99 times what we expect."

    I can't understand this at all ... on the one hand, you seem to be declaring (albeit somewhat indirectly) that your idea rests on a postulate that is different than the second postulate of special relativity ("Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."); on the other hand, you seem to be using principles (postulates? conclusions?) that are inconsistent with thousands of very good experiments and observations.
    We certainly arent communicating here. The postulate is about empty space, not net gravitational space and refers to moving source which is not part of my response. General relativity addresses net gravitation as acceleration and it affects light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    Perhaps an easy way to break this apparent mis-communication is the classic experimental test of gravitational redshift, the Pound-Rebka experiment. Two questions here:
    1) to what extent do you consider this experiment to have yielded unambiguous results?
    2) how, within your ATM idea of gravitational redshift, do you account for these results?(my bold)
    I thought I answered this a couple times. The test shows a blue shift of incoming light. The blue shift frequency observed by the observer indicates that the velocity increase of the beam caused by gravitation exceeds the wavelenght increase caused by the first photon being pulled more than the second one.

    [quote = Nereid]That's from the opening post (OP) of this thread. It seems (to me at least) that your latest post is in direct contradiction to this ("in gravity the speed of light varies by direction")!

    Do you see my confusion? Can you please clarify this apparent contradiction?
    [/quote]
    I dont see the problem here. Radiation travels at C in empty space and its speed is otherwise modified by net gravitation. Net gravitation is directional.
    Quote Originally Posted by nereid
    Back to the logic of your ATM idea, as presented:The first is from your last post in this thread; the second from your second post in this thread (post #8).

    Here's the point: if 'stretched back light' ceases to propagate through space, as its frequency falls below the plamsa frequency of the medium through which it is propagating, then it cannot become paeps; if that cannot happen, then 'the radiation that arrives at any specific point in space' cannot be 'mostly all shifted into gravitation'. In other words, my question goes to the heart of the mechanism you propose for the creation of paeps.
    this also doesnt make sense. I doubt the statement 'light cannot be redshifted beyond the plasma frequency it penetrates' makes any sense throughout space. Is all space plasma? What if a beam is already redshifted like to microwave frequency? You say it doesnt pass through. Doesnt anything pass through? How was it proven that light cannot be redshifted beyond the plasma frequency in space?
    I think you should drop this as going nowhere.
    [quote Nereid]
    Worse, it's a question of logic: if paeps are created only by light (electromagnetic radiation) being redshifted (stretched, shifted) to zero (in frequency; infinity in wavelength), and if light cannot be redshifted beyond the plasma frequency of the medium through which it is propagating, then paeps cannot be created!

    Can you please clarify?[/QUOTE]
    I tried out the quote and braces here. I hope it worked.{/quote}

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    We certainly arent communicating here. The postulate is about empty space, not net gravitational space and refers to moving source which is not part of my response. General relativity addresses net gravitation as acceleration and it affects light.
    So let's take a step back and ask you to define the key terms you use, if only because it seems, once again, that you are using some terms in ways that differ (subtly or significantly or both) from their standard, physics textbook ones (and I doubt any meaningful questions can be asked of your idea, much less challenges mounted, until we have mutual understanding of the key terms in your idea):

    a) 'space'

    b) 'gravitational space'

    c) 'empty space'

    d) 'net gravitation'

    e) 'velocity' (even though you claimed to have defined this earlier - here).
    Perhaps an easy way to break this apparent mis-communication is the classic experimental test of gravitational redshift, the Pound-Rebka experiment. Two questions here:
    1) to what extent do you consider this experiment to have yielded unambiguous results?
    2) how, within your ATM idea of gravitational redshift, do you account for these results?(my bold)
    I thought I answered this a couple times. The test shows a blue shift of incoming light. The blue shift frequency observed by the observer indicates that the velocity increase of the beam caused by gravitation exceeds the wavelenght increase caused by the first photon being pulled more than the second one.
    That looks like an answer to question 2); could you please answer 1)?

    Wrt 2) with respect to the specifics of the experiment (in which several permutations of emitter and detector - both device and location - were tested):

    2a) which 'incoming light' shows 'a blue shift'?

    2b) did any observer 'see' 'incoming light' that showed 'a red shift'? If so, which?

    2c) is 'the velocity increase of the beam' something which was (directly) observed (in this experiment), or inferred (by you, or others) from the results?

    2d) if an experiment had been done, to measure the (local) speed of light at the detectors (in each location), and in all directions, what would the results have been (according to your ATM idea)? Assume 'local' means within a few cm or mm, and that 'speed of light' refers to 500nm (say) in a good laboratory vacuum.
    That's from the opening post (OP) of this thread. It seems (to me at least) that your latest post is in direct contradiction to this ("in gravity the speed of light varies by direction")!

    Do you see my confusion? Can you please clarify this apparent contradiction?
    I dont see the problem here. Radiation travels at C in empty space and its speed is otherwise modified by net gravitation. Net gravitation is directional.
    Here's the quote from your OP (again): "My definition is that space, the field, or the ether, is gravitation moving in all directions at speed C. It carries radiation which is the reason that electromagnetic phenomena travel at speed C in space."

    Note that your definition does not refer to 'empty space'; it explicitly refers to 'gravitation moving in all directions at speed C'.

    Note that 'in gravity the speed of light varies by direction' is unambiguous (all gravity, including that 'moving in all directions').

    Note that your definition contains no hint that '[radiation's] speed is otherwise modified by net gravitation' (whatever this is), nor that '[n]et gravitation is directional'.

    Perhaps this is (yet another) example of loose definitions? If so, would you please re-state your definitions, with particular attention to avoiding ambiguity?
    Back to the logic of your ATM idea, as presented:The first is from your last post in this thread; the second from your second post in this thread (post #8).

    Here's the point: if 'stretched back light' ceases to propagate through space, as its frequency falls below the plamsa frequency of the medium through which it is propagating, then it cannot become paeps; if that cannot happen, then 'the radiation that arrives at any specific point in space' cannot be 'mostly all shifted into gravitation'. In other words, my question goes to the heart of the mechanism you propose for the creation of paeps.
    this also doesnt make sense. I doubt the statement 'light cannot be redshifted beyond the plasma frequency it penetrates' makes any sense throughout space. Is all space plasma? What if a beam is already redshifted like to microwave frequency? You say it doesnt pass through. Doesnt anything pass through? How was it proven that light cannot be redshifted beyond the plasma frequency in space?
    I think you should drop this as going nowhere.
    In another of your ATM threads you asked a whole lot of questions. Celestial Mechanic pointed out that '[m]any of these questions can be answered in almost any elementary book on special relativity and quantum mechanics. There's a whole lot that has been discovered and you need to learn some of it. I strongly urge you to get thee to a library!', but he was kind enough to answer them anyway.

    Your response here - that I am quoting - also shows an apparent lack of rather a lot of rather elementary physics and astronomy.

    BAUT has a Q&A section expressly designed to help members get answers to questions such as the ones above. Unlike CM, I have no intention of doing your homework for you ... I urge you to find answers to these questions yourself, by getting yourself to a library, or by asking appropriate questions in the Q&A section.

    However, here's one answer:

    Q: Is all space plasma?
    A: the only parts (volumes > a few billion cubic km) of the universe which are not plasma are rocky planets (like the Earth and Venus), parts of gaseous planets (like Neptune), the outer atmospheres of very cool stars and brown dwarfs (spectroscopic class L, T, etc), and (perhaps) the hearts of very dense molecular clouds ... oh and super-massive black holes.

    But let me close with two explicit questions:

    1) to what extent does your ATM idea require the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through a plasma where that radiation has a frequency below the plasma frequency of the medium?

    In answering this question, you may assume that there are no regions of the universe, of dimensions 1 Mpc or larger, that have an average (free) electron density lower than 10 per cubic metre.

    2) to what extent does your ATM idea require the space between stars, between galaxies, and between (galaxy) clusters (any, any combination, or all) to have an average (free) electron density of zero?
    [quote Nereid]
    Worse, it's a question of logic: if paeps are created only by light (electromagnetic radiation) being redshifted (stretched, shifted) to zero (in frequency; infinity in wavelength), and if light cannot be redshifted beyond the plasma frequency of the medium through which it is propagating, then paeps cannot be created!

    Can you please clarify?[ / Q U O T E ]
    I tried out the quote and braces here. I hope it worked.{/quote}
    It didn't.

    Can you please clarify?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,315
    Paul, Nereid's point #1 in the previous related to plasmas also came up in the discussion about my gravity model (see my thread on quasar luminosities lower down in the ATM page, post 30). Here is what I said:

    The RWBR photons in my model are not only of very long wavelength but they are also omnidirectional and of extremely uniform intensity. So from the green highlighted part of your quote, it would follow that the electrons are experiencing a uniform force from all directions due to the RWBR fields and so would not "get to perceive and follow the external stimuli, vibrate and absorb the energy of the electromagnetic wave". Since there is no absorption in this case, it follows that the plasma would be transparent to these photons.
    The same argument would hold for your model. Nereid did not accept my argument. I would appreciate it if you or anyone can shed further light on this.

    Otherwise, I'm sort of inclined to agree with Celestial Mechanic. You need to recast your ideas in terms that more closely adhere to ordinary physics. I don't think you've read up enough, in mainstream or ATM. You might like to read the back issues of Apeiron which are available online (see Jaakkola, Assis, etc.) I think you have some of the right ideas (especially, your recycling of photons and pushing gravity), but it is very hard to get a handle on what you're saying. The spin part is especially confusing.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    [snip]

    Q: Is all space plasma?
    A: the only parts (volumes > a few billion cubic km) of the universe which are not plasma are rocky planets (like the Earth and Venus), parts of gaseous planets (like Neptune), the outer atmospheres of very cool stars and brown dwarfs (spectroscopic class L, T, etc), and (perhaps) the hearts of very dense molecular clouds ... oh and super-massive black holes.

    [snip]
    It has been pointed out to me that the list of exceptions is rather poorly worded, and constructed.

    For example, the Moon would qualify as a 'part' (it has a volume of the order of a billion cubic km) yet it's not a planet. Ditto Ganymede and Titan (and they're not predominantly 'rocky' either). Also, the inner parts of gas giants (like Jupiter and Neptune) are not, conventionally, described as 'plasmas' - while metallic hydrogen (for example) would serve as just an excellent opaque screen for the 'shifting back' of photons to become paeps (if I have understood the ATM presented in this thread correctly) as any part of the IPM, ISM, or IGM, metallic hydrogen is not (usually) called a plasma. Much the same applies to the degenerate electron state of matter that comprises white dwarf stars.

    Other parts of the universe that may not be called 'plasmas', either conventionally or for the purposes of this part of this thread, include such objects as (parts of) proplyds (protoplanetary disks), Bok globules (really just an extreme example of a very dense molecular cloud?), and temporary dust comas of comets such as Holmes.

    Note that for the purposes of challenging the ATM idea, as presented, none of these non-plasmas has any significance, if only because combined their volume is utterly trivial compared with that of the universe through which, in this ATM idea, photons propagate until they are shifted into paeps, and which is a conventional plasma (albeit with a wide range of (free) electron densities).

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpErdMann View Post
    Paul, Nereid's point #1 in the previous related to plasmas also came up in the discussion about my gravity model (see my thread on quasar luminosities lower down in the ATM page, post 30). Here is what I said:
    The RWBR photons in my model are not only of very long wavelength but they are also omnidirectional and of extremely uniform intensity. So from the green highlighted part of your quote, it would follow that the electrons are experiencing a uniform force from all directions due to the RWBR fields and so would not "get to perceive and follow the external stimuli, vibrate and absorb the energy of the electromagnetic wave". Since there is no absorption in this case, it follows that the plasma would be transparent to these photons.
    The same argument would hold for your model. Nereid did not accept my argument. I would appreciate it if you or anyone can shed further light on this.

    [snip]
    First, the obvious: in that other thread you explicitly declined to continue to defend your ATM ideas. And, for avoidance of doubt, it matters not a jot whether Nereid, or any other BAUT member, 'accept[s] [your] argument'! The only thing that matters is whether it is an ATM idea or not*, and the explicit challenge that you must (under BAUT rules) address is to show that it has legs. Alternatively, you must retract it.

    So, since you have chosen to re-present it, here is a direct question, the answer to which I hope you supply post haste: do you intend to answer questions on your ATM idea, as presented, and address challenges to it? If not, then please retract it.

    Second, BAUT has a very good Q&A section - why not make use of it to learn enough (mainstream) classical electrodynamics that a quantitative discussion of the propagation of EM radiation through a plasma can be had?

    Third, a comment that is almost certainly OT for this thread, and is made explicitly by Nereid the ordinary BAUT member (i.e. not as a moderator): I think your post - or at least part of it - is an attempt to sidestep the BAUT rules and policies on the ATM section, in that you get to make an ATM claim without having the obligation to answer questions on it (or address challenges to it).

    *It would be wonderful if you could, in fact, make a case that this is mainstream electrodynamics (and, in passing, show that my own knowledge of the field is flawed). However, to repeat, you explicitly declined to do so.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    First, the obvious: in that other thread you explicitly declined to continue to defend your ATM ideas. And, for avoidance of doubt, it matters not a jot whether Nereid, or any other BAUT member, 'accept[s] [your] argument'! The only thing that matters is whether it is an ATM idea or not*, and the explicit challenge that you must (under BAUT rules) address is to show that it has legs. Alternatively, you must retract it.

    So, since you have chosen to re-present it, here is a direct question, the answer to which I hope you supply post haste: do you intend to answer questions on your ATM idea, as presented, and address challenges to it? If not, then please retract it.
    I stopped defending the other thread, but not for the plasma frequency argument that you raised. I did present a counterargument (as above) in that other thread.

    Second, BAUT has a very good Q&A section - why not make use of it to learn enough (mainstream) classical electrodynamics that a quantitative discussion of the propagation of EM radiation through a plasma can be had?
    Not a bad idea. It would be good to have others comment on your objection to these Le Sage em theories.

    Third, a comment that is almost certainly OT for this thread, and is made explicitly by Nereid the ordinary BAUT member (i.e. not as a moderator): I think your post - or at least part of it - is an attempt to sidestep the BAUT rules and policies on the ATM section, in that you get to make an ATM claim without having the obligation to answer questions on it (or address challenges to it).
    Hardly! I just thought my argument could possibly have been of interest to Paul. And on the particular point, I don't think I'm really ATM anyway.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,315
    I've posted a question in Q & A.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpErdMann View Post
    I stopped defending the other thread, but not for the plasma frequency argument that you raised. I did present a counterargument (as above) in that other thread.

    [snip]
    (my bold)

    To avoid hijacking this thread, to discuss your own ATM ideas re propagation of EM through plasmas, I have replied here.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53
    Responses to this post are below
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    So let's take a step back and ask you to define the key terms you use, if only because it seems, once again, that you are using some terms in ways that differ (subtly or significantly or both) from their standard, physics textbook ones (and I doubt any meaningful questions can be asked of your idea, much less challenges mounted, until we have mutual understanding of the key terms in your idea):

    a) 'space'

    b) 'gravitational space'

    c) 'empty space'

    d) 'net gravitation'

    e) 'velocity' (even though you claimed to have defined this earlier - here).

    That looks like an answer to question 2); could you please answer 1)?

    Wrt 2) with respect to the specifics of the experiment (in which several permutations of emitter and detector - both device and location - were tested):

    2a) which 'incoming light' shows 'a blue shift'?

    2b) did any observer 'see' 'incoming light' that showed 'a red shift'? If so, which?

    2c) is 'the velocity increase of the beam' something which was (directly) observed (in this experiment), or inferred (by you, or others) from the results?

    2d) if an experiment had been done, to measure the (local) speed of light at the detectors (in each location), and in all directions, what would the results have been (according to your ATM idea)? Assume 'local' means within a few cm or mm, and that 'speed of light' refers to 500nm (say) in a good laboratory vacuum.
    Here's the quote from your OP (again): "My definition is that space, the field, or the ether, is gravitation moving in all directions at speed C. It carries radiation which is the reason that electromagnetic phenomena travel at speed C in space."

    Note that your definition does not refer to 'empty space'; it explicitly refers to 'gravitation moving in all directions at speed C'.

    Note that 'in gravity the speed of light varies by direction' is unambiguous (all gravity, including that 'moving in all directions').

    Note that your definition contains no hint that '[radiation's] speed is otherwise modified by net gravitation' (whatever this is), nor that '[n]et gravitation is directional'.

    Perhaps this is (yet another) example of loose definitions? If so, would you please re-state your definitions, with particular attention to avoiding ambiguity?In another of your ATM threads you asked a whole lot of questions. Celestial Mechanic pointed out that '[m]any of these questions can be answered in almost any elementary book on special relativity and quantum mechanics. There's a whole lot that has been discovered and you need to learn some of it. I strongly urge you to get thee to a library!', but he was kind enough to answer them anyway.

    Your response here - that I am quoting - also shows an apparent lack of rather a lot of rather elementary physics and astronomy.

    BAUT has a Q&A section expressly designed to help members get answers to questions such as the ones above. Unlike CM, I have no intention of doing your homework for you ... I urge you to find answers to these questions yourself, by getting yourself to a library, or by asking appropriate questions in the Q&A section.

    However, here's one answer:

    Q: Is all space plasma?
    A: the only parts (volumes > a few billion cubic km) of the universe which are not plasma are rocky planets (like the Earth and Venus), parts of gaseous planets (like Neptune), the outer atmospheres of very cool stars and brown dwarfs (spectroscopic class L, T, etc), and (perhaps) the hearts of very dense molecular clouds ... oh and super-massive black holes.

    But let me close with two explicit questions:

    1) to what extent does your ATM idea require the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through a plasma where that radiation has a frequency below the plasma frequency of the medium?

    In answering this question, you may assume that there are no regions of the universe, of dimensions 1 Mpc or larger, that have an average (free) electron density lower than 10 per cubic metre.

    2) to what extent does your ATM idea require the space between stars, between galaxies, and between (galaxy) clusters (any, any combination, or all) to have an average (free) electron density of zero?
    It didn't.

    Can you please clarify?


    Regarding term definitions, I will try to be careful. My thoughts are always like general overviews and not oriented toward rigorous term distinctions. I am sorry that this will be an ongoing problem. I do believe I get the general ideas across.

    Regarding space, The terms space and empty space were probably used in context of the void of space which I indicated up front as being remote from mass. Now there is never totally void space and for consideration of redshift even remote mass has influence. My term gravitational space and net gravitation were probably used as regions where there is an imbalance of gravitation causing ‘attraction’. Possibly the net gravitation referred to the measure of the imbalance. The term velocity is still distance traveled/time. I recognize that the performance of clocks confuses the issue.

    Regarding the results of Pound Rebka, I understand they are to about 1% of expectations and that seems unambiguous. The blue shift shows for that beam for which the gravitation net direction is totally downward. A red shift may occur only if some part of the path were affected by other gravitation. I meant incoming to be toward the gravitation source. Red shift is seen by observers of the outgoing light. I infer the velocity increase of the beam heading downward. At the detectors the beam travels faster than C downward, slower than C upward.

    Next, the first quote you reference should have said the void of space is gravitation moving in all directions at speed C. The other quote should have said in net gravity the speed of light varies by direction.

    Regarding plasma, my presentation includes that paeps penetrate mass. This includes the sun which is plasma. Therefore paeps also penetrate lesser plasmas across the universe.

    You then suggest that paeps cannot be created because of the idea that radiation below the plasma frequency doesn’t propagate through the medium. My previous questions about microwave radiation coming through to us when it may be lower frequency than plasma it passes through remain open. As I understand radiation comes through as a spectrum which is most intense at certain frequencies. How do the lower frequencies depart the sun being lower frequency than light? How does light from the sun penetrate the x-ray jets in the suns corona? Maybe it has to do with the refraction at the observer, but it seems to me all lower wavelengths come through. Beyond that, long term the inability of longer wavelengths to penetrate would produce an ever increasing overall frequency of radiation in the universe in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics in which the total entropy of a system increases over time and cannot reverse.

    To answer your questions, I believe electromagnetic radiation penetrates a plasma with frequency below the frequency of the medium. The space between the stars does not require an electron density of zero.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53
    Response at bottom
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpErdMann View Post
    I stopped defending the other thread, but not for the plasma frequency argument that you raised. I did present a counterargument (as above) in that other thread.

    Not a bad idea. It would be good to have others comment on your objection to these Le Sage em theories.

    Hardly! I just thought my argument could possibly have been of interest to Paul. And on the particular point, I don't think I'm really ATM anyway.

    I do appreciate hearing from you about ideas that might relate. We have a somewhat common thesis to our ideas. You also select long wavelenghts for example. I may have trouble sometime relating as you noted about me re mainstream. It is interesting you had problems with plasma theory.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by paul schroeder View Post
    [snip]

    You then suggest that paeps cannot be created because of the idea that radiation below the plasma frequency doesn’t propagate through the medium. My previous questions about microwave radiation coming through to us when it may be lower frequency than plasma it passes through remain open. As I understand radiation comes through as a spectrum which is most intense at certain frequencies. How do the lower frequencies depart the sun being lower frequency than light? How does light from the sun penetrate the x-ray jets in the suns corona? Maybe it has to do with the refraction at the observer, but it seems to me all lower wavelengths come through. [snip - see below]

    To answer your questions, I believe electromagnetic radiation penetrates a plasma with frequency below the frequency of the medium. [snip]
    (my bold)

    If your 'seems' and 'belief' can be supported by relevant, standard, textbook physics, please provide some appropriate references.

    If not, what is the basis of your belief?

    Specifically, to what extent have you developed an alternative set of physics theories to standard, textbook plasma physics?

    With reference to your questions: to repeat, BAUT has an excellent Questions and Answers section, in which you may expect to get answers - from the perspective of contemporary mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology - to questions such as those which you ask. Please avail yourself of this facility, or, to quote Celestial Mechanic, get thee to a library!
    Beyond that, long term the inability of longer wavelengths to penetrate would produce an ever increasing overall frequency of radiation in the universe in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics in which the total entropy of a system increases over time and cannot reverse.
    Please expand on this claim, with specific reference to modern concordance cosmological models, in which not only is the universe undergoing an expansion (per relevant applications of General Relativity to the universe as a whole), and not only have all photons observed (to date) have last interacted with matter no more than ~13.4 billion years ago (co-moving time), but also in which there is something like 'dark energy'.

    Or, saying this in another way, please show - explicitly - that there is a possible consistency issue, re thermodynamics, in modern LCDM (lambda cold dark matter) cosmological models.

Similar Threads

  1. How the Universe can come from Nothing. Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles
    By mcgheetech79 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-26, 06:44 PM
  2. Gravity is caused by particles of flowing intrinsics!
    By LotusExcelle in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-22, 10:28 AM
  3. A universe made of binary particles?
    By Professor Tanhauser in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2006-Aug-21, 01:36 PM
  4. Gravity And Virtual Particles
    By czeslaw in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-21, 08:51 AM
  5. Gravity particles?
    By Zachary in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-05, 05:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: